[mathdotcom]

What is this bullshit saving your "ace" to "close out" the win? Use him in the most effective situation to get outs.

If you're the yankees and you're up 3-0 with the bases loaded against you in the 8th, and you're facing the top of the order, bring out Rivera. If he gives up a slam then it's probably over and it doesn't matter. If he saves your ass, then you can afford to use a weaker pitcher in the 9th with the bases empty. In the 8th is when the quality of your pitches is expected to be most important.

What is all this bullshit about some pitchers acting as great "bridges" between the starter and closer?

Someone enlighten me.

[Chi_archie]

interestingly, Rivera is one of the closers, that has been used in a more flexible manner in his career like that

[mathdotcom]

I've seen it all too often where in this situation Rivera is just getting ready for the 9th, but then someone else gives up a slam and Rivera sits back down and you don't see him again.

I realize he's old and has to be used sparingly, but they do the same thing with younger pitchers

[Chi_archie]

back in the day, guys like Sutter would come in and get the last 9 outs somtimes...


specialization has gotten really crazy with bullpens, which is weird. because statistically it is the area where you have the most fluctuations from year to year

[durito]

It's like the 4th down shit. Most people are too dumb to understand.

[acarmelo1]

Mariano Rivera is HOF Material

[mathdotcom]

It's like the 4th down shit. Most people are too dumb to understand.

durito

zero risk is always optimal

thats why I don't leave my pad

[ZetaPsi808]

durito

zero risk is always optimal

thats why I don't leave my pad

[landers781]

Its true, its drives me nuts when you are up 3 runs in say the seventh and the other team has bases juiced no outs and they have a mid relief guy in that is really a failed starter.

Dick raditz used to come in for 3 innings. Now its to get some stats. Its almost like they avoid using the closer like the plague until the ninth

[Andy117]

What is this bullshit saving your "ace" to "close out" the win? Use him in the most effective situation to get outs.

If you're the yankees and you're up 3-0 with the bases loaded against you in the 8th, and you're facing the top of the order, bring out Rivera. If he gives up a slam then it's probably over and it doesn't matter. If he saves your ass, then you can afford to use a weaker pitcher in the 9th with the bases empty. In the 8th is when the quality of your pitches is expected to be most important.

What is all this bullshit about some pitchers acting as great "bridges" between the starter and closer?

Someone enlighten me.

Totally agree with you. The Save is the worst stat in baseball and is one of the few that changes how the game is played. Managers do things that are against their own interests to get their closers save opportunities. Sometimes the biggest moment in the game is in the 7th so that's when you should use your best guy. No reason to save him for the 9th if the game is lost in the 7th.

[landers781]

You would think if the closer prevents the tying runs from scoring then thats the "real" save.

[Justin7]

Your scenario is a pretty good example of high leverage... But how often do you think managers blow it, when there is a clear advantage (in terms of game winning %) by bringing in your closer for an inning before the 9th?

[HoulihansTX]

This is why I play the FF innings...

It removes to two weakest elements in Baseball, Bullpens/coaching.

[Chi_archie]

its interesting to see the perceived value of closers grow higher and higher, and their salaries grow higher and higher.....


but you don't really see too many pitchers get drafted high and slotted as a future bullpen guy

what makes a guy a GREAT pitcher as a closer but less than great as a starter?

is it the lack of multiple pitches? I mean I could see how Trevor Hoffman would get lit up the 2nd and 3rd time through a lineup maybe...

but what about Riveria? don't you ever wonder if the guy coulda been stretched out into a Pedro-in-his-prime type starter?

[gryfyn1]

but what about Riveria? don't you ever wonder if the guy coulda been stretched out into a Pedro-in-his-prime type starter?

probably something like 10 starts 50 innings, 6 ERA, 1.7 Whip... like his number were as a starter before he moved to the bullpen and became a Cy young candidate the next year.

[warriorfan707]

Ive been saying the same thing for years.

[Chi_archie]

probably something like 10 starts 50 innings, 6 ERA, 1.7 Whip... like his number were as a starter before he moved to the bullpen and became a Cy young candidate the next year.

not sure when Rivera mastered his cutter

but regardless

in light of those states Gryner, what do you make of the "closer" position, how managers uses them, and how they get paid by GM's? a big waste? or is there something very different about certain pitchers that make one a great closer but a horrible starter?


I'd think there are MANY starters that would also be great closers Verlander for instance

and Smoltz showed us both sides of that coin a few times....

but what CLOSERS would you think could be great starters?

[MonkeyF0cker]

None. Most closers were already tried as starters.

[Chi_archie]

None. Most closers were already tried as starters.

very true!

do you think that those pitchers that were already tried as starters and "failed" but later found success as a closer. Had qualities as a pitcher that they developed (or were born with) through their early years that predisposed them to be better in a closing role?

so how would you start to quantify what marks the differences between a failed starter and a great closer?

[Chi_archie]

what was it that put dennis eckersley in the pen? a smoltz like arm injury, or did he start to lose it as a starter?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Alcoholism.

[antifoil]

most of the time closers have never developed three or four quality pitches. others have really bad arm action that causes stress where they would get hurt pitching 200 innings a year. then some get stuck in that role even if they would be good starters because a team likes them there. this one makes little sense. starters provide more value to a team than a relieve pitcher.

[Chi_archie]

very good well rounded answer A-Foil

Munkey, you failed to answer a whole slew of questions

you must think that closers are worthwhile pitchers that are worth the money they earn

[jetsjets1028]

i dont know bout that

[keyboarding]

Brandon Morrow.

[mathdotcom]

mathy is so wise and so sharp

[gryfyn1]

not sure when Rivera mastered his cutter

but regardless

in light of those states Gryner, what do you make of the "closer" position, how managers uses them, and how they get paid by GM's? a big waste? or is there something very different about certain pitchers that make one a great closer but a horrible starter?


I'd think there are MANY starters that would also be great closers Verlander for instance

and Smoltz showed us both sides of that coin a few times....

but what CLOSERS would you think could be great starters?

Very few, if any closers would make it as starters, generally guys that have the kinda "stuff" that closers have already tried to be starters and failed. But few like Soria and Feliz may be able to hack it.

as far as closers use this day, most of the time its wasted, the simple mistake of not giving the highest leverage situation to the best pitcher is a grievous error.

But one thing that has started to take hold is the "two closer system". Many top teams have two top notch end-of the game pitchers. Like Boston last year with Papelbon/Bard, the Yankees with Robertson/Rivera, SanFran with Romo/Wilson.

But teams with thin Bullpens often put bad pitchers in big situations and Good pitchers in easy ones.

[keyboarding]

It's not a new system really. Set up man and closer are standard on every team.