The worst thing ever to happen to baseball..

[Bluehorseshoe]

The concept of a closer. It forces managers to take out starting pitchers throwing gems, to letting some imbecile pitch the ninth for no apparent reason except to get a save in the record book.

[gryfyn1]

I bet on the Cubs today

ok, there fixed it for you!

[whatsgood5]

ok, there fixed it for you!

[Bluehorseshoe]

ok, there fixed it for you!

The idiot from the Phillies is the one that bothers me the most.

[pavyracer]

If I was a manager I would throw some other pitcher every game to close. People don't realize teams set up their lineups in the last inning to take advantage of the closer and win games.

[VegasPlayer]

The idiot from the Phillies is the one that bothers me the most.

You haven't been burned by Nunez yet?
Add Rauch and Broxton too.

[Willie Bee]

The concept of a closer. It forces managers to take out starting pitchers throwing gems, to letting some imbecile pitch the ninth for no apparent reason except to get a save in the record book.

Not sure the concept of a closer is bad, just the way it's an automatic move is bad. The only thing forcing managers to do this is their own unwillingness to put up with the media second-guessing them if they leave the starter in and he blows the lead in the ninth. The irony there is that they take just as many beatings -- my guesstimation -- from the media for doing just what you described and not leaving a starter in.

I've seen the game move to this during the 50-odd years I've been watching it. If you go back and look at the 60s, 70s and into the 80s, the way 'closers' were used back then was how you'd think they should still be used today. Check out guys like Fingers, Gossage, Sutter and Marshall were used, brought in to pitch two and even three innings or more from the pen when the situation dictated it.

One thing I've never understood is why baseball teams use this strategy -- one closer -- at all to begin with. I'm no economics wizard, but you'd think that paying a guy like Frankie Rodriguez $10 million a year is far less effective to the bottom line than paying three guys $3-$5 million each per year to split things up and pitch 2+ innings when they went out. Now granted, the K-Rod example might be a bad one since he works for that fcuking idiot Omar Minaya, but it was the first one that flew into my head.

[Bluehorseshoe]

Not sure the concept of a closer is bad, just the way it's an automatic move is bad. The only thing forcing managers to do this is their own unwillingness to put up with the media second-guessing them if they leave the starter in and he blows the lead in the ninth. The irony there is that they take just as many beatings -- my guesstimation -- for doing just what you described. I've watched the game move to this during the 50-odd years I've been watching it. If you go back and look at the 60s, 70s and into the 80s, the way 'closers' were used back then was how you'd think they should still be used today. Check out guys like Fingers, Gossage, Sutter and Marshall were used, brought in to pitch two and even three innings or more from the pen when the situation dictated it. One thing I've never understood is why baseball teams use this strategy -- one closer -- at all to begin with. I'm no economics wizard, but you'd think that paying a guy like Frankie Rodriguez $10 million a year is far less effective to the bottom line than paying three guys $3-$5 million each per year to split things up and pitch 2+ innings when they went out. Now granted, the K-Rod example might be a bad one since he works for that fcuking idiot Omar Minaya, but it was the first one that flew into my head.

The money aspect is what I can't figure either. You could save so much by either doing a bullpen by committee or not bringing in the closer just to get a save when it's not warranted.

[Bluehorseshoe]

The great Bill James....

Bill James: Having two good relievers is better than having one. Having three good relievers is better than having two.
I'm not advocating a "closer by committee"; I don't know where that term comes from, and I don't think anybody in our office has ever advocated such a thing.
But here's a simple way to think about the issue: suppose that you were managing a strat-o-matic team, or an APBA team, or a Diamond Legends team, over the course of a 162-game season. Would YOU use your bullpen the way that most major league managers use theirs? I don't know anybody who would.
When the egos and the "psychology" and the BS are taken out of it and the issue is reduced to simply doing what is in the best interests of the ballclub, it becomes obvious that this isn't it. The way that most teams use their bullpen simply does not make sense.

[bbenson011]

i bet on the braves...thanks marmol lol