This again?
The so-called fireman theory has been tried before. It has failed. Every time. Literally. Every. Time.
No team not using a closer/setup specialist type bullpen has won the World Series since the Athletics redefined the closer's role and made a star of Dennis Eckersley in the process. And I mean *EVER.* You'd think that might give the Monday Morning corps some room for pause but nope. It works on paper and makes sense in my head so it must be the superior way to do things completely regardless of the fact that IT. HAS. NEVER. WORKED.
I swear this stuff is like arguing socioeconomic theory with a communist. No matter what you do, no matter how well you make the argument, the adherents of this idea WILL insist on arguing from the conclusion and you just get nowhere. Doesn't matter that EVERY TIME it's been tried it's been made clear that relivers perform objectively better when given defined roles. It doesn't matter that the ego trip of the closer's role attracts the best talent and then motivates those pitchers to be the best they can be, to keep the prestige role. That doesn't show up on a stat sheet so CLEARLY it's absolutely meaningless.
It also doesn't matter that the whole concept of the fireman theory is made in blind ignorance of the fact that the whole concept is about making one hole in order to patch another. Accepting inferiority in the closer's role will cost you every win you'd gain because you're using the same personnel. It's the same deck chairs, you're just rearranging them. There's a fantasy that somehow the closer would pitch more, but a fantasy is exactly what it is, the closer is already usually one of the team's leaders in relief innings pitched, and closers break down all the goddamn time as it is. If anything, the prestige role actually calls many closers into situations where they probably shouldn't be pitching and they should be pitching a little less in an ideal world. But of course of that matters because everyone who engages in this debate assumes that closers would thrive just as well in less-well-defined non-closer role, with at least 125% more innings pitched into the bargain, because OLD FASHIONED VALUES!!!!!
And all of that even ignores the most fundamental flaw of fireman theory -- the best time to use a fireman is only clear in hindsight. It's all well and good to say that that 7th inning jam was the highest leverage situation once the game is over and the scores have been tabulated and subject to full and complete tactical analysis. Deciding this at the time is much murkier. If you use your fireman to close out a tough situation in the 6th or 7th, and then the guy you'd have brought in in the 7th gets into trouble in the 8th, what do you do? The same thing you had to do in the closer model, count on your middle relief to get you out of trouble. And then have inferior pitching in the 9th and risk ANOTHER rally. If you don't have a great bullpen, how you use your few good arms is actually a whole lot less relevant than it seems.
Witness the 2006 Red Sox season, when we had probably the best relief pitcher in the world and it meant NOTHING because the middle relief couldn't get the game to him half the time. What happens if Papelbon is pitching middle innings? Rudy Seanez or the corpse of Mike Timlin are closing, and you still have bad relievers undermining the work of great ones, only this time it happens after you've already spent your best assets on a loss and can't save them for the next game
At the end of the day the proponents of a more flexible bullpen are actually proposing a very old idea -- a return to the pre-Eckersley bullpen structure where roles were less well defined, the three inning save was a thing, the world was a much better place and all the nostalging happiness blah blah blah. Well, modern athletes are not the same as they were back in the 70's before the Athletics got hold of bullpen structures and turned them on their heads and turned a moderately good starting pitcher into a superstar into the bargain. We're dealing with a lot of athletes that are specifically trained for specialist relief roles. Trying to go back to the pre-70's model would result in injuries to those athletes. That era is simply never coming again The clock, as usual, cannot be turned back.
The closer/setup specialist model of bullpen deployment has stood the test of time for nearly 40 years now, it's good to remain until something else is tried and works, and by "works" I mean "wins a World Series." You can have all the paper theories you want, until another model is tried, tested, and yields results, that's just how it is.
