Question re openers and closers

[gomezcat]

I quite like baseball, as I'm a big cricket fan. By default, I would root for the Red Sox.
I read about guys being described as good closers. Is there REALLY a difference? Are different things expected of them? Oh, and how many innings would a starter pitch? Thanks!

 

[Fixit]

I quite like baseball, as I'm a big cricket fan. By default, I would root for the Red Sox.
I read about guys being described as good closers. Is there REALLY a difference? Are different things expected of them? Oh, and how many innings would a starter pitch? Thanks!

A good closer does what he's supposed to do. Come in, get 3 outs, repeat often. But a lousy closer can single-handedly ruin a season.

Starting pitchers tend to go in the 6-7 inning range nowadays; that's a solid outing. Then they bring in a guy for the eighth, and, if things go well, the closer to, uh, close. There are some pitchers who go eight innings routinely, but they're pretty rare in this day and age of pitch counts.

 

[Johnny Mac]

Are you asking for the difference between closers and starters, or the difference between a good closer and a bad closer?

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

the idea is that your best reliever should pitch the 9th inning whenever possible. He closes out the games.

Obviously, it is ridiculous to assume that the 9th inning is always more important than the 8th, the 7th, or any other inning. Sometimes the opposing team's best hitters come to bat in the 8th inning with the lesser hitters scheduled for the 9th. Sometimes there are already guys on base when it is time to bring in a new reliever. In both of these situations it makes logical sense to use your best reliever rather than saving him for the mythical 9th inning. This often leads to a lesser reliever blowing the lead in the 7th or 8th inning and the team not getting to the 9th with the lead, meaning it doesn't even use its best reliever. But this is the way it is done, because this is the way it has been done for the past 30 years or so.

 

[Real World]

the idea is that your best reliever should pitch the 9th inning whenever possible. He closes out the games.

Obviously, it is ridiculous to assume that the 9th inning is always more important than the 8th, the 7th, or any other inning. Sometimes the opposing team's best hitters come to bat in the 8th inning with the lesser hitters scheduled for the 9th. Sometimes there are already guys on base when it is time to bring in a new reliever. In both of these situations it makes logical sense to use your best reliever rather than saving him for the mythical 9th inning. This often leads to a lesser reliever blowing the lead in the 7th or 8th inning and the team not getting to the 9th with the lead, meaning it doesn't even use its best reliever. But this is the way it is done, because this is the way it has been done for the past 30 years or so.

Bill James, is that you?

 

[Foley]

Bill James or not, hes right. More games are lost in the 6-7th inning than the 9th. The 7th inning rolls around, the starter is tired and allows some baserunners to get on, putting someone like Papelbon in to kill the rally is a better idea than someone like Tavarez. But since managers never do that anymore, having Papelbon go to the rotation is not as big a blow to the bullpen as it could be and why I think Pineiro should do just fine.

The fact is that you can put any scrub into the closers role and more likely than not they'll do a decent job. Statsitically Papelbon was outstanding last year: ERA under 1, a scant number of baserunners, over a strikeout an inning... but he was 13th in save success among the 22 relievers with 30 or more save opportunities. Bobby Jenks, with his 4.00ERA and copious number of baserunners was 4th in save success. Was Jenks a better reliever than Papelbon last year? No chance. But he was the better closer.

 

[Real World]

So how'd the closer spot work out for Atlanta last year? I agree that the spot is a bit overspecialized, but there is an obvious pscycological aspect to the role. Some guys (mike timlin) have failed miserabley as a closer, yet have excelled at set-up men. I think the game can clearly be lost in the 7th or 8th, before it ever would be in the 9th, but that ultimately, for some players, knowing role determination is critical. You know, sports are 50% mental, and 80% physical. Or is it the other way around?

 

[Foley]

Poorly, but I wouldn't blame that on just the closers role. The fact that their entire staff was 20th in ERA and 24th in WHIP was a problem that a good closer couldn't solve. Even when they brought in Wickman (who did great) the teams improvement was marginal.

And I agree completely with the idea that players need defined roles, I just think that "first guy out of the pen when the starter is struggling" is a more important role than "last guy out of the pen to pitch the 9th". It's worked great in the past with guys like Quisenberry, Gossage and Sutter, so I don't see why it couldn't work now.