Closers and High Leverage Situations

[sterlingice]

(It's a lazy Friday and I've been working on this post for a couple of days on and off so maybe it's time to just toss it out there. I figure either no one will want to read it due to its length or we could get some good discussion going- either way...)

The Moneyball thread from a couple of days ago as well as all the talk about KRod got me thinking again about a topic that's been floating around in my head for a couple of seasons. The common mantra around baseball is that saves are overrated and that you should use your best relievers in what appears to be the highest leveraged late game situation. However, I think it's just a glib and cheap complaint. There needs to be some depth put behind it because this just isn't feasable in a "I don't care about details- just get it done" sense for a myriad of reasons.

I don't want to minimize this fact but I don't want it to be the crux of my argument, either; however, I think one of the biggest problems is that you cannot predict the highest leveraged situation in a game. I have no statistics to refute or support this, only anecdotal "evidence". A lot of articles about this are typically kneejerk reactions to a previously bad game where the 3rd or 4th guy in the pen is thrust into a bases loaded situation in the 7th, up 4-2, and gives up a bases clearing double or similar circumstance. At which point, author of said article asks why the underused closer didn't get brought in for the most important situation. This completely ignores the possibility of another high leverage situation in the game which occurs *later*, and thus is presumably more important, than the previous high leverage situation where the closer, assumed to be your best reliever, is likely not available.

Secondly, you have a high valued reliever and you want to expose them to a very serious chance for overwork. There has been a lot of work done about starters being overworked but I've seen very little about relievers. The reason this whole issue has been floating around in my head a couple of years is because the Royals went out and signed Scott Sullivan to a two year contract. He had been as rubber armed as relievers go, posting 97, 103, 113, 106, and 103 innings in his age 26-30 seasons followed by a horribly ineffective 78 IP season and back to his usual mid 3's ERA in 2003. Wonder of wonders, he was midly ineffective his first year and spent the entirety of the second on the DL before ulimately retiring.

How many appearances and innings are ok for a reliever? There have been quite a few whispers of KRod being overused and he's "only" at 75 games and under 70 IP. How many of these "high leverage" situations can you really cover with one pitcher? I have to think that only allows your closer/best reliever, at absolute MOST, an extra appearance per week (24 more appearances across the season!) or, more realistically, one every two weeks (12). And is there any more stress they are being exposed to in high leverage vs easier situations? If so, that's even less.

So, aside from the two theoretical reasons and the argument of "why you might not want to do it" and back to the real world of "why it won't happen".

First, how are you going to attract or pacify a closer when all of his fellow closers are out cherry picking cheap saves and he is only put into the toughest of situations, those where he is most likely to fail and hurt his individual stock? Sure, it's great if you have Brandon Lyon and he's used to not being closer- you might be able to get "unestablished" closers to agree to do this for a couple of years. But there's no way Rivera, playoffs aside, or KRod, or any host of "elite closers" would.

Similarly, if you're the manager, and so many these days definitely do manage to "not lose the game" or even worse to "not lose the press conference". Then why open yourself up to the criticism of deciding when to bring in your closer when the save stat already does it for you? It's all well and good if you have overwhelming talent to win but if you're a borderline team, then the margin of error is so small. Assuming this wins you games rather than loses them, when you overachieve and just miss the playoffs- you'll be more open to criticism than if you had won 5 or 10 less games.

So, in short- what should the new "closer rules" be? And I'm not referring to what MLB should redefine a save as- tho we could tackle that if we wanted. Only 1 run games? The first late inning pressure situation that comes along as it might be the biggest?

Lastly, how does that change depending on how many "reliable" guys you have in the pen? This year the Royals have been fortunate enough to have two closer-caliber relievers at the back of their pen in Soria (277 ERA+ and 29.3 VORP) and Mahay (159, 18.4) as well as the less heralded Ramon Ramirez (164, 20.9) and Leo Nunez (146, 10.8). So, if I were the manager, I don't really need Joakim in except for the 9th since Mahay is a fully capable reliever in difficult situations and the 7th and 8th are fairly secure as well.

In the end, I realize there is a "fairly" happy alternative which is probably how these things should go. And that is where your stud closer doesn't get into the game in every save situation, say, with a 3 run lead in the 9th or maybe a 2 run lead with the 7-8-9 hitters coming up. But, again, that assumes you have multiple quality relievers. But this mantra of "the closer can pitch every high leverage situation the team is in" has to stop as it's just not at all realistic.

SI

[DeToxRox]

I think everything to do with a save is overrated.

Look at Todd Jones. He had said himself that he just pitched better when the game was close as opposed to a blowout, but either way he made a habit of getting shelled.

What he had going for him is if you're up 3 in the 9th, and he comes in and only gives up 2 runs, well, his team still won right? So he did his job.

Problem is he can't act that way in the 8th inning because now there are three more outs to get, and everything has changed, so now people are calling for his head.

When it comes to closers, I think the only one's ever worth any huge amount of money are guys like Mo, Papelbon and Nathan. I think those are the three guys who a pitch 2 innings, and put 80-100 on their arms a year without any negative effect.

These other guys are only able to go one inning because they charge it up so much that their arms cannot repeatedly withstand the devestation, ala Joel Zumaya. I think K-Rod is falling into this boat. Plus for a 60 save guy, it felt too me like he sure he got hit around a lot.

Basically what is happening now, imo, is closers are pricing themselves out of the realm of possibility in free agency, so only several teams an off season have the money to sign them, and teams like the Yanks and Boston are set so they won't bite.

In a perfect world you'd let a guy come in for 2 or 3 innings and nail it down, but you'd have a second guy capable of doing it as well. With the market the way it is though I don't see that ever happening because someone somewhere will pay more then it's worth to make one of them exclusivley a one inning guy, and that is where the trouble starts.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, obviously you can't predict with absolute certainty what the highest leveraged situation in the game is, but you can definitely tell when a situation is incredibly important. Convention tells you not to bring out your "closer" if the bases are loaded with 2 outs and the team's best hitter is up to bat, but that probably would be the best time for your best reliever and you can probably be sure (true, relying a bit on instinct) that will be the highest leveraged situation.

In today's clime, it is hard to do it though, because as you said, all these people are getting paid for saves. It seems the best way to do it is have some "established" name closer for the 9th and then your best reliever puts out the fires before then (like Tampa Bay this year, where Percival is the closer, but Balfour is the best reliever). Though that only works for a little while, as we can see with Mariano Rivera, who was the best reliever even though John Wetteland was the closer. The other option (not as good, IMO) is to have a closer who can, if need be, pitch the 8th as well as the 9th. Paplebon and Rivera come to mind immediately as two who can do so.

[DeToxRox]

I am sick of the hold too, while I vent. While I am a stat junkie, it's crazy how much money people make with every new stat invented.

[sterlingice]

I agree- I'm just not sure how to redefine things, hence the thread.

Hell, I don't like that I pick a closer in two in fantasy baseball that's like a kicker in fantasy football- extraneous but a way to make more players part of the game so you aren't ignoring whole segments of it.

SI

[Young Drachma]

Saves and Holds are ridiculous. I'd love to find a new way to quantify relievers worth and value. Question is, how? Closers and specialty relievers are part of the game.

[Shkspr]

I am sick of the hold too, while I vent. While I am a stat junkie, it's crazy how much money people make with every new stat invented.

Please tell me how much money people make with each new stat invented. Bill James toiled in the wilderness for fifteen years before his first bestseller. I used to trade quips on rec.sport.baseball with the Baseball Prospectus guys twenty years ago and I assure you that windfall would have come in handy when they started up the website.

The stats that stick with the performance analysis crowd are the ones that are useful. Those take work. Years of it. And the ones that aren't useful get canned. Has Mike Gimbel put together any world champions lately?

By and large, when "stat-drunk computer nerds" talk about the overratedness of saves and how you should better put your closers in high-leverage situations, what we'd be satisfied with is this: if your closer is your best reliever, don't "save" him for a save situation. Bring him in in a tie game or when you're down by one run with a lineup that can come back. If he's so god-damned good, there are thirty to forty games a season that you shouldn't be afraid to pitch him in just because he can't get a "save". Try to win those games, too. The other thing to mention is that we've been working on maximizing appearances while limiting innings. So maybe a closer can go fifty-five appearances, but 100 innings. That might mean less work overall given the number of times you have to warm up during the season before each appearance.

The rest of the leveraged innings work is useful on a macro basis rather than a game-to-game basis. Ideally, if you can rank your relievers in the pen based on the value they've added rather than just the numbers you get in the Sporting News, then the high-leverage innings will end up in the hands of the better relievers just by normal usage patterns - no change in thinking necessary except to look and realize just who your better guys are in the first place.

Edited to omit a personal, bublic, but potentially embarrasing detail about another person.

[ISiddiqui]

Please tell me how much money people make with each new stat invented.

I believe what he was talking about is Middle Relievers now pointing to the "Hold" as quantification of their value and making $$ based on how many of those they got last season.

[Sgran]

I always figured that the "save" situation was a period of high desperation for the other team, and therefore different from a critical situation with, say, two on and two out in the seventh. Maybe some managers are already going for broke in the seventh and therefore willing to blow all their pinch hitters, but I figure that they're more likely to save their big sticks for the endgame. Personally, I would blow my load (on offense and defense) early, but you also have to think about how your pinch hitters are going to fit into the defense, especially if you're making double switches. In short, I think managers are saving their closer for the ninth because he's the guy who can pitch to anyone. Does that make any sense?