Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Investing in closers a bad idea

  1. #1
    Maple SERP savafan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    17,566

    Investing in closers a bad idea

    http://www.oxfordpress.com/oxford-sp...a-1206734.html

    The Cincinnati Reds will have big roster decisions to make when the 2011 season ends, including how to replace Francisco Cordero at closer.

    Hopefully recent years will convince the team not to invest a big chunk of its payroll in a closer, as they have not gotten much bang for the buck from Cordero.
    My dad got to enjoy 3 Reds World Championships by the time he was my age. So far, I've only gotten to enjoy one. Step it up Redlegs!

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,853

    Re: Investing in closers a bad idea

    I think closers are a lot like NFL placekickers. It's easy to argue that they're not hard to find; there's no need to spend a lot on one; if not chosen wisely, he has the capacity to drag the team down faster than tying a concrete block to a rubber duck, and the season may be shot before the bleeding stops.
    Not all who wander are lost

  4. #3
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16,003

    Re: Investing in closers a bad idea

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    I think closers are a lot like NFL placekickers. It's easy to argue that they're not hard to find; there's no need to spend a lot on one; if not chosen wisely, he has the capacity to drag the team down faster than tying a concrete block to a rubber duck, and the season may be shot before the bleeding stops.
    I think that's a pretty good analogy. But like placekickers, you'd be nuts to pay even a good one as much as you can afford to pay your QB, RB, or star WR. Even a very good closer is still just a very good role player.

    What I'd give for the common, non-stats inclined fan, to consider marginal value on a more frequent basis.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 07-14-2011 at 03:36 PM.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Newburgh, IN
    Posts
    3,458

    Re: Investing in closers a bad idea

    I agree totally. Paying any relief pitcher that kind of money hurts the overall squad. That extra money needs to go to starting pitching. LOok at every team that does well in the post season and it's pitching. Right now we have 1 guy we can really depend on in the starting staff. Hopefully we'lll add more.
    And This One Belongs to the REDS!!!

  6. #5
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,853

    Re: Investing in closers a bad idea

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I think that's a pretty good analogy. But like placekickers, you'd be nuts to pay even a good one as much as you can afford to pay your QB, RB, or star WR. Even a very good closer is still just a very good role player.

    What I'd give for the common, non-stats inclined fan, to consider marginal value on a more frequent basis.
    Yep. As a rule, I don't think paying the premium to go from "good" to "very good" is worth it by any stretch. But just like with placekickers, there is a disproportionately high amount of damage to the won-lost record that can happen by dropping from "good" to "not good" at that one spot. In the end, I think that's a primary dynamic that causes some GMs to overpay for so-called proven closers (and kickers) as opposed to chancing the "let's see who sticks against the wall" method. Predictability of performance can be an illusion, but it's a comforting illusion while it lasts.

    The other dynamic, the one that only certain teams can afford, is the belief the club is going to be playing postseason games and it matters whether they're handing the ball to a 90% guy or a 80% guy.
    Not all who wander are lost

  7. #6
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16,003

    Re: Investing in closers a bad idea

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    Yep. As a rule, I don't think paying the premium to go from "good" to "very good" is worth it by any stretch. But just like with placekickers, there is a disproportionately high amount of damage to the won-lost record that can happen by dropping from "good" to "not good" at that one spot. In the end, I think that's a primary dynamic that causes some GMs to overpay for so-called proven closers (and kickers) as opposed to chancing the "let's see who sticks against the wall" method. Predictability of performance can be an illusion, but it's a comforting illusion while it lasts.

    The other dynamic, the one that only certain teams can afford, is the belief the club is going to be playing postseason games and it matters whether they're handing the ball to a 90% guy or a 80% guy.
    Yup, they keep talking themselves in to the idea (or giving in to managers/owners who believe) that it's something that can control.

    I actually buy in to the playoffs argument -- when you know you're only likely to use 7 or 8 guys, you want them to be the best. But I would say that the only teams who are able to think that way are the ones who probably don't have to worry too much about paying a reliever 8 figures in the first place.

    Some interesting numbers: Teams currently in playoff position with their overall salary, closer's salary and the percent it representsThere were 3 teams who were seen as virtual playoff locks this year, here are their respective payrolls and what they're paying the guy they expected to close games:

    Red Sox: $163,822,475 | $12,000,000 (Papelbon) - 7.3%
    Yankees: $207,047,964 | $15,000,000 (Rivera) - 7.2%
    Tigers: $106,953,000 | $7,000,000 (Valverde) - 6.5%
    Rangers: $ 92,124,290 | $457,160 (Feliz)- 0.5%

    Phillies: $165,976,381 | $12,000,000 (Wagner) - 7.2%
    Braves: $91,044,524 | $419,000 (Kimbrel) - 0.5%
    Brewers: $83,590,833 | $442,500 (Axford) - 0.5%
    Cardinals: $109,048,000 | $3,250,000 (Franklin) - 3.0%
    Giants: $118,198,333 | $6,500,000 (Wilson) - 5.5%

    Reds:$80,826,667 | $12,000,000 - 14.8%

    We have less than 50% of the payroll of the Red Sox and Phillies and are playing our closer the same amount. The Cordero contract was insanely stupid at the time and looks all the worse in retrospect. It's one thing to pay one of the best relievers in the history of baseball 7% of your payroll. It's another to pay a run of the mill "good" reliever nearly 15% of it. You simply cannot pay that much marginal money to a guy who has so little marginal impact.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25