Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 94

Thread: Closer for 2012

  1. #46
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,866

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by nate View Post
    It's entirely possible that some relief pitchers don't have the mettle to "close" the "big game." However, much of this, to me, this is a meta game conjured solely by the romantization of the modern "closer": a guy who gets "saves" - a made up stat to legitimize the act of throwing the last pitch in a winning effort.
    In the end, it might all be a bunch of mythology, but we're talking about actual baseball players here -- it's mythology to which they have premium subscriptions. As far as any current players have personally experienced, the closer and associated lore has always been a standard-issue part of the game.

    So, yes, I believe that when a reliever gives up a grand slam to lose a game 4-3 and takes that long walk off the field, some will take a bit of that to the mound with them next time. Others won't. Most won't, really, since failure is a routine part of baseball. But to say that no pitchers are overly affected by failing in the closing role is, in my opinion, failing to consider what we know about sports psychology and baseball player mentality.

    Now, the takeaway from that is not "we must have a proven closer." Not at all. My thought would be, if the guy who is Plan A hasn't closed games before, consider the history and make sure there's a solid Plan B.
    For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    14,322

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT View Post
    IMO, Boxberger is the closer of the future. He was sent to the pen last year and then fast tracked. He had a rough start in AAA, then turned it around nicely. The Reds never wavered in their decision to move him there even when he started poorly in that role last year. He has shown that he can make adjustments. I believe he will at the ML level also. The .152 BAA is particularly impressive.

    That said, it is asking a lot to start someone in the closer role. For that reason I would try to retain Cordero with a two year contract. That may be all that he wants. He should be wise enough to realize that his closing days are limited. That would provide an opportunity to phase in Box in the closer role. I think Coco would be fine closing in the near term as long as he had some rest between outings. As I have said before, there is no law that all the save opps have to go to the same pitcher.
    I tend to agree, but it will come down to dollars. Coco could potentially get a decent three year deal from somebody. I don't think the Reds would go that far.

    The only other in-house option is Chapman. I'm assuming they will stretch him out at winter ball, use him in long relief for awhile next year, and eventually he will start. My guess is he won't close, although it's certainly possible.

    Whether Coco returns or not, the Reds need some new blood in the pen. Basically, with Coco's contract up, the team will have to focus on the closer role and the primary set up man role in the off-season. I do not see Masset as primary set up man next year.

    I also agree that the Reds will groom Boxberger to close soon. So I think they will limit any new closer's contract (whether Cordero or someone else) to two years.

  4. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,353

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    I do not see Masset as primary set up man next year.
    Masset is Exhibit A of why can't just take any strike-out artist and make them a closer. He's done more to torpedo this season than anyone else.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  5. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,353

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by defender View Post
    The bigger change in modern baseball was free agency. This has led to players being treated like human resources instead of army enlisted men.

    One of the beliefs of managing human resources, is that people will perform better if they are given a well defined role and then used in that role. Having a defined closer and defined roles for the rest of the pen leads to better play. The team also gets a psychological advantage when bringing in a successful closer
    You should post more often.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  6. #50
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,183

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by defender View Post
    I am a believer in "closers"

    The Modern closer was developed by LaRussa, at a time when he was one of the first managers to use a computer. Since that time, all the teams have computers. They all have the data, and continue to use the modern closer. This would lead me to believe the data shows there is an advantage.

    The bigger change in modern baseball was free agency. This has led to players being treated like human resources instead of army enlisted men.

    One of the beliefs of managing human resources, is that people will perform better if they are given a well defined role and then used in that role. Having a defined closer and defined roles for the rest of the pen leads to better play. The team also gets a psychological advantage when bringing in a successful closer
    Collective, teams still win the same % of games when they enter the 9th with a lead as they always have. If closers were a valuable innovation, wouldn't we expect to see this increase?

    The psychological issue at the team level, as far as I can tell, is based on an expectation of our own creation. I'm all for using our best relievers in the highest leverage, highest pressure situations. But high leverage is not synonymous with "9th inning and a lead of 1, 2 or 3 runs, or with the tying run on base."

    Paying for a high quality pitcher who can get the team out of jams can be incredibly helpful. Relievers used in that way can produce up twice their face value or more due to leverage. But why use that guy to protect a 2 run lead with nobody on base.

    Pay a guy for his ability to get tough outs with regularity, not to accrue a stat called "saves". And when it comes to getting tough outs, Cordero is mediocre.

    Regarding Masset, he's been extremely "unclutch" this year. According to Fangraphs' Clutch stat, which uses win probability and leverage, Masset has been the 5th least clutch reliever in baseball this year (#131 of 135). But Cordero hasn't been much better, coming in 94th.

    Of course, the thing with clutch is that it's not really predictive (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/clutch/). If the ability to handle pressure was a unique skill, you'd think it would be.
    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.

  7. #51
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,713

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by defender View Post
    I am a believer in "closers"

    The Modern closer was developed by LaRussa, at a time when he was one of the first managers to use a computer. Since that time, all the teams have computers. They all have the data, and continue to use the modern closer. This would lead me to believe the data shows there is an advantage.

    The bigger change in modern baseball was free agency. This has led to players being treated like human resources instead of army enlisted men.

    One of the beliefs of managing human resources, is that people will perform better if they are given a well defined role and then used in that role. Having a defined closer and defined roles for the rest of the pen leads to better play. The team also gets a psychological advantage when bringing in a successful closer
    Tony, is that you? Rollie Fingers was a teammate of LaRussa, and he was a "closer" in the 70s. Sparky Anderson should probably get the most credit for modern era bullpen usage patterns. Captain Hook has morphed into "the book" on bullpen usage. LaRussa also didn't manage Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, or Lee Smith, who bridged the gap between multiple innings late innings relievers and the current 9th inning guy. They usually pitched the 9th with a lead, but would also get brought in for 4 or 5 outs occasionally. Now, its ESPN highlights if the closer is brought in prior to out 25.

    As for "defined roles," it is good to define roles. Long reliever, short reliever, late innings reliever. I don't think it is the best use of the pecking order to have it so heavily driven by score and inning.
    Last edited by traderumor; 09-07-2011 at 02:59 PM.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  8. #52
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,713

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    Collective, teams still win the same % of games when they enter the 9th with a lead as they always have. If closers were a valuable innovation, wouldn't we expect to see this increase?

    The psychological issue at the team level, as far as I can tell, is based on an expectation of our own creation. I'm all for using our best relievers in the highest leverage, highest pressure situations. But high leverage is not synonymous with "9th inning and a lead of 1, 2 or 3 runs, or with the tying run on base."

    Paying for a high quality pitcher who can get the team out of jams can be incredibly helpful. Relievers used in that way can produce up twice their face value or more due to leverage. But why use that guy to protect a 2 run lead with nobody on base.

    Pay a guy for his ability to get tough outs with regularity, not to accrue a stat called "saves". And when it comes to getting tough outs, Cordero is mediocre.

    Regarding Masset, he's been extremely "unclutch" this year. According to Fangraphs' Clutch stat, which uses win probability and leverage, Masset has been the 5th least clutch reliever in baseball this year (#131 of 135). But Cordero hasn't been much better, coming in 94th.

    Of course, the thing with clutch is that it's not really predictive (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/clutch/). If the ability to handle pressure was a unique skill, you'd think it would be.
    "Fireman" used to be an appropriate nickname for the best relievers. Now, too often managers bring in their 3rd, 4th or 5th best reliever to try to put out fires if its not the 9th inning.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  9. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    285

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    Collective, teams still win the same % of games when they enter the 9th with a lead as they always have. If closers were a valuable innovation, wouldn't we expect to see this increase?
    If bullpen management has become more difficult, than it would have to be better to achieve the same results. The 1927 Yankees had 82 GC and only 108 relief appearances. In 1990 the average NL team had 336 relief aps, 40 saves (70%). The 1990 Reds had 14 relievers 4 appeared more than 30 times, 7 more than 10. In 2010 the average NL team had 486 Relief aps, 40 saves (69%). The 2010 reds had 18 relievers 7 appeared more than 30 times, 11 more than 10.

  10. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,353

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    Collective, teams still win the same % of games when they enter the 9th with a lead as they always have. If closers were a valuable innovation, wouldn't we expect to see this increase?
    I'm not sure I follow. An individual team can tilt the odds in their favor with a Rivera or Hoffman.

    Pay a guy for his ability to get tough outs with regularity, not to accrue a stat called "saves".
    I don't really care much about saves either. Over the years, lots of mediocraties (Lee Smith, Jeff Reardon) have racked a bunch of meaningless saves. That doesn't mean having a ninth inning hammer is unimportant.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  11. #55
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,713

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by defender View Post
    If bullpen management has become more difficult, than it would have to be better to achieve the same results. The 1927 Yankees had 82 GC and only 108 relief appearances. In 1990 the average NL team had 336 relief aps, 40 saves (70%). The 1990 Reds had 14 relievers 4 appeared more than 30 times, 7 more than 10. In 2010 the average NL team had 486 Relief aps, 40 saves (69%). The 2010 reds had 18 relievers 7 appeared more than 30 times, 11 more than 10.
    How so? Assuming Rick is referring to "since the inception of the game," I understand his point to be that the closer is not resulting in a marked increased success rate for holding 9th inning leads.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  12. #56
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,837

    Re: Closer for 2012

    My problem is arbitration + agents using stats created and accepted by baseball for a position in which the manager is almost "forced" by the book to use a specific player. The beast feeds itself regarding closers. If it is defined as a save situation, you will see Cordero in the game. The Reds have 33 saves this year, Cordero 31 of them. yet that number will be used when negotiating his next contract. This in spite of the fact that many of those "saves" didn't really mean anything. In fact the opportunity probably should have gone to a lesser pitcher in order to rest Cordero.

    So, for 2012? In my mind I'd have three closers and they'd be in the game based on situation. Masset with a 3 run lead, Ondrusek with a 2 run lead and LeCure with a 1 run lead barring an acquisition.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  13. #57
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,183

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo View Post
    I'm not sure I follow. An individual team can tilt the odds in their favor with a Rivera or Hoffman.
    But that's because those guys are great pitchers, period. Not because they have a special talent to not only be great but to do so in high leverage situations. In terms of winning games when they entered the 9th with a lead, the Yankees have been no better under Rivera than they were before the advent of the closer. Why is that? It's because even poor pitchers get through most innings without allowing a run, let alone 2 or 3.

    Teams could tilt the odds of winning a similar amount with a "middle reliever" like a Mike Adams, Matt Thornton or Koji Uehara pitching the 9th for 20% of the price of a top end closer. Or you can develop those guys (often failed starters) like Antonio Bastardo, Sean Marshall or Sergio Romo and pay 5% of the price. That's my point.

    If you're the Phillies, you can afford to pay top dollar for a guy who may or may not have some special ability to pitch the 9th inning above and beyond his normal ability. Bit if you're the Reds, you can get basically full value by focusing on a proven ability to get outs and not worrying about the "proven closer" part. Consider, what would you pay Cordero to pitch in middle relief and throw 60 major league average innings in he were a FA? $3MM? The Reds are basically paying him that, plus a $9MM bonus to do so in the 9th inning to protect a lead. Dropping that $9MM premium to $4MM strikes me as making a merely less worse decision.

    I would love to see some real examples of pitchers whose performance changed fundamentally (e.g. Ks, BB, HRs - not BABIP) and significantly for the worst in a decent sized sample when closing versus when pitching in middle relief.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 09-07-2011 at 05:39 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.

  14. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,353

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    They could also tilt the odds a similar amount with a FA middle reliever like a Mike Adams, Matt Thornton or Koji Uehara for 20% of the price. Or you can develop those guys (often failed starters) like Antonio Bastardo, Sean Marshall or Sergio Romo and pay 5% of the price. That's my point.

    If you're the Yankees, you can afford to pay top dollar for the very best pitchers and use them however you want. If you're the Reds, you should a fraction fo the price and get basically full value by focusing on a proven ability to get outs and not paying a crazy premium (like 300%) for having done so in the 9th inning.
    I'm not for paying a "crazy premium" for any old saves-monger. But an elite closer makes for an elite bullpen. And an elite bullpen makes a bad team decent and a good team great.

    I know you're driving for Volquez, and I don't hate the idea, but I think we can dispel with the notion that the league is littered with potentially great bullpenners. Can you see the final out of the World Series coming from the likes of Ondrusek, J. Smith, Fisher, Arrendondo?
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  15. #59
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,837

    Re: Closer for 2012

    I could from Arredondo. Not this year, but next year, sure. He's flashed that talent.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  16. #60
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,183

    Re: Closer for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo View Post
    I'm not for paying a "crazy premium" for any old saves-monger. But an elite closer makes for an elite bullpen. And an elite bullpen makes a bad team decent and a good team great.

    I know you're driving for Volquez, and I don't hate the idea, but I think we can dispel with the notion that the league is littered with potentially great bullpenners. Can you see the final out of the World Series coming from the likes of Ondrusek, J. Smith, Fisher, Arrendondo?
    I don't understand this statement.

    And no, 1 reliever does NOT make a bullpen elite -- getting to the 9th inning with a lead matters more than being marginally better at closing the door. And we're not talking about entire bullpens. Show me a team with a great closer and 5 or 6 mediocre relievers and I'll show you a mediocre bullpen.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with our bullpen. But giving millions of dollars to a mediocre "closer" like Cordero is not the path to excellence. It'd be one thing if we were talking about a truly elite reliever, like Craig Kimbrel. But we're not.
    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