The Re-Emergence of the 3 Inning Closer

[savafan]

Not currently, but I think we'll see it again very soon. Granted, this is just my opinion, but the game of baseball is cyclical, and we see a team attempt something that works, then every other team follows suit until one team out there decides to try something else to be different from the others, and when that works other teams adopt that method.

I think that as new general managers enter the game, there will be that one guy who will eventually say, why am I paying $4 million to a middle relief pitcher who only pitches 70 innings a year? I could use an extra bat on my bench, and we have a glut of good starting pitchers and prospects, I could put this one guy at the back of my bullpen for 2-3 innings a few times a week and we could cut down on needing that extra pitcher while providing an extra bench spot for someone.

Like I said, I don't see it happening in the next couple seasons, but I can see this type of thinking creep back into the game, and it's something that personally, I'm looking forward to.

[Tony Cloninger]

I wish they would develop pitchers who could go 2-3 innings.....closer, middle man....whatever.

Save money on bad middle relief by having guys, effective guys who can go 2-3 innings about every other day or 2. Basically a bullpen that had a Stan Belinda, Scott Sullivan, Danny Graves (when he was good in middle relief).....could save you almost 2 roster spots to use for the bench.

I know in Dayton they have used about 2-3 of their guys about 2 innings almost every time. Maybe they are hoping to develop more than just 1 inning guys. Hate that concept.....but Dusty loves it to begin with as a way to use his bullpen.

[reds1869]

I know he is moving to the rotation, but I've always thought Chapman would be perfect for that role.

[PuffyPig]

Save money on bad middle relief by having guys, effective guys who can go 2-3 innings about every other day or 2. Basically a bullpen that had a Stan Belinda, Scott Sullivan, Danny Graves (when he was good in middle relief).....could save you almost 2 roster spots to use for the bench.

You are talking about a reliever logging 160 plus innings.

The history has not been kind on relievers who have been used that much.

[westofyou]

You are talking about a reliever logging 160 plus innings.

The history has not been kind on relievers who have been used that much.

True, and there have not been many of them at all, here's the guys who did it with 150 IP

INNINGS PITCHED >= 150
GAMES STARTED <= 0


1    Mike Marshall             2   
T2   Dick Radatz               1   
T2   Eddie Fisher              1   
T2   Jim Konstanty             1   
T2   Bill Campbell             1   
T2   Hoyt Wilhelm              1   
T2   Bob Stanley               1   
T2   John Hiller               1   
T2   Mark Eichhorn             1

And the guys who did it with between 1 and 5 games started

INNINGS PITCHED >= 150
GAMES STARTED BETWEEN 1 AND 5


T1   Andy Karl                 1   
T1   Jack Lamabe               1   
T1   Allan Russell             1   
T1   Lindy McDaniel            1   
T1   Wilbur Wood               1   
T1   Clay Carroll              1   
T1   Garland Braxton           1

[Chip R]

Not currently, but I think we'll see it again very soon. Granted, this is just my opinion, but the game of baseball is cyclical, and we see a team attempt something that works, then every other team follows suit until one team out there decides to try something else to be different from the others, and when that works other teams adopt that method.

I think that as new general managers enter the game, there will be that one guy who will eventually say, why am I paying $4 million to a middle relief pitcher who only pitches 70 innings a year? I could use an extra bat on my bench, and we have a glut of good starting pitchers and prospects, I could put this one guy at the back of my bullpen for 2-3 innings a few times a week and we could cut down on needing that extra pitcher while providing an extra bench spot for someone.

Like I said, I don't see it happening in the next couple seasons, but I can see this type of thinking creep back into the game, and it's something that personally, I'm looking forward to.

It would probably only happen in the AL where you don't have to pinch hit for the pitcher. But I don't see it happening in either league. The game - as most sports - has always evolved more towards specialization not less.

[traderumor]

If anything, you will see managers staying with a reliever for 2 innings, and not going to his closer automatically. Starting to see some of that in the postseason. Leyland stuck with Coke the other night instead of bringing in Valverde, who had been roughed up the night before.

[savafan]

It would probably only happen in the AL where you don't have to pinch hit for the pitcher. But I don't see it happening in either league. The game - as most sports - has always evolved more towards specialization not less.

I'll agree that it's been this way over the last 20 years or so, but I feel that eventually, we'll have a young hotshot GM come into this game and look at this model and feel that it doesn't make sense. Why pay a guy $400,00 to $1,000,000 whose job it is to come in to a game every few days to pitch to one guy? Are the percentages that much greater that a specialist gets that guy out as opposed to the middle reliever who's already in the game? Chances are, the percentage doesn't compare to the additional payroll for a guy with such a minimal number of innings pitched over a complete season, and that hotshot GM will try a different method.

[Chip R]

I'll agree that it's been this way over the last 20 years or so, but I feel that eventually, we'll have a young hotshot GM come into this game and look at this model and feel that it doesn't make sense. Why pay a guy $400,00 to $1,000,000 whose job it is to come in to a game every few days to pitch to one guy? Are the percentages that much greater that a specialist gets that guy out as opposed to the middle reliever who's already in the game? Chances are, the percentage doesn't compare to the additional payroll for a guy with such a minimal number of innings pitched over a complete season, and that hotshot GM will try a different method.

Tony LaRussa is going to slap you in the face.

You have a point but teams are willing to pay these guys that because they get the job done. Perhaps a Sam LeCure can get lefties out as often as Bill Bray can at a fraction of the cost. But when he doesn't, the manager and general manager is going to hear about it. The manager is an idiot because he put LeCure in the game to get a lefty out and the GM is an idiot because he hired the manager who wouldn't have a lefty facing a lefty.

Now, I don't think that you need to have lefty on lefty and vice versa at every opportunity in the late innings but it does work. Now what a smart front office does is to get pitchers to fill those spots at a bargain. Teams like Tampa Bay pretty much rolls over their whole bullpen every year rather than pay these players a premium.

[Spitball]

I like the idea, but doubt it will really happen.

First, as WOY said, relief pitchers who pitch 100 plus innings have had a history of not lasting as long. Who wants to sign a pitcher to a multi-year contract and burn him out?

Second, a three inning relief stint would require more time between appearances. Closers are often needed on back to back days.

Also, I think it would require a sidearm slinger like Scott Sullivan or a knuckleballer to pitch that many innings. Typically, teams prefer a hard thrower in the closer role.

I think that as new general managers enter the game, there will be that one guy who will eventually say, why am I paying $4 million to a middle relief pitcher who only pitches 70 innings a year? I could use an extra bat on my bench, and we have a glut of good starting pitchers and prospects, I could put this one guy at the back of my bullpen for 2-3 innings a few times a week and we could cut down on needing that extra pitcher while providing an extra bench spot for someone.

See Theo Epstein when he first took over the Red Sox in 2002. This is close to his initial philosophy. It didn't last long.

I like the thinking outside the box, though. Personally, I'd rather see a return to the "fireman" who came into the game with runners on base to "put out the fire" at a crucial time. The best reliever used strategically at the most opportune time.

[Tony Cloninger]

You cannot tell me that you cannot have at least 3 guys who can go close to 2 innings ......OK not every game or every other game....but at least have 3 guys who can do that once out of every 3 games?

I never said that it would be someone that would end up throwing 160 innings either. More like 70-75 games and close to 90-110 innings.

Some guys, just like starters.....can or are more effective throwing more than others. You need 2 long guys out of the bullpen and I do not mean guys that come in around the 3rd or 4th innings. I mean someone who can close down a game going 2 innings when your closer needs a rest. When a starter can only go 5-6, which is not happening as much around baseball as it was earlier last decade...but can with a weak starting staff like this, blow your bullpen out when you only pitch the relievers 1 inning or 0.2....or are just basically trained to not do much more to begin with.

You cannot do what TB did every other year either..... I used to take the Reds ability to build a bullpen for years. Seems like that is what they were good at...right through the 80's and into the beginning of the 2000's. Not the case anymore.

[westofyou]

It's not the innings that kill the arm it's the appearances, getting up to be ready, not going in, going in for a batter, 100 games plus for a pitcher and 100 IP would be what would be better than a 160 IP guy, what would be great is a staff with two work horses like that

[RFS62]

It's not the innings that kill the arm it's the appearances, getting up to be ready, not going in, going in for a batter, 100 games plus for a pitcher and 100 IP would be what would be better than a 160 IP guy, what would be great is a staff with two work horses like that

True. And a veteran manager can save many innings by not getting guys up too much, whether he uses them or not.

[westofyou]

True. And a veteran manager can save many innings by not getting guys up too much, whether he uses them or not.

Ahh the human element comes in, yeah rubber arm guy like that needs a manager that doesn't fret and lets it evolve naturally that is an issue with so much money in the game. In my strat league last year I had a loogie that I had in 101 games, for 70 odd innings, problem is he still sucked

[PuffyPig]

I never said that it would be someone that would end up throwing 160 innings either. More like 70-75 games and close to 90-110 innings.

70-75 games and 90-110 innings isn't the same as going 2-3 inning every second day or so (which is what you said).

70-75 games and 100 innings is what guys like Sullivan were doing. And it's still 1 inning more often than not.