Joe Posnanski with more data showing that closers simply don't matter

[dougdirt]

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/201...r-you-get.html

There is a lot in the article, but here is the real good stuff:

Winning percentages when team leads by three runs going into the ninth inning:

1960s: .974
1970s: .977
1980s: .975
1990s: .963
2000s: .976

Winning percentages when team leads by two runs going into the ninth inning:

1960s: .930
1970s: .925
1980s: .941
1990s: .936
2000s: .931

WInning percentages when team leads by one run going into the ninth inning:

1960s: .844
1970s: .850
1980s: .852
1990s: .846
2000s: .848

[Pony Boy]

I'm not sure this shows that closers don't matter. This just shows average winning percentage for teams with leads of 1-3 runs. Presumably, teams with good closers have winning percentages above the league average and teams with bad closers have winning percentages below league average; when the team leads by 1-3 runs in the 9th. That difference in winning percentage would add up to quite a few games over a 162 game season.

[JB12]

Interesting.

Although, I think it'd be more interesting to see winning %s for teams with "top tier" closers vs. teams without "top tier closers".

Top tier could be defined using pay, or performance criteria... I think pay would make the most sense though. Anyone making above $X vs those making below $X.

I think this would be more telling.

[dougdirt]

I'm not sure this shows that closers don't matter. This just shows average winning percentage for teams with leads of 1-3 runs. Presumably, teams with good closers have winning percentages above the league average and teams with bad closers have winning percentages below league average; when the team leads by 1-3 runs in the 9th. That difference in winning percentage would add up to quite a few games over a 162 game season.

Except teams didn't even use "closers" before the 80's really. Yet the rates were exactly the same.

[dougdirt]

Interesting.

Although, I think it'd be more interesting to see winning %s for teams with "top tier" closers vs. teams without "top tier closers".

Top tier could be defined using pay, or performance criteria... I think pay would make the most sense though. Anyone making above $X vs those making below $X.

I think this would be more telling.

Why? Craig Kimbrel is making league minimum and he is the best in the game.

[klw]

Interesting.

Although, I think it'd be more interesting to see winning %s for teams with "top tier" closers vs. teams without "top tier closers".

Top tier could be defined using pay, or performance criteria... I think pay would make the most sense though. Anyone making above $X vs those making below $X.

I think this would be more telling.

Easier would be to use the Rolaids relief top ten performers list for each season and check their teams' winning %/

[Caveat Emperor]

Why? Craig Kimbrel is making league minimum and he is the best in the game.

I used to be a big "closers don't matter" kinda guy, but I've come around (especially after watching Marshall last year) to the idea that pitching the 9th is an either "got it or don't" situation.

I think there are some pitchers who let the mental aspect of pitching the 9th bother them for whatever reason. That's not to say there aren't tons of pitchers out there capable of closing games effectively, but I think it's a big oversimplification to say "Closers don't matter."

[dougdirt]

I used to be a big "closers don't matter" kinda guy, but I've come around (especially after watching Marshall last year) to the idea that pitching the 9th is an either "got it or don't" situation.

I think there are some pitchers who let the mental aspect of pitching the 9th bother them for whatever reason. That's not to say there aren't tons of pitchers out there capable of closing games effectively, but I think it's a big oversimplification to say "Closers don't matter."

Sean Marshall was 8 out of 9 in save chances last year. He had 4 "blown saves" last year, but only one of them came as the actual closer. The other 3 were as the set up guy.

[OGB]

Except teams didn't even use "closers" before the 80's really. Yet the rates were exactly the same.

This is what I took from it, but if you have one of those rare elite closers, I think they can still make a big difference. The only problem is that those guys are few and far between. For every Mariano Rivera, there are several Derek Turnbows, which is why I think you don't spend too much on a closer.
That's why I'm firmly on the Chapman to the rotation bandwagon. He has a lot more value there even if he pitches at the level of a #2 starter.

[westofyou]

Except teams didn't even use "closers" before the 80's really. Yet the rates were exactly the same.

They used them, they just pitched earlier and longer, what they didn't use was "Loogys" and set up men for each side of the plate

[MrRedLegger]

I'd like to see 9th inning WHIP for the same time periods. Maybe that will give better insight toward the emergence and importance of a closer.

[MikeThierry]

Except teams didn't even use "closers" before the 80's really. Yet the rates were exactly the same.

Wasn't overall pitching better before the 80's though? I don't know if it's fair to compare the winning percentage of teams from the 60's in one run leads when that was arguably the best decade of pitching in the history of baseball. It's unknown is if there weren't closers, the stats would be close to the same. I personally feel comfortable with a flame thrower with a known role pitching the 9th.

[bucksfan2]

You know its getting close to baseball season when you hear "Closers don't matter" or "any reliever can close." It seems to get some traction until the 9th inning becomes a roller coaster ride.

[hebroncougar]

Who posted this, Hal McCoy?

[Vottomatic]

"Closers don't matter".

Tell that to the fans of teams who've blown alot of 9th inning leads.

David Weathers. Aroldis Chapman. David Weathers. Aroldis Chapman. David Weathers. Aroldis Chapman.

Hmmmmm.