I will NEVER understand the way managers use their closers

[dogs24]

The way managers use their closers always has, and always will, befuddle me.

Take the Dodgers. Excellent 'pen, top to bottom. But without question, their best pitcher is the untouchable Eric Gagne.

Tonight, bottom of the 7th, 5-5 tie, go-ahead runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. Dodgers desperately need a K. Gagne's got 42 K's in 30+ innings of work. And who do the Dodgers bring in...

...Darren Dreifort.

Last night. Guillermo Mota pitching the 9th and struggling, giving up hits and walks. Bases loaded for the Giants, 2-2 tie. Base hit wins the game. Gagne sitting on his a$$ in the pen...and the Dodgers don't bring him in. Same story in earlier innings (7th or 8th...don't remember exactly when, but it was late game), Dodgers don't bring in their top reliever with the Giants threatening.

WHY?! WHY WHY WHY?! Where is it written in the MLB rulebook that the pitcher the team has designated as its closer CANNOT come into the game unless it's a close game in the 9th, with your team leading. It's so incredibly asinine; managers hold back their closers in the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings...in game-turning situations, run-threatening situations, in the hopes that their team will somehow stave off the threat, come back to take the lead and give their closer a chance to pick up a save.

Seems more often than not though, because inferior pitchers are brought in, the team loses its lead and the closer doesn't have a chance to come in at all.

Happened last night in LA/SF, and will likely happen tonight too.

Why is a run in the 8th less valuable than a run in the 9th? What's the point in saving someone for a situation he'll never enter? Instead of taking a chance with your subpar crap NOW, in the hopes of bringing your closer in LATER -- thereby ensuring your crap the chance to pitch and only *POSSIBLY* having your great one pitch -- why not allow the closer to come in and throw in the 7th inning if the opposition is threatening? That way, you GUARANTEE your good pitcher will pitch, and your crappy pitcher will only MAYBE pitch.

I don't get it at all. I understand the concept of having a defined role for your pitchers, so they know when they'll be expected to come in...but these kinds of stupid, game-throwing away moves that most managers seem to engage in prevent closers from getting the work they need.

 

[Journeyman]

Tony LaRussa started the trend of using the closer automatically in the SAVE situation...of course he had the very best lights out closer ever in Dennis Eckersly...

I have often scratched my head in these late game situations as well...especially with some of the poorer bullpens...managers will still bring in 'their man' no matter what for that all importat 9th inning save...EVEN when 8th in pitcher was flawless! Then end up with their so called closer walking the 1st two guys lol...

I'd like to see managers get back to thinking instead of automatically pushing buttons in these late game spots. But , thats how the game has evolved, half these closers would balk at coming in early....

 

[RobFunk]

don't even get me started

 

[Journeyman]

Rob ...were you a Boston fan back in the Bob Stanley days?

 

[TheMDKid]

Very good topic, Dogs. I have always felt this way, too. The answer to your question is simple, though. Baseball people, more than in any other sport, are fixated on numbers. Almost every fan can recite every "important" number about his favorite player - home runs, strikeouts, stolen bases, ERA, batting avg, slugging pct, RBI's, etc. Why should saves be any different? Unfortunately, it seems like the only number that SHOULD matter - WINS - often takes a back seat to these other numbers. Why, for instance, is it considered sacrilege to bunt for a base hit to break up a no hitter? You are supposed to do whatever is best to help your team to win, aren't you? Apparently not, in this sport. How about leaving a starter in who is getting pummeled, but still has a lead, so that he can get in 5 innings and consequently a chance for a win? Is this in the best interest of the team? Or how about playing a tired or injured player to keep a consecutive game streak going? If someone with a 30 game hit streak was due up in the ninth, his team trailing by a run, man on first with none out, with a 3-0 count - what do you think the chances are that he would take the next pitch, even if it were a foot outside? What would be the chance that he would bunt the man over? In both cases, the odds are probably close to 0. What other sport puts such a premium on individual stats that they knowingly and willingly sacrifice chances at winning to achieve them?

 

[Journeyman]

Branching out the discussion I don't like when the manager 'automatically' plays that lefty/righy matchup thing ..lefty comes in outta the pen and unless you are Ted Willaims you are yanked for a .260 right handed bat

Steve Lyons

 

[RobFunk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Rob ...were you a Boston fan back in the Bob Stanley days?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>journey, no. when was that. your baseball knowlege far exceeds mine but who's doesnt. im razor sharp from like 98 on though lol

 

[Journeyman]

Bob Stanley was the infamous closer for the Sox back in the 80's

To me he always seemed to have that befuddled look as if he was scared shitless ...he was also right in the middle of the biggest collapse in W.S. History.

 

[RIOSHILL]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogs24:
The way managers use their closers always has, and always will, befuddle me.

Take the Dodgers. Excellent 'pen, top to bottom. But without question, their best pitcher is the untouchable Eric Gagne.

Tonight, bottom of the 7th, 5-5 tie, go-ahead runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. Dodgers desperately need a K. Gagne's got 42 K's in 30+ innings of work. And who do the Dodgers bring in...

...Darren Dreifort.

Last night. Guillermo Mota pitching the 9th and struggling, giving up hits and walks. Bases loaded for the Giants, 2-2 tie. Base hit wins the game. Gagne sitting on his a$$ in the pen...and the Dodgers don't bring him in. Same story in earlier innings (7th or 8th...don't remember exactly when, but it was late game), Dodgers don't bring in their top reliever with the Giants threatening.

WHY?! WHY WHY WHY?! Where is it written in the MLB rulebook that the pitcher the team has designated as its closer CANNOT come into the game unless it's a close game in the 9th, with your team leading. It's so incredibly asinine; managers hold back their closers in the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings...in game-turning situations, run-threatening situations, in the hopes that their team will somehow stave off the threat, come back to take the lead and give their closer a chance to pick up a save.

Seems more often than not though, because inferior pitchers are brought in, the team loses its lead and the closer doesn't have a chance to come in at all.

Happened last night in LA/SF, and will likely happen tonight too.

Why is a run in the 8th less valuable than a run in the 9th? What's the point in saving someone for a situation he'll never enter? Instead of taking a chance with your subpar crap NOW, in the hopes of bringing your closer in LATER -- thereby ensuring your crap the chance to pitch and only *POSSIBLY* having your great one pitch -- why not allow the closer to come in and throw in the 7th inning if the opposition is threatening? That way, you GUARANTEE your good pitcher will pitch, and your crappy pitcher will only MAYBE pitch.

I don't get it at all. I understand the concept of having a defined role for your pitchers, so they know when they'll be expected to come in...but these kinds of stupid, game-throwing away moves that most managers seem to engage in prevent closers from getting the work they need.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good post!

 

[wilheim]

Bob "The Steamer" Stanley was a Red Sox reliever of dubious ability in the mid 80's. Stanley threw the wild pitch that allowed the tieing run to score in game 6 of the 1986 World Series. He also threw the pitch that Mookie Wilson hit thru Bill Buckner's legs that lost that game, and the World Series with it. (Mets won game 7 big). Stanley has a place in one of the darker moments in Red Sox history.

wil.

 

[TheMDKid]

Wilhelm, you are correct about Stanley giving up the wild pitch and the pitch that Wilson hit thru Buckner's legs, but I would stop short of inferring that Stanley was the goat of the 86 Series. He, after all, allowed 0 earned runs in the entire series. The real goat HAD to be Calvin Schiraldi, who lost game 6 AND 7 for the Sox after the Sox had leads in each game. By the way, as a Met fan, I'd have to say that my memories of this series are a WEEEE bit fonder than yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Branching out the discussion I don't like when the manager 'automatically' plays that lefty/righy matchup thing ..lefty comes in outta the pen and unless you are Ted Willaims you are yanked for a .260 right handed bat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Journey - bingo. I was gonna mention the same thing in my post, but forgot. It's totally maddening, especially when a player has shown that he actually hits pitchers better that throw from his side of the plate.

 

[wilheim]

For most Red Sox fans the goat even if he doesn't deserve the label will always be Bill Buckner. The play where the grounder eats him up is still aired from time to time and is hard to watch for die hard Sox fans. As far as The Steamer goes he is for the most part fondly remembered by Sox fans. His career while far from great, was somewhat noteworthy. Stanley led the ML in relief innings each year from 1981 to 1983, setting an AL record with 168.1 relief innings in 1982. He is the Red Sox' single-season (33 in 1983) and career saves (128) record holder. I really didn't mean to make him out to be the goat of the 86 series.

wil.

 

[vinividivinci]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The MD Kid:
Very good topic, Dogs. I have always felt this way, too. The answer to your question is simple, though. Baseball people, more than in any other sport, are fixated on numbers. Almost every fan can recite every "important" number about his favorite player - home runs, strikeouts, stolen bases, ERA, batting avg, slugging pct, RBI's, etc. Why should saves be any different? Unfortunately, it seems like the only number that SHOULD matter - WINS - often takes a back seat to these other numbers. Why, for instance, is it considered sacrilege to bunt for a base hit to break up a no hitter? You are supposed to do whatever is best to help your team to win, aren't you? Apparently not, in this sport. How about leaving a starter in who is getting pummeled, but still has a lead, so that he can get in 5 innings and consequently a chance for a win? Is this in the best interest of the team? Or how about playing a tired or injured player to keep a consecutive game streak going? If someone with a 30 game hit streak was due up in the ninth, his team trailing by a run, man on first with none out, with a 3-0 count - what do you think the chances are that he would take the next pitch, even if it were a foot outside? What would be the chance that he would bunt the man over? In both cases, the odds are probably close to 0. What other sport puts such a premium on individual stats that they knowingly and willingly sacrifice chances at winning to achieve them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I basically agree, I must take exception to your statement about baseball people and their obsession with individual stats. To me the sport most obsessed with individual stats is the NBA. The vast majority of players place their individual stats way ahead of team (win/loss) stats. Blame it on the players or blame it on the owners. Fact is that a player who can put up the numbers can always find a fat contract with another team whether his team wins or not.

Eventually we will see all sports evolve in this direction until the whole system collapses under it's own overweight greed. What is the max price for a ticket? The average fan is already squeezed out. As salaries continue to soar out of control even the corporate sponsors will eventually balk.

The NFL, with their hard salary cap, may be the only exception.


VVV

 

[Journeyman]

I never considered Stanley the goat in that game either...although he did play a role, from what I remember thinking Stanley was actually very effective in the series and just happened to be involved in the ending...

Shiraldi set the Mets table....

But I do recall Stanley blowing alot of games over the years...he never seemed like a real closer, in fact wasn't he a setup man alot in those days?

 

[Journeyman]

VinMan- I agree but in baseball the fans and media hype the stats more than any other sport...

 

[wilheim]

Like most players Stanley had his ups and downs, In the early 80's he was an effective closer as the years past he was put into the set-up role (behind Schiraldi in 86 - ouch). In 1987, working primarily as a starter for the first time since 1979, he was 4-15 with a 5.01 ERA. He ended up with 132 saves and a record of 115-97 with an era of 3.64 in a 12 year career.


wil.

 

[dogs24]

It's eminently frustrating, both from a gambler's and from a baseball fan's perspective, to see this happen night in and night out in games around the league.

It's almost as if managers feel that a run scored in the 6th or 7th doesn't count as much as a run scored in the 9th. With the bases loaded in a tight game, they'll bring in the subpar reliever because...well, it isn't the 9th, so why use the closer? Instead of using him now, when his strike out prowess would be highly beneficial, let's save him for later, when we might have already been blown out because this journeyman middle reliever gave up a grand slam. And then the closer never gets a chance to pitch and...

ahh..I'm repeating myself. I said all this above.

It's interesting to note that there's SOME variety in the way managers utilize their closers. Some WILL bring in their closers in the 8th inning, some will even be daring and bring them in a *GASP* tie game! But no one, no one at all every brings them in when they're A) losing, even if it's only by a run and the opposition is threatening to break the game open, or B) in any inning earlier than the 8th.

Any way to lobby managers to change? What's the universal thinking justifying their inane actions?

 

[wilheim]

Baseball managers more-so than any ohter head coaches are afraid of being 2nd guessed. They do not want to risk using the stud closer earlier than the 8th. or in a lot of cases earlier that the 9th. Should the game be on the line with a 1 run lead in the 9th. and the closer is out of the game, you can bet you will have one very nervous manager.


wil.

 

[dogs24]

MD Kid --

Good point about other vexing baseball situations and oddball decisions.

I would add to your list the inexplicable refusal to pinch hit for starting pitchers in either of the following sitautions:

A) Early innings of the game, team that's trailing gets a scoring opportunity and the pitcher's spot due up. Even if their starter is getting PUMMELED, if it's early, they will not pinch-hit.

B) Middle innings (especially before the sixth), scoring opportunity in a tight ballgame, pithcer's spot up. He will never get pinch hit for *IF* he is the starting pitcher. If he is a reliever, he will DEFINITELY get pinch hit for. Why?! What' the hell's the difference?

C) Late game bunt-situation...say, two on, nobody out, If one of the premiere guys in the lineup is due, he will *NEVER* bunt...even if it's a tie ballgame, bottom of the ninth, runner on second and nobody out. Why not? Even the best hitters will get out 65%, only about 12-13% better than the worst hitters. Is that worth sacrificing the tremendous advantage of having a runner on 3rd with less than 2 out when you only need one to win?!

D) The inexplicable tendencies to allow pitchers to pitch themselves into trouble...*IF* they are the starter, but NOT if they are the reliever. You touched on one example...leaving the starter in to complete five, even if he's being torched, provided his team has a lead, just so he can qualify for the win...even though it puts his team's ability to win at risk.

But I'll expand that example. If the starter is still in, and it's the sixth or seventh inning...and he's clearly starting to tire...leaving his pitches up, giving up some hits and walks, he will NOT be relieved until he puts himself in serious jeopardy of giving up the lead. This is true no matter who is batting...right or left, a hitter he has success against or a hitter he struggles against...he will be left in. It's almost as if the manager rewards the pitcher for a job well done in the early innings by allowing his pitcher to get himself and the whole team in trouble when he's out of gas. I as a fan can clearly tell when a pitcher's starting to lose it...surely the manager can too. But he won't relieve the starter at a *HINT* of trouble...until he actually gets in trouble.

Middle relievers are not given nearly so much rope. You start to falter, you give up a hit, maybe two -- or even if you haven't given up a hit, but an unfavorable matchup (i.e. righty vs. lefty) is looming, you are GONE, and rightly so. With middle relievers, the managers make decisions per the situation in the game, putting themselves in the best position to win. With starters, their individual egos are given more weight.

I will never get it. It frustrates me as a fan, and as a gambler, to no end.

 

[postaldoug]

I must agree, Closers could be used in situations beyond the 9th inning, starters throwing between starts
could be called on to throw 15 pitches, and get 2-3 outs, in the 7th or 8th innings, but that's not the way it's done !

I used to think Pedro M. would be a good closer, but he falters early, so he's better starting.

M Rivera might be a great starter, get more innings from him, with a decent pen behind him.

Smoltz made a nice transistion from starter to reliever/ closer.

Clemens could probably toss an inning in relief, regurarly, but he's a part-timer, Sweet deal he has !

Doug