Today, the worldwide leader provided us with this gem on its Web site: Jim Caple's argument over the value of the closer. It's an interesting piece that got me rethinking the way I view the closer in todays game. Caple says the closer is the most overrated position in sports, arguing that the most important outs come earlier in the game most of the time (I remember a wise man saying that about five years ago).
Now, being a Red Sox fan, I have experienced every type of closer possible. I've seen a knuckleballer closer (Tim Wakefield), a starter turned closer turned starter (Derek Lowe), closer by committee (a miserable failure), the high-priced success (Keith Foulke '04) and high-priced failure (Foulke '05) and the young power arm (Mr. Redneck AKA Jonathan Papelbon).
So, as a Red Sox fan, I might as well be a closing scientist ... As a scientist, I think Caple's argument has some merit. I agree with a lot of his points, but I believe he oversimplified things a little bit.
See, there are three types of closers in baseball today: the bad ones, the good ones and the great ones (and I said Caple oversimplified things).
The bad ones are obvious. They'll scare the living hell out of you if they're on your team. No lead is safe. Think BK Kim in the postseason. 2008 example - Eric Gagne.
The good ones are a much bigger group. This is the group Caple spends much of his argument focussing on. They get the job done about 90 percent of the time, and they can be relied upon in most clutch situations. The game isn't quite over when they step on the mound, but it's pretty unlikely they will blow the lead. 2008 example - Billy Wagner, George Sherril
Now the great group is a select few pitchers in the league. I'm talking really select here. Think three guys select: Mariano Rivera, Joe Nathan and Jonathan Papelbon. The opposing teams are demoralized when they enter the game. Joakim Soria could end up in this group with the numbers he's putting up this year, but remember what J.J. Putz did the last few years before you give him the crown at 24.
OK, I know what you're thinking: There's a big gap between the levels, but that's what I'm saying.
The truly awful closers will cost you not only games, but mental stability. They will affect every aspect of your team in the worst ways by shattering their confidence.
The truly dominant closers will help you win games. Opposing teams know they only have eight innings to come back from a deficit, and their managers will change their strategy accordingly. They are the game changers.
All the rest in between are really interchangeable. Todd Jones and his 5.05 ERA has blown the same amount of saves as Bobby Jenks and his 2.11 ERA. Maybe one closer from this group can get you a couple more wins over the course of the season than another in the group, but when it's crunch time, none of them are going to scare an opposing team more than another.
OK, so you're thinking one more thing. I left Francisco Rodriguez, the number one closer in the league this year, off my list of dominant closers. Yeah, I didn't forget. You can keep the guy who leads all relievers with 28 walks and hasn't stranded an inherited runner all season. I'll take Rivera (who hasn't blown a save all year), Nathan (who has a better ERA and conversion rate) and Papelbon (who hasn't allowed any of the 18 runners he's inherited to score).
So, to make a really long blog entry short, Caple is right. Almost every closer in the league is overrated. They are pretty easily replaceable, whether it's by a converted starter, a promoted middle reliever or just another guy taken off the scrap heap.
But if you get one of those rare guys that you can build a bullpen around, you have to take their value seriously. Rivera is the model of that theory, and the Yankees have always understood what they had in him, which is why they built a dynasty around him as the anchor of that pitching staff.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment