- Thread starter
- #1
Omar 382
Well-Known Member
Closers are commonly a sore spot for sabermetricians. Most people find them misused and underused. But given the current method of use for a closer, just how important is a good one?
I looked at 2011, because that year is interesting (or painful) for baseball fans, with a certain piece of shit blowing a save in the last game of the season for the Red Sox. To evaluate closers, I used the Pythagorean formula's estimates versus the actual records of teams. I then singled out closers with 50 games finished and an ERA below 2.50. Kind of arbitrary numbers, but I wanted to keep it simple- as those closers typically are considered "good." My output is attached.
The mean of the residuals is only slightly above zero (0.004925), but when you multiply it by 162, you get about 0.8. This means that a team with a dominant closer might add 0.8 wins to his team because of the team's success in one-run games.
I still hate the idea of "closers."
I looked at 2011, because that year is interesting (or painful) for baseball fans, with a certain piece of shit blowing a save in the last game of the season for the Red Sox. To evaluate closers, I used the Pythagorean formula's estimates versus the actual records of teams. I then singled out closers with 50 games finished and an ERA below 2.50. Kind of arbitrary numbers, but I wanted to keep it simple- as those closers typically are considered "good." My output is attached.
The mean of the residuals is only slightly above zero (0.004925), but when you multiply it by 162, you get about 0.8. This means that a team with a dominant closer might add 0.8 wins to his team because of the team's success in one-run games.
I still hate the idea of "closers."