Help me understand

[uncfan103]

The last few games there have been a couple of games that went into extra innings or ended in the ninth inning before a team used their closer. Do managers really care this much about the ego of their closer that they just won't pitch him unless he needs work or it's a save situation? Obviously, if you're the home team in an extra inning game you will never have a save situation come up. Why not pitch the best reliever you have and hope you score before they do? Or at least bring your closer in to face the heart of the order.

Atlanta lost to the mets a few days ago in 14? innings, kimbrel never pitched. It could've been injury related but if not what were they waiting for? It's better for him to not get an appearance or get a bs than for him to pitch with a chance to get the win?

The reds never brough in Broxton tonight, the cardinals didn't bring in rosenthal yesterday, both teams lost in the bottom of the ninth as roads teams without their "closer" aka. best reliever getting into the game. I don't get it. It makes much more sense to bring in your best reliever in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game than to bring him in up three in the 15th, if you're lucky enough to even get there.

What's the reasoning for saving closers?

 

[romeo212000]

I wish the closer position would just go away.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

Atlanta was the road team, so it was right to save the closer only to close the game. Had them be the home team Kimbrel would have the pitch the 9th with the tie.

 

[uncfan103]

Atlanta was the road team, so it was right to save the closer only to close the game. Had them be the home team Kimbrel would have the pitch the 9th with the tie.

It would've made a whole lot more sense to let Ondrusak or whoever try to get the save. In the bottom half inning of a tie game if you give up a run you lose. If you have the lead you can afford to give up a run and still win the game. Maybe I'm missing something, but if that was what they made his decision on he should forgo all decision making duties

 

[AnotherLevel55]

It would've made a whole lot more sense to let Ondrusak or whoever try to get the save. In the bottom half inning of a tie game if you give up a run you lose. If you have the lead you can afford to give up a run and still win the game. Maybe I'm missing something, but if that was what they made his decision on he should forgo all decision making duties

Then should every manager in the league.

 

[depraved]

Closers continued to get babied more and more. I have only heard about the days when closers like Fingers, Sutter, and Gossage had to go 3 innings to get the save. Now if a closer gets a 3 inning save it's a top 10 highlight on ESPN/MLB Network for about a month because of the unbelievable feat they just accomplished. Closers should earn their money in my opinion. Let them pitch 3 innings. For what they get paid they should have not only the most dominating stuff, mindset but stamina as well. Older closers like Rivera I get. Young guys though, let them pitch. It won't happen though. Soon you'll see even more specialized closers for single outs. You'll have your left handed specialist closer, right handed specialist closer, and one closer just for switch hitters....

 

[uncfan103]

Then should every manager in the league.

My guess is his reasoning has a lot less to do with winning games and a lot more to do with keeping his closer and agents happy. If you believe it's going to help you win games please explain, because I have no idea how saving your closer in an extra inning game makes any sense at all (unless you're saving him for the heart of the order)

 

[redseat]

Perhaps... managers think, this guy is my "closer" why use him if the game is tied or goes extra.. save him as a last result or until we get a save situation. Not to mention not many teams have someone AFTER their closer to pitch...

 

[redseat]

except for maybe a starter ^^^ but why use him since he probably is going the next day.

 

[uncfan103]

Perhaps... managers think, this guy is my "closer" why use him if the game is tied or goes extra.. save him as a last result or until we get a save situation. Not to mention not many teams have someone AFTER their closer to pitch...

Do you agree that it's a terrible thought process? If the game is tied in the bottom of the ninth you HAVE to prevent runs from being scored or you lose. A manager should be saving his worst relievers for later and later into the game and then his absolute last resort should be a SP. Managers shouldn't lose games because a mediocre reliever gave up a run in the bottom half inning of a tie game and their all star vet reliever never even had a chance.

Unless you're advocating that they only want this closers to pitch in close situations instead of to help their team, and my questions becomes: why do they care at all about the stats their closers have? Is it better for him to not get an appearance then for him to get the W or one inning without an earned run then to sit and watch the team lose?

The braves pitched schlosser and avilan instead of kimbrel which shows:
A) those guys have a better chance of not giving up a run then kimbrel
B) kimbrel is hurt
C) the manager is stupid
Or
D) they care more about getting kimbrel saves then winning the game.

If I missed how it's beneficial for a closer to be saved for a she situation please explain. They should use the closer in a get out of this inning without a run or you lose the game situation every single time, IMO

 

[redseat]

But managers don't think like that uncfan103. especially if the team is away. Managers don't bring in their closers on the road unless it is 100% necessary (aka no other option) OR if they have a lead. baseball has pretty much always been like that.

 

[uncfan103]

But managers don't think like that uncfan103. especially if the team is away. Managers don't bring in their closers on the road unless it is 100% necessary (aka no other option) OR if they have a lead. baseball has pretty much always been like that.

Baseball hasn't ALWAYS been like that. The only reason the closer spot exists is because it helped teams win games. The game has evolved, and is still changing. Nothing is set in stone. Teams are shifting now, my point is why wouldn't the managers do what's best for the team?

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

Baseball hasn't ALWAYS been like that. The only reason the closer spot exists is because it helped teams win games. The game has evolved, and is still changing. Nothing is set in stone. Teams are shifting now, my point is why wouldn't the managers do what's best for the team?

I think the modern closer position exists mostly for marketing reasons today.

Saving your best reliever for the 9th inning makes little on-field, strategic sense. Games are typically won or lost in the middle innings. Chicks still dig the long ball but they also dig the whole rockstar mentality of the closer who comes out to his own music, gives the intimidating stare, and pitches an inning while up by three runs.

 

[rokketmn]

I have long thought that the closer position is the most overrated in baseball. You hear people talk about it taking a "special mindset" and all that crap, but the bottom line is that a major league pitcher is asked to get 3 outs in a game in which his team has a lead of as many as three runs.

Nothing hard there, if you ask me.

Many "closers" weren't even closers in the minors or in college. They were generally guys that either washed out as starters or guys that teams thought didn't have the stamina to start, but stuff good enough in short spurts like an inning or two at a time.

Even Mariano Rivera was a starter for most of his games in the minors.

You can take anyone with a live arm and good to decent control and make them a closer. The Sox did it with Tom Gordon. Then Derek Lowe. Then Papelbon.

Now to the point of the thread... I agree with you totally "UncFan". In many games the game can be decided in the 7th ot 8th inning with the meat of the order coming up for the other team. Who gets to pitch those innings? The second or third best reliever on the team, that's who. A "closer" most times comes in with nobody on base and only has a 33.33% chance of facing the heart of the order.

The players union and of course, the players, have a lot to do with this. This is how they justify how much they should be paid. They point to the "save".

The stat should be done away with and any reliever entering a game with a lead and not giving up a run should be credited with a hold, regardless of the inning they pitch. Nowadays, you can come in with a 3-run lead and give up 2 runs and still get credited with a "hold" or "save".

Pure nonsense.

 

[redseat]

Baseball hasn't ALWAYS been like that. The only reason the closer spot exists is because it helped teams win games. The game has evolved, and is still changing. Nothing is set in stone. Teams are shifting now, my point is why wouldn't the managers do what's best for the team?

I didn't say always been that way... it has been in the modern day era usually. I don't agree with it but it appears that's the mindset.

Not sure why managers think the way they do. That's why we are here on a message board asking it instead of getting paid to make said decisions.

 

[uncfan103]

I have long thought that the closer position is the most overrated in baseball. You hear people talk about it taking a "special mindset" and all that crap, but the bottom line is that a major league pitcher is asked to get 3 outs in a game in which his team has a lead of as many as three runs.

Nothing hard there, if you ask me.

Many "closers" weren't even closers in the minors or in college. They were generally guys that either washed out as starters or guys that teams thought didn't have the stamina to start, but stuff good enough in short spurts like an inning or two at a time.

Even Mariano Rivera was a starter for most of his games in the minors.

You can take anyone with a live arm and good to decent control and make them a closer. The Sox did it with Tom Gordon. Then Derek Lowe. Then Papelbon.

Now to the point of the thread... I agree with you totally "UncFan". In many games the game can be decided in the 7th ot 8th inning with the meat of the order coming up for the other team. Who gets to pitch those innings? The second or third best reliever on the team, that's who. A "closer" most times comes in with nobody on base and only has a 33.33% chance of facing the heart of the order.

The players union and of course, the players, have a lot to do with this. This is how they justify how much they should be paid. They point to the "save".

The stat should be done away with and any reliever entering a game with a lead and not giving up a run should be credited with a hold, regardless of the inning they pitch. Nowadays, you can come in with a 3-run lead and give up 2 runs and still get credited with a "hold" or "save".

Pure nonsense.

Thank you. You'd think managers would use their best young guy to pitch in the highest leverage situations. Then, you don't have to worry about paying as much because he got saves when it comes to arbitration.

 

[uncfan103]

I didn't say always been that way... it has been in the modern day era usually. I don't agree with it but it appears that's the mindset.

Not sure why managers think the way they do. That's why we are here on a message board asking it instead of getting paid to make said decisions.

So the only argument is that there is some logic to it, and it helps the teams win we just don't know what logic the managers are using? You'd think someone would've figured it out by now, but I guess not?

 

[redseat]

So the only argument is that there is some logic to it, and it helps the teams win we just don't know what logic the managers are using? You'd think someone would've figured it out by now, but I guess not?

You'd think... but who knows

 

[uncfan103]

You'd think... but who knows

I brought it up here because I thought someone could explain it, or at least try. I didn't realize the managers in the mlb were so much smarter than us lol.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

I think it is funny when a starter is owning the others teams starting line up for 8 innings & has less than a 100 pitches & they pull him for the closer so the closer can get the "save" & the closer blows the game!
Obviously this has to do with the stat, not what was best for the team.
I'm not a pittsburgh fan but I think their starter gave up 1 run (2-1 game) in 8 innings on 93 pitches (or close to that) & they brought in a closer to lose the game for them. Why not let the starter pitch the 9th, unless he said he was done or something?
Is it really that important to get the stat of a save? (for the team, not the closer)