There are a lot of seemingly good ideas that should work, but don't. When I was in college, my apartment was right next door to the baseball field, and I ended up having lunch with Ray Tanner quite a bit. One day we were talking about pitcher strategies, and I said "why not just have every pitcher throw three innings? Your pitchers could throw harder, they'd be less susceptible to injury, the hitter wouldn't face them more than once in most cases, keeping them more off balance, etc." Tanner told me that the idea had already been tried in the past by a lot of college coaches and that Tony LaRussa had even tried it once in the majors (which is brought up in the decent new book, Scorecasting). He explained that while it should work, the pitchers just didn't like it and would throw temper tantrums. The only time he had seen the strategy successfully used was at smaller colleges where none of the pitchers really had draft aspirations and were just happy to be playing baseball. The dreaded reverence for the stupidest, most arbitrary "statistic" in any sport, the pitcher's win was, again, messing everybody up. That and the fact that all the pitchers feared being pegged as middle relievers by scouts.
It's my belief that the closer by matchup, or perhaps as its better known, closer by committee, fails for two reasons: 1) usually it's only tried with really crappy relievers and 2) when it is tried with proven closer type relievers, they either throw temper tantrums or "can't get used to it." Which is really a more acceptable way of throwing a temper tantrum. The only time I can recall it sorta kinda working was with the Braves a few years back, and it took two guys who were decent, but not elite closers and the manager most respected by players in the entire game, Bobby Cox, to get it to work. Even then, many suspected Rafael Soriano of faking injuries because of his unhappiness with sharing duties at times with Mike Gonzalez.
What gets in the way? Well, crappy relievers give crappy results, regardless of their matchup. Remember that while lefty-lefty and righty-righty matchups are preferable, crappy lefties still get hit a lot by good left handed hitters. In the second case, it's yet another mind bogglingly stupid "statistic" that is getting in the way, the save.
Saves get relievers paid. It is as simple as that. It's one of the defining issues in arbitration, in deciding if the pitcher is an A or B type free agent, and it's a big issue in free agency negotiations between agents and GMs. If a manager puts his best right hander in in the 8th inning, because that is when Pujols is coming up, and then puts in a slightly lesser lefty in the 9th, because 2 of the 3 hitters are lefties, the better right hander is going to get upset that his save was robbed of him. Even though that situation is better than putting in a crappy reliever in the 8th to face Pujols and then having the righty closer come in to face lefties in the 9th, the closer would much prefer to get the save chance than maximizing his team's chances to win.
So why, in the face of these major issues, do I think it will work for the Braves? Well they have two major things going for them: 1) they have each a really excellent left and right handed reliever and 2) both players are very young, are under full team control for several more years and are still in the "I'm just happy to be here" AKA I'm too young to throw a tantrum and get away with it phase of their careers.
Jonny Venters was a revelation last year and showed all the signs of it not being a flash in the pan. He pitched a ton and put up sparkling numbers throughout. His stuff was super legit, featuring perhaps some of the nastiest sink in all of baseball and having the highest ground ball percentage of any pitcher who threw over 50 innings, starter or reliever. Craig Kimbrel has possibly the nastiest stuff in all of baseball, though he's prone to bouts of wildness. He posted the highest k/9ip mark in baseball history last year.
Yet neither could get away with throwing a tantrum for not being the closer. Neither pitcher has been a closer in their career (well, Kimbrel has in the minors) and can't claim "well, I'm just not used to this type of role." If they started acting up in protest, it would just be a ticket for the other one to outright win the closer job, which the only thing worse than being co closer is not being the closer at all.
So here, I think we may just see one of the first truly successful closer by matchup situations.
Posts
2 comments:
The 1985 Cardinals used the closer-by-committee for most of the season after Neil Allen fizzled early; then Todd Worrell arrived in September and they had an established closer again.
It can be done but it has to be with a team that has the management to back-up the manager in deploying it; and the pitchers have to be able to get the outs.
yeah, again, it kinda worked there because you had two pitchers who were both decent (though I don't think either was as nasty as Kimbrel/Venters) yet didn't have the clout to protest. For it to truly work well, you need two pitcher with closer type stuff who are also willing to accept their roles.
In some cases with superstar closers, it won't work regardless of how backed up the manager is, because the closer is going to pout and play to the media. You can take as hard of a line as you want, but you often end up cutting off your nose to spite your face. The closer can always say "they put me in situations I wasn't used to" while in the meantime your just losing games because you have a player throwing a tantrum and claiming he's "not used to coming in at any old time."
Post a Comment