Jim Caple article on the closer role

[Clem Fandango]

And how it's overhyped nonsense. Long article, good read.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/080805

[bcl412]

I read this and then for some reason I read comments on the article. Wow, there are some really stupid people in this world.

[Post Count Padder]

Great article.

[Wilson A2000]

The 9th inning is the hardest inning to complete, maybe the first is a close second. When did pinch-hitter become popular? Closers typically face the hardest matchups too.

[ISUCubsFan]

Nice article. Caple makes a lot of good points, especially about the Mariners misuse of Putz last season. It's amazing how the addition of a stat has changed the game so much.

Here's another pretty good, semi-related Page 2 article on the K-Rod for MVP/Cy Young talk.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=krod/080805&sportCat=mlb

 

I read this and then for some reason I read comments on the article. Wow, there are some really stupid people in this world.

 

I keep telling myself not to read the comments on ESPN, YouTube, etc, but I always find myself reading them anyway and wondering how stupid people can be.

[Guest]

The 9th inning is the hardest inning to complete, maybe the first is a close second. When did pinch-hitter become popular? Closers typically face the hardest matchups too.

 

Not necessarily.

[SouthSideRyan]

The 9th inning is the hardest inning to complete, maybe the first is a close second. When did pinch-hitter become popular? Closers typically face the hardest matchups too.

 

Not necessarily.

 

On average I believe it's true, becuase you're less likely to face horrible hitters in the 9th inning(pinch hitters)

[CubFanPhilly]

This article is right on the mark. It's what made Joe Borowski a terrific choice. Make your closer your third or fourth best bullpen arm use your best arms in the high leverage situations.

[Outshined_One]

The 9th inning is the hardest inning to complete, maybe the first is a close second. When did pinch-hitter become popular? Closers typically face the hardest matchups too.

 

Not necessarily.

 

On average I believe it's true, becuase you're less likely to face horrible hitters in the 9th inning(pinch hitters)

 

Potentially, but I'd rather have my best reliever face the opposing team's 3-4-5 guys in the 8th than face the opposing team's 7 hitter and two pinch hitters in the 9th. Typically, the PHers are bench guys who aren't normally good enough to start on a regular basis, you know?

[nilodnayr]

This article is right on the mark. It's what made Joe Borowski a terrific choice. Make your closer your third or fourth best bullpen arm use your best arms in the high leverage situations.

 

No, you should use your best pitcher in the highest leverage situation. That may not always be the 9th, but its not always NOT going to be the 9th. Borowski was a terrible choice in Cleveland because while he was about their fourth best arm there was a big difference between him and the better guys in their pen. You don't want to be throwing crap out there in the 9th in save situations because a lot of the time those are going to be high leverage (not always, but usually). If you have to name a closer, don't make it your best guy, but don't make it one of your worst. And thats what Borowski was in Cleveland.

[CubFanPhilly]

This article is right on the mark. It's what made Joe Borowski a terrific choice. Make your closer your third or fourth best bullpen arm use your best arms in the high leverage situations.

 

No, you should use your best pitcher in the highest leverage situation. That may not always be the 9th, but its not always NOT going to be the 9th. Borowski was a terrible choice in Cleveland because while he was about their fourth best arm there was a big difference between him and the better guys in their pen. You don't want to be throwing crap out there in the 9th in save situations because a lot of the time those are going to be high leverage (not always, but usually). If you have to name a closer, don't make it your best guy, but don't make it one of your worst. And thats what Borowski was in Cleveland.

 

I don't disagree.

 

The mistake Cleveland made last year was using him in almost every save situation. Yes, use your best pitcher in the highest leverage situations. One run lead in the 9th? I'd be using one of those better arms. But not all save situations are high leverage either. 3-run lead? I'd be comfortable with a guy like Boroswki. Look at Boroswki's stint with the Cubs. He was arguably the 2nd or 3rd best arm in the Cubs bullpen and plenty effective as a closer.

 

If you have to name a closer at all, be smart about it. It should be de facto closer by committee.

[Guest]

The 9th inning is the hardest inning to complete, maybe the first is a close second. When did pinch-hitter become popular? Closers typically face the hardest matchups too.

 

Not necessarily.

 

On average I believe it's true, becuase you're less likely to face horrible hitters in the 9th inning(pinch hitters)

 

You're not going to have nearly as many pinch hitters in the AL because of the DH, though. And even if it's in the NL, there's a decent chance that the pitcher was double switched so the No. 9 spot might not even be the pitcher's spot anymore.

 

It might be a little bit tougher, bot not that much tougher as to make designating one player to be the closer and only pitch the ninth inning that important.

[chuckywang]

I bet managers love closers because it means less accountability for them.

 

Blew a lead in the 9th? Oh, well. I put the closer out there and it didn't work out.

[SouthSideRyan]

The 9th inning is the hardest inning to complete, maybe the first is a close second. When did pinch-hitter become popular? Closers typically face the hardest matchups too.

 

Not necessarily.

 

On average I believe it's true, becuase you're less likely to face horrible hitters in the 9th inning(pinch hitters)

 

You're not going to have nearly as many pinch hitters in the AL because of the DH, though. And even if it's in the NL, there's a decent chance that the pitcher was double switched so the No. 9 spot might not even be the pitcher's spot anymore.

 

It might be a little bit tougher, bot not that much tougher as to make designating one player to be the closer and only pitch the ninth inning that important.

 

I'm not arguing for the importance of closers, just saying that the 9th is when teams go all out more than any other inning. And I think pinch hitters are a lot more common for position players in the AL, because of the DH. You don't have to worry about holding back a bench guy to hit for the pitcher in extras. You can pinch hit for your crappy 8 and 9 guys with actual bats in the 9th, bring in their defensive replacements for the 10th, and go with that lineup the rest of the way.

[Illini Iceman]

This article is right on the mark. It's what made Joe Borowski a terrific choice. Make your closer your third or fourth best bullpen arm use your best arms in the high leverage situations.

 

No, you should use your best pitcher in the highest leverage situation. That may not always be the 9th, but its not always NOT going to be the 9th. Borowski was a terrible choice in Cleveland because while he was about their fourth best arm there was a big difference between him and the better guys in their pen. You don't want to be throwing crap out there in the 9th in save situations because a lot of the time those are going to be high leverage (not always, but usually). If you have to name a closer, don't make it your best guy, but don't make it one of your worst. And thats what Borowski was in Cleveland.

 

I don't disagree.

 

The mistake Cleveland made last year was using him in almost every save situation. Yes, use your best pitcher in the highest leverage situations. One run lead in the 9th? I'd be using one of those better arms. But not all save situations are high leverage either. 3-run lead? I'd be comfortable with a guy like Boroswki. Look at Boroswki's stint with the Cubs. He was arguably the 2nd or 3rd best arm in the Cubs bullpen and plenty effective as a closer.

 

If you have to name a closer at all, be smart about it. It should be de facto closer by committee.

 

People don't give Borowski nearly enough credit about how good he was when he was the Cubs closer in 2003. 66 K's and only 19 walks in 68.1 innings, ERA of 2.63 and 33 saves in 37 chances. That is pretty darn good. And it really wasn't a fluke since in 2002 he had 97 K's and 29 walks in 95.2 innings, ERA of 2.73.

[abuck1220]

yeah, don't lump cubs borowski with indians borowski. he was actually good when he was with the cubs.

[NCCubFan]

yeah, don't lump cubs borowski with indians borowski. he was actually good when he was with the cubs.

At the start of his Cubs career (2002 and 2003), yes. After that, no.