Comments on: If a closer is a team’s best reliever, then why isn’t he used in the highest leverage situations?

By: Mike HC

Mike HC — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:30:12 +0000

If Teix got a hit, the most damage he could have done was tie the game. More likely, one or two would have scored. Lackey could have finished the inning still with the lead. When the starter is shutting out the other team, the other team can’t wait for the guy to come out. I know when they took Lackey out, I was ecstatic. I was actually surprised they pulled him. But, I’m sure Scoscia had his reasons and he clearly knows more about his team than I do. It just didn’t work out this time.

By: mustang

mustang — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:48:21 +0000

Thank you Lanny.

By: Joe D.

Joe D. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:34:38 +0000

Precisely. If you don’t get out of the tight spot in the 7th, you might not have a lead or tie to protect in the 8th or 9th anyway.

Bullpen management in general is bass-ackwards.

By: Brien Jackson

Brien Jackson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:32:37 +0000

True. But if he’d left Lackey in and Teixiera had gotten a hit, everyone would be pointing to Tex’s beastly numbers against Lackey and wondering how the hell he could have left him in. Anyway, I think it was probably the right decision. Lackey walked Jeter on 4 pitches and then gave up a decently hard hit ball to Damon. I would have been a little skittish to leave him out there too.

By: Joe D.

Joe D. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:30:29 +0000

Joe Sheehan and the crew at Baseball Prospectus (among others) have been beating this particular drum for years. It’s completely obvious, it makes all sorts of sense, and we’re a long, long way from it ever happening. The “9th inning is the most important — because it’s the last — hence we need our tough, gritty closer pitching that inning no matter what” baloney is jammed in the minds of baseball men and it’s going to be hell prying that nonsense loose.

Hell, there are still people in baseball who are willing to pay Willy Taveras actual money. The chances of a radical shift in bullpen management over the next decade are slim.

By: Brien Jackson

Brien Jackson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:21:04 +0000

Fuck, it was in Moneyball IIRC. Or in some article that came out related to Moneyball.

Anyway, yeah, this is a relatively old concept now. Fail.

By: Rick B

Rick B — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:19:54 +0000

I never said Mo didnt have a good whip. my point was that 1.) the traditional system has worked great for the yankees the last 2 years. 2.) just because Rivera is your best reliever does not mean that he is the best at working out of other peoples jams. The stats show that he allows about 40% of inherited runners to score which is worse than many other relievers.

By: mustang

mustang — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:06:58 +0000

Mostly agree.

#4- Johnson was used in game 7 after there closer blew leads late in back to back games.
Mike Mussina in 2003 used to replace Clemens again game 7 early.

I think they might play it a little different in game 5 up 3 to 1 going back to NY.

But I guess they can play every game like game 7

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:56:02 +0000

It’s strange that closers can get paid like starters, but managers usually hide closers from games until a certain set of arbitrary conditions are met (the save situation).

If you are willing to pay a reliever $8 million or more, you must think he is the best option on the team to pitch a scoreless inning. So why not pitch him whenever you absolutely must get a scoreless inning? It’s absurd.

By: J.J.

J.J. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:53:34 +0000

and max kellerman said it over a year and half ago… big deal.. the subject is relevant right now and being discussed