I don't care what anyone says, 100 saves in two years is impressive

[utvolzac]

He gave up one solid hit, two GB that bled through an over shifted IF, a K, and a DP. I wouldn't call that bad at all.

We will agree to disagree. From where I was sitting, this stat line was not an impressive day from what should be your best guy out of the pen:

3 hits

1 wild pitch (that put a guy in scoring position and would score)

1 strike out

1st and 3rd with 1 out and anything other than a double play puts the game in extra innings.

Good thing we had an extra insurance run.

[El Gordo]

We will agree to disagree. From where I was sitting, this stat line was not an impressive day from what should be your best guy out of the pen:

3 hits

1 wild pitch (that put a guy in scoring position and would score)

1 strike out

1st and 3rd with 1 out and anything other than a double play puts the game in extra innings.

Good thing we had an extra insurance run.

Two of the three hits are bogus. He's a GB pitcher all he can do is get the GB, where they go is out of his control. The one hard single and the WP is on him but otherwise he did his job. The results never tell the whole story. But don't just listen to me, I am repeating exactly how Palmer described his inning. But of course what does he know compared to your extraordinary baseball acumen?:rolleyestf:

[olehippi]

Two consecutive 50 save seasons is impressive....if you believe in the whole concept of "pitching specialists." Personally, I think the fact that baseball has reached this point proves two things:

(1) like with position players, the pitching talent pool is seriously diluted because of expansion. Good starting pitchers are hard to come by, and TOR starters are at a premium. Years ago, teams ofter had 2-3 guys who would be consider TOR's or #2s today. (see 1971 Orioles).

(2) the deleted talent pool can only produce relief pitchers capable of throwing 20 pitches or less for one inning. Failed started become long-relievers; LH pitchers who can get LH hitters out become LOOGIES; and guys who can bring mid-90s heat for 20-25 pitches become set-up men and closers.

I liked it when relief pitchers were good enough to come into a gane in the 6th or 7th and finish it out, even if it was a close game. This is a rerity now.

As for Jim Johnson.....if he resigns with the Orioles, and Buck Showalter uses him like he has the past two years, I predict Johnsons arm will fall off sometime in late-June or early July. Three 50 saves seasons definitely isn't in the cards...or his arm.

[DrungoHazewood]

Two consecutive 50 save seasons is impressive....if you believe in the whole concept of "pitching specialists." Personally, I think the fact that baseball has reached this point proves two things:

(1) like with position players, the pitching talent pool is seriously diluted because of expansion. Good starting pitchers are hard to come by, and TOR starters are at a premium. Years ago, teams ofter had 2-3 guys who would be consider TOR's or #2s today. (see 1971 Orioles).

(2) the deleted talent pool can only produce relief pitchers capable of throwing 20 pitches or less for one inning. Failed started become long-relievers; LH pitchers who can get LH hitters out become LOOGIES; and guys who can bring mid-90s heat for 20-25 pitches become set-up men and closers.

I liked it when relief pitchers were good enough to come into a gane in the 6th or 7th and finish it out, even if it was a close game. This is a rerity now.

I've talked about this enough that I'm sure you've read what I have to say before and decided it wasn't worthwhile, but humor me a moment...

I think the "expansion diluted talent (or pitching)" argument doesn't hold water. Not remotely. In 1950 there were 16 major league teams drawing almost exclusively from a white US population of just over 100 million. Today the US population is over 300 million, while MLB gets almost half its talent from outside the US. Even considering the impact of other professional sports, I think you could argue that to get to the talent level of 1950 you would at least have to double the number of MLB teams.

And that's before you consider that scouting, training, nutrition, sports medicine, and other things have virtually increased the talent pool and quality of the talent pool by leaps and bounds. I truly believe that if I had a magic lamp and expanded MLB to 100 teams in the next 25 years, that by the end of that 25 year period the quality of play on the field would be indistinguishable from what it is today.

Pitchers pitch less because they're more effective that way. In the beginning roster limits and lack of financial resources and substituation rules made relief pitching nearly impossible. That built up the culture that complete games were necessary, which they were in 1890. That has held over despite the fact that essentially every pitcher in history of the game has been more effective when throwing harder for shorter stints.

Almost every organization or system evolves from generalized abilities to specialized abilities over time. People can't be as effective splitting time or learning a large number of skills compared to becoming really good at a fewer number. Someone who just welds will probably be a much better welder than someone who also operates a lathe and a bandsaw and a drill press. Place kicking in football got exponentially more accurate as single-purpose kickers displaced linebackers who also kicked. Decathletes are almost never as good at individual events as people who concentrate on one event. Relievers are far better today than in the past because they're left alone to throw a couple pitches really hard for an inning.

The argument that nobody throws complete games anymore so the game and the players must be worse... well, that's akin to the argument that nobody hits .400 any more because the hitters aren't any good. The actual reason is exactly the opposite - the hitters are great, but the pitchers are, too. The fact that there are more quality pitchers explains the lack of .400 hitters: today's Ted Williamses don't have third-rate, undrafted, indy-league-trained, malnourished, depression-era 4th starters to feast on.

And I'm not just randomly hypothesizing this - I've read probably a dozen research pieces over the years confirming this. Average talent in Major League baseball almost always gets better year-to-year, with brief blips the wrong way for expansions and wars. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the Japanese Leagues and AAA leagues today are probably as high a quality as the Majors prior to WWII. And a lot of 19th century baseball that counts as "Major League" would be hard pressed to compete in the Eastern or Carolina Leagues (or worse) today.

(Oh, I completely forgot the economic incentives argument - talent naturally flows to money, and MLB has a huge pool of players making huge cash)

[Frobby]

Two consecutive 50 save seasons is impressive....if you believe in the whole concept of "pitching specialists." Personally, I think the fact that baseball has reached this point proves two things:

(1) like with position players, the pitching talent pool is seriously diluted because of expansion. Good starting pitchers are hard to come by, and TOR starters are at a premium. Years ago, teams ofter had 2-3 guys who would be consider TOR's or #2s today. (see 1971 Orioles).

(2) the deleted talent pool can only produce relief pitchers capable of throwing 20 pitches or less for one inning. Failed started become long-relievers; LH pitchers who can get LH hitters out become LOOGIES; and guys who can bring mid-90s heat for 20-25 pitches become set-up men and closers.

I liked it when relief pitchers were good enough to come into a gane in the 6th or 7th and finish it out, even if it was a close game. This is a rerity now.

As for Jim Johnson.....if he resigns with the Orioles, and Buck Showalter uses him like he has the past two years, I predict Johnsons arm will fall off sometime in late-June or early July. Three 50 saves seasons definitely isn't in the cards...or his arm.

Putting aside what Drungo wrote, it seems to me that if the talent pool were diluted, then the good pitchers (and there should be the same number of them as before, even if a lower percentage of all pitchers) would pitch even more complete games than before, because of all the bad hitters they were facing. The fact that there are so few complete games today clearly is unrelated to the dilution of talent, and if anything, it cuts the other way.

As to Jim Johnson's arm, he was 16th in relief appearances and 34th in relief innings in 2013, so I think he'll survive. He just happens to have been presented with a lot of games where a save situation was at hand.

[Frobby]

We will agree to disagree. From where I was sitting, this stat line was not an impressive day from what should be your best guy out of the pen:

3 hits

1 wild pitch (that put a guy in scoring position and would score)

1 strike out

1st and 3rd with 1 out and anything other than a double play puts the game in extra innings.

Good thing we had an extra insurance run.

Two of the three hits are bogus. He's a GB pitcher all he can do is get the GB, where they go is out of his control. The one hard single and the WP is on him but otherwise he did his job. The results never tell the whole story. But don't just listen to me, I am repeating exactly how Palmer described his inning. But of course what does he know compared to your extraordinary baseball acumen?:rolleyestf:

I think you both have a point. Johnson did not have a particularly good day yesterday -- his command seemed a little off compared to the day before. He was fortunate to come in the game with a two run lead, or he would have blown the save. On the other hand, the good thing about JJ is he is an extreme ground ball pitcher and rarely gives up extra base hits, so it takes three bad events to score a run off him (3 hits, or a walk and 2 hits, or a walk, stolen base and a hit, etc.) and his ground ball tendencies induce a ton a double plays that erase many of the hits and walks he allows. I don't think you can blame the guy for allowing a ground single and then not give him credit for inducing the ground ball DP. Johnson induced a DP in 23% of his opportunities to do so, and that's an incredibly high ratio. Every AL pitcher who induced more double plays than he did was a starting pitcher who threw at least 137 innings, compared to Johnson's 70.1. Only one AL pitcher with more than 35 IP had a higher DP% than JJ (Tanner Scheppers, 25%, but in fewer opportunities).

[Uli2001]

It's an impressive number for sure. However, I do not care.

Way too many of his saves were like today's game. He was credited with a save, but pitched terrible. Had it not been for the defense bailing him out with the double play, it would have been blown save #10.

Last year, when JJ would come in, I felt very confident. This year you hold your breath. I cringed when they took out Hammel and brought in JJ. You should not have that feeling with an all star closer.

Zero interest in bringing him back for 8-9 million. Zero.

Finally, the voice of reason.

[Uli2001]

To be fair to Jim Johnson, the whole of idea of the "closer" and the "save" is misguided. If he was overused, then get someone to split the ninth-inning duties with him. On the other hand, it's the save rule that gets him that ridiculous salary for a reliever. Thus, you can't fell too bad for him.

[DrungoHazewood]

To be fair to Jim Johnson, the whole of idea of the "closer" and the "save" is misguided. If he was overused, then get someone to split the ninth-inning duties with him. On the other hand, it's the save rule that gets him that ridiculous salary for a reliever. Thus, you can't fell too bad for him.

Like a lot of things in life, managing with a designated closer isn't optimized but it is almost certainly more productive than a long list of other options. We didn't get there because someone decided it would be awesome to pay relievers a lot of money for not pitching as often or in as key situations as they could. We got there mainly because relievers of the 1970s would throw 110 innings/90 games one year then be totally ineffective the next. So managers experimented with some rules of thumb to limit how often they pitched, and throwing Bruce Sutter only in save situations worked out very well. Throwing Dennis Eckersley in one-inning save situations worked out even better.

You could probably squeeze a few more good innings out of pitchers by modifying when they're used, but the 1970s showed it was a fine line between more good innings and blowing out arms and year-to-year inconsistency that makes Johnson look steady.

In any case, using closers in the 9th produces a pretty high leverage index. You'd have to be really good and really lucky to pick and choose situations and improve upon that. And Johnson's experience this year shows that if you only throw guys in the highest leverage situations (i.e. closest and most crucial) there's almost no room for error before the world turns on you.

[bpilktree]

Saves are a waste of a stat. It is a pitcher getting three outs and not giving up a run ( sometimes even giving up a run or two ) It happens thousands upon thousands of times a year. Because it happens in the 9th we count it as something special. Keeping track of "saves" is one of the worst things to happen to baseball in my lifetime. It is even going to send a failed starting pitcher from the Skankees to the hall of fame. There are dozens maybe hundreds of pitchers that could have done exactly what Riveria has done. They just happen to be much more valuable as starters.

I completely disagree with the statment that pitching the 9th is the same as every inning for many reasons Trying to hold the other team to one run in the 9th or even the 8th is a lot different then in the third inning.

Here is the reasons why. Especially if it is a one run game

1. The third inning the team gets a lead off single do they bunt the runner over in that inning and try to get the run over, no they swing away. In the 9th the team wil try and bunt the leadoff runner over with the first batter or sometimes steal the base. Then one bloop can score the run or one dribbler through the infield. In the third many times you have to get two more hits. This also cuts down on the double play chance which is a thing Johnson is very good at as a ground ball pitcher.

2. They will use their bench players in the 9th and can use a pinch hitter for a weak hitting infielder or a backup catcher. In the third they are not going to pinch hit for the guy who is in for defense only.

3. In the ninth teams will also play the infield in which can make it easier if they get a ball hit right at them to cut down the runner but it also allows a ball to get out of the infielder a lot easier which gives up more hits.

4. If they retire the leadoff hitter and then the next guy singles they have the outfielders much dpper in the 9th to cut off the extra base hit but this allows guys to go first to thrid a lot easier and then can score on a flyball. IF they are playing closer in the outfield on a single they can hold the runner at 2nd and a flyball does not score the runner in the third.

[calmunderfire]

Like a lot of things in life, managing with a designated closer isn't optimized but it is almost certainly more productive than a long list of other options. We didn't get there because someone decided it would be awesome to pay relievers a lot of money for not pitching as often or in as key situations as they could. We got there mainly because relievers of the 1970s would throw 110 innings/90 games one year then be totally ineffective the next. So managers experimented with some rules of thumb to limit how often they pitched, and throwing Bruce Sutter only in save situations worked out very well. Throwing Dennis Eckersley in one-inning save situations worked out even better.

You could probably squeeze a few more good innings out of pitchers by modifying when they're used, but the 1970s showed it was a fine line between more good innings and blowing out arms and year-to-year inconsistency that makes Johnson look steady.

In any case, using closers in the 9th produces a pretty high leverage index. You'd have to be really good and really lucky to pick and choose situations and improve upon that. And Johnson's experience this year shows that if you only throw guys in the highest leverage situations (i.e. closest and most crucial) there's almost no room for error before the world turns on you.

Blowing like 5 games in a row twice during the same season is not almost no room for error. Johnson is the biggest reason why there is no playoffs.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I completely disagree with the statment that pitching the 9th is the same as every inning for many reasons Trying to hold the other team to one run in the 9th or even the 8th is a lot different then in the third inning.

Here is the reasons why. Especially if it is a one run game

1. The third inning the team gets a lead off single do they bunt the runner over in that inning and try to get the run over, no they swing away. In the 9th the team wil try and bunt the leadoff runner over with the first batter or sometimes steal the base. Then one bloop can score the run or one dribbler through the infield. In the third many times you have to get two more hits. This also cuts down on the double play chance which is a thing Johnson is very good at as a ground ball pitcher.

2. They will use their bench players in the 9th and can use a pinch hitter for a weak hitting infielder or a backup catcher. In the third they are not going to pinch hit for the guy who is in for defense only.

3. In the ninth teams will also play the infield in which can make it easier if they get a ball hit right at them to cut down the runner but it also allows a ball to get out of the infielder a lot easier which gives up more hits.

4. If they retire the leadoff hitter and then the next guy singles they have the outfielders much dpper in the 9th to cut off the extra base hit but this allows guys to go first to thrid a lot easier and then can score on a flyball. IF they are playing closer in the outfield on a single they can hold the runner at 2nd and a flyball does not score the runner in the third.

Other than number 2, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. Number 1 may work out to the advantage of the closer.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Rob Neyer:

Yeah. Let's give some credit to Buck Showalter for not panicking, as I'm sure a fair number of people in Baltimore were screaming for Johnson's head during that rough patch in May. From the 29th of May through the end of the season, Johnson converted 35 of 40 save opportunities while posting a 1.75 ERA.

Of course, his save percentage wasn't nearly as good this year as last year. But his strikeout-to-walk ratio was actually better, as he bumped his strikeouts some. Superficially, the biggest difference this year was more hits allowed, but that was largely due to a dramatic turn of Johnson's luck. Last year he gave up a .252 batting average on balls in play; this year it was .330.

Interesting that his BABIP was so much higher, even though the O's infield defense was way, way better in 2013. Baseball is a funny game.

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/9/30/4787354/jim-johnson-saves-record

[Frobby]

Blowing like 5 games in a row twice during the same season is not almost no room for error. Johnson is the biggest reason why there is no playoffs.

Just stop already. We missed the playoffs by six games.

[Frobby]

Rob Neyer:

Interesting that his BABIP was so much higher, even though the O's infield defense was way, way better in 2013. Baseball is a funny game.

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/9/30/4787354/jim-johnson-saves-record

I'm surprised that Neyer equated BABIP to luck. JJ was hit hard at certain times when he didn't get his sinker down or out of the zone. That's not luck IMO. Yes, I do think there is a luck component, but if you ask me there's a lot more to it. General rule: the harder the contact, the higher the BABIP.