How many wins will the closer role cost the Orioles?

[Barnaby Graves]

Tommy Hunter is a fine reliever and an important asset to this team. And this isn't a reactionary thread as any given reliever can have a scary inning in a one-run game in the ninth.

I'm just stating the obvious that it is a particularly poor idea to take a guy who is demonstrably better versus righties than versus lefties and have him pitch to everybody based on a pretty arbitrary and unimportant stat. And I am looking for some kind of justification as to why this is not stupid.

If you support the closer role, or support Hunter as a closer, explain to me why picking him as a closer makes this a better team. Or makes the team win more games.

If I absolutely had to pick a closer I would think a reliever with splits closer to neutral makes more sense. And maybe Buck will surprise me. Maybe we'll have a game where there's a save situation and there's two or three tough lefties coming up, and he has Matusz or Britton try to handle them. But I don't feel too confident that will happen. I saw plenty of #SaveRule last year.

This is a blind spot for Buck and it's one he shares with a lot of other managers. What would Weaver do? I can't speak to that because I didn't watch much of him but I think if you presented this case to him he would think making Hunter the closer is a dumb idea. You could just show him the splits and he would agree it's a stupid idea. Even if you HAD to have a guy for save situations it would make far more sense to turn it into a platoon, although it's still pretty dumb... now you're saving two of your best relievers for less important situations. What a godawful stat the save is.

I invite thoughts because I have seen several people say we need a closer, I saw tons of teeth-gnashing over losing Johnson. And I don't get it. And if Jim Johnson was the Orioles best reliever than I think the best way to use him would be to have him pitch in the toughest situations with the lead immediately on the line. A guy getting a participation trophy for getting three outs before the other team scores three runs in an inning shouldn't make anyone say wow.

Also, "because that's how everyone else does it" is a dumb argument.

[Il BuonO]

David Ortiz is a LHB who came up with two base runners on tonight. Maybe this thread would have been a better idea after a few blown saves to LHB.

I don't need to explain anything, it's Buck's decision. Last I checked he is making all of them on the field. I would have thought people would question the idea of having Meek come in the 8th instead of O'Day. Instead we have a thread about why Hunter should or should not be a closer.

Hunter will be there until he's not.

Managers will keep trotting out guys to get saves with three run leads because they don't want to rock the boat AND because they do believe in the save rule despite what they say on promotional ads for the team. It may not be their argument but is there a more feasible explanation?

[Aristotelian]

I agree to a point. If ever there was a situation for "closer by committee" this is it. We have a bunch of solid LHPs (Matusz and Britton on the roster, De La Cruz in AAA, and Patton coming back soon). Although Tommy got through it, this game shows what inevitably will happen when you burn your lefties early and your closer has bad splits. Tommy had to get three outs vs lefties (including Ortiz) and that is not going to happen every day.

That said, Britton was the perfect guy to bring in for the 5th and 6th. If you are going to keep Matusz for 9th inning matchups, then you would need a third LHP to face Pierzynski in another key situation. If we bring in another LHP, then we would have to lose Stinson or Meek. So there is really no good solution.

[Barnaby Graves]

David Ortiz is a LHB who came up with two base runners on tonight. Maybe this thread would have been a better idea after a few blown saves to LHB.

There is no need to wait to find a time to be reactionary. There are already plenty of data points showing Hunter is a suboptimal choice versus lefthanded batters and since I have no reason to think that will change I stated my thoughts. Hunter will almost certainly be worse against LHB this year because that's just how it works. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is for the stupid and lazy.

I don't need to explain anything, it's Buck's decision. Last I checked he is making all of them on the field. I would have thought people would question the idea of having Meek come in the 8th instead of O'Day. Instead we have a thread about why Hunter should or should not be a closer.

Hunter will be there until he's not

.

What does one have to do with the other and how is argument from authority a good argument. If you don't want to present a logical reason this isn't a stupid idea then don't bother trying to defend it. I don't care if Pope Francis is picking our relievers, it's open to criticism and I think I have a point here.

Managers will keep trotting out guys to get saves with three run leads because they don't want to rock the boat AND because they do believe in the save rule despite what they say on promotional ads for the team. It may not be their argument but is there a more feasible explanation?

I don't know how a guy can make unquestionable decisions in one paragraph and then in the next paragraph his closer decisions could rock the boat unless he pays tribute to a worthless stat. Buck has the power so this is Buck's decision and it absolutely falls on him. If the players don't like it I don't really care as long as the team wins. I don't see how eliminating the closer position makes the team worse.

[Il BuonO]

There is no need to wait to find a time to be reactionary. There are already plenty of data points showing Hunter is a suboptimal choice versus lefthanded batters and since I have no reason to think that will change I stated my thoughts. Hunter will almost certainly be worse against LHB this year because that's just how it works. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is for the stupid and lazy.

Well, he can always find a way to pitch better to LHB.

.

What does one have to do with the other and how is argument from authority a good argument. If you don't want to present a logical reason this isn't a stupid idea then don't bother trying to defend it. I don't care if Pope Francis is picking our relievers, it's open to criticism and I think I have a point here.

I don't know how a guy can make unquestionable decisions in one paragraph and then in the next paragraph his closer decisions could rock the boat unless he pays tribute to a worthless stat. Buck has the power so this is Buck's decision and it absolutely falls on him. If the players don't like it I don't really care as long as the team wins. I don't see how eliminating the closer position makes the team worse.

Alright, fair enough. Your last statement has consistently been my position. I just don't see it changing anytime soon. Match ups unless we had someone without the splits would be preferred. In fact, I'd never have a closer period, but that won't happen.

[Barnaby Graves]

Alright, fair enough. Your last statement has consistently been my position. I just don't see it changing anytime soon. Match ups unless we had someone without the splits would be preferred. In fact, I'd never have a closer period, but that won't happen.

If he added a tailing sinker or circle change or some other traditional buster pitch for dealing with opposite sided batters he could be better but that's way easier said than done.

The whole thing is that to me this seems like an obvious poor decision with obvious solutions but there are a lot of people who defend this role. And I think if you made Matusz the closer people would take my position, because they'd think, he's a LOOGY, he's not great against RHB. But what is Hunter if not a ROOGY of sorts, who isn't great against LHB.

Usually when people criticize Hunter it's about the home run rate but if that is the concern the worst thing you could do would be to give him bad matchups.

[Il BuonO]

Usually when people criticize Hunter it's about the home run rate but if that is the concern the worst thing you could do would be to give him bad matchups.

Yeah, the thing is, Tommy's a strike thrower, so, he rarely puts himself in trouble. If he gives up an occasional solo HR with a more than one run lead we're ok.

Then again....

[Moshagge3]

A's had bases loaded, one out in a 0-0 game in the 8th. They are at home. If they score even once we probably get to see Jim Johnson, but we'll probably have to wait, unless this game goes 18 innings.

[Moshagge3]

Never mind, he's in now, and about to set fire to this b****.

[Moshagge3]

I guess I forgot about the illogical "always bring in your closer in the top of the 9th in a tied game" rule because I'm trying to mentally block out 2012 ALDS Game 1.

[stopthecar]

A's had bases loaded, one out in a 0-0 game in the 8th. They are at home. If they score even once we probably get to see Jim Johnson, but we'll probably have to wait, unless this game goes 18 innings.

Jim just gave up the go ahead run...

[Guest]

Jim Johnson being Jim Johnson in Oakland. Poor Oakland.

[Il BuonO]

Not a good first outing for JJ. 2 runs on 2 hits and a walk.

He gone.

[Il BuonO]

I'd love to see Rodney melt down in Anaheim in a moment or two.

[Moshagge3]

Walk, single, hit batter, sac fly, single, and he just got taken out.