Buck And "His Guy"

[MrOrange82]

I think that it is as simple as saying that it works. I don't think it is economically wise, I don't think that the same relievers are good year to year, but I think with modern rosters, it works well enough. And I do not think that it is something that you can experiment with. Koji is only a closer because of attrition, not investigation.

I mean...I guess it "works" if you have guys who can turn games into, essentially, 8-inning affairs. But Tommy's been walking the same kind of tightrope that had many of us celebrating JJ's hasty departure. If Hunter's glove isn't hanging in just the right spot after throwing last night's final pitch, he might have two blown saves at this point. If he keeps pitching that way, eventually he's going to get burned, as are the O's by extension.

[weams]

I mean...I guess it "works" if you have guys who can turn games into, essentially, 8-inning affairs. But Tommy's been walking the same kind of tightrope that had many of us celebrating JJ's hasty departure. If Hunter's glove isn't hanging in just the right spot after throwing last night's final pitch, he might have two blown saves at this point. If he keeps pitching that way, eventually he's going to get burned, as are the O's by extension.

Never said Tommy was the answer. I know that if a matchup closing scenario were the answer, it would be done. Successfully.

[Barnfather]

These teams would make the same hundreds of millions of dollars no matter who the manager was. So you are saying that anyone in charge of a large asset or company with large revenues is brilliant? The cruise ship Captain that ran a ground in a couple hundred million dollar cruise ship says hi. I have been in meetings with guys that run fortune 500 companies and I wonder how some of them tie their shoes.

There certainly is the peter principle at work in many organisations, but generally speaking the guys at the top are not morons and its why people are prepared to pay them vast salaries. I work for a global, large company and have had some meetings with some of the top people...if you came across them casually you would think they are nothing special, but when you see them in their natural ball-breaking habitat - they are clearly immensely switched-on and the ones that are not (and they do exist) generally get found out pretty quick.

I suppose in baseball where you don't have relegation risks with huge financial dis-incentives, it is more possible for a terrible manager to be given time but there is still huge commercial impact of continued failure (unless you are the Cubs) so I am not sure that it is true that the same money is made no matter who the manager is. Success on the field is a huge part of the bottom line, and to achieve that you need a good manager - or be very lucky.

[weams]

I mean...I guess it "works" if you have guys who can turn games into, essentially, 8-inning affairs. But Tommy's been walking the same kind of tightrope that had many of us celebrating JJ's hasty departure. If Hunter's glove isn't hanging in just the right spot after throwing last night's final pitch, he might have two blown saves at this point. If he keeps pitching that way, eventually he's going to get burned, as are the O's by extension.

I think the closest thing to this was the Nasty Boys. And they all got too expensive for that.

[MrOrange82]

Never said Tommy was the answer. I know that if a matchup closing scenario were the answer, it would be done. Successfully.

I'm not sure I agree. Like I said, I think having one "closer" is among Buck's few weaknesses. He's certainly done a good job of incorporating things like shifts into the everyday scheme, but he's also clung to some pretty strange decisions over the years (e.g., one of my pet examples, Buck's use of J.J. Hardy in the second spot in the batting order for the entire 2012 season).

[weams]

I'm not sure I agree. Like I said, I think having one "closer" is among Buck's few weaknesses. He's certainly done a good job of incorporating things like shifts into the everyday scheme, but he's also clung to some pretty strange decisions over the years (e.g., one of my pet examples, Buck's use of J.J. Hardy in the second spot in the batting order for the entire 2012 season).

Did not say Buck was cutting edge. Said that Closers and setup men are used in those roles throughout the industry because it works, not because it is smart of moneyball effective.

[DrungoHazewood]

There certainly is the peter principle at work in many organisations, but generally speaking the guys at the top are not morons and its why people are prepared to pay them vast salaries. I work for a global, large company and have had some meetings with some of the top people...if you came across them casually you would think they are nothing special, but when you see them in their natural ball-breaking habitat - they are clearly immensely switched-on and the ones that are not (and they do exist) generally get found out pretty quick.

I suppose in baseball where you don't have relegation risks with huge financial dis-incentives, it is more possible for a terrible manager to be given time but there is still huge commercial impact of continued failure (unless you are the Cubs) so I am not sure that it is true that the same money is made no matter who the manager is. Success on the field is a huge part of the bottom line, and to achieve that you need a good manager - or be very lucky.

It's very clear that organizations that are behind the curve don't make as much money. You have to look no farther than the 1998-2011 Baltimore Orioles, who started that era with the highest attendance and payroll in the sport, and by the end were winning 68 games a year with 8,000 people in the stands for a Tuesday night game. Mostly because than ran the organization like it was 1975.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

So you're saying success is largely a result of blind luck?

I'm saying that Buck has zero to do with the financial success of the team. I am also saying that there are plenty of idiots in positions of power in very successful businesses. You Sarcastically implied that that would be impossible.

[DrungoHazewood]

Never said Tommy was the answer. I know that if a matchup closing scenario were the answer, it would be done. Successfully.

I just think there are few teams where you could get a measurable advantage, because most closers are the best relievers on the staff and don't have a big platoon differential.

[weams]

I just think there are few teams where you could get a measurable advantage, because most closers are the best relievers on the staff and don't have a big platoon differential.

I do too. In fact, they might also be the sixth best starter on the team.

[SteveA]

If such materials exist, I'd be very interested to read about how team's collect/analyze data and make those determinations when it comes to bullpen management (particularly back-end leveraging) (snicker).

I just did a quick search for "closer," "modern bullpen," and "antiquated," and I turned up a couple of articles from 2012 (i.e., slightly out of date) either directly or indirectly talking about this subject. One is from Tom Verducci, and the other is from Baseball Prospectus.

Verducci's article is more focused on the tendencies of closers to break down, and how having one, designated guy who racks up "saves" seems to be a poor investment. The BP article more directly attacks the wisdom of the "modern bullpen." Neither article makes it sound like teams have done very much to really, truly optimize their bullpens.

Not saying those articles are in any way definitive, but I could easily be convinced that the "closer" role is A-OK if there's information floating out there in which teams just...explain themselves.

I am on my phone so I am not actually going to read the Verducci article until I am home in front of a screen bigger than my hand. Not the way you summarize it sort of makes somewhat of an argument FOR what we did...jettisoning the guy who was going to make $10M and going with the guy who had the best stuff of the remaining guys in our pen.

Of course the alternative would be not to give the Closer Role (capitalization intended) to just one guy, I realize. I have long wished just ONE team would try that to see what happens. There are teams out there every year with literally nothing to lose like the Astros. But I can understand why a contender wouldn't want to be the one to Buck tradition (pun intended).

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

The Average Joe could not manage a MLB team, no matter what knowledge of the game or statistics he might acquire. There are not a ton of folks that could manage these multi-million dollar investments much better than the guys who have made a career of it. I do think that some new procedures are worth exploring. The shifting has had a visible impact on the game.

Managers are not hired for their in game tactics.

[Can_of_corn]

Baseball has been slow to change, no doubt. But I find it impossible to believe that a team could can a significant advantage through some kind of non-traditional bullpen arrangement and all 30 teams either don't know about it, or they refuse to do it. I think a large number of teams have analyzed bullpen optimization through simulations and similar tools and have decided that it has a very small ROI. Lots of effort for minimal gain.

The ROI would be financial in nature from one season to the next. In game results shouldn't change by more then a fraction of a game.

[weams]

I am on my phone so I am not actually going to read the Verducci article until I am home in front of a screen bigger than my hand. Not the way you summarize it sort of makes somewhat of an argument FOR what we did...jettisoning the guy who was going to make $10M and going with the guy who had the best stuff of the remaining guys in our pen.

Of course the alternative would be not to give the Closer Role (capitalization intended) to just one guy, I realize. I have long wished just ONE team would try that to see what happens. There are teams out there every year with literally nothing to lose like the Astros. But I can understand why a contender wouldn't want to be the one to Buck tradition (pun intended).

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

The sample size for a team like the Astro would be so small, that you would never know what worked and what didn't.

[weams]

The ROI would be financial in nature from one season to the next. In game results shouldn't change by more then a fraction of a game.

It's economical a sound idea. But it is not something that would win us a game.