Bottom line we need a real closer.

[DrungoHazewood]

I still hate having one, set "closer."

Prior to 1995 the record for a MLB season with the most number of pitchers with 30+ innings, 10+ K/9, and an ERA under 2.00 was two, in 1978 (Gossage, Sutter). In 2014 there are 14 such pitchers. In 2013 there were 11.

Despite lower innings totals than in previous generations, the number of relievers with 2+ rWAR seasons jumped in the 1980s and is right around that mark (18-20 per season) today.

So relievers are as effective, or more effective, than ever. I think it's presumptious to assume that some construct besides the one-closer method would be more effective. Maybe it would be. But maybe not. We're already in an era where more relief pitchers are more dominant than at any point in the game's history.

(I'm sure someone will point out that relievers are used differently today, that more and more guys are just asked to throw one inning, etc, etc. Is it not possible that one of the reasons that this method has taken hold is that pitching one inning in a predictable pattern is more effective than others? And the run context is lower today than in a lot of other eras. Again, maybe that's, at least to some degree, an effect of how relievers are used.)

[BRobinsonfan]

Exactly, which is why some posters are best left in the ignore box!

Well said... it amazes me how it seems that some posters aren't really happy unless the Orioles are performing badly... they seem to take more enjoyment in being able to say "see, I told you they were no good" than in the team performing well.

One older fan who's been a long time participant in the OH hardly posts at all now that the team is in first place. I swear, it seems the frequency of his posts could be correlated to the team losing rather than winning.

[BMann]

Well said... it amazes me how it seems that some posters aren't really happy unless the Orioles are performing badly... they seem to take more enjoyment in being able to say "see, I told you they were no good" than in the team performing well.

One older fan who's been a long time participant in the OH hardly posts at all know that the team is in first place. I swear, it seems the frequency of his posts could be correlated to the team losing rather than winning.

The Game Thread brings out the worst in these folks. Someone declared the game over when Tampa took a 4-2 lead in the top of the 5th last night! I grew up with a family member with that type of negative attitude, and it's frustrating and just not fun to be around someone (even via the Internets!) who seems to assume the worst all the time.

[Ruzious]

Bottom line to me is we've got 4 players I'd feel comfortable with as the closer - and they all serve a valuable purpose.

[RevOlution]

I heard from a very reliable source that Zak has nerves of steel and is able to block out all distractions. He has mentally what it takes to be a closer.

[OFFNY]

The Game Thread brings out the worst in these folks. Someone declared the game over when Tampa Bay took a 4-2 lead in the top of the 5th inning last night! I grew up with a family member with that type of negative attitude, and it's frustrating and just not fun to be around someone (even via the Internets!) who seems to assume the worst all the time.

No way.

Somebody in the game thread said "Game Over" halfway through the game ???

I don't believe it.

[bobmc]

No way.

Somebody in the game thread said "Game Over" halfway through the game ???

I don't believe it.

Ha ha - I "thought it" after Bud gave up two runs in the top first....

I also thought it when they went down 4-2.

I bailed when they di-int score bottom six. I went to bed like a baby and assumed they would lose.

I am a "Bob Bummer" and a glass half-empty guy. There I said it! But #IBacktheBirds !

And I di-int bring anyone down with my thinking! So I have that going for me! :clap3:

And now back to why we need a real closer - dang that Super Two status!!!! :slytf:

[weams]

Zach Britton has been a real good closer for us. And I was in New York. The pain is almost gone. And I don't flinch when I see him now.

[weams]

I heard from a very reliable source that Zak has nerves of steel and is able to block out all distractions. He has mentally what it takes to be a closer.

He must have after what happened in New York I never thought he would recover. I know I am still in the healing process. He's been great though.

[MrOrange82]

Prior to 1995 the record for a MLB season with the most number of pitchers with 30+ innings, 10+ K/9, and an ERA under 2.00 was two, in 1978 (Gossage, Sutter). In 2014 there are 14 such pitchers. In 2013 there were 11.

Despite lower innings totals than in previous generations, the number of relievers with 2+ rWAR seasons jumped in the 1980s and is right around that mark (18-20 per season) today.

So relievers are as effective, or more effective, than ever. I think it's presumptious to assume that some construct besides the one-closer method would be more effective. Maybe it would be. But maybe not. We're already in an era where more relief pitchers are more dominant than at any point in the game's history.

(I'm sure someone will point out that relievers are used differently today, that more and more guys are just asked to throw one inning, etc, etc. Is it not possible that one of the reasons that this method has taken hold is that pitching one inning in a predictable pattern is more effective than others? And the run context is lower today than in a lot of other eras. Again, maybe that's, at least to some degree, an effect of how relievers are used.)

Apologies, because I usually find your historical research interesting, but I'm not getting into that argument with you...again. Especially since you're relying on the idea that the prevalence of a particular method of bullpen role-assignment somehow proves that it's the best method, even if others haven't been tested extensively. How many teams regularly employed defensive shifts 10 years ago?

[DrungoHazewood]

Apologies, because I usually find your historical research interesting, but I'm not getting into that argument with you...again. Especially since you're relying on the idea that the prevalence of a particular method of bullpen role-assignment somehow proves that it's the best method, even if others haven't been tested extensively. How many teams regularly employed defensive shifts 10 years ago?

You don't need to respond if you don't want to, just a small clarification: I don't believe that the fact that one-inning relievers and set closers is prevalent proves that it's the best method. I just believe that the fact that relievers are arguably better and more valuable than ever indicates that any inefficiencies in that setup are probably small. There may be other ways to employ relievers that are more optimal. But they probably can't be a lot more optimal because the results are already very good.

[Can_of_corn]

You don't need to respond if you don't want to, just a small clarification: I don't believe that the fact that one-inning relievers and set closers is prevalent proves that it's the best method. I just believe that the fact that relievers are arguably better and more valuable than ever indicates that any inefficiencies in that setup are probably small. There may be other ways to employ relievers that are more optimal. But they probably can't be a lot more optimal because the results are already very good.

The WAR is going up but the overall save percentage is still staying constant correct?

I would think that if they are more valuable then the conversion rate on saves would be increasing.

Could it be that the additional value is just showing that they are more dominant in those instances when they are successful?

[DrungoHazewood]

The WAR is going up but the overall save percentage is still staying constant correct?

I would think that if they are more valuable then the conversion rate on saves would be increasing.

Could it be that the additional value is just showing that they are more dominant in those instances when they are successful?

That could be. There isn't a lot of place to go. With 2- and 3-run saves someone with a 6.00 ERA would convert most of their opportunities. The difference between a 3.00 ERA pitcher and a 2.00 is probably a very small number of blown saves a year.

The real value here is getting consistently good results out of the pen by letting a bunch of guys throw one max-effort inning in relatively structured conditions. It's really just managing workload so you don't end up with Mike Marshall oscillating between 4-win and below-replacement seasons.

[El Gordo]

He must have after what happened in New York I never thought he would recover. I know I am still in the healing process. He's been great though.

That's why he's the closer, not you.

[OFFNY]

o

(vs. TWINS, 8/30)

3 up, 3 down.

2 strikeouts.

1 groundout.

13 pitches, 10 strikes.

2014 Saves:O 30

2014 ERA:OO) 1.92

2014 WHIP:)O 0.853