Why all the “closer” talk?

[wildbillhiccup]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

Is Chapman designated closer for the Yanks? I thought they were going to use a committee BP?

I'm assuming he'll get 90% of the saves. With Ottavino, Britton and Betances I think they're bullpen is even better than it was last year. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

4 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I think it's more this than the latter. By my count these are the only bonafide closers going into the 2019 season. It's basically 10 and 11 if/when Kimbrel signs with someone. That's less than half the league.
Treinen (OAK)
Chapman (NYY)
Doolittle (WSH)
Jansen (LAD)
Hand (CLE)
KImbrel (TBD)
Vazquez (PIT)
Osuna (HOU)
Allen (LAA)
LeClerc (TEX)
Greene (DET)

Diaz in Seattle?

[Dark Helmet]

I'm more concerned with the "opener" talk. I hate that idea.

[Dark Helmet]

52 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Diaz in Seattle?

I thought he was traded to the Mets.

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, Dark Helmet said:

I thought he was traded to the Mets.

Yep my bad. Same question, then, just with the mets. 

[wildbillhiccup]

2 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Diaz in Seattle?

Good catch. Diaz is definitely one (on the Mets).

[PaulFolk]

7 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I think it's more this than the latter. By my count these are the only bonafide closers going into the 2019 season. It's basically 10 and 11 if/when Kimbrel signs with someone. That's less than half the league.
Treinen (OAK)
Chapman (NYY)
Doolittle (WSH)
Jansen (LAD)
Hand (CLE)
KImbrel (TBD)
Vazquez (PIT)
Osuna (HOU)
Allen (LAA)
LeClerc (TEX)
Greene (DET)

Wade Davis of the Rockies, too.

[sportsfan8703]

Look at 2017 to see if being a closer matters. Britton goes down and Brach, Givens, and Hart, all get increased roles. It affected all three. It’s still a sport. It’s not just a video game. Running your closer out there to get a three save is ridiculous sometimes, but letting a “set up” guy blow a run lead is even more ridiculous. 

We’re probably only going to win 50-60 games. I’d like to win the ones where we have a lead in the 9th. Givens gives us the best shot at that this year. 

[wildbillhiccup]

10 hours ago, PaulFolk said:

Wade Davis of the Rockies, too.

Another good catch. So it looks like about 50% of the MLB teams are still using a legitimate closer. I feel like that percentage was closer 80 or 90  few years ago.

[wildbillhiccup]

2 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Look at 2017 to see if being a closer matters. Britton goes down and Brach, Givens, and Hart, all get increased roles. It affected all three. It’s still a sport. It’s not just a video game. Running your closer out there to get a three save is ridiculous sometimes, but letting a “set up” guy blow a run lead is even more ridiculous. 

We’re probably only going to win 50-60 games. I’d like to win the ones where we have a lead in the 9th. Givens gives us the best shot at that this year. 

The idea is to use your best reliever is the most important situation. If you're able to that I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that strategy doesn't give you the best chance of winning. The guess work is determining when the most high leverage situation is. That's the only flaw I see in the strategy. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

5 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The guess work is determining when the most high leverage situation is. That's the only flaw I see in the strategy. 

That’s for Sig to figure out. 

[PaulFolk]

4 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Look at 2017 to see if being a closer matters. Britton goes down and Brach, Givens, and Hart, all get increased roles. It affected all three. It’s still a sport. It’s not just a video game. Running your closer out there to get a three save is ridiculous sometimes, but letting a “set up” guy blow a run lead is even more ridiculous.  

Except this happens all the time, where a setup guy blows the lead in the seventh or eighth inning, and the "closer" never gets to pitch at all.

Shouldn't you get your best reliever into the game when it matters the most? That's not always the ninth inning.

[BohKnowsBmore]

2 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

The idea is to use your best reliever is the most important situation. If you're able to that I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that strategy doesn't give you the best chance of winning. The guess work is determining when the most high leverage situation is. That's the only flaw I see in the strategy. 

I think this is where the arguments against a defined "closer" sometimes go too far.  Due to its proximity to the end of the game, 9th inning outs will by definition have the highest impact to win probability, all else equal.  I can certainly get on board with deploying the best reliever in non-traditional, high leverage situations, but I think those who are most disdainful of the traditional usage of the closer occasionally miss the forest through the trees as the math would seem to support the logic of the save rule broadly.

[BohKnowsBmore]

6 minutes ago, PaulFolk said:

Except this happens all the time, where a setup guy blows the lead in the seventh or eighth inning, and the "closer" never gets to pitch at all.

Shouldn't you get your best reliever into the game when it matters the most? That's not always the ninth inning.

This is true.

However, if we're talking about two clean innings, each with a one-run lead.  One is the 8th, one is the 9th.  The 9th inning will by definition be higher-leverage at its start because each out will have a more meaningful impact on win probability.  The unknown of what your own team will do in their subsequent frame makes our expectation of which inning will matter most (absent other information) favor the 9th every time.