Who will be auditioning for the O's closer this spring?

[Philip]

8 hours ago, wildcard said:

Oh, so don't even try to develop talent.  Just lose forever.   That would be stupid..

Rutschman will be with the team in 2022 for a full year.  The young starters will be with the team.  The O's should have  a good major league outfield.   All they will need is a better infield.

It will be time next off season to flip the switch.  So if they can develop a closer this season  they should.

Did I say anything about not developing talent? Come on wildcard, don’t spar with strawmen. I said there is no need for a dedicated closer, and there isn’t.
The idea of saving your best guy for a situation that may never come is silly. Long ago Jeff Passan Wrote an article applauding Buck Because he used his best guy in the highest leverage situation, and ignored “closer” BS. It was incredibly ironic that that article was written several months before the wildcard game fiasco.

Using your best guy at the time of greatest need is logical, and it has nothing to do with developing talent. A side benefit is that because arbitration raises are based on saves, at the moment, the fewer saves a guy gets, The smaller his arbitration increase. I’m sure that’s going to change but at the moment that’s how things are.

You’re up two in the 6th, And the bad guys got the bases loaded with one out, bring in your best double play guy.”No, I can’t! He’s my closer!” Thats silly.

[DrungoHazewood]

22 hours ago, wildcard said:

I think it would increase Scott's value if he could develop into a closer.

I don't know that giving the 75th-best reliever in baseball the opportunity to get 23 saves is going to prompt an opposing GM to overpay for him.  Not in 2021.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

I don't think it goes beyond that.   But developing a closer means being able to be successful pitching in the 9th inning.   The 9th is different.   Just ask Sulser.

I think that if the Orioles have pitchers who tremble and collapse at the thought of going out to protect a two run lead in the 9th inning of a June game against the Rangers they should trade them for whatever they can get as soon as possible.  Even if they're some kind of mythical creature who is a shutdown reliever in the 8th inning of the same game.

And I know you like to come to sweeping conclusions based on Cole Sulser's 45 PAs in high leverage situations in his entire MLB career, but let's not go there.  It's unbecoming.

[DrungoHazewood]

23 minutes ago, Philip said:

You’re up two in the 6th, And the bad guys got the bases loaded with one out, bring in your best double play guy.”No, I can’t! He’s my closer!” Thats silly.

I'm not going to argue this point too much, but on average the later you are in a close game the higher the leverage of the situation.  Often you'll have a bases-loaded situation in the 6th, and if you burn your best reliever then he won't be available for the very important situation in the 8th or 9th where you're now using your 3rd or 5th-best guy.

The modern closer usage pattern wasn't developed entirely because managers are stupid.  Generally your 9th-inning closer has the highest average leverage index on the team.  And it's much easier to manage workloads and warmups if you're able to better specify when a pitcher pitches in the game.

[Philip]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

His point (which I don’t agree with) has nothing to do with “developing talent.”    Of course you do that.   

The issue is whether a team should have a designated closer who always gets the ball when the team has a 1-3 run lead going into the 9th inning, and rarely pitches in any other situation.    I’m fine with doing things some other way, but I disagree with Philip that this approach is “stupid.”    If it were that stupid, you wouldn’t see 90% of teams following that approach.   I think it depends on the talent on your team and how they respond in certain situations.     I don’t think there’s one ideal approach that fits all teams.    
 

I am a teacher, I’ve been a teacher for over 25 years, and I have constantly tried to come up with effective ways to teach my subject. I do not reject tradition, Because tradition exists for a reason. However, I do question it and examine it. Every method book has the same approach. The only difference is the cover art. When I visit online forums that discuss the teaching philosophy of my subject matter, everyone, without exception, and I really mean without exception, who expresses an opinion or suggests a method, suggests traditional things that are, at best, obsolete.

last week, I started a new student, a gifted 10-year old whose father was himself a music major in college, and my approach to the instrument was completely different from and better then, anything he had heard in his own training time.

Just because something is done by 90% of the people doesn’t mean it’s the best option. We are extremely traditional and we are frequently reluctant to try something new.

Of course, sometimes you use your best guy in the sixth and you need him again in the ninth, well, too bad. Sometimes you use your best guy in the sixth and he gets blasted. Remember what AJ said. “Sometimes you suck.“

On the other hand, if you use a medium guy in the sixth and get blasted, well, you’re not going to need your best guy in the ninth because the game is essentially over. That’s the eternal gamble, but to categorically refuse to use your best guy in a tight situation is just stupid.

 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Is a "lot" a majority?

Are you saying a majority of relievers perform worse in the 9th?

Can you provide evidence supporting that claim?

I think it’s a fair statement that an appreciable number of pitchers (not necessarily a majority) struggle in the 9th.   For one thing, you can’t match up with the other team’s hitters (R/R or L/L) as well as you can in the earlier innings.   So you really do need a guy who doesn’t have wide platoon splits.    As to whether some pitchers just feel extra pressure in the 9th and react poorly to it, there may be at least some for whom that’s true.   

As to Sulser, I’m not expecting anything great, but let’s not forget he pitched part of last season with a fractured toe and some other sprained toes.    https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2021/01/sulser-on-trying-to-pitch-through-injury.html

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Philip said:

I am a teacher, I’ve been a teacher for over 25 years, and I have constantly tried to come up with effective ways to teach my subject. I do not reject tradition, Because tradition exists for a reason. However, I do question it and examine it. Every method book has the same approach. The only difference is the cover art. When I visit online forums that discuss the teaching philosophy of my subject matter, everyone, without exception, and I really mean without exception, who expresses an opinion or suggests a method, suggests traditional things that are, at best, obsolete.

last week, I started a new student, a gifted 10-year old whose father was himself a music major in college, and my approach to the instrument was completely different from and better then, anything he had heard in his own training time.

Just because something is done by 90% of the people doesn’t mean it’s the best option. We are extremely traditional and we are frequently reluctant to try something new.

Of course, sometimes you use your best guy in the sixth and you need him again in the ninth, well, too bad. Sometimes you use your best guy in the sixth and he gets blasted. Remember what AJ said. “Sometimes you suck.“

On the other hand, if you use a medium guy in the sixth and get blasted, well, you’re not going to need your best guy in the ninth because the game is essentially over. That’s the eternal gamble, but to categorically refuse to use your best guy in a tight situation is just stupid.

 

There is a school of thought that pitchers perform better when they know their role.   In other words, it’s easier to prepare physically and mentally when you have some general idea of when and how you’ll be used in the game.   I don’t think everyone agrees that this is a good enough reason to assign roles and stick with them fairly rigidly, but I wouldn’t say the idea is stupid.   And I do think that managers often have to balance the move most likely to win that night’s game vs. the move that’s best for the staff over 162 games.  

[Philip]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not going to argue this point too much, but on average the later you are in a close game the higher the leverage of the situation.  Often you'll have a bases-loaded situation in the 6th, and if you burn your best reliever then he won't be available for the very important situation in the 8th or 9th where you're now using your 3rd or 5th-best guy.

The modern closer usage pattern wasn't developed entirely because managers are stupid.  Generally your 9th-inning closer has the highest average leverage index on the team.  And it's much easier to manage workloads and warmups if you're able to better specify when a pitcher pitches in the game.

I don’t disagree, but you’re missing the point that the problem in the 6th is NOW. You need to deal with it NOW. If you refuse to use your best guy NOW, you’re running two risks: first that the guy you do bring in is by definition more likely to fail( otherwise, HE would be your best guy) and second that there won’t be a similar situation in the remaining innings.

there are lots of variables I certainly agree, and also, a lot depends on how steep is the drop off between your #1 and 2 and so on. But to refuse to use your best guy until the 9th is foolish.

The best way to handle things is on an individual basis, depending on today’s situation, and having a dedicated closer makes that impossible.

[Philip]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

There is a school of thought that pitchers perform better when they know their role.   In other words, it’s easier to prepare physically and mentally when you have some general idea of when and how you’ll be used in the game.   I don’t think everyone agrees that this is a good enough reason to assign roles and stick with them fairly rigidly, but I wouldn’t say the idea is stupid.   And I do think that managers often have to balance the move most likely to win that night’s game vs. the move that’s best for the staff over 162 games.  

Pitchers do best when they know what is expected of them. Surprise is never a good thing, but knowing the pecking order is important. Everybody knows who the 7th man is, even if they are too polite to mention it. Jason Garcia knew he was garbage time guy, and so did everyone else. And everyone knows who the first guy is, and who the best DP groundball guy is, and so on. It’s highly unlikely that a given reliever is going to be unprepared for a given game, especially if the manager says, the night before,” Joe threw 25 pitches today and John threw 20. I won’t be using them tomorrow. First man up if the starter implodes is Fred, and I’ll use Jim Bob or Snerdly in pressure situations. Now get out of my office.” 
if availability is based on work schedules, all the more likely that guys will know when they’re expected to get into a game. 
I remember Buck was like clockwork in 2012: Patton, Strop, and then Johnson, and only during Armageddon would he use anyone else. So it does work,and I’m not saying it doesn’t. But flexibility is important, and THIS GUY IS MY CLOSER is obsolete.

[DrungoHazewood]

23 hours ago, Philip said:

I don’t disagree, but you’re missing the point that the problem in the 6th is NOW. You need to deal with it NOW. If you refuse to use your best guy NOW, you’re running two risks: first that the guy you do bring in is by definition more likely to fail( otherwise, HE would be your best guy) and second that there won’t be a similar situation in the remaining innings.

there are lots of variables I certainly agree, and also, a lot depends on how steep is the drop off between your #1 and 2 and so on. But to refuse to use your best guy until the 9th is foolish.

The best way to handle things is on an individual basis, depending on today’s situation, and having a dedicated closer makes that impossible.

But you're missing the point that NOW isn't everything.  You can't manage a baseball team over a 162 game schedule like NOW is all that matters.

On average saving your best pitcher for the ninth is the most effective way to use your relievers.  Sometimes it's not, but generally it is.  Look at the Orioles closers of the past decade, almost every year the closer has the highest leverage index on the team.  It's not Darren O'Day coming in whenever to set up and shut down the opponent.  It's Jim Johnson and Zach Britton, used almost exclusively in the 9th.  Look at the top pitchers in all time single season LI.  The top 50 are all closers with 20+ saves since 1980, and 90% of the list are closers since 1990.  The highest leverage index of all time (min 50 games) is Troy Percival in 2000, when 47 of his 54 appearances were in the 9th inning and had an LI of 2.575. 

When Elroy Face came in as a fireman whenever he was needed, whatever inning that might be in 1959 when he was 18-1, his LI was 1.8.  And in his whole career he only cleared 2.00 twice.

Using a 9th-inning closer might not be theoretically the most efficient and effective way to use a reliever, but it's produced almost all of the highest leverage indexes of all time in real game situations.

[SteveA]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But you're missing the point that NOW isn't everything.  You can't manage a baseball team over a 162 game schedule like NOW is all that matters.

On average saving your best pitcher for the ninth is the most effective way to use your relievers.  Sometimes it's not, but generally it is.  Look at the Orioles closers of the past decade, almost every year the closer has the highest leverage index on the team.  It's not Darren O'Day coming in whenever to set up and shut down the opponent.  It's Jim Johnson and Zach Britton, used almost exclusively in the 9th.  Look at the top pitchers in all time single season LI.  The top 50 are all closers with 20+ saves since 1980, and 90% of the list are closers since 1990.  The highest leverage index of all time (min 50 games) is Troy Percival in 2000, when 47 of his 54 appearances were in the 9th inning and had an LI of 2.575. 

When Elroy Face came in as a fireman whenever he was needed, whatever inning that might be in 1959 when he was 18-1, his LI was 1.8.  And in his whole career he only cleared 2.00 twice.

Using a 9th-inning closer might not be theoretically the most efficient and effective way to use a reliever, but it's produced almost all of the highest leverage indexes of all time in real game situations.

True but there is a distinction between only using a guy in the 9th and adhering strictly to the save rule.  A tie game or even down by 1 in the top of the 9th is a much higher leverage situation than up 3 runs.

Most of the relievers who have been used nearly exclusively in the 9th have adhered very closely to the save rule.  Has there ever been a manager who uses his B guy to protect a 3 run lead in the 9th but brings in the A guy when tied, frequently?  I don't think so.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

59 minutes ago, SteveA said:

True but there is a distinction between only using a guy in the 9th and adhering strictly to the save rule.  A tie game or even down by 1 in the top of the 9th is a much higher leverage situation than up 3 runs.

Most of the relievers who have been used nearly exclusively in the 9th have adhered very closely to the save rule.  Has there ever been a manager who uses his B guy to protect a 3 run lead in the 9th but brings in the A guy when tied, frequently?  I don't think so.

 

Yes, l at least implied that there are other theoretical use patterns that could bump up LI higher. But nobody has ever done that.  Almost no pre-1980 firemen had really high LIs.  No setup men, theoretically freed from save rule constraints, has ever had a big LI.

Personally I'd use my best reliever for -1 to +2 situations, mostly in the 9th, occasionally the 8th, before that in bizarro/rare/weird circumstances.

[Oriole1940]

While,  of course the Manager has to manage looking at the big picture and not JUST  THE  NOW,  still in a Winnable game, he should bring in, who in his opinion is the most likely to help him  win the game, NOW.     Esp, for a team which figures to lose 90+ games since there will not be that many Winnable games in the late innings.  .  

[Frobby]

Hyde weighs in:

Hyde has bigger concerns than designating a closer, but the subject always comes up in spring training. No one has emerged as the favorite. It could be one guy or several.

“I think, ideally, you’d like to have roles defined,” Hyde said.

“I think that we have guys who are able to pitch in the ninth inning. I’m looking for guys to be able to pitch the ninth inning and we’ll go from there. But when you have an Aroldis Chapman or a Mariano Rivera, those types of guys, yeah, you want them to pitch the ninth inning. That’s their role. We’re just not there yet, so right now the ninth inning is wide open and we’ll do the best we can and we’ll see what we have. We’ll see who can handle that situation and who we feel like is the best matchup, whoever we’re going to face in the ninth.

“In an ideal world you have a lights-out closer that when you give him the ball to in the ninth inning, you’ve got a high percentage chance of winning the game.”

https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2021/02/hyde-on-mancini-harvey-hernandez-jones-the-infield-and-more.html

[Philip]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But you're missing the point that NOW isn't everything.  You can't manage a baseball team over a 162 game schedule like NOW is all that matters.

On average saving your best pitcher for the ninth is the most effective way to use your relievers.  Sometimes it's not, but generally it is.  Look at the Orioles closers of the past decade, almost every year the closer has the highest leverage index on the team.  It's not Darren O'Day coming in whenever to set up and shut down the opponent.  It's Jim Johnson and Zach Britton, used almost exclusively in the 9th.  Look at the top pitchers in all time single season LI.  The top 50 are all closers with 20+ saves since 1980, and 90% of the list are closers since 1990.  The highest leverage index of all time (min 50 games) is Troy Percival in 2000, when 47 of his 54 appearances were in the 9th inning and had an LI of 2.575. 

When Elroy Face came in as a fireman whenever he was needed, whatever inning that might be in 1959 when he was 18-1, his LI was 1.8.  And in his whole career he only cleared 2.00 twice.

Using a 9th-inning closer might not be theoretically the most efficient and effective way to use a reliever, but it's produced almost all of the highest leverage indexes of all time in real game situations.

Well, don’t forget that both Britton and Johnson had historic seasons. They were outside the norm enough to be among the best in history, and I think Britton’s was the best in history. Plus both of them had virtues that are absent from our bullpen. Tanner Scott has turned out to be better than I expected but he still walks too many and is too variable to be a reliable closer.

i understand where you’re coming from, but I stand by the contention that a “dedicated closer” is unnecessarily limiting and, especially with our bullpen, a disaster waiting to happen.