Comments on: Closers do nothing to help teams hold ninth inning leads

By: coneyisler

coneyisler — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:04:11 +0000

I think Billy Beane also said the system makes little sense but to change it will take some team trying a different approach, having success, and then being copied. I’m curious if any managers have evolved in this approach.

By: sammydog99

sammydog99 — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 06:08:59 +0000

Since a comparison of complete games from that era to the game as played today shows a dramatic reduction to very, very few, then the real purpose of relief pitching would seem to be to save the starters, presumably to extend their careers. It would be interesting if Mr. Posnanski could compare the career longevity of starting pitchers of each era. Does the modern pitcher last for more seasons, pitch more innings overall, more “quality” starts?

I agree with the other posters above. The closers have got a good thing going, don’t let the cat out of the bag…

By: redwards29a

redwards29a — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 01:15:44 +0000

Didn’t Billy Beane tell Michael Lewis that he knew closers were useless and the A’s used to build up closers’ resumes and get them lots of saves just so they could sell them off to other teams?

By: coneyisler

coneyisler — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:51:33 +0000

Thank you to Joe Posnansky for helping to destroy the myth of relief pitching that has grown in recent years. My pet peeve about how baseball has evolved in recent times is all about relief pitching. Here’s the problem as I see it: To buy into the entire closer role, you have to believe that runs given up in the ninth inning are somehow worth more than runs given up in earlier innings. Clearly, this isn’t true. I know I’m not the first one to say this but…Wouldn’t it make more sense for the manager to determine the most opportune moment to use a team’s best relief pitcher and use him then?, as opposed to using him every night in the ninth inning? I’ve sat at Fenway Park many times in recent years, watching a game where the Sox are tied, or up or down by a run in the seventh, the first two runners get on, the starter’s ready to come out and…in comes the team’s fourth or fifth best relief pitcher. The game is on the line here, it’s going to be decided here…and it’s in the hands of a pitcher who, frankly, well, I’d rather not have the game in his hands. Then I’ll watch Papelbon come in time after time to cheers and music into a game in the ninth inning where the Sox have a 3 run lead and their chances of winning the game regardless of who comes in is about 98 percent! I’ve never understood how this makes sense.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:03:05 +0000

It is not that amazing if you consider that the odds of a trailing team taking the lead during any given inning is probably era invariant because that relies on relative scoring of teams and not absolute scoring and that the probability of such an event appears to be 4.5%.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:44:57 +0000

Lower scoring games should lead to more close games and therefor more chances for ninth inning comebacks. The amazing thing is that this 9th inning stat is consistent throughout the history of baseball regardless of the era or style of play, not just for 1952 and 2010.

By: frankvzappa

frankvzappa — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:28:58 +0000

he must not have factored in the 2010 Red Sox…release Papelbum!

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 01:31:59 +0000

There are many differences between 1952 baseball and 2010 baseball, not the least of which is the sacrifice of defense for offense. A 1952 lineup had many defensive specialists and was probably 4 deep at the most. A 2010 lineup is mostly offensive specialists with few holes in the lineup. If there was no specialization in pitcher usage (i.e. closers), it is quite possible that teams now would hold 9th inning leads much less often than they did in 1952; and, that the change in pitcher usage has negated the effects of poorer defense, increased offense, and smaller parks.

By: jetersusedjersey

jetersusedjersey — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 01:24:34 +0000

Tell the 91 Pirates that closers don’t make a difference.

By: Richard In Big D

Richard In Big D — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:39:48 +0000

Your point makes some sense, but, in theory, closers are only used in close situations (3 or fewer run lead going into the ninth). Therefore, the losing team, behind after 8, would have a fresher closer than you, tomorrow…

By: saints97

saints97 — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:13:36 +0000

His research and conclusions are based on flawed logic. Holding leads in the 9th inning is not an indication of the efficacy of bullpen specialization at all, unless you assume that only one team is using bullpen specialization. If in 1952 both pitchers give up 5 runs in the 9th, the team leading would still win. And in 2010, if both teams score no runs in the 9th, the team leading wins. Does that mean you have the same degree of success of by using specialized pitchers?

I think you would need to know 9th inning ERA to be able to make an accurate judgment. He may still be right, but the data he used does not prove that using a top notch pitcher in the 9th has not helped.

Otherwise, though, it was a very interesting article about how little variance there is in teams holding on to 9th inning leads.