Closer Meltdown Overload
Jonathan Papelbon: 2 IP, 4 H, 3 R, 2 BB, 1 K
Joe Nathan: 2 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 2 K
Huston Street: 2 2/3 IP, 6 H, 4 R, 3 BB, 1 K
Ryan Franklin: 1 1/3 IP, 3 H, 2 R, 2 BB, 1 K
Total: 8 IP, 18 H, 11 R, 8 BB, 5 K
That’s the combined performance of the closers for the four teams who got eliminated in the first round of the playoffs this year. The complete inability for teams to shut the door in the ninth inning was by far the overriding story of the division series match-ups. The Red Sox, Cardinals, and Rockies were all eliminated in games where their closers had a final meltdown on the mound, snatching defeat from the jaws victory.
Of note is that the two teams that entered the playoffs with the most questions surrounding their closers – the Phillies (Brad Lidge) and the Angels (Brian Fuentes) – were able to skate through the first round without any problems, as the supposedly reliable closers (non-Mariano Rivera division) were the ones who ended up having problems.
St. Louis perhaps should have seen this coming – Ryan Franklin isn’t anyone’s definition of a relief ace, and his first performance was about as fluky as it gets. Trusting him with the game on the line isn’t really wisdom, regardless of what his seasonal ERA was. He’s still Ryan Franklin, after all. The other three, however, have been among the best relievers in the game for years.
There was no reason for the Twins to be concerned about Joe Nathan. Papelbon’s command got worse this year, but he was still blowing hitters away. Street posted the best BB/K of his career, and looked to re-establish himself as an elite closer. All three were proven closers. And all three were significant reasons why their teams are sitting at home right now.
Everyone knows this by now, but relief pitchers are just remarkably unreliable. That point was driven home with emphasis in the first round. Don’t pay premiums for the mystical powers of a ninth inning reliever. The guys who have proven they “have it” can implode at the worst possible time, too.
25
Playoff pitching in general is just so fluky. It seems no matter how good a team’s pitching staff looks, they always give up crucial hits. It was a shame in the Rockies game because their offense tried so hard and put them back in the lead, and one of the season’s most steady closers just couldn’t get it done.
And the Rockies scored their go ahead runs off Madson.
I’m glad you did this, Dave, b/c if the first round was notable for one thing, it was poor pitching at the end of games. It should also be noted that Mariano Rivera wasn’t exactly Rivera-like and the Yankees won as much despite him as b/c of him. And the Phils managed to survive Lidge more than survive b/c of Lidge.
wait, what?
b/c Mo gave up the hit to Span?
he pitched 3.2 IP, had 7 K’s, 1 BB and a 0.00 ERA.
ok, maybe he wasn’t as sharp as we are accustomed to seeing him, but this:
“Yankees won as much despite him as b/c of him” is borderline lunacy.
“Non-Mariano Rivera Division” You mean the division that includes guys that did not blow game 7′s in the World Series? Even the best closers (Rivera) blow games from time to time. This is just another reason why it is so difficult predict post season success.
Isn’t it a bit obvious to state that teams with poor 9th inning pitching performances also lost a 5-game series? Yeah…duh. The teams that also scored the most runs won their respective series.
And I don’t think it’s fair to say that relievers are remarkably unreliable. The sample size of a 5-game playoff series just exposes the random fluctuation in pitching performances a lot more than a 162-game season does.
Those are 4 pretty good relievers. The point isn’t that “teams with poor 9th inning pitching performances also lost a 5-game series,” but that you wouldn’t have expected these pitchers to have those poor performances.
“It should also be noted that Mariano Rivera wasn’t exactly Rivera-like and the Yankees won as much despite him as b/c of him. ”
What are you talking about? Mo pitched to 14 batters, struck out 7 of them, walked just 1; gave up 4 hits, and had a 0.00 ERA over 3.2 innings.
In the playoffs you’re playing more proven offenses. Teams that get to the playoffs are teams that are able to overcome adversity. The risk of getting beaten whether you’re Jon Papelbon or Chris Carpenter is greater when the playoffs roll around.
Also I agree with the sample size. Look at all the top starting pitchers who lost: Lester, Beckett, Carpenter. Are they suspect as well?
If you are a top-tier closer you save close to 90%. take away all the garbage offense you close out games against, and one could say 80% against really good lineups (or middle orders of a bad team even), is solid. Right there you have a 4:1 chance of saving the game in the playoffs with a top closer. At no time is that a sure thing and nobody in their right mind should believe it. But the fact is, all the teams who made the playoffs had a closer who either a) performed well all year (street, franklin), or b) had a track record of past closing success (lidge, fuentes). The rest had both (nathan, rivera, papelbon).
The fact is, you don’t even get to the playoffs without a closer. So pay for him. Playoffs, as everybody knows, is a crapshoot.
Are the Twins better off paying Joe Nathan 12.5 million a year or putting that money towards giving Mauer a long term contract? Should the Red Sox give Papelbon a huge contract or should they let him walk and promote Bard to the role? The Phillies paid Brad Lidge 11.5 million this year, imagine if they could have put this towards a bench bat and an above average reliever. Hell gaining a first round draft pick is worth letting a top closer walk.
Teams only have so much money to spend, so while have a closer that is 10% more efficient at saving games is great, paying him a premium is not. No is saying running out a bad pitcher in close games in the 9th is a good idea, which Dave addressed in his article when talking about Franklin, but utilizing good, cheap pitchers makes a more sense–how much bad do you think the Cards want Luke Gregerson back?
I disagree. If a team is built to win now, like the Phils, they can’t afford to spend the first half of the season trying to find Aardsma. The one or two games that are blown along the way could be the difference between making the playoffs and missing them. Relievers with a good track record are more likely to continue to pitch well than those with a bad track record. That added assurance is worth $10 million to a team like the Phils. Otherwise, I agree, a middle of the pack team and certainly a bad team shouldn’t pay for a closer; they have more pressing needs.
In the Twins case, they are better off signing Nathan and signing Mauer to a long team deal. Their ownership has been given a brand new stadium; maybe its time they put some more of their own money into the team.
The fact is, though, Joe Nathan is the best reliever on the Twins’ staff. Even if the idea of a “closer” is overrated, what could the Twins have done differently, short of give up their entire farm system for an even better reliever (if that were even possible)? Your argument for years has been that closers are overrated. So when some of the best closers in the league fail, your argument is now “closers are overrated because they often fail in the playoffs”. Well wouldn’t a worse reliever have been even more likely to fail?
My POV is – sure, over the course of an entire season, even an above average reliever will be able to convert nearly all of his 3-run save opportunities, and a fair number of 2- and 1-run opportunities too. The difference between Joe Nathan and Miguel Batista, over a whole season, is only 2 wins, a lot less than most people would imagine.
But in the playoffs, if anything, this difference is hugely magnified. If Joe Nathan has a 95% chance to hold a 3-run lead in the 9th inning, but Miguel Batista has only a 90% chance – in the regular season, it’s maybe not worth it to pay Nathan an extra $10 million a year (if he were a free agent theoretically). But in the playoffs – maybe it is.
I think you picked the wrong game to make this argument. Even if closers are overrated, the fact is Nathan is the team’s best reliever, and this was an extremely high leverage situation – they made the right decision. What you should have done is look at the Rockies – Phillies game. Huston Street has terrible platoon splits in K/9 and BB/9. Against 2 of the best left-handed hitters in the game, don’t you want to see a lefty on the mound (namely, Joe Beimel)? There, you could make a compelling argument that Street’s “closer” status directly caused the Rockies to lose the game, because he wasn’t the right guy to have on the mound in that situation.
“Even if the idea of a “closer” is overrated, what could the Twins have done differently, short of give up their entire farm system for an even better reliever (if that were even possible)?”
Umm, if relievers are overvalued, maybe trade a nice-but-inessential piece for an undervalued but useful position player? You know, if you score enough runs, your closer becomes unimportant.
As an A’s fan, I’m not shocked by Street not being great. He always seemed to make me nervous when he took the mound. Granted, he pitched better this year than last year with the A’s, but he was never an Eck. That said, I just reinforced Cameron’s point: Eck had a few of the greatest seasons in relief history, and yet his postseason moments were not always ones I like to remember.
“Everyone knows this by now, but relief pitchers are just remarkably unreliable.”
Incorrect.
Should read:
“Everyone knows this by now, but small sample sizes are just remarkably unreliable.”
Look at Joe Nathan’s B-Ref page and tell me that his career numbers are “unreliable.”
Exactly my point. Well said.
It all depends on what people mean by “reliable.” If it means converting a very high percentage of save opportunities, most “elite” closers are reliable. If it means incapable of blowing a particular save opportunity, then nobody is reliable.
As to the latter, then yes: no baseball player, period, is reliable in that sense. As in, Albert Pujols cannot “reliably” go 2 for 5 in a 1 game, 5 PA sample.
“The Red Sox, Cardinals, and Rockies were all eliminated in games where their closers had a final meltdown on the mound, snatching defeat from the jaws victory.”
This is not true. Franklin’s “meltdown” took place in game two. He actually pitched a scoreless inning in game three, which they lost 5-1, with four runs being given up early by the starter, Pineiro.
In my view, the argument is being stated incorrectly. It is not a question of relievers being unreliable or of small sample sizes. Rather the issue is the very concept of the “closer”.
It is important for teams to have effective relievers. And they should be used to maximize that effectiveness, whether that is by gaining the best matchups or simply using the best pitchers in the most crucial situations.
If Nathan, Street, Pabelbon and Franklin were the best relievers on their respective teams, they should be in when the game is most on the line, whether that is the 9th inning or the 6th. And if they are struggling, they should be relieved just as an ace starter who struggles will be relieved.
Of course a manager might trust his best reliever to work out of difficulty more often than he would a lesser pitcher, just as he might leave a struggling ace on the mound longer than his #5, but to keep the closer in when his control deserts him or when the matchup is extremely unfavorable is a lunatic devotion to an artificial concept of roles and to egos.
I’m really glad you made the point of how overrated Closers are. I am under the firm belief that a team can take almost any young pitcher that has a 95+ MPH fastball and make him their closer. The statistics for closers will offer almost no insight here as they are flawed to begin with. The run differential in each game makes a huge difference in each scenario as mentioned earlier. I have been looking at closers recently and have been trying to find some X-factor that determines whether they are successful or not. There have been many instances in which a closer is dominant one year then falls apart the next, i.e. Eric Gagne and Brad Lidge. I have not been able to find any discrepancies in their stats or pitch choice that would give a cause to this downfall with the obvious exceptions of more earned runs and fewer saves.It seems there have really only 2 closers recently who have been able to be great there entire career, Mariano Rivera, and Trevor Hoffman. If anyone has any suggestions at to what might cause these drop offs I would greatly appreciate it.
I agree, the Royals should definitely make Kyle Farnsworth their closer next year!
I would have agreed with this until this year, but now I’m not so sure. The cause for my uncertainty was comments made by Madson on local TV discussing how much harder, err mentally challenging, the ninth inning role was.
The guys are only human and the ninth does lead to more pressure.
So I no longer think you can grab any major league relief pitcher (even one with a track record of being somewhat above average) and let him try the ninth. Some guys can’t handle the high leverage situations, and specifically will let a poor result impact their next appearances.
In a game from the early summer, Phil Coke closed out a game despite struggling and looked as if he had been through hell during his postgame interview. Coke pretty much said that “closing” the game was exponentially more intense than a tight situation in an earlier inning. As much as we would like to think that everything is quantifiable, psychology also plays a role. It would be foolish to ignore that part of the game.
I would bet anything that if Seattle went out and signed a high priced closer, Cameron would tout it as a smart move somehow… lol
Step 1: build an extreme pitcher’s park
Step 2: build a terrific defensive team
Step 3: make some random fireballer with no experience your closer
Step 3 just isn’t so easy if you skip steps 1 and 2.
The Rockies and the Twins wouldn’t have even been in the playoffs if it weren’t for their closers locking down games in the 9th. Street was probably the 2nd best closer in the NL and Nathan.
There really aren’t any lessons that can be drawn about closers from this series, or hitters whose names don’t rhyme with “Mallex Broadtreeguess”. Is Pujols not an “elite” slugger because he didn’t hit a single homer?
When people say “any reliever with a good fastball can be a closer” that’s just silly. Look at Jim Johnson’s or Mike MacDougal’s seasons. Absolutely horrible by any metric and those were still probably the two best relievers on the team.
and Nathan was the 2nd best in the AL was what I meant to say.
I don’t know if that was a remark to my statement but if it is, Jim Johnson does not throw 95+ and Mike MacDougal and Johnson both played for the weak, which means as a weaker team they are more likely to have more 1 run save situations than a better team.
OK, he throws 94+ http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=3656&position=P&pitch=FA . Even if he added an extra 1-2 MPH it wouldn’t make up for his poor command, 6.3 K/9, 4.11 ERA, and 1.47 WHIP. When he lost he also got hit HARD…to the tune of a 17.47 ERA. When he got the save he recorded a 1.46 ERA, so even in one-run games he’d be effective.
MacDougal also walks more people than he strikeouts. In no world is he a good pitcher. The one-run factor doesn’t really apply to him because he only had one blown save this year. It’s pure luck that he wasn’t worse than Brad Lidge.
Ok, so you can’t take ANYONE with a mid90s fastball and make them a closer, but if the particular pitcher has decent command to go along with it, they can make a solid closer. MacDougal’s command is terrible, but take guys like Fernando Rodney and David Aardsma: good stuff, average command, mediocre career numbers; very solid 2009 closer seasons. Those two pitchers gave their teams what a top-flight closer would’ve given them at a fraction of the cost. That’s the real lesson to be learned here; not that Nathan and Papelbon suck, or that their bad games means they can’t handle the pressure. It just illustrates how little difference there is sometimes between an elite closer and a journeyman thrust into the role. Thus, investing a boatload of cash on a premier closer isn’t usually a smart idea.
I kind of disagree, following up on the comments above by Bobo and Will. Look Madson has a plus fastball and a plus off spead pitch, but he didn’t do terribly well closing out games for the Phils (over a small sample size). He is certainly an example of an above average major league relief pitcher. I don’t think a ‘journeyman’ is the way to go in that role in real life, however, there are probaby a lot more guys that can do, but have never been given the chance.
While it is true that it is possible to find great value in the closer role, this is technically true at every position. Ben Zobrist and Jason Kubel both had excellent offensive years this year despite mediocre careers otherwise. However, that does not mean that spending money on offense is always a bad idea. While there is nothing wrong with giving young pitchers or journeymen a chance to close if they have been effective in other roles, I don’t think it’s a good idea for teams to go into the season with a bunch of unproven pitchers in their bullpen. You don’t want to overpay for closers because of their number of saves, but you do need proven relievers on their team. It’s the same situation with every position. You want to get the best value you can get. If you assume you’re going to end up with a bullpen full of Fernando Rodneys and an outfield full of Ben Zobrists, you’re going to run into trouble. Sometimes dishing out a little bit of money is necessary, and if you can get a reliable player at an appropriate price, it isn’t wrong to do that.
I have been looking at various closers stats since i first read this and must say I agree with you that accuracy is key to be a solid closer, minimizing walks and maximizing Ks, this probably sounds obvious, but it is the most important aspect to a good closer. That being said, it also shows that it is not a position that a pitcher needs to have amazing stuff to excel at, they need to throw 100% for 1 inning and avoid walking people. A task that is not too hard for any Major League caliber pitcher. There is also the intangible of the pressure put on a closer, but I think that has very little effect on how the closer performs.
I agree with you, but having a high K:BB ratio is not something “any” major league pitcher can do. The Cubs, Phillies, the aforementioned Nats and O’s, and the 2008 Mets all had lots of trouble finding a decent closer even though their roster was full of decent relievers.
I mean, the closer should really just be the best reliever on the team. But often the best reliever on the team isn’t good enough to close.
I’m sorry but I cannot agree with you on the Phillies, they had the worst bullpen in baseball, the only suitable candidate for closer for them is Ryan Madsen who finally was closer at the end of the season once Charlie Manuel decided to stop trusting Lidge who performed horribly the entire season with a -4.54 WPA The same goes for the Orioles who traded away there one possible closer in Sherrill, half of the Orioles bullpen had a negative WPA, and we discussed Johnson earlier. As for the Nats, they avoided having a similar record to that of a team of replacement players with a surge against teams that were resting for the playoffs at the end of the season so their bullpen is not expected to do much. The Mets were hurt by the injury to Putz and the decline of yet another dominant reliever in Rodriguez with the loss of his control. The Cubs primary closer in Gregg also had a negative WPA -1.07 and Marmol also struggled with his control 7.91BB/9
All of these teams struggled from one of the problems mentioned above. The Cubs took their successful closer in Dempster and turned him into a starter, which is where I believe many of the games dominant closers who started their careers as starter should have stayed.
Huh. I was arguing that the Phillies had a terrible bullpen. I agree that Madson is their best reliever and should be their closer, but that doesn’t mean he will succeed in that role. If your premise is true, that it isn’t that hard for a team to find a successful closer from the minor leagues/major league roster, then why do teams like the 2008 Mets or the Phillies or the Cubs this struggle so much finding a closer? Don’t get me wrong, I think K-Rod was the 2nd worst deal Omar made in the off-season (after Perez) and Darren O’day should have been their closer this year. For what they paid K-Rod they could’ve had Adam Dunn AND Bobby Abreu.
By pointing out how bad the Cubs and Mets (with their $100mill+ payroll) had so much trouble filling the closer role, aren’t you agreeing with my conclusion?
George Sherill was an All-Star closer and really sick. No argument there.
The reason the Nats had a late season surge was that they were under-performing their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pythagorean win-loss record. Then they started to catch up to it, like the Rockies did. MacDougal got the job in mid-June, well before teams were resting their starters, and his first two saves came against the Yankees.
I don’t think I am proving it by saying the Cubs and Mets had trouble finding a closer, there are certain broad aspects that a closer needs to have, mainly the ability to throw fast with good accuracy which many Major League pitchers possess. The players on the Cubs and Mets who fit that criteria were not chosen to close so we unfortunately don’t have much data to go by. I think Jeff Samardzia could become a good closer if the Cubs put him in that role. He would be able to hone his fastball more and maybe his slider as well, and not worry about his other pitches which seems to be his downfall (he has a lot of okay pitches, but no great ones). As for the Mets, aside from Rodriguez who for some reason decided to stop throwing a slider, Putz, and Wagner, who were both injured did not have anyone in their bullpen that had the skill set to put into a closer role. They could have converted a starter into a closer, but they did not have the rotation depth to do that. Furthermore, they paid top dollar for Rodriguez so they weren’t going to take him out of the closer role for anything short of a broken arm. The Mets suffer from the problem of over paying for deteriorating talent and sticking with them which prohibits them from winning overall. They certainly did overpay for Rodriguez, but I think most teams do overpay for closers. They are usually coming off a 3 season run of great play, and then they seem to fall apart after that. It is definitely a better value overall to take a 3 or 4 fastball starter and make him the closer, as the Red Sox did with Jonathan Papelbon.
I meant the 2008 Mets. That year heir bullpen cost the team a playoff berth and possibly a CYA for Johan. K-Rod was decent this year, but he was still pretty bad. He didn’t do anything to warrant losing the closing job, aside from giving up multiple walk-off grand slams. They don’t lose year-after-year because they misallocate their resources. Their really talented players, the core (Johan, Reyes, Beltran), aren’t being overpaid for; just the garbage around them. They were the Vegas favorite to win the division this year and missed the playoffs in 07 and 08 by ONE GAME each year. Losing 5 +4 win players would really hurt any team. It’s really just bad luck.
Yea, I agree that good closers usually have a plus fastball and a good secondary pitch (or in the case of someone like Lidge, a really plus slider and a pretty minus fastball). I also don’t think you should pay for saves (unless they’re coming from Mo, Nathan, or Hoffman); I just don’t agree it’s that easy to find a closer. Does anyone really think the Rockies would have made the playoffs this year if they didn’t have Huston Street and Betancourt was their closer?
What the A’s did with Andrew Bailey was extremely impressive. But most other teams aren’t as good as evaluating players. He’s extremely talented and will get ROTY votes for a reason.
Michael, you are factually incorrect on claiming the Phillies had the worst bullpen in baseball, and by a wide margin. They are pretty much dead in the middle of all MLB teams with regard to FIP, BAPIP, and WPA, as reported for their relievers on this site.
When the game’s on the line and you’ve got 50k fans screaming — for and against you — most guys tend to grip the ball a bit tighter.
When the game’s on the line and you’ve got 50k fans screaming — for and against you — most guys tend to grip the ball a bit tighter.
I wouldn’t doubt for a second that this is most probably true. Sometimes though, the game is on the line in the 7th or 8th inning, because this silly game has a batting lineup and sometimes the best hitters aren’t at the plate in the 9th inning. But, saving your best reliever for the 9th when, say, Albert Pujols is batting in the 8th has never made much sense to me.
The 2008 Mets bullpen is very comprable to the 2009 Phillies bullpen, only the Phillies had enough offensive support to avoid it having a major impact on them, unlike the Mets. I consider Carlos Delgado a player that was overpaid who did not perform, and David Murphy certainly underperformed this year too. The Mets core is certainly a great starting place, but they struggle in surrounding them with supporting players, none of their prospects have panned out as expected and David Murphy belongs in the American League as a DH, but is forced to counter his positive offensive impacts with poor fielding.
As for the Rockies, while I think it is a little ridiculous ask a hypothetical such as if Street weren’t around, I’ll still indulge you. I am assuming we it would be just as if the Holiday for Street trade never happened. I do think that the Rockies would have still made the playoffs. Holiday’s offensive presence would negate any loss that would occur from having Betancourt or another reliever as closer. Betancourt and Street had amost identical WAR at 1.4 and 1.5 respectively. The average WAR of Seth Smith 2.8 and Carlos Gonzalez 2.3, who actually wouldn’t be there if Street wasn’t is approximately 2.55 so lets just go with Smith’s WAR of 2.8, while Matt Holiday’s WAR was 5.6. The Rockies actually would have been better off if they did not make the trade and Street wasn’t there, atleast in the short run, they also might have tried harder to resign Fuentes if they did not trade for Street, but we’ll never actually know.
What are you talking about? Although Lidge was atrocious this year, the rest of the bullpen was pretty good. Overall, the Phillies had an average bullpen, while the Mets last year was well below average.
They couldn’t afford to keep Holliday and resign Fuentes or another FA closer. Street was only $4.5 mill, one mill less than Fuentes. Fuentes is also pretty bad and Street is way better. The other two guys in the trade make league minimum. Holliday was due $14.5million. Financially it was a good move to trade him since the opportunity cost of having a player who isn’t locked down long term in a division the Rockies could contend in was too high.
WAR seriously undervalues relievers so I don’t think it’s a good metric to use. No major league GM or pitching coach thinks Matt Thornton was the 2nd best RP in baseball this year. Or that David Aardsma is worth the exact same amount as Papelbon, Bell, and more than Soria, who had multiple 2 inning saves. In WPA the top relievers were respectively: Papelbon, Rivera, Nathan, Soria, Street. This sounds right.
And another blow to the “traditional” closer model.
It’s luck in the bullpen, plain and simple.
I think more than anything what this proves is that the postseason is remarkably unreliable and that you shouldn’t overpay for players just because you think they’ll guarantee you postseason success. I’m a Phillies fan, and I remember when a potential Roy Halladay deal was being talked about, a lot of people talked about him as if he guaranteed wins in the postseason, so he was worth the price the Blue Jays were asking for. However, as postseason performances show, nothing is guaranteed, so marginal differences aren’t as important as people often think they are.
Huston Street was also injured and spent a month on the DL. His last save before the postseason started was also extremely ugly. Just saying. There could be more than luck at play here.
Also, @Michael, I was arguing that the 2009 Rockies minus Street would not have made the playoffs. Not the 2009 Rockies minus Street and plus Holliday, who is obviously a lot more valuable than Street. Adding Holliday’s WAR serves as much purpose as adding Albert Pujols’ or some other player who costs 5 million more than Street.