The Closer Role Is Slowly Dying
Last night, with the Red Sox and Rays tied 5-5 in the seventh inning, Kevin Cash brought Brad Boxberger into the game. On the one hand, this was a bit weird, because Boxberger has been serving as the Rays closer while Jake McGee is on the shelf, pitching exclusively in the ninth (or 10th) inning so far this year. On the other hand, it was a bit awesome, because Cash recognized that there might not be a higher leverage situation in that game than facing David Ortiz, Hanley Ramirez, and Mike Napoli with the score tied.
Rather than risk a weaker member of his bullpen giving up the lead to Boston’s best hitters, Cash went with his relief ace, and Boxberger responded by striking out the side. The Rays then took a two run in the bottom of the seventh inning, and after regular setup man Kevin Jepsen pitched the 8th, the Rays handed the ball to Steve Geltz to pitch the ninth inning, where he recorded the first save of his career.
After the game, Boxberger said this to MLB.com about his usage.
“It’s a little bit different than the rest of the year has gone,” Boxberger said. “But Cash told me and [Kevin] Jepsen a little bit earlier that we’re just going to try and preserve anything we have.”
And preserve they did.“It obviously worked out tonight and this was the first go of it,” Boxberger said. “So it’s a little bit different for us, but I think going forward it’s going to help keep us in some more ballgames. Just do what we can to win some.”
The idea of the ninth inning holding special powers where only the chosen can pitch has been propped up by a few decades of everyone treating it that way, but slowly, teams are starting to shift away from that rigid structure. While there may be enough value in having predetermined usage patterns to keep from going all the way back to pre-closer relief usage, it seems that it is more efficient to have the flexibility to at least make exceptions to the ninth-inning-only idea. Different isn’t always received well, but as more outings like Boxberger’s occur and random middle relievers start converting lower leverage saves, the idea of the sanctity of the ninth inning will wear off.
This change will likely occur at a glacier pace, but it is beginning.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Hallelujah!
Don’t celebrate so quickly.
1) Brad Boxberger is not a Proven Closer™. He’s got 7 career saves scattered over 3 seasons. This is worlds apart from doing the same thing with Papelbon or KRod or Nathan or Kimbrel or Rodney or Street.
2) It’s the Rays, who haven’t had a problem defying baseball orthodoxy. Looks like their rookie GM and rookie manager might continue that.
Yeah, this is a bit of a clickbait title. It should have read “One very tiny data point that suggests the slightest of weaknesses in the continuing role of the closer”, but then who would have clicked?
Click here to see this one crazy trick that could mean the end to closers as we know them (Obama HATES this!)
Exactly. BTW, is no one here old enough to remember the rash of “Death of the Closer” articles in the early 2000s when the Red Sox announced they were not going to have a closer?
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2013/04/25/ten-years-later-revisiting-merits-closer-comm
Don’t you mean the Kenyan Usurper?
Molitor did much the same thing the other night with Perkins — brought him in to a tie game, on the road, in the 8th, with the winning run on 3rd and Moustakas at the plate. Didn’t work out, but it was gratifying to see some flexible thinking.
I would counter last night’s Padres Rockies game, when Craig Kimbrel was left in the bullpen in the 9th inning of a tied game on the road and Shawn Kelley took the loss for them. But I sure hope you’re right Dave.
I still have that vision of The Braves season ending a couple years ago in the LCS w Kimbrell standing in the bullpen at Dodger Stadium watching Uribe hit the series winning homer off some inferior reliever bad cause Fredi was saving him for the 9th.
Relax, Fredi isn’t going to lose the Braves any playoff games any time soon.
Matheny blew a game in D.C. night before last by never pitching Rosenthal and using his worst reliever, Carlos Villanueva, to pitch the 10th…or at least that part of the 10th until he gave up the game-winning bomb.
Skip isn’t gonna waste Rosey on any non-save chances. No matter what’s on the line.
The real savvy teams will use their 4th or 5th best reliever as the “closer” in most situations to absorb all the easy up-by-three-in-the-ninth saves that make them more expensive in arbitration, and then flip the “proven closer” for something more valuable.
That saves the real relief aces for the high leverage situations, and keeps the cost down longer.
Wrong.
If you check the average leverage index at the end of the season for teams that had one pitcher serve as the closer the whole year, you’ll find that about 80% – 90% of the time that the closer has the highest leverage index, i.e. pitches on average the most crucial innings.
It makes lots of sense to change the usage of the best reliever. It does not make sense to intentionally use one’s 4th or 5th best reliever for ninth inning save situations (ahead by 1-3 runs).
The really savvy teams prop up discarded or disgraced closers with inflated numbers and oversell them to desperate rubes at the trade deadline.
Care to provide examples?
Sergio Santos, George Sherrill, Matt Capps, Octavio Dotel, John Rauch, Kevin Gregg, Jose Veras, Dannys Baez.
john gibbons has donethis several times this year as well.
Yes. Not quite as obvious because there isn’t the clear cut closer role, but Gibbons has flipped between Castro and Cecil based upon matchups.
And of course its the Rays setting the trend 🙂
Areas that need to be researched:
1.Designated roles (as you mentioned)
2. “closer mindset.”
3 effectiveness starting an inning vs coming in during the middle.
4. Does the “threat” of a big time closer have any effect on opposing batters in the earlier innings? (I would think unlikely, but possible)
Logic dictates that bringing Chapman in the 7th inning of a tie game with 2 men on base is worth more than saving him for the 9th. I do wonder if it is really a more complicated calculation to figure out when to use him.
Since Chapman previously demonstrated in spring trainings the ability to pitch multiple innings, and the Reds bullpen is largely worthless aside from the Missile, it’s would seem really obvious to bring him in anytime Cincy has a one or two run lead in the eighth. It won’t be often that he would face the same batter twice in two innings.
The only thing that could have made this better is if Cash, when asked (if asked) by the press after the game why he did it, had said “because we needed our closer to get us through that tough inning. We brought Boxberger in to save the game for us with the middle of the Red Sox order coming up, and that’s what he did.”
Another issue is going to be money. Closers get paid, and there are plenty of guys who are already reluctantly made into relievers after being starters. If you start to split up saves to where three guys on a team have double digits with no real closer, then things can get prickly with the system. But that’s a necessary process of undoing the save and it’s arbitrary value. Basically what I’m saying is I bet the MLBPA could become irritated by shaking up roles.
MLB should consider dropping the term “Hold” and just call that a “Save”. That way this idea that the ninth inn is special would eventually fade out. Also change the definition of save to include protecting a tie.
Save usually doesn’t make sense. What is being saved? I can see the term making sense if you come in with the winning run on base. Getting three outs up three and declaring that you’ve saved the game is ridiculous.
I like this concept. Simple but would likely accomplish alot. Except the tie part. Dont like that personally.
However would that then make middle guys garner larger salaries due to having a counting stat to refer to in arb?
I think the arb process, or at least the factors considered in an arb case need an overhaul and it would fix alot of the less than ideal usage issues in baseball. If they used less usage/team dependent numbers the players would stand to gain alot in many cases. At the least it would eliminate the ability for team to artificially hold players costs down.
I will say for years I resisted the notion of a strict closer. And still do in many cases. But there is a psychological effect to the ninth inning that some guys just cant get past. Working without a safety net. That can be particularly unsettling to the human mind.
The effect is not by any means universal, but it does exist. I do think a certain mental fortitude is required for late inning relief pitching, and that effect increases the later the game gets.
I think the wisest thing is to not have any hard rules, but use your players in the manner that best fits thier physical AND mental skills/shortcomings. For some teams, a designated closer may be best. For others, playing matchups may be best.
You can’t tell me though that having a dominant 9th inning closer (Vintage Mo/Eck, Chapman, etc) doesn’t impact the opposing team mentally. As in “this game is over, no chance”. I think you lessen that edge when you bring said pitcher in in the 8th. However, if the 8th has your 3-5 hitters due up and the 9th you bottom third, then maybe that mental edge doesn’t offset the physical advantage.
There IS no one right way to do it.
You are correct, Fothead. Every chance I get (and I’ve had 5-7) I ask major-league players and managers about closer usage, and they all agree: the ninth inning IS different and pitchers like to know their roles.
This phenomenon is known as the “self-fulfilling prophecy”.
Whatever it is, it exists. I know DC has no shame but saying the closer role is slowly sitting is like saying a Newburgh
newborn is slowly dying. Both true, but trivial.
Ugh newborn
I think starters are actually outdated also. I would think keeping pitchers to a couple innings and doing it more matchup based would be the best idea. You could toy with who you start, maybe switching after one batter even, to render all their platoon bats useless. You could put a team with a lot of lefties in tough spots by making them pinch hit earlier, etc.
I’ve long wondered when this is going to start happening. I’ve also wondered if, hypothetically, every team turns to a “relief ace” strategy instead of the “ninth inning guy” strategy, except for one team, such that there is only one contender for the league lead in saves, does that one closer get picked in the first round of a fantasy baseball draft?
Saves pay more money in arbitration, and as long as that’s the case there will likely be closers.
Bryan Price. Paging Bryan Price.
Hogwash, Frankie is my 9th inning guy!
This is probably premature. Joe Maddon is as progressive as managers get, and even he seems unwilling to break free from the middle relief->setup->closer paradigm. Just last week, Edwin Jackson gave up a lead in the seventh inning and left Maddon with one out and men on 2nd and 3rd in a tied game, and who did he bring in to put out the fire? Brian Schlitter. It was a middle relief inning, you see.