Players’ View: Who Can Handle the Ninth?
(Photo: Arturo Pardavila III)
Not just anyone can close a game. The ninth inning is different than the first eight innings. Along with quality “stuff,” a certain mentality is needed to walk out to the mound and get those last three outs with your team leading by three runs or less.
Or is it?
Managers are typically averse to using someone other than their designated closer in a save situation — they do so only when necessary — but should that really be the case? Could most teams not realistically expect their “second-best reliever” to get those final outs if their “best reliever” was used in a high-leverage situation earlier in the game, and it was prudent to not have him return for the ninth?
I recently asked that question (albeit not always in those exact words) to a cross section of relievers, pitching coaches, and managers. Here is what they had to say.
———
Cody Allen, Cleveland Indians reliever: “I understand that teams want to keep guys in roles — for the most part, even us — although I feel we’re kind of ahead of the curve in terms of usage. There are times we put guys in different situations, because it might be a bigger point in the game.
“If you have guys who have been here for awhile, or if you bring somebody over who’s proven, like we did last year with Andrew [Miller]… that’s a luxury we have that a lot of teams don’t have. [Bryan] Shaw has been here long enough that Tito knows he can handle just about any spot — any part of the lineup, any inning, any circumstance.
“There are absolutely guys out there who can close but haven’t really done it yet. The majority of [closers] don’t come into the league as a closer — they work their way up to that. And if it doesn’t work the first time they do it, that doesn’t mean it’s going to not work every time.”
Neil Allen, Minnesota Twins pitching coach: “You’ve always got to have a guy on the back burner who is normally your setup guy that you can also use as a closer if need be. But not everybody in baseball has the luxury of having a guy who can come in and shut down the game in the seventh inning. The Cleveland Indians have Andrew Miller and Cody Allen. Other teams don’t.
“We’ve got a couple of young men right now. We’ve got Tyler Duffey and we’ve got Taylor Rogers — they’re both having fine years — and would we have a problem with either of them closing if something happened to our closer? No, because they’ve built confidence in us in big situations. At the same time, they’re both young. They’re still learning their trade. One guy [Duffey] is in the bullpen for the first time this year, and the other [Rogers] hadn’t been a reliever until he arrived here last season. It took time for us to understand what they’re capable of, the pressures they can handle. Those guys could do it, because not only do they have good stuff, they’re mentally tough.”
Larry Andersen, Philadelphia Phillies broadcaster, and former reliever: “I don’t know if you can actually tell prior to guys doing it. I use an analogy. If you put a tightrope from the top of the foul pole in right field to the top of the foul pole in left field, and you put a net there, anybody will try it. That’s a setup guy or a middle guy. The closer has to do it without the net. You feel the tension — your whole body tightens up — because one mistake and it’s over. You have to trust that you can walk across that tightrope.
“Everybody has a fear of failure, and very few guys can put that fear of failure out of their mind. As human beings, we don’t want to be the goat. We don’t want to be the guy that let everybody down. Everything that happens prior to the closer coming in is a big part of that game, but because he’s the last one to determine the outcome, he’s looked at as the good guy or the bad guy.”
Tyler Clippard, New York Yankees reliever: “The baseball season is so long that if you go into it with the attitude that you’re going to use your “closer” in the sixth, seventh, eighth, or ninth… for an extended period of time, that formula doesn’t work. That’s regardless of who the pitcher is. Because of the length of the season, and the routines… if you break somebody’s routine on a daily basis, they’re probably not going to perform well.
“As for who can close a game on a given day, anybody can do it. I mean, if they’re in the big leagues, and they’re getting outs in high-leverage situations… in any good bullpen, you have multiple guys doing that. Any one of them can do it for one game, if that’s all you’re asking them to do — especially if he’s going well and has confidence.
“I’ve always approached the last three outs the same way I approach outs in the sixth inning. They’re all important. There are obviously factors — it’s the end of the game, and the crowd is more into it, whatever — but if you’ve got the right mindset, it shouldn’t be that much different.”
John Gibbons, Toronto Blue Jays manager: “You should be able to [trust one of your non-closers], but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. It is a tough inning. But do you know what you will find? So many times, the guy that is setting up for you is the one getting the meat of the lineup more so than the closer is. It’s amazing how that works.
“I was coaching with Tim Worrell a few years ago. He was both a closer and a setup guy. When he was setting up with the Phillies, Billy Wagner was the closer. He told me the [bullpen] phone would ring in the eighth inning, and it was, ‘Worrell is in the game.’ Wags used to look at him and just laugh, because it was the middle of the lineup.”
Brandon Kintzler, Minnesota Twins reliever: “From my own experience, the ninth inning, and that last out, is by far the hardest to get. A few times I’ve had two outs and nobody on, and either lost the game or had to battle to get that third out.
“I’ve done both roles, and I’m not taking that sixth, seventh, or eight inning away from anyone — they’re definitely tough outs to get — but it’s just a different animal in the ninth inning. That said, once guys get to set up a bunch of times, then they can go into the ninth inning and try it out.
“Everyone thinks, ‘He’s a future closer? Why? Because he has good stuff.’ But you have to see what’s inside of him first. It’s not stuff in the ninth inning — it’s what’s inside. That’s the difference.”
Brandon Maurer, San Diego Padres reliever: “I think anybody should be able to. If the opportunity arises, you should be able to go out there and fulfill it. They’re possibly the hardest [outs to get] mentally, but not always. You might be down there toward the bottom of the lineup.
“For a given game, maybe you look at matchups and splits. You look at some numbers. Or maybe you go with your gut, with who you trust that day.”
Blake Parker, Los Angeles Angels reliever: “They always say the last three outs are the hardest to get, but it’s not always against the meat of the order, so there is something to [using your best reliever before the ninth]. You have to learn how to handle situations, and deal with that emotional stress, even when it’s not the ninth inning.
“You always want to be ‘that guy,’ but you always want something to strive toward, as well. You set goals for yourself. You can’t just break in and be a closer. You have to establish yourself a little bit. You have to get some innings under your belt and put up some zeroes. If you pitch the way you’re supposed to, you’ll work your way to the back end. I’d love to close someday.”
Larry Rothschild, New York Yankees pitching coach: “Until you see them in that role, you don’t know. The ninth inning isn’t the same as other innings. As much as people want to believe it is, it just isn’t. There’s a lot that goes into the ninth inning.
“Some guys can actually be better in the ninth inning — they know that it’s three outs and the game is over — but for others, it’s a burden. How do you recognize the guys that can do it? You can say, ‘Well, he’s got the stuff to do it, and the makeup,’ but until you see him do it, you don’t really know.
“Cleveland had three guys that were kind of interchangeable, and if you have that… and the postseason is a different animal altogether. There’s a lot more that goes into it than high-leverage situations, to just bringing the closer in and living with the rest of it. Theoretically, it’s going to be a high-leverage situation later. Can you prove that? No. You know that it’s high-leverage right now, but… it’s a tough thing. If you feel you’ve got guys who can fit that bill, yeah, it becomes easier.”
Mike Scioscia, Los Angeles Angels manager: “It’s going to vary team to team. You have to get into the specifics of who you have. Some guys… I think there’s an emotional bridge to get over, to handle those last three outs, especially when you fail. A lot of eighth-inning guys have that same mentality — they don’t have any problem — but some guys are just more comfortable pitching in the seventh and eighth innings.
“Cleveland did it last year in the playoffs with an incredibly deep bullpen packed with power arms. Any one of them were comfortable pitching in the ninth inning. Some teams aren’t built that way. Our team is more of a matchup pen right now. We have guys we’re looking to have get outs in certain innings.”
Pete Walker, Toronto Blue Jays pitching coach: “You have a designated closer, but I do believe that when certain situations come up in the eighth inning — or even the seventh inning — it’s the highest leverage situation you’ll have. The game is on the line. and you may not get to your closer. I think it’s very valid — it makes a lot of sense — to go that route. Some managers feel comfortable just having that guy for the ninth inning, but I think the more that managers do it, the more it will become a standard.
“[If the closer isn’t available], it’s often who fits that role on a given night. It’s not necessarily just the setup guy. Because of the matchups, and where you are in the lineup, maybe one of the other relievers better fits that role. But no matter who it is, those last three outs — I don’t care if it’s a one-run led or a three-run lead — are some of the toughest ones to get. The pressure of the game, the feeling in the stadium, the adrenaline rush. It is a different animal. Closing out games consistently isn’t easy.”
Justin Wilson, Detroit Tigers reliever: “Just because it’s the ninth… if you get the three outs, the game’s over. That’s the only real difference. I guess the atmosphere isn’t quite the same — the fans, and even sometimes the hitters. Maybe their at-bats are a little bit better in the ninth? The hitters kind of have the same feeling as pitchers do — three outs and the game is over. That’s something I don’t think about, though. I’m just concerned with what I need to do out there, regardless of the inning.”
David Laurila grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and now writes about baseball from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He authored the Prospectus Q&A series at Baseball Prospectus from December 2006-May 2011 before being claimed off waivers by FanGraphs. He can be followed on Twitter @DavidLaurilaQA.
So….clear as mud, then.
I feel it’s fairly clear at this point that it’s essentially the mental side and the fear of being the scapegoat. everyone has their own tolerance to being “the guy that lost the game” and those with low tolerance can’t handle closing.
Every other pitching role has various degrees of success. Closing only has two outcomes. And one of them is the worst outcome possible for any player to handle, losing a close game.
Good stuff!
One thing I’ve always wanted to see is leaguewide statistics/metrics by inning, just to see if hitters and/or pitchers do indeed bear down in that final frame.
Clippard’s quote is weird. He says that you have to stick to roles, then he says that anyone can close and he approaches any three outs the same regardless of inning.
Nice of you to gloss over the words “The baseball season is so long”, “for an extended period of time”, “the length of the season”, “on a daily basis”, and “on a given day”.
What does the length of the season have to do with how relievers are used?
Sure you can’t go all in like the Indians did in the playoffs last year, but not sticking to definitive roles doesn’t rely on any length.
Yeah, you can’t Andrew Miller it every other game and have him pitch 2+ innings, but what’s the difference between going:
7th: RP A
8th: RP B
9th: RP C
vs
7th: RP C
8th: RP B
9th: RP A
The question posed was essentially “Can anyone get the last few outs of the 9th?”
Clippard stated:
“The baseball season is so long that if you go into it with the attitude that you’re going to use your “closer” in the sixth, seventh, eighth, or ninth… for an extended period of time, that formula doesn’t work.”
Why does it matter the length of the schedule if Aroldis Chapman is used in the 9th on Monday and then the 7th on Tuesday instead of the 9th on both Monday and Tuesday?
The only reason he really gave was about breaking routine, and that’s sorta the entire crux of the argument.
Length of season and amount of times doing it totally matters. Most MLB players could get away with playing out of position for one random day, but could a player like SD first baseman play 3b for an entire season? If he wasn’t putting the work in, he would get exposed pretty quickly.
Okay but you aren’t asking the RP to go catch. He is literally being used in the exact same position, just in the 8th inning instead of the 9th.
They aren’t playing out of position, unless “closer” is a position (in which case then 8th inning guy, 7th inning guy, etc… would have to be positions too).
Pitching in the 8th isn’t the same as pitching in the 9th, as many of the players/coaches quoted in this article state, primarily due to the psychological difference.
Trevor Hoffman was noticeably less effective when put in different innings, or even in non-save 9th innings.
Would you say that batting order doesn’t matter? If a hitter is used to hitting leadoff, it is not surprising at all if he has worse stats if moved to a different spot in the order. You can’t just say “it is the exact same situation.” Same with being in the lineup and pinch hitting. It is not all just “hitting.”
Zach Britton could not be reached for comment as he was still warming in the bullpen.
Sounds like the players themselves have bought into the rigid hierarchical roles of the modern 1-IP max bullpen – not just the ninth.
Clippard’s point is really great. It’s good to remember that these are people at work, and they need to be managed like anyone else. If a person relies on routine, messing that up can hinder their performance.
Is it though? I mean, even if you only use him in traditional closer situations a closer is going to have a pretty erratic routine just by the nature of his job. He might pitch 2 days in a row then not pitch for 4 days. He might pitch 2 games, then have a day off then pitch 2 more games. He might pitch every second game for a week and etc etc. Its not like a starter who has a pretty rigid and well defined schedule.
Essentially a closer’s routine is “get up and ready to pitch one inning when we need you”. I don’t really see why the number of the inning would impact that routine all that much.
FTR I was a pitcher in HS/UNI. I was a starter though.
Also “closers” don’t always come in in the same situation.
It could be a tie game on the road, to get the last out after the reliever before you loaded the bases, a normal save situation, or you could just be getting some work in because you haven’t pitched in a week.
Andersen’s tightrope without a net analogy is a good one. Took me back to Little League playoffs and being so embarrassed I struck out for the last out I ran away.
“Our team is more of a matchup pen right now. We have guys we’re looking to have get outs in certain innings.” – Scioscia
So, isn’t a matchup pen one where the reliever is chosen based on the hitter he will be facing? And then the next sentence seems like he’s saying that some relievers are linked to specific innings? Is he saying that there are maybe two pitchers that need a pre-defined inning and six that need to pitch against specific kinds of hitters? Because it really sounds to me like those two sentences are direct opposites.
If you want to actually research this issue, as is usually the case, you have to define the question much more specifically than, “Is the 9th inning tougher to pitch in than other innings?” How are you supposed to measure, test, or research such a vague set of words like that?
I’m pretty sure (or at least it’s ONE way of defining it) that most people mean something like this: If we take a pitcher’s overall talent as measured by something like “true talent runs allowed per 9 innings” and use that to estimate how often he would protect a 1,2 and 3 run lead on the average in the top and bottom of the 9th, as measured by ‘how often team wins game’ (essentially save percentage), we MIGHT find that some pitchers, in large samples of course, if we are going to test this hypothesis, would underperform relative to other game situations, if we allowed them to pitch in those situations, and other pitchers would perform at the same level all the time or perhaps even perform better in those 9th inning save situations.
So how might we be able to conduct a natural experiment to test (try and refute, as all good researchers do) that hypothesis? Unfortunately we can’t force all relievers to pitch in those high pressure 9th inning situations and then compare their performance to other situations. In fact, presumably the pitchers who managers think cannot handle the pressure (whether it’s true or not) are not allowed to pitch in those situations and the ones who do pitch in 9th inning save situations are the ones whom the manager thinks are capable, mentally.
But, we do actually have that natural experiment we’re looking for, to some extent at least (to the extent that we can’t force all or even a lot of non-closers to pitch in closer situations). Sometimes the closer is not available so the manager has to pick someone whom he normally does not “trust” in closer situations – his emergency or substitute closer. These are guys who 90%-95% of the time do not close. Now, it may be that the manager doesn’t completely mistrust these guys, but surely a large percentage of them are not deemed to have what it takes to close on a regular basis.
So we should, if it’s true that there are some pitchers who are particularly suited to closing and others who are not, see a difference in performance between when these emergency closers close and when they pitch in less pressure packed situations, as they do most of the time.
Keep in mind – this is important – that we are not debating whether closing is a more “pressure-packed situation.” Or whether pitchers feel that pressure or get nervous or however you want to couch it. I’m pretty sure it is and many of them do. The question we mostly care about is whether that pressure causes some pitchers to perform worse or better compared to other (less stressful) situations. As is always the case, to shed any scientific light on that question and to draw some scientific conclusions, we need large samples of performance/players in both situations. Whether there is a true difference or not cannot be ascertained from small samples or from anecdotes. If there IS a true difference we will see lots of random differences among pitchers in small samples, and if there ISN’T a difference we will also see lots of random differences in small samples. And we will not be able to distinguish between them. As always, we try and look at large samples of data such that significant differences are unlikely to occur by chance alone. That’s called increasing our statistical power by using large sample sizes.
Fortunately someone already did this research (to some extent) and it’s reported in The Book (of which I am co-author). What did they find? Basically that great, average, trusted, and not-so-trusted relievers successfully close about as often in the 9th as we would expect given their overall talent, whether they usually close or not. You can read the details in Chapter 8 of the Book.
So, we have very little evidence (as in none, really) that, performance-wise, there is any difference between closing and pitching in other situations/innings. Again, we’re not saying that it’s not “different” (as in harder, more pressure, etc.). We’re just saying that there is no evidence that trusted closers do better than non-trusted ones in those high pressure situations. Again, we don’t know whether there are pitchers whom the manager will absolutely refuse to use in the 9th because he doesn’t think they can handle it mentally (yet they’re allowed to pitch otherwise) AND if they were allowed to pitch, they would prove the manager right. But, honestly, if the least “trusted” of the pitchers perform just about as expected during the few times they are forced to close (the regular closer is unavailable), I think it is a pretty good assumption that, by and large, this concept of “some pitchers can handle it and other can’t” is myth number 1,216 in baseball.
What’s myth number 1,215 in baseball? Ichiro’s pre-pitch antics were the cause of his success?
I gave you a thumbs up for apparently having the patience to read a comment that long.
Myth #1,215 is that Fangraph readers can read and understand comments more than 3 sentences long.
Just replace all the periods with commas.
One thing nobody ever mentions is that a right-handed closer will face roughly 50 percent right-handed batters, while a righty setup guy will usually average over 60 percent right-handed batters. Aside from the emotional considerations, which as the players say could be substantial, the normal advantage in same-handed splits makes it easier to be a setup guy.
This is a really good point. Pinch-hitter usage is maybe the one thing that’s genuinely different about the 9th inning — in this sense leverage isn’t a one-way street, because if the opposing manager thinks leverage works the “wrong” way too he’ll be selecting pinch-hitters in a way that genuinely *do* raise the degree of difficulty of pitching the 9th to some extent.
Brett Cecil was adamant that relievers perform better with set roles after he blew a save in Pittsburgh on Sunday. I have to give him credit, though. He admitted the reason for the lack of set roles was poor performance.
The mental side really matters, and I like the tightrope analogy.
It might be similar to NBA defense. The point guard knows that if he gets burned on defense, there are 4 other teammates who can stop the dribbler. The center knows that he is the last line of defense and he has to stop the scorer, or…he scores.
Also, if he gets dunked on, it will be on a poster for all of eternity.
I can’t help but wonder how much money has to do with these answers. Closers seem to benefit greatly from the current system, while non-closers perhaps are harmed. It’s also somewhat natural that closers would want to think that it is more special while non-closers would think that it is less special. Of course, non-closers might change their tune if they were able to join the club.
Relief pitchers, outside of a select few, are always in a fairly delicate, stressful position. They get very small opportunities that can have devastating results if they mess up, and their expend-ability means that a few bad outing could result in a demotion or a DFA. Most relief pitchers have already been moved down the latter from starters to bullpen arms, and there is nowhere to go from there other than out. I’d say all these guys are pretty stressed every time they get called to come into a game.