Good job by IPK.

Good line.

I wonder how many times Reyes is gonna hear:
"Don't tase me, bro!" from opposing fans this year?

We wrecked the Rays' bullpen last night, so if Jackson's a little off we might get a bunch of chances at big innings. Here's hoping the boys cash in a couple of those.

guess who has BOTH IPK and Westbrook on his fantasy team? Can we hear some pep talks, please?

From the other thread:

"We seem to not take much joy in winning and it's pretty sad. "

I do agree. It seems a mixture of being too used to it and a kind of sense of entitlement sometimes. This decade + with Torre's teams have been absurdly successful by any detached measure in a sport where playoff turnover is the norm, even with salary skewing.

Many here were obsessed/excited with the idea of going 'with the kids' and it is a lot of fun to watch youngsters mature beside the aging vets (if they do) but the 'goes with that' is that we can be both too old and too young at the same time, with issues both ways.

And I include Girardi in the too young part, frankly. Will he be a good manager? No reason to assume otherwise. Will he be excellent out the gate? Hard to do.

Meanwhile, the quoted comment's right. Last night was almost a train wreck and wasn't. Enjoy the fact?

Remember when Bill James was hired by Boston and persuaded them that closers meant nothing, go with committee, hot hand. That was a disaster year and only when they emerged with a real closer did they get it together.

Makes me wonder why the Twins decided to give 33-year-old Nathan big market money and 3 years to stay ... couldn't Liriano or Neshek take over that role for a fraction of the price?

Nathan was going into his walk year ... his Ks per 9 dipped last year (though still very good). But the Twins must have known they weren't going to contend this year, so why shell out $33 million for Nathan (unless they trade him at the ASB).

But yes .... the Indians have been making a strange choice to go with Borowski (almost at bad as Todd Jones in Detroit).

Maybe Borowski shouldn't have been in last night's game at all?

http://blog.cleveland.com/sports/2008/04/tribe_closer_says_he_had_nothi.html

Joe Borowski doesn't know what's wrong. One day he feels like he can throw the ball through a brick wall.

"The next day, I feel like I'm throwing through water," said Borowski.

(snip)

Borowski met with Tribe manager Eric Wedge, General Manager Mark Shapiro and the team's medical staff after the game to discuss the condition of his right arm and shoulder.

"I hope we can pinpoint something," said Borowski. "Right now, it's driving me crazy. I'm grasping at straws. Maybe it's something. Maybe it's nothing."

He could undergo tests today."

You know, couldn't this be an example of NOT overvalueing closers? The Indian braintrust has decided that their two lights-out (sort of) left-right set-up men (with a third dude now present, too, we are told) are more useful in the key 7th and 8th innings, often for the heart of the order.

Isn't this what many people have been arguing for? A breaking free of the locked-in idea your best P has to go the 9th?

Isn't it inconsistent to say closers are overrated and then dump on the Indians for not using a 'real' closer? They ARE doing the backwards bullpen thing. Means some games will be lost in the 9th, but some may be won in the 7th and 8th (maybe even the 6th now). Worth watching?

In any case, these days I see it put forth less frequently as "anyone can close, do the committee thing" and more as "quit babying your elite RPs." And this is why Cleveland is hurting themselves with Borowski: if you're still dedicated to handing him the ball in every save situation just b/c it's a save situation, you don't get it. If the Indians had "broken free", they would be using their top pitcher in the most crucial situations (be it the 9th, 8th, or 3rd) and using him for more than one inning. But they're not, and sometimes the most crucial situation does come in the 9th. Running Borowski out there without fail shows either a lack of imagination or a lack of backbone (to buck the status quo).

It was only a disaster and abandoned from a PR perspective, because somehow losing in the 9th in worse than losing in the 7th.

My main point, however, is that even with a sucky closer Cleveland will still win a pile of games; and even the suckiest closers manage to accumulate large numbers of saves and convert a high % of save opportunities. All of this suggests that the closers role--touted in the press as critical to a team's success--is overblown. And frankly, it's the same logic that leads to the "Joba is too valuable in the 8th so he can't start" position.

I am not at all convinced--though the numbers could prove me wrong--that teams leading in the 7th or 8th or 9th win at an appreciable higher rate in closer days (say, 1990 and forward) than in the old days when BPs were used quite differently.

I don't think closers are overrated. I think saves are overrated. When managers tailor their use of the closer to the save rule is when the closer becomes marginalized.

Of course, my favorite "pitchout" story occurred duriung the 1972 World Series. Rollie Fingers was pitching to Johnny Bench with men on 2nd and 3rd and one out in the 8th. Fingers decided to pitch to Bench, who eventually worked the count to 3-2. Dick Williams visited the mound flashing 4 fingers and then Gene Tenace set up to receive the free pass. Bench waited with the bat on his shoulders, but just as Fingers went into his delivery, Tenace jumped behind the plate and caught the third strike!

For instance, the truely enlightened move in last night's game would have been to bring in Mo after Traber. He then throws however many pitches is deemed to be a good limit for him and then you finish things off with a lesser pitcher, facing lesser batters in the 9th (the heart of the order wouldn't have been up in the 9th under this scenario).

If Cano doesn't hit a HR in the 8th, does Mo even pitch in that game?

That's more my point. He's the best reliever on the team (either him or Joba, but Joba isn't gonna stay a reliever), and oftentimes doesn't pitch in close losses (wherein he may have prevented the loss) while instead pitching in 5-run wins b/c he needs some work...

Bingo! But the reality is that the "closer" is a product of the save rule (well, that and Tony La Russa). So, if managers used their closers without paying attantion to saves--ie, tie ball games or not in the 9th inning--they would stop being "closers."

That's just another way of saying what I have been saying. We agree!!

I might accept that losing a game in the 9th has a disproportionate psychological effect--though one would have to verify this by looking at the results of games following such losses). If that is the case, then the 9th inning does not represent a higher leverage situation so much as a higher value situation: that is, the tight spot in the 7th might have greater tactical bearing on the outcome of the game, but the team cares more about holding the lead in the 9th than losing it in the 7th, even though the Ws and Ls all count the same in the standings.

Otherwise, yes, I discount that there is much merit to having a "closer" whose explicit job is to end the game, whether we are talking about 3 run leads or 1 run leads.

On a side note, I think that a typical "closer's" most important attribute is his ability to pitch back-to-back games--what they used to call a "rubber arm." Being able to pitch in many, short appearances at a high (or relatively high) level allows the manager to deploy such a pitcher repeatedly in high leverage, tactical situations. Of course, one need not be a closer to possess this valuable attribute. That is why, in part, Mariano Rivera 1996 was more valuable than John Wettland 1996, and more valuable than Mariano Rivera 1997-2007 (any given year).

MikeK & Monkey ... Mike I am really not sure your argument is an argument. You say closer-by-committee works if the committee are all good. Man, if anyone has a team with all relievers good ... they are a happy squad! Your alternative is: the manager is savvy enough or has sufficiently skilled tarot card readers to spot the revolving door hot hand.

Sign that man up!

In other words, the argument leads nowhere. If everyone's good you have an easy life. If they take turns being adequate you are lacking a reliable closer. I don't expect to see Nathan, K Rod, Papelbon in the 7th anytime soon.

I do take the point that Cleveland have not entirely 'bought' the best pitchers as required by situation ... because Borowski (till today) was their dude in the 9th. I was just suggesting that often their best pitchers (the 2-3 set-up guys) WERE on the mound in critical innings. I agree that this should include the 9th.

I think William's 'saves are overrated' is valid, and compounded by managing to the save. The old story of a closer almost offended by being in there with a 4 run lead, giving up 2-3 runs before actually trying hard (or sometimes giving up 5). A 3 run lead in the 9th is rarely a crisis situation deserving of a stat, and certainly not on par with a single run cushion. Having said this, I'm one of the ones who DO believe the 3 outs in the 9th are harder, just as the at-bats are harder. Or a free throw in the dying seconds in hoops.

Awareness of context is surely a HUGE part of sport. Whether the moment, or the game itself (playoffs, etc.) Some people handle this better than others, it seems silly to ignore it.

Fair enough. What is the evidence? Do hitters have lower BAs in the 9th, which would prove that hitting in the 9th is harder? But if they do, doesn't that make pitching in the 9th easier? In any case, surely there must be evidence to back up this claim.

I can imagine that hitting a free throw late in the game is harder, mainly because you have been running around for 45 minutes. But again, has anyone done a statistical analysis?