Sabermetric types (baseball stat nerds, if you will) have long disputed the importance of a shutdown closer. After all, why save your best reliever for when you have the largest margin for error: the start of an inning with no runners on base and a 1-3 run lead? With that kind of cushion, guys like Todd Jones and Joe Borowski get the job done most of the time.And now, the business folk at Forbes are jumping on the bandwagon, pointing out that investing in a high-priced closer doesn't make the most fiscal sense. The average MLB closer makes $3.9 million, which is more than both the Red Sox and Rockies pay Jonathan Papelbon and Brian Fuentes, respectively. That means they could afford to invest in other quality relievers, whereas teams like the Yankees who devoted over half of their bullpen budget to one guy lacked as many other options.
Forbes also asked the question: does having a specialized closer actually even help? They looked at the data since Tony La Russa and Dennis Eckersley popularized how modern closers are used and found some surprising results:
Yet in the 20 seasons since LaRussa's brainstorm, teams holding late leads have won at about the same rate they did in the 20 seasons before. Since 1988, teams leading after eight innings have won at a .951 clip, according to Baseball-Reference.com and STATS Inc., compared to .948 from 1968 to 1987. That adds up to less than one win per season per team.I can accept the idea that guys in the bullpen perform better when they know their roles, but that doesn't mean the guy designated to pitch the ninth inning has to be the most talented, let alone the most expensive.
How much added value can be expected from a guy who specializes in pitching the last inning, when there's so little room for improvement? Very little, though the perception of the ninth inning as overly important (do runs scored in that inning count more?) has made developing a track record as a last-inning specialist very lucrative.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-24-2007 @ 2:05PM
HeySteve said...
"That means they could afford to invest in other quality relievers, whereas teams like the Yankees who devoted over half of their bullpen budget to one guy lacked as many other options."
Why would you or Forbes assume the Yankees (or even the Redsox) have a bullpen 'budget' in the forward thinking, planning, cost-aware choices sense of the word? There certainly hasn't been any evidence of this so far. There may be a theoretical limit to the salary expenditure of these teams, but we haven't seen it yet.
Reply
10-24-2007 @ 2:13PM
rln2433 said...
Mariano Rivera has been the gold standard of closers the past ten years and he happens to play for the Yankees that spend the most money to keep their talent. You want him or Bob Wickman, Joe Borowski, Al Reyes or a host of other less expensive mutts closing your games in the 9th? Street, Papelbon, Jenks, Fuentes, K-Rod, Nathan, etc are home grown guys who started where Rivera did. They (like Rivera) will all command bigger and bigger dollars as they progress in their careers. Build your own closer instead of buying one.
Reply
10-24-2007 @ 2:11PM
dave243474 said...
To be completely honest, you should mention that both the Papelbon and Fuentes salaries are controlled salaries since neither player is yet eligible for free agency. In essence, comparing Papelbon's contract to Rivera's is like apples to oranges because they aren't in the same stage of their career cycle.
Reply
10-24-2007 @ 2:23PM
Matt W. said...
"Why would you or Forbes assume the Yankees (or even the Redsox) have a bullpen 'budget' ..."
That simply refers to the amount of money that they actually spent on their bullpen relievers in 2007, not a suggestion that they won't spend more or less in the future.
Reply
10-24-2007 @ 2:58PM
Andrew said...
This argument will fall short when Jonathan Papelbon's salary skyrockets to way more than $3.9 million.
I'm not sure you can look at "overall winning percentage after eight innings." I'm pretty sure it would be more accurate to look at the pitching staffs of recent World Series champions. During the "home run era," it's way more important to have a so-called "shut down guy" at the end of the game.
Reply
10-24-2007 @ 5:20PM
Martin said...
How often do you see a manager not use his closer when he has a four run lead in the ninth but will when he has a three run lead. The difference of course is that the reliever does not get a "save" if he enters the game with a four run lead. Managers who base their game decisions on whether the pitcher gets a save are not using their brains.
Reply
10-25-2007 @ 9:02AM
dennis said...
What's misleading about Forbes' statistics is that the after 8th inning winning percentage of .951 is for all games. They should break out 1-2 run games and compare to pre 1989. You'll probably see the value of a closer better.
Reply