Closer! The evil man in the bullpen, we still dont have one! Is anybody else worried about this, wheres our new Billy Wagner!
Closers are really only super-important on contending teams. On teams like the Astros, an "elite" closer would become an instant trade-able commodity.
Absolutely true from an organizational perspective because wins and losses really don't matter. But for fans, closers matter. I think I read somewhere last year that the Astros ultimately lost 17 games that they led after 8 innings - can't confirm if that's true or not. But if so and you instead have an elite closer that only blows 5 games, for example, that's the difference between 51-111 and 63-99. There is no other player on the team that would have increased the team wins by 12 last year.
I'm not worried. I think we'll have someone settle into that role. I'm fairly comfortable with our bullpen.
It wasn't just Veras losing the leads last year... it was a bullpen-wide failure. Hell, closers may not even be that important on contending teams... they get far over-used to protect 3 run leads simply because its a "save" situation. If they re-defined the save situation to simply one run leads (or tying/go-ahead runs on base), that could probably do a better job of separating the "elite" closers from simply those who can get saves. I like the closer by committee approach... but at the same time, if somebody can assume the role like Veras did last year, I don't think this team should have any hesitation in trading him (just like they did with Veras), as his value is increased on a winning team vs. a losing one.
I've always wondered how baseball allowed themselves to be suckered into this closer situation. Holding back your best bullet just for save situations, which aren't always tight games. You will often find that teams best relief pitchers aren't leading in innings pitched, which goes against common logic I've always believed in the "relief ace" role. If you have one dominant shut down guy he should come in whenever he's needed most, not always waiting until the 9th inning when there may or may not be a close lead to protect, many a tight game has been decided in the 7th or 8th inning. It seems baseball has decided it's in their best interest to not fully utilize dominant bullpen arms.
Agreed - but the 17 games they lost after having a lead in the 8th would all have a closer come in to save them. So if your closer is "elite", you don't blow the vast majority of those leads. Totally agree with this - closers being stuck in the 9th is a dumb thing in general. You should use your best pitcher in the most pressure situations, rather than just defaulting to the 9th inning. And I totally agree on trading any "elite closer" we luck out on - because wins/losses don't matter right now, in my opinion.
Agreed. We can all thank Tony La Russa and Dennis Eckersley for this. Those two guys made a litany of "closers" a ton of money.
Closers are only needed on contending teams, and they aren't hard to acquire at the trade deadline. Astros have outstanding pitching depth not all of which can develop 3-4 outstanding pitches to be a top starter but still possess the 2 pitches it takes to be a top closer. I look at closers like RB's in football. You don't need to spend on free agents or use top picks too develop a serviceable closer. There should always be 3-4 that are developed and ready for the role.
Closers? How about just relievers in general? Jerome Williams and Chapman did not look good last night. Glad we had Albers and Fields. Williams is playing like a guy who just got called up to the big leagues. Can you believe this guy was signed to a major league contract, and was expected to be in the rotation? He can barely handle middle relief so far. Spring was not great either.
Lets get Wags out of retirement. He would instantly become one of the top relievers on our team. As much as I want to joke, its probably true.
Chapman is walking guys too often, but the stuff has been really good. Williams didn't looks so bad to me with 2 big strikeouts. I think he is fine in the bullpen, but has no business in the rotation.
Wasn't impressed with Fields last year in his save opportunity relief stints.. but he does have good stuff. I think everybody should get a fair shot at being able to close out games... if Albers has an uneventful 8th with only a few pitches thrown, no sense in taking him out just to get a closer a "save". If the game is "on the line" and its only the 7th inning, I wouldn't hesitate to bring in your "best" relief pitcher (whether it be Fields, Albers, Qualls, whoever). I do have a feeling that Porter wants the bullpen guys to have "defined" roles. It does make his job easier, and some guys seem to like the consistency of knowing when they're coming in.
Fields essentially had 6 save opportunities last year, 1 blown save, 5 saves. His first save came when he faced 4 batters and struck them all out to preserve a 2-0 win. His second, he gave up 1 hit and struck out 2 in a 2-1 win His third, retired all 4 batters in a 3-2 win. His fourth, was the only one where he gave up a run. A Home Run in a 6-4 win. His fifth, struck out 2 and retired all three batters in a 9-7 win. Pretty impressive to me.
I know in the past, when teams have talked about "closer by committee" approaches, relievers often grumble because they want the defined roles. I wonder if there's a mental aspect to it - knowing you're not going to pitch until the ninth lets you relax the rest of the game instead of always having to be ready to come in, etc. Or knowing you're not going to close games makes things less stressful for you, etc.
Billy Wagner certainly agreed with the mental aspect part. One of their Dierker years, they were winning by 6 runs in the 9th with two outs and no one on base. Wagner eventually had to come into the game and gave up the game winning HR. He readily admitted he was not at all prepared to have to pitch in that game.
