Shaky Closers and the Committee Option

With Matt Lindstrom's tentative hold on the closer role, this Verducci article on a Boston bullpen experiment has some lessons-learned for the Marlins...

“By the end of spring training we will have one [closer] and we will have guys in defined roles,” Boston GM Theo Epstein says. “And by the end of the year, who knows who the closer might be? It might be some kid who gets put in that role on the second day of the season, like [Jon] Papelbon last year, or somebody from outside the organization, or somebody who started the year in Double A. We don’t know.”

[snip]

What Boston won’t do is repeat the mistake it made to open the 2003 season, when it thought a bullpen could be run with interchangeable parts. That plan came to be known as “bullpen by committee,” though it was a bit of a misnomer.

Epstein admits that the idea of a flexible bullpen — using the best possible reliever for a particular spot rather than depending on pre-assigned roles — works better in theory rather than in practice.

“In reality, most relief pitchers need the confidence and routine of clearly defined roles to operate at peak level,'’ he says, adding that he found out in 2003 that the flexible bullpen “can create some instability that can be exacerbated in a high-pressure market by media with constant questions to players with respect to the lack of roles.” Epstein also admits, “I definitely didn’t do a good job of choosing relievers overall” for that plan.

Don’t confuse what Boston is doing now to what it tried in early 2003. Says Epstein, “This is a little different from ‘03 as far as not defining specific roles. This year we make no bones about it. The job is open. We don’t have a designated closer. But we will by opening day. Whoever steps up and throws the best will be the one to take the job.”

1.  It drove James bananas that the Boston press -- hostile to an idea that was unfamiliar to them -- labeled his bullpen ideas "closer by committee."  What James actually proved, mathematically, is that if you have one relief ace, you are much better off to use him in a tie game, or one run down, than you are to use him two runs up...  "as baseball percentages go, 800% is a big percentage," he finished one column.

Lou Piniella, when he has one relief ace, uses him precisely the same way.  In the playoffs.  Remember thee 1995 Norm Charlton going 2, 3, 4 innings at a time in tie games?

If Matt Lindstrom is the Marlins' sole relief ace -- and he may be -- then there will be times when using him in the 7th and 8th is mathematically better than using him in the 9th.  But the clubhouse would have to accept that...

......................

2.  In business, real managers have to deal with the idea of "employee buy-in."  Anything other than the (wasteful) "celebration closer" idea -- Jon Papelbon comes in with a 5-2 lead to strike out the side -- automatically loses employee buy-in.

This is tradition in the worst sense, the sense in which we keep doing things even though we know they are wrong, because we've always done it that way...

.....................

3.  In sports, confidence is a MUCH bigger factor than most of us 'net rats can possibly fathom.

On that level, the idea of a lockdown "closer" is legitimate.  You have the secret ray gun behind the hangar.  It bathes athletes brains in positive visuals.  And that's sports coaching in a nutshell.

......................

4.  As far as the need for defined roles?

In my humble opinion boils down to "the athletes want to know that they are secure / entitled / privileged / whatever."

It's not that a George Sherrill or Matt Lindstrom would necessarily pitch better, or worse, in the 8th vs. the 6th vs the 9th.  It's that when he is "the 8th-inning reliever," he feels better about whether the ballclub views him as important.

This is an indulgence on the part of the athlete -- after all, young players are expected to excel despite not being in comfort zones. Why should a better player (the veteran) require a performance advantage that an inferior player (the trying-to-prove-himself rookie) is not supposed to require?

It's an irony.  The players who could truly benefit from some reassurance, actually get "hazed" by the  coaching staff.  ...be that as it may, happy athletes perform better, so the defined roles help guys like Lindstrom.

......................

Some battles aren't worth fighting.  The athletes themselves want a "lockdown closer."  If it turns out not to be Lindstrom, the next guy in line will get four chances to "close."  That's the carousel we get.

But hopefully Lindstrom will step up.  It sez here that he will; he's a fine pitcher.

Eyes slideways,

Dr D