Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2012 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I think there's a mental aspect to "closing". Not just from the pitcher or his team but from the other team. Over the last couple of seasons, David Robertson has been just as effective as Rivera. But do you think teams felt "We need to score one now because getting one off Robertson is gonna be tough"? Of course, there's no such thing in HBD.
Very true. Hard to pinpoint what it is exactly, but guys like Hawkins and Rhodes...some great years as set-up men, but couldn't get it done closing.
I read the article Thorne is referencing (can't remember where, probably ESPN). Some suggestions the guy made were getting rid of the 3+ inning auto save, and lowering the criteria to 2 runs instead of 3. I would agree with both of this. His point for the latter was that a closer can come in with the tying run still in the dugout and get a save, which is not really "saving" a game. Joe Borowski proved a few years ago with Cleveland that anyone can rack up saves.
The author also said - and I doubt this would ever fly - that another solution would be allowing the scorekeeper to award the save to the best reliever in a close game (kind of like how wins are handed out if the starter doesn't go 5). His logic was that if a setup man comes in with a one run lead and two on in the 8th and gets out of it, then his team puts up 2 in the 9th and the "closer" comes in with a three run lead and finishes the game, it was the setup guy who actually "saved" the game. The closer really did nothing but pitch an inning with a three run lead.
As was previously mentioned, it's become a money stat, so it's doubtful it'll change. But I think soon we'll see more teams go with cheaper or no-name guys in the pen. Look at Texas with Nathan, the O's with Johnson, the Indians with Perez, etc. Guys who are making a name for themselves (or already have and are on the decline, like Nathan), but aren't huge names commanding 6M+ salaries.