Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Bauxite Rob has taken a look at the famed "proven closer" theory, and has some thoughts on the subject. Thanks, Rob!


Do Teams Need a Good Closer to Win?
by Rob

It's simple in hockey. If you miss a save, a big red light shines above your head, and 19,000 people boo at you. You can make more than one save in a hockey game, hell, you'd better make more than one. A good goalie is vital to a team's achievement.

It's not so simple in baseball. Does every baseball team need a good closer? You can ride a hot goalie all the way to the Stanley Cup final, like Anaheim, but can you ride a hot closer to the World Series?

Most of you are thinking, "Sure, Mariano Rivera. Wasn't he pretty good in the playoffs?" Well, that's only if you consider a career postseason ERA of 0.75 good. I'm kidding, of course.

So maybe you do need a good closer to win. The following is a study of last year's statistics, to determine if a Good Closer (also known as a Proven Closer) is part of a team's overall success. The only statistics used are saves. I know, saves are useless. But the point of this is to see just how useless they are.

STARTING IDEAS

First of all, what is a "good closer"? Well, it should be someone who accumulates a large majority of his team's saves. Does that mean he gets 85%? Sixty percent? 95%? For simplicity purposes, let's call this number the save percentage (Sv%). I know, just like hockey.
Save percentage = Saves by saves leader divided by Total saves or

Sv% = (SbSL / TotSv) * 100%


Let's take 80, a nice, round number, and look at the closers who had a Sv% higher than 80. (All stats are from ESPN.com and Baseball-Reference.com)

Name, Saves Recorded
Eric Gagne, 55
Joe Borowski, 33
Eddie Guardado, 41
Keith Foulke, 43
Tim Worrell, 38
John Smoltz, 45
Billy Wagner, 44
Jorge Julio, 36
Lance Carter, 26
Troy Percival, 33
Mariano Rivera, 40
Rocky Biddle, 34

The only number that jumps out is Carter's 26 saves. The D-Rays only had 30 saves total, so perhaps they don't belong in the study. Nevertheless, 11 of the 12 pitchers here would be considered "good closers" by standard definition.

(Notice anyone missing? The only pitchers with more saves than the lowest save-getter here are Matt Mantei, with 29, Braden Looper with 28, and Mike MacDougal, 27. Triple-U had 26.)

So, we know whom Sv% defines as Good Closers. Now let's see if the winning teams had Good Closers. The Sv% for the top 10 winning teams in 2003.

Team (Wins), Sv%, Saves Leader
Atlanta (101), 88.2, Smoltz
New York-A(101), 81.6, Rivera
San Francisco(100), 88.4, Worrell
Oakland(96), 89.6, Foulke


So far so good. The four pitchers above listed were on our original list of 12.

Boston(95), 44.4, Kim
Seattle(93), 42.1, Hasegawa


Hmm...very low numbers. More on this soon.

Florida(91), 77.8, Looper
Minnesota(90), 91.1, Guardado
Chicago-N(88), 91.7, Borowski
Houston(87), 88.0, Wagner


Interesting. The World Series winners had the lowest Sv% of any of the Top 10 teams.

However, the only real outliers in that list were the Red Sox and Mariners.

First, Boston. Byung-Hyun Kim had 16 saves. The only other pitcher on the Red Sox roster to have more than three was Brandon Lyon with 9. Eight Red Sox recorded a save. Yet, they made it...well, we know how far they got. ALCS, Game 7, Pedro pitching with the lead, followed by a Little mistake.

Second, Seattle. Kasuhiro Sasaki was out for the better part of the season with a rib injury. He would likely have made most of Hasegawa's 16 saves had he been healthy.

The teams with the higher win totals, for the most part, had Good Closers in their 'pen.

"But wins don't mean anything! What about the 2001 Mariners?"

Ah, the 2001 Seattle Mariners. 116 wins, 46 losses, Sasaki has 45 of the team's 56 saves that year, which are Good Closer numbers (80.4%). But, Seattle didn't even get to the World Series.
So maybe we should be measuring success by World Series rings. Some people certainly do, and that's why they make a trade they don't need to make for a shortstop they don't need and won't use at shortstop.

The past 10 World Series winners:

Year, Team, Sv%
2003, Florida, 77.8
2002, Anaheim, 74.1
2001, Arizona, 55.9
2000, New York, 90.0
1999, New York, 90.0
1998, New York, 75.0
1997, Florida, 89.7
1996, New York, 82.7
1995, Atlanta, 73.5
1994, Montreal, oh never mind...


[Note: Who had the low Sv% for the D-Backs in 2001? Well, none other than the 2003 Boston Red Sox Saves Leader, Byung-Hyun Kim. Before you start thinking BK attracts bullpens-by-committee wherever he goes, he had a SV% of 90 in 2002 with Arizona.]

Looking at these numbers, the median is 77.8, close to the Good Closer mark.
The average (mean) Sv% is 78.7. If you take out the highest and lowest values, the average is 80.4.
It looks like the arbitrary number I chose 545 words ago was almost dead-on. Winning teams have Good Closers, assuming that a Good Closer means something. Of course, I could have used raw saves, rather than a rate, to find a Good Closer. I decided to go with this measure, because it seemed more intelligent to use saves as a rate, as opposed to just looking at the numbers of each pitcher.


MIDDLE RELIEF FROM RANT

Take a break from the rest of the league -- I haven't mentioned the Blue Jays yet!
The 2003 Toronto Blue Jays had the third-lowest Sv% (38.9) of any team in baseball. Lower than BK and his boys in Boston. Lower than Selig's Sluggers in Wisconsin. Lower than, well, you get the point.

The Jays had 36 saves, Aquilino with 14 of them. Cliff Politte recorded 12. Kelvim Escobar had 4, Trever Miller had 4, and Josh Towers had one of the eight out variety. That leaves one more, and it was Jeff Tam. (He was the sixth pitcher in an 11-5 win over the White Sox, a game where Towers, Tanyon Sturtze, and Miller faced a combined 5 batters.)

Oh, right. The White Sox. If bullpens-by-committee were candy and nuts, they'd have about three Merry Christmases. 36 saves, 35 of which were courtesy of three pitchers: Tom Gordon (12), Damaso Marte (11), and some guy who was traded for the 2002 Rookie of the Year (11).

I didn't really include the Detroit Tigers in this study. Their record would have skewed the results. I'm sure the Tigers would have liked to be excluded from the 2003 season entirely. Besides, the original question asked was about winning, and Detroit didn't do much of that this past year. If you're interested, the saves leader for the 2003 Tigers was in fact two people: Franklyn German and Chris Mears, who both had...well, try to guess how many they had.

Did you guess 5?

It's hard to do a saves study on Detroit if the team had fewer wins than Billy Wagner had saves, Richie Sexson had home runs, or Keith Ginter had RBIs.


CLOSING THOUGHTS

After all that, do Teams Need a Good Closer to Win?

If you accept my definition of a Good Closer, then the answer is yes. We can debate the relevance of the Good Closer or saves until Ben Johnson's stanolozol levels come down, but here's something to think about:

Since saves became an official stat in 1969, the team with the most wins had an all-star closer from Japan, and the team with the most losses had...well, Frank and Chris.

I started this article talking about goalies making saves. It only seems right to have another hockey reference at the end. (This is baseball, after all.) The first thing I thought of when I saw "saves" and "Boston" together was a popular bumper sticker among Bruins fans in the 1970's:

JESUS SAVES, BUT ESPOSITO SCORES ON THE REBOUND

Thanks for listening. This work was dedicated to "Major" Tom Henke.

-Rob
Pinch Hit : Do Teams Need a Good Closer to Win? | 12 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Rob - Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 03:30 PM EST (#74425) #
Being the first poster on my own article is a sad, sad thing, but I need to clarify something:

The World Series winners had the lowest Sv% of any of the Top 10 teams.

should read...

The World Series winners had the lowest Sv% of any of the Top 10 teams, other than Boston and Seattle. I then explain why.

Thanks Craig!
_Dr. Zarco - Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 03:38 PM EST (#74426) #
Rob-nice article. It be interesting to take this study further back, before the age of super-specialized relievers. I wonder how that might have been different? While I agree a "good closer," which is a debatable term in itself, is a very nice feature of a winning team (but not an absolute necessity), I think it helps almost as much from a mental standpoint-each guy knows his role and there's no unrest among the guys sitting down in the pen. This year shall be very interesting (I guess I've gotta root for Speier to win the job, since I snagged him in last night's draft).
Coach - Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 04:48 PM EST (#74427) #
Good stuff, Rob.

Most of us expecting big things from the Phillies this year are assuming the change from Bad Closer to Good Closer will have a measurable impact. There's also a psychological benefit when a whole team starts believing in its ninth-inning invincibility, or opponents, knowing a ninth-inning rally is unlikely, feel more pressure in the seventh and eighth. The converse is also true; think how happy the '93 Jays were to see the Wild Thing warming up.

The best reliever won't help an otherwise poor club, but a good closer is nice to have on a contender. The real illusion is that only the Proven ones are Good ones; many pitchers who would be great in the role, pigeonholed as setup men or mediocre starters, never get the opportunity. Whether it's Ligtenberg, Speier or Lopez, someone's got a chance to step up for the Jays; I feel better about the chances that one of them will succeed than I would if they'd signed Ugueth Urbina.
Joe - Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST (#74428) #
http://me.woot.net
My statistics warning bell went off while reading this. I don't think we can imply causation, which is what everybody seems to want to do; that is, winning teams often have good closers, but that could be for a number of reasons.
  1. Good teams give closers opportunities, creating "good" closers.
  2. Good closers make the difference, converting decent teams into good ones.
  3. Something else affects both whether a team has a good closer and whether a team is good, period. I will call this unknown thing "money."
Also, because of the fact that you really can't evaluate whether a closer is "good" by his percentage of the team's saves (see Tigers, Detroit) I would like to suggest that some other statistic is probably more apt for this study.

That being said, this article was very enlightening. Winning teams really are associated with good closers. Now I want to know why!
_R Billie - Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST (#74429) #
Good article.

I think the question to ask here, putting aside saves and the term closer for a moment, is what is the optimal bullpen configuration? Or more specifically what is the optimal configuration for a team like the Blue Jays when you have only so many million to allocate to the bullpen as a whole?

Is it an advantage to have that one elite guy (Gagne, Rivera, Wagner, etc) or near elite guy (Guadardo, Isringhausen, etc) regardless of monetary cost? Keeping in mind that the Jays will have proportionally less to spend on the rest of the bullpen should they commit to such a pitcher.

I think a good pen has balance and depth. That helps you win over a 162 game schedule. But it's also true that having an "ace reliever" or even two or three gives a team a distinct advantage over those that don't have one to use in the highest leverage situations (close games, tie games, extra innings).

If there's a tie game in the 9th inning, Eric Gagne is much more likely to keep the score where it is than say Lance Carter, though Carter is still a pretty good pitcher.
_Morty - Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 11:44 PM EST (#74430) #
Rob,

To further Joe's comment, I think a better statistic to use would be one that accounts involvement of the closer in producing the win. As an initial suggestion I would give:

CloserValue = (Saves - BlownSaves) / Wins

This gives a rate stat of the closer's contribution to the win while penalizing blown saves. I realize that not every win has a save opportunity but if you're always winning by 10 runs then you don't really need a closer do you...
_Matthew E - Friday, April 02 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST (#74431) #
I'm not really sure I go along with the reasoning in this article. It sort of assumes that all baseball teams use the 'closer paradigm' in setting up their pitching staff, which, while it may be currently true, doesn't do a lot to answer the question 'do teams need a good closer to win?'. It's more, 'assuming teams are going to be relying on a closer in the ninth, how important is it for that closer to be one dominant guy?'.
_Rob - Friday, April 02 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST (#74432) #
Looking back, I agree that Morty's formula was probably a better choice. Honestly, I completely forgot about blown saves while doing this. If I remembered, I probably would have used something similar to his idea.

And Matthew, fair enough. Teams can be successful without having a "good closer." In writing this, I knew it was a shaky article, but I never said I was the authority on good closers. The article may not prove anything, but I wanted to run the numbers and see the result.

And, thanks everyone for your compliments and criticism.
Criticism -- one of the first words I associate with Da Box. :)
_Hinto - Saturday, April 03 2004 @ 01:39 AM EST (#74433) #
Good Article, and good responses, some thoughts...

The "Save" stat. is a dangerous pretender to importance at the end of a game. There is possibility of it distracting managers from the ONLY important stat...WINS.

Sometimes you need that best-reliever at the end of the game, sometimes not...the "Save" Culture creates the following scenario almost every night in MLB -

The What-Are-You-Thinking Scenario:

They bring a guy in and he pitches a perfect 8th - and the Manager goes to the "Closer" in the 9th, he's ASKING for a Blown-Save. It's the nature of the game to mess with you when you're leading and you second-guess your blessings.

I saw Tosca do this twice last year, just in the five or so games I attended before the All-Star Break. Brings in Lopez for the 8th, he's perfect but gets yanked for Escobar in the 9th. Escobar blows the save, and I go hoarse from yelling at the dugout. His pursuit of creating a 'Closer' distracted him from the game on the field. Lopez can throw two-innings and had good stuff. Did he expect Escobar to do better than perfect in the 9th?
He was looking for a "Save" when his only thought should have been "Win"...they don't give the World Series rings to the team who was first-to-four Saves.

I'm for 'ain't broke, don't fix it'...Manage to win every night. If a guy is GREAT every time he goes in, use him that way and he becomes the Proven Closer...anything but, and it's just another pitching change.
_Matthew E - Saturday, April 03 2004 @ 10:56 AM EST (#74434) #
Hinto: not that I disagree, but there is a danger of stifling analysis by overconcentrating on the Win stat. We've all seen games in which the most-deserving team on the field didn't win, due to bad breaks of one kind or another. Oversimplification is as much a problem as overcomplication.
_Jays Fan in the - Saturday, April 03 2004 @ 01:09 PM EST (#74435) #
Simple question: Name one team in the last fifteen years that won the World Series without a legitimate closer?

But what do I do from 500 miles away -JFITWC
_Matthew E - Saturday, April 03 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST (#74436) #
Yes, but name one team in the last fifteen years who has tried to get along without a legitimate closer.
Pinch Hit : Do Teams Need a Good Closer to Win? | 12 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.