Strength by committee

[sharksrog]

The Giants are said to be looking for another reliever, which given the likelihood of pitching injuries is probably a good idea. But they're looking pretty darn good as it is.

9th inning -- Romo, Lopez

8th inning -- Casilla, Affeldt

7th inning -- Hembree, Mijares

Long relief/short inning backup -- Kontos

Hembree could start out in the long relief job or back in the minors, but at some point he'll be up if healthy.

Although he was horrible last season, I also think Danny Otero could be of help to the bullpen, in almost any role. Danny originally thought of his career as being in long relief, but he has also done a lot of closing.

Over his minor league career, Otero has averaged close to 8 strikeouts per nine innings while walking only a batter every 7 frames. He has little margin for error with his fastball/slider combination, but clearly has fine control and could be considered a poor man's Sergio Romo.

He gives hits (8.8 per nine in the minors) but not many homers (0.4 per nine). He has posted a 2.12 ERA in the minors.

Even while getting raked in two short callups by the Giants (19 hits in 12.1 innings!), he walked just two batters. He's willing to pitch inside to set up his low, outside slider, as illustrated by two hbp in his small number of innings.

Not considered much of a prospect, but perhaps an underrated guy to keep an eye on. The son of a Coral Gables, FL attorney, Danny is smart enough that he attended Duke.

I'd like to see a higher strikeout rate, but you've got to love guys with his kind of control.

[Islandboagie]

Last year we got lucky. Normally when a team loses it's closer for the season the bullpen struggles, the Giants bullpen amazingly didn't miss a beat last year. I don't think it would be smart to bank on the closer by committee again. Especially considering what we're up against this year which happens to be a much better Dodgers team.

Romo was great down the stretch and into the post-season, but his mindset worries me. I heard alot of talk about how his teammates had to convince him he could do the job, that to me shows alot of self-doubt, not something you want from a closer. Again, Romo did fine, but the value of a closer depends alot on how well they can shake off a bad outing. I wonder how well Romo would react to a blown save.

I think I was higher on Heath Hembree going into spring training last year. His arm troubles last year are a concern. He had a decent AFL this year, but to me those aren't the Heath Hembree numbers we've grown to expect from him. Players who are undoubtably ready for the majors blow away the competition. Hembree was doing that in 2011, now he's kind of on the fence.

When I hear that the Giants are looking for another relief pitcher, I believe they're looking for a proven closer. long relief pitchers can be hashed out during spring training.

One guy sticks out at me, and that's Brian Wilson. He fits the Giants the best, and the Giants fit him the best. I still have a feeling an agreement will be reached between these two. If Brian proves that 2 tommy johns are 1 too many, or if the bridges were burned too badly and an agreement can't be reached, that's when Hembree or Otero step in.

The nice thing is..even if the worst happens, we still have a very solid bullpen. If Wilson resigns and pitches on an elite closer level again, we have the best bullpen in baseball. I tend to prefer the chance for the latter.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Last year we got lucky. Normally when a team loses it's closer for the season the bullpen struggles, the Giants bullpen amazingly didn't miss a beat last year. I don't think it would be smart to bank on the closer by committee again.

Rog -- I thought you joined me last year on the bullpen-by-committee-hasn't-worked-because-teams-didn't-have-the-bullpen-talent-the-Giants-have committee last year, Boagie. I wasn't truly all alone, was I? I thought sure you were there beside me.

Of course, if I truly was the only one on the committee, it made it easier to gain a quorum.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#7991#ixzz2FcEWOPhF

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- I thought you joined me last year on the bullpen-by-committee-hasn't-worked-because-teams-didn't-have-the-bullpen-talent-the-Giants-have committee last year, Boagie. I wasn't truly all alone, was I? I thought sure you were there beside me.

Of course, if I truly was the only one on the committee, it made it easier to gain a quorum.


Boagie- I thought the Giants had enough bullpen strength to withstand the blow, which they did. That doesn't mean I think a bullpen by commitee is as good or better than having a proven closer, because it's not.

The Giants also withstood the blow of Pablo being injured multiple times, Lincecum having a down year, Melky and Mota's suspension...That doesn't mean I'd like all these things to happen again in 2013. If things stay the same Romo will be our opening day closer. What worries me is that I'm not sure that Romo's arm will stand up to a full year of closing. If it doesn't, and Romo goes down with an injury much like Wilson did, then we won't have a strong enough bullpen to absorb the blow.

To sum it up, If the Giants can land a closer, I think they'd be stupid not to pull the trigger. Even if it means losing Gary Brown or Joe Panik.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I don't think it would be smart to bank on the closer by committee again.

Rog -- And I think they could once again take it to the bank, if not the World Championship.

Santiago Casilla was brilliant in the role before hitting a huge slump. I am now reading he may have had arm issues to go along with his blister problem.

Sergio Romo was brilliant when he took over the role in September.

In between, the closer-by-committee was flourishing.

Romo, Casilla, Javier Lopez and Jeremy Affeldt each appears to be capable of finishing out a save -- especially in a right-lefty tandem. If one guys hits a slump, as Casilla did, simply turn to another, or just go back to the closer-by-committee thing.

Do you know how many saves the Giants blew in the 7th, 8th or 9th innings once they began their closer-by-committee in late July?

One. One. By Sergio Romo in the 8th inning on July 30th -- when he was pitching as a set up man.

In other words, once the Giants went to the closer-by-committee, they didn't have a single blow save by a closer in August, September or October. Not one.

In fact, over those final three months, the number of blown saves by Mijares, Affeldt, Lopez, Casilla and Romo in any role was ... NONE.

The closer-by-committee "experiment" wasn't only successful, it was outstanding.

And I honestly thought you were one of the few who didn't simply write it off when the Giants announced they were going to closer-by-committee.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#ixzz2FcFHaJN1

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I thought the Giants had enough bullpen strength to withstand the blow, which they did. That doesn't mean I think a bullpen by commitee is as good or better than having a proven closer, because it's not.

Rog -- We don't know that for sure, do we? VERY small sample, but the Giants' bullpen by committee last season was about as good any closer has done. NO blown saves by a closer in over three months.

We all know the arguments for a closer -- primarily, as you say, using your best reliever primarily in the 9th inning with a lead of 1, 2, or 3 runs. Also, it makes it easier for pitchers to have set roles.

There are a couple of arguments against it though.

First, using a closer only -- or virtually only -- in the 9th inning can mean that you don't have your best pitcher pitching in the most critical moment of the game -- such as bottom the 7th, one-run lead, bases loaded.

It can also mean not being able to go left-on-left or right-on-right in a critical 9th-inning situation.

It can leave a team vulnerable when its closer has worked too much to close a particular game -- and the team has to rely on an untested reliever to close.

Finally, it can leave a team vulnerable if its closer becomes injured, such as happened to the Giants this past season.

You may argue on the last point that the Giants didn't fall apart when Brian Wilson went down, that another reliever(s) were able to pick up the torch. Which poses the question: Why weren't those guys used more often in critical situations? Why did the Giants virtually always rely on Wilson to close?

Try this one for size, Boagie (and others).

I believe that closer versus closer-by-committee should be judged on an individual basis. The more depth, physical flexibility and flexibility of mind a bullpen has, the more it might benefit from closer-by-committee.

The Giants' bullpen bought in to the concept, and it had excellent depth.

Looking back, while we mostly pooh-poohed the idea, the Giants were well-suited to try the closer by committee. And it worked far better than they could have hoped.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#ixzz2FcZY4ftQ

[klaiggeb]

Boagie -- I don't think it would be smart to bank on the closer by committee again.

---boly says---

Boagie, I TOTALLY agree.

It worked.

Once.

It's not likely to work again.

Why? Comes back down to what I said before; egos, personalities, and personalities.

In "general" people like/need consistancy in life. They might not adimit it, but 'routine' is what works best for the majority of humans.

Everyone needs to know their routine, and BE in their routine. Thus, they are more comfortable.

Most people tend to be linear...in thinking and actions. Very left brained.

Most people become UNcomfortable with the non linear; the Right Brain.

Everyone bought into it... LAST YEAR, because they HAD to pull together to get it done, or it WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN DONE.

As soon as Wilson went down, THAT became apparent.

And when Dope-boy's ticked got punched... the entire team rallied around that concept.

Of course it "could" happen again, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

In fact, I'd never roll the dice once betting on it.

The "People" factor.

Sports people even more than the averag Joe Blow on the street.

We need defined roles.

Easier on the guys, easier on Bochy.

anyway, that's my opinion.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- We don't know that for sure, do we? VERY small sample, but the Giants' bullpen by committee last season was about as good any closer has done. NO blown saves by a closer in over three months.

We all know the arguments for a closer -- primarily, as you say, using your best reliever primarily in the 9th inning with a lead of 1, 2, or 3 runs. Also, it makes it easier for pitchers to have set roles.

There are a couple of arguments against it though.

First, using a closer only -- or virtually only -- in the 9th inning can mean that you don't have your best pitcher pitching in the most critical moment of the game -- such as bottom the 7th, one-run lead, bases loaded.

It can also mean not being able to go left-on-left or right-on-right in a critical 9th-inning situation.

It can leave a team vulnerable when its closer has worked too much to close a particular game -- and the team has to rely on an untested reliever to close.

Finally, it can leave a team vulnerable if its closer becomes injured, such as happened to the Giants this past season.

You may argue on the last point that the Giants didn't fall apart when Brian Wilson went down, that another reliever(s) were able to pick up the torch. Which poses the question: Why weren't those guys used more often in critical situations? Why did the Giants virtually always rely on Wilson to close?


Boagie- If you're saying the Giants bullpen was better without Wilson, I disagree. However, you MAY have a point about how Bochy was able to manage his bullpen without having to yield to a pure 9th inning closer, so he could mix and match more.

In most cases, losing your closer wouldn't work for most teams because #1 MOST bullpens don't have the depth ours did going down the stretch and into the post season. #2, MOST teams don't have Bruce Bochy who is clearly among the best, if not the best, at managing a bullpen. Those are two factors that greatly benefit the chance of withstanding the blow of losing a closer. In addition, not many bullpens have Tim Lincecum and 3 solid lefties.

Let's also not forget that MOST of the year we actually did have a closer. There was a slight gray area after Wilson went down but then Casilla took over for a long stretch. After Casilla had his blister issues we had a closer by committee situation for a while, then during the last month of the season Romo took over the role. So the closer by committee was only a portion of the season, most of the time we did have a pitcher who was considered the 9th inning guy.

That being said, I know exactly what you mean, and I've long been a supporter of that method of managing the bullpen. If it's the 9th inning and Casilla just walked the bases loaded and Joey Votto is up, I'm bringing in Lopez. I don't think the manager should ever choose to show his loyalty or faith in a certain player over winning the game.

I believe you can manage the way me and you are suggesting here, and still have a guy who is considered the closer.

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- And I think they could once again take it to the bank, if not the World Championship.


Re---boly says---

Rog, I think you're forgetting the "people" factor.

Not that I don't understand your logic, I do.

But people aren't like that.

Besides my degree in Spanish, I also have a BA in Sociology. that was actually my first degree.

Based upon what I learned about people, how they interact and react...it is my opinion that, though your theory 'sounds' good. The reality is, no one would reach a comfort zone, and thus, their confidence levels would be effected.

As I posted before, people like want, and NEED an established routine.

In closer by commite, there is no routine. Thus, no comfort level.

Theory is one thing, people, and how they act/react, quite another.

boly

[sharksrog]

Boly -- Everyone bought into it... LAST YEAR, because they HAD to pull together to get it done, or it WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN DONE.

As soon as Wilson went down, THAT became apparent.

Rog -- When Brian went down, there was much consternation, here and elsewhere. But Santiago Casilla had done the job in 2011 when Brian had initially been injured, late in the season.

Casilla did an All-Star job for the first three months of the season, then fell apart from a combination of a blister and a possible arm injury. But the closer-by-committee came to the rescue, and the Giants did the best job of closing over the rest of the season of any team in the majors.

When September came, the Giants began to realize what many had known all along -- Sergio Romo could close. What was this noise that he couldn't get left-handed hitters out? His .530 OPS against facing lefty hitters is 15 points better than his OPS against righties.

When he went into his blister/possible arm injury slump, Casilla blew five saves between June 24th and July 24th. Aside from that, how many saves would you guess Giants closers blew over the season? 10? 8? 5?

No. Two. 2.

One by Casilla on May 6th and one by Jeremy Affeldt on June 5th.

Two blown saves by closer all season long -- except for Casilla's blister/injury/slump. In the four season with Brian Wilson as closer, he blew 6, 7, 5 and 5 saves while saving 163 games. In total, he blew 23 saves in 186 opportunities, for a save percentage of 87.6%.

Even including Casilla's five blown saves from June 24th through July 24th, the Giants' closers saves 54 games in 61 attempts. That's a success rate of 88.5%.

In other words, if we take away Casilla's ill-fated month, the Giants closer BLEW AWAY Wilson. And even with that horrible month from Casilla, they closed slightly better than Wilson had closed the previous four seasons.

Wilson originally went down in August of 2011. Beginning that month, the Giants' other closers have saved 65 games out of 72 -- and that includes Casilla's questionable month. That's over 90%, or up in Mariano Rivera territory.

Without Casilla's month, the Giants would have only two blown saves in 64 chances.

Haven't we spoken here in the past about the possibility that the closer may be overrated in some cases?

I think Boly and Boagie have made good points why there SHOULD be a closer. As I pointed out in a previous post, I think it depends on the physical and mental attributes of the bullpen involved.

I'll be the Giants aren't the only team who would (or at least did) benefit from closer by committee (or at least without the primary close -- Brian Wilson, in the Giants' case, and Brian is a three-time All-Star).

Closers aren't the only ones who blow saves, but 10 of the 16 National League teams blew 19 or more saves. Suppose any of those teams might benefit from a different approach to the closer "position?"

We have been pretty critical of Casilla here, but of the 10 NL closers with as many or more saves than Santiago, only four have fewer blown saves. Three have the same number, and three have fewer.

Because of the blister thing, Casilla wasn't a great closer. But he wasn't horrible, either. Romo was great. The bullpen by committee was great.

And overall, the Giants were one of the very best National League teams in closing games. Take away Casilla's blip, and they WERE the best.

Even though their closer went down in his second game, and they used essentially three different closing methods.

Hard to beat a great closer. But even an excellent one such as Brian Wilson can sometimes be matched or even beaten -- if teams look at the entirety of their bullpens.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#7999#ixzz2Fi4TPFIJ

[klaiggeb]

Haven't we spoken here in the past about the possibility that the closer may be overrated in some cases?

I think Boly and Boagie have made good points why there SHOULD be a closer. As I pointed out in a previous post, I think it depends on the physical and mental attributes of the bullpen involved.

---boly says---

The mentality being a closer DEMANDS is not something most pitchers possess.

It requires a mental toughness... and ego that the vast majority of athletes don't have.

Having the tools is one thing, that mental aspect? Wow. THAT is an altogether different animal.

It's the same concept that SEPARATES wanna be, but highly talented KIDS from becoming good pros.

The skills are there. The mental aspect? The mental discipline? those are the things that separate the amature (or minor leaguer) from the major leaguer.

boly

[sharksrog]

Boly -- The mentality being a closer DEMANDS is not something most pitchers possess.

Rog -- I'm not sure that is true, but a closer-by-committee can take as little as two relievers on a staff who can do so.

Let's look back at the Giants' closers since Robb Nen, who ruined his arm down the stretch in 2002 and never pitched again.

2003 -- Tim Worrell had been the Giants' setup man, and in his first season as closer, he saved 38 games.

2004 -- Worrell left as a free agent so the Giants went to the very ordinary duo of Matt Herges (23 saves) and Dustin Hermanson (17 saves).

2005 -- This time it was Hermanson who left as a free agent (and had 34 saves for the White Sox), so the Giants signed proven closer Armando Benitez (47 saves in 2004). A serious injury and a 4.50 ERA limited Benitez to 19 saves. A virtual nothing reliever, Tyler Walker, did a fair job in Benitez's absence, closing 23 of 28 games.

2006 -- Benitez stayed healthier, but saved only 17 out of 25 games, becoming one of the most hated Giants players in their history.

2007 -- Benitez saved only 9 of 12 attempts and was traded to the Marlins at the end of May. Another unheralded pitcher, Brad Hennessey, took over the rest of the way and did a decent job, saving 19 out of 24, with a 3.42 ERA.

2008-2011 -- Brian Wilson gave up 13 earned runs in his six blown saves, posting a 4.62 ERA, but he did solidify the closer spot with 41 saves out 47. He had a fine 4-year run, making the All-Star team three times while saving 163 games of 186. He wasn't nearly as good in games in which he received a decision, going just 17-15.

2012 -- Wilson was injured and missed virtually the entire season. The Giants went to first Santiago Casilla, then closer-by-committee, then Sergio Romo. While Wilson was out in late 2011 and almost all of 2012, Casilla and Romo saved 45 out of 52.

Lookiing at a decade of Giants' closers, there really wasn't a huge difference between proven closers (Benitez and Wilson) and other guys thrown into the role (many of whom hadn't been closers and in fact, hadn't been good pitchers.

We're talking only about one decade of one team, but over that timeframe, the Giants certainly don't prove the point.

The question becomes, are good closers good because of their "makeup" -- or because they're good pitchers? The last decade the Giants have had very fine success when their "non-closer" closers were good pitchers, and even the very mediocre pitchers they used, such as Worrell, Herges, Hermanson and Walker, were far from horrible.

Over the decade, the two pure closers saved 208 out of 246 games, or 84.6%. The "non-closer" closers saved 167 out of 205 games, or 81.5%.

That's a remarkably small difference, given the the "non-closer" list included Worrell, Herges, Hermanson, Walker and Hennessey in three-quarters of the save opportunities of the "non-closer" closers.

That last group had virtually no closing experience -- yet they were serviceable. MATT HERGES, for crying out loud.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#8007#ixzz2Fl2vZY3W

[sharksrog]

Boly -- Having the tools is one thing, that mental aspect? Wow. THAT is an altogether different animal.

It's the same concept that SEPARATES wanna be, but highly talented KIDS from becoming good pros.

The skills are there. The mental aspect? The mental discipline? those are the things that separate the amature (or minor leaguer) from the major leaguer.

Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, but how did Tim Worrell, Matt Herges, Dustin Hermanson, Tyler Walker and Brad Hennessey -- guys with career ERA's of 3.97, 3.91, 4.21, 4.23 and 4.69 -- closed slightly better than Armando Benitez -- career ERA 3.42?

How did Santiago Casilla and Sergio Romo -- ERA's 3.62 and 2.21 -- close a little better than Wilson -- 3.21 ERA?

Benitez and Wilson were known as excellent closers, two guys who surely had the mental aspects necessary to close. Between them, they were All-Stars five times.

The first five "non-closer" closers were journeymen. Romo and Casilla are fine pitchers. But for the vast majority of their careers, none of those guys were considered to have the closer mentality.

I'm not saying any pitcher can close. What I am saying, though, is that most good relievers can -- and even many journeymen relievers can do a serviceable job.

Look at the physical and mental makeup of your bullpen before you go to the closer by committee. But I think many would be surprised how successful this "oddball" approach can work in the right circumstances.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#ixzz2FlJALzDr

[allenreed]

The Giants are said to be looking for another reliever, which given the likelihood of pitching injuries is probably a good idea.

Allen- Ramon Ramirez s still available.

[sharksrog]

Boagie- If you're saying the Giants bullpen was better without Wilson, I disagree.

Rog -- I didn't mean to say that. Obviously, having a three-time All-Star -- if healthy -- is a big weapon. My point, though, is that the Giants did about as well at closing (and likely win-loss by the closer, although I didn't research it) as they would have with Brian.

What they lost -- despite the excellent replacement act by the bullpen -- was bullpen depth, although it was still quite good.

But part of the reason the Giants' bullpen had been so good was that in addition to Wilson's closing, they had Casilla and Affeldt for the 7th inning, plus Romo and Lopez for the 8th.

The bullpen WASN'T as good last season as it had been the prior season or two. But it was still very good.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1414#ixzz2FtQFn0PK

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- In most cases, losing your closer wouldn't work for most teams because #1 MOST bullpens don't have the depth ours did going down the stretch and into the post season.

Rog -- You're absolutely right. What that does illustrate is that it's not the SYSTEM of the closer-by-committee that is at fault. As we said at the time the Giants instistuted the system and most were doubting it, is that it has primarily been the weakness of the personnel -- NOT they system itself -- that has caused it to fail in most instances.

Boagie -- #2, MOST teams don't have Bruce Bochy who is clearly among the best, if not the best, at managing a bullpen.

Rog -- Bruce did do a nice job. Many managers wouldn't have fared as well. That said, what Bruce did was obvious for the most part. You or I could have done just as well.

What we almost certainly COULDN'T have done nearly as well is the primary job of the manager -- to motivate his team to play their best on the field. In some cases that is as simple as getting out of the way. With other players, it is considered motivational treatment. With others, it is a well-timed and well-placed kick in the fanny.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#ixzz2FtSn2Lcq

[sharksrog]

The Giants are said to be looking for another reliever, which given the likelihood of pitching injuries is probably a good idea.

Allen- Ramon Ramirez s still available.

Rog -- Great point. More importantly, it's great to have you back. Absolutely great!

If the Giants were indeed to regain Ramirez, they would have essentially done what acquiring a free agent does -- picked up a player for (almost) free in terms of giving up talent as well as money.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1414&page=1#ixzz2FtU98azQ