Papelbon’s Future
Ian Thistle at Giving 110 Percent takes a look at Boston Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon and what the future might hold for him. Despite Papelbon’s tremendous success in his first full season (0.92 ERA, 0.776 WHIP — are you kidding me?), he was a starter throughout the minor leagues and there is talk that he may move back into the rotation in 2007.
A lot of guys who are starters in the minors come up to the big leagues and become closers. Mariano Rivera and Billy Wagner are two that immediately leap to mind. Wagner, in particular, was a stud prospect as a starter before moving to the bullpen. I’m not sure how many pitchers have made the move, been as successful in that role as Papelbon has, and then returned to the rotation. Not to say it isn’t possible, of course, but I wonder what kind of precedent there is.
Back to Ian’s piece, he advocates a strategy of gradually re-acclimating Papelbon to a starter’s role by having him work out of the ‘pen to start 2007 and then moving him into the rotation around mid-season. This is an an intriguing approach, and I think one that makes a lot of sense for many of the reasons Ian mentions — it would allow Papelbon time to develop a third pitch and presumably help reduce the chance of injury by limiting the number of innings he pitches.
Ian brings up another advantage to having Papelbon start the season in the bullpen, working longer stints, before returning to the rotation:
MLB teams’ adherance to the save rule and its offspring, the one-inning closer, is one of the more backwards, aggravating and impractical things in all of sports. There is no reason that a team’s best relief pitcher should be used with no outs in the ninth inning and his team up by three while sitting in the bullpen with the game tied in the eighth inning while an inferior pitcher takes the hill.
Beyond the question of what to do with Papelbon, this is a fascinating issue. One of the great things about baseball is that it’s constantly evolving. From throwing pitches underhanded in the 19th century, to Babe Ruth revolutionizing the game with his home run prowess, to pitcher dominance in 1968, to the emphasis on speed in the ’80s, change is as much a part of baseball as it is of life.
The role of one-inning closer has precisely three advantages that I can see:
- It gives the closer a predefined role so that he knows when he can expect to be used.
- It gives the manager an excuse if his closer blows the save.
- It helps come contract time, when the closer can point to the number of saves he’s accumulated as justification for receiving huge wads of cash.
It may be that there are others I’m missing. Or it may be that the one-inning closer ain’t all that great and eventually will run its course the way throwing underhanded pitches did. Who knows?
I keep straying from the topic of Papelbon here, but the truth is, Ian raises some good points in his post that force us to look at the bigger picture. With that in mind, my parting questions to you are these:
- What would you do with Papelbon? (I’m interested to hear your opinions, and I’m sure Ian would like to hear them as well.)
- What do you think of the one-inning closer, and what are some alternative ways to utilize a bullpen?
Talk to me, folks.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Personalities, Strategy
3 opinions for Papelbon’s Future
anthony
Nov 4, 2006 at 7:16 pm
1. I’d leave Papelbon as the closer. He’s about the same age as Jake Peavy but still hasn’t developed the kind of repertoire it takes to dominate as a starter. I’d rather put him where he’s proven he can succeed than wait for him to develop a third pitch, something that may never happen.
2. I think Bruce Bochy inadvertently showed a more optimal approach late last year. As Cla Meredith became a truly dominant pitcher Bochy started using him in high leverage situations in the 6th and 7th innings. Ideally Meredith could have been spared the lower leverage mid inning appearances and been brought in for very close 9th inning situations, with Hoffman getting the rest of the saves and pitching the 8th of close games. Of course that’s never going to happen in the real world. If you tell a guy he can get some of the saves but you’ll bring in another guy for the really close saves you’re going to have ego problems.
The traditional 1 inning saves-oriented closer’s main virtue is everyone else in the pen knows he’s The Man, they don’t have to worry about pitching in the 9th so they can concentrate on their respective roles.
Ultimately I think it’s as much the pitcher’s fault as it is the manager’s. If Goose Gossage were pitching today I’m sure he’d be all over the manager to let him go in with the bases loaded in the 6th. I don’t think any of today’s closers are asking for an expanded workload. They know that saves=money and fewer innings=less chance of injury.
Lee Panas
Nov 5, 2006 at 9:29 pm
I don’t like the one inning cloer. The closer is usually brought in with nobody on base and often with a 2 or 3 run lead. That seems like a waste of a team’s best reliever to me. I’d rather see the top reliever come in when the games on the line. That could mean game tied with two men on in the 8th inning. i’d also like to see a team’s best reliever pitch more than one inning more often.
There was an interesting situation in Detroit where the man who was probably their best reliever (Joel Zumaya) was usually used in the 7th and 8th inning. He often came in with men on base and pitched more than one inning. Todd Jones was the closer and he did quite well in that role. His bad ERA was a result of a few bad games when he used outside the closer role. Jones probably would not have been able to handle Zumaya’s role and Zumaya probably would not have handled the closer role any better than Jones. So it worked out well even though the best reliever was not the closer. Could this be the start of a new trend?
Geoff Young
Nov 6, 2006 at 11:18 am
Interesting. So it seems that Meredith and Zumaya might be a couple of counterexamples to the long-standing usage of relievers. Maybe their success will lead other managers to reconsider how they use their bullpen. It might take years, but you have to start somewhere…
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: