5 of 8

Write now Article Tools

BULLPEN BY COMMITTEE

The habit of baseball teams using a single closer has
become so well established, it's hard to imagine another
approach. Can multiple closers work? I think they can and
should definitely be tried by some teams. I'm not talking
about teams with premier relievers like Mariano Rivera, BJ
Ryan or Trevor Hoffman. These guys are so good, it's hard

to argue that they shouldn't finish every close game when
their team is ahead. I'm looking at a situation where a
team has 2-4 above average but not elite relievers, all of a
similar effectiveness, say ERAs within 0.5 runs per game of
each other (I knowERA isn't the best indicator of reliever
effectiveness but I'm trying to keep things simple here).
Using a few pitchers in tandem could provide a flexibility
rarely seen in today's bullpens. It will only work if the
players and managers buy into it though.
Imagine a team with three decent relievers. Maybe you
don't want to bring reliever A in for the 9th inning because
he's a sinkerballer and you're playing on artificial turf.
Bring in reliever B. If two of the three due batters have
lifetime averages over .400 against reliever B, use reliever
C. You have much greater matchup flexibility. Two inning
saves could become more common, as you'd still have another
closer for the next game. Injuries to closers become less
devastating. If a closer goes down, there's at least one
other pitcher to trained in the zen of closing to pick up
the slack. It would also be great for small market teams.
Two decent relievers cost a lot less than one elite one.
Teams could spend the savings on another position player or
at least a new water cooler.
It's not all upside. There's a perception that this
approach just won't work and this can be a self fulfilling
prophecy. Some pitchers only pitch well in defined roles
and might not take to being a sometimes closer. There's
also the macho aspect of a closer being the alpha male of
the bullpen. Two or three alpha males make for great press
but bad karma. Today's closers appear in 50-80 games a
year. This is enough work to keep them sharp. The issue of
rest vs. rust is complicated and varies from pitcher to
pitcher but splitting up a closer's innings among a few
pitchers could lead to ineffectiveness through lack of
action.
The most compelling argument against bullpen by
committee has to be the 2003 Red Sox, the last good team to
enter a season with this as a plan. It worked so poorly
that they gave up on May 29th and traded for Byung-Hyun Kim,
who became THE closer. 10 pitchers accounted for 36 saves
that year, with Kim leading with 16. Yankee fans in
particular like to burst out in laughter when talking about
this bullpen. But it wasn't the idea that was bad, only the
pitcher selection. Ramiro Mendoza had undergone so many arm
surgeries that he couldn't get anyone out and was known as
the embedded Yankee. Brandon Lyon was a rookie and just not
ready. Mike Timlin had a history of not being particularly
effective in the 9th inning (he's since figured it out).
Alan Embree was actually pretty effective but the manager
couldn't resist using him mainly as a matchup lefty and he
rarely pitched an entire inning. This was one case where
the problem really was with labor, not management.
Use of multiple closers is a viable approach, if
managers would just shake the cobwebs from their head and
try it.

Learn more about this author, Neil Wagner.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Analyzing the bullpen by committee approach?
We want to hear your view. Write now!