And I guess every team now uses their bench players in the 9th inning now? That’s demonstrably false.

You want to know why teams have a high winning percenatge going in with a lead into the 9th? The answer is simple. The 9th inning is the teams last shot to tie or win the game. If they fail to score, it’s over. You only have one shot to score then, but earlier in the game, like in the 7th, you have a few more shots – More chances to score.

But that doesn’t mean the 7th is more important….because I bet if you looked at it, teams would tie the game about 84% of the time in a one run game that inning. So it’s the same thing.

Your point about putting the “inferior pitcher” in the game in the 7th, makes no sense becuase if you use your closer there instead, your STILL going to have to use the “inferior pitcher” later in the game! There’s no difference at all.

In a very limited sample size often against guys who are bench players. Any decent pitcher could do the same.

“What makes those guys so important? Well they had ERA’s under two. They were unhittable and didn’t blow many games for the team(or in Lidge’s case none).”

In a very limited capacity.

“It’s a great advantage to have a guy come in with the game on the line that nobody can hit.”

Yes, but the game is rarely on the line in the 9th inning.

“Also why are outs in the 9th inning less valuable than outs earlier in the game. true, not all of the biggest points in the game come in the 9th, but a lot of them do.”

between 1900 and 2004, the team with a 1 run lead in the 9th inning won 84% of the time. About 95% with a 2 run lead and almost 98% with a 3 run lead.

1 inning closers didn’t become trendy until the mid 90s (LaRussa started the concept around 1990)

“your really arguing about nothing. I mean is it really that a big of a deal if a manager decides not to use his best pitcher in a big spot in the 7th, and waits to use him in a possibly BIGGER spot in the 9th?”

I’m arguing about the best use of players. And if a manager puts in an inferior pitcher because he’s worried about might happen 2 innings later, he probably shouldn’t be managing. But hat’s not the case. Most teams cling to 1 inning closers for 2 reasons:

1) Contract clauses related to saves, so the team is obligated to give their closer save opportunities

2) talking heads in the media would crucify them if they didn’t have a designated closer and lost a single 9th inning lead. And knowledgeable fans would take their lead.

What makes those guys so important? Well they had ERA’s under two. They were unhittable and didn’t blow many games for the team(or in Lidge’s case none).

It’s a great advantage to have a guy come in with the game on the line that nobody can hit.

Also why are outs in the 9th inning less valuable than outs earlier in the game. true, not all of the biggest points in the game come in the 9th, but a lot of them do.

your really arguing about nothing. I mean is it really that a big of a deal if a manager decides not to use his best pitcher in a big spot in the 7th, and waits to use him in a possibly BIGGER spot in the 9th?

First of all how can you determine how important a player is without knowing his numbers?

Second, you keep referring to guys that rack up saves, which is a useless stat.

Third, I am asking you precisely and directly what makes those closers so important.

“The Phillies and Giants don’t make the playoffs without Lidge and wilson. They only won the division by a few games, so if you take out how good they pitched for their teams, they miss the playoffs.”

And I say that isn’t so. I say taking any good pitcher and putting him there helps them.

In fact, relying on one inning closers seems to be hurting teams.

“And I’m not talking about the other problems the Mets had in 2008 because this isn’t what this topic is about. I’m only talking about the problem that is relevant to this discussion, and that is, the fact that the Mets didn’t have a good closer.”

They are relevant because they were the actual problems, not the mistaken belief in one inning closers.

“As for your question, what if Berkman, Pujols, and Holiday are up again the 9th inning and with the tying or winnning run on base? wouldn’t you rather have saved your best guy for that situation? you would then have a worse guy pitching then, and probably lose the game. and your closer is more use to pitching in big spots with the game on the line, so he wouldn’t fold under the pressure of pitching in a big spot, as would a less experienced pitcher who never pitches under that type of situation before.”

Are you going to answer my question with a yes or no? Because that’s all it warranted.

In your specific scenario, yes, that is the big spot of the game, assuming that mine didn’t already happen.

But you assume that the 9th inning is always the biggest spot in the game. That is demonstrably false. the outcome is usually all but determined by the 9th inning, so, why are always reserving our supposed best relievers for something that is more or less inconsequential?

I’d rather 4 or 5 reliable guys that I can bring in at any time than one guy with nifty theme music that gets treated like fine China and paid like a #1 starter.

The Phillies and Giants don’t make the playoffs without Lidge and wilson. They only won the division by a few games, so if you take out how good they pitched for their teams, they miss the playoffs.

And I’m not talking about the other problems the Mets had in 2008 because this isn’t what this topic is about. I’m only talking about the problem that is relevant to this discussion, and that is, the fact that the Mets didn’t have a good closer.

As for your question, what if Berkman, Pujols, and Holiday are up again the 9th inning and with the tying or winnning run on base? wouldn’t you rather have saved your best guy for that situation? you would then have a worse guy pitching then, and probably lose the game. and your closer is more use to pitching in big spots with the game on the line, so he wouldn’t fold under the pressure of pitching in a big spot, as would a less experienced pitcher who never pitches under that type of situation before.

Because they racked up saves? Is that your proof?

“They don’t win the WS without them.”

Says you. I don’t see the proof of that.

“Well, it’s hard to have a “league average bullpen” without a good closer.”

It’s harder if your only decent relievers are LOOGYs

” And of course, the Mets had other problems in 08, sure everyone knows that.”

Then let’s not ignore them

” But if we had a solid guy closing out the games, we would have made the playoffs beacause we only lost by one game, and we blew so many games that year.”

If we had a better offense or over all better pitching, closing isn’t even a question.

“And how do you think they should be used? What’s the “right” way of using the closer in your opinion?”

For one, end the idea of a closer. What ever happened to the bullpen ace? The Gossage/Eckersley/Stewart type of guy who came in when the team needed outs, not when the outcome was all but decided.

Here’s a scenario: You are Terry Collins. The trade didn’t happen. It’s Spetember and the Mets are in the Wild Card hunt and playing the Cardinals. You have a 1 run elad in the 7th inning with Berkman, Pujols and Holliday due up.

Do you save Rodriguez for the 9th inning, when right now has all the trappings of a big inning that would make him a non-factor? Or do you use him now when their best hitters are up and you need them shut down?

They don’t win the WS without them.

“Or, if we had a league average bullpen. Or if we had better starters. Or, if we had a line up that didn’t burn out.”

Well, it’s hard to have a “league average bullpen” without a good closer. And of course, the Mets had other problems in 08, sure everyone knows that. But if we had a solid guy closing out the games, we would have made the playoffs beacause we only lost by one game, and we blew so many games that year.

And how do you think they should be used? What’s the “right” way of using the closer in your opinion?

Or, if we had a league average bullpen. Or if we had better starters. Or, if we had a line up that didn’t burn out.

I think any of those 3 would have proven more effective than a guy you treat like fine China and pay like a #1 starter.

“What team RECENTLY has won a WS with a bad closer?”

A good closer is a pretty low bar.

Show me what those pitchers themselves did to contribute to those wins that couldn’t have been done by an average pitcher. Or one that was already on the roster.

At best, closers are a luxury item for World Series contenders. But, in reality, they are most likely misused roster spots.

What team RECENTLY has won a WS with a bad closer?

The Giants wouldn’t have won without wilson either. they won the division only by two games. He got 6 saves in the playoffs, and didn’t give up one run.

They don’t win the WS without them.

Because I watched closely?

“It was a disaster every night after Wagner got hurt.”

That’s because the bullpen as a whole was lousy except for 2 LOOGYs and the team stopped hitting except for 2 guys.

Probably. Since 1900, the team with a 1 run lead in the 9th inning has won 84% of the time. How many closers are 84% successful in 1 run games?

It was a disaster every night after Wagner got hurt.

and I’m just going to ignore the rest of what you wrote because I have no idea what your talking about.

I find it funny that the people who usually justify doing something because “that’s how we did it for 100 years” and rant about how players are soft now are now trying to defend 1 inning closers

The last few teams that won a WS had very good closers.

2010: Wilson

2009: Rivera

2008 Lidge

2007 Papelbon

all top closers.

Fine, I’ll extend you a courtesy you don’t seem to return.

the 1987 Twins
the 88 Dodgers
the 89 As
the 90 Reds
the 92 Blue Jays

All of those teams won without relying on a single guy to just come in for the 9th inning 3 days a week.