Closers Topic

steve9781
Posts: 0 (0)
Prospect
4
Prospect
Couple questions about closers....

1. Does it matter whether or not the player closed in real life? Do real life closers perform better in that role?

2. My current closer has blown his last 2 saves and helped put my team on a 6 game losing streak ( after winning 17 straight ), when this happens to your teams do you just ride it out, or are you making line up changes to try to combat this? My closer is 09 G.Sherrill, he had a 0.56 ERA before this now he's 0-2 with 3 blown saves, I understand that players will level out over time but do you ever switch it up to combat this?
11/27/2009 10:01 AM
dtownlove10
Posts: 15 (0)
Hall of Famer
195 1 3 2
Prospect
No, I use part time starters as my closers all the time. See: Bob Milacki.
11/27/2009 10:12 AM
rbow923
Posts: 2253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1079
Hall of Famer
1. No. there was a time when Saves were included in the salary but not performance, so real closers were to be avoided. not so true today.

2. Ride it out, unless he was a poor choice to begin with. don't make panic changes because of a short term slump.
11/27/2009 10:16 AM
contrarian23
Posts: 20397 (3)
Hall of Famer
1802 1
Hall of Famer
Real life closers, especialy those of recent vintage, actually have a severe disadvantage, in my opinion. Since most managers use their closers for 1 IP only, you tend to see these guys with IP/G or right around 1.0. Which means they are only good for 15 pitchers per game before fatigue sets in, and it sets in quickly. So if a batter or two reaches base, either your closer sees his performance deteriorate rapidly from fatigue, or you have to replace him.

This is a slight generalization, but low IP starters with low WHIP (Milacki, Niggeling, Northrop, Babe Adams, etc) are, in my opinion, the best closers because they never face this "in-game" fatigue problem.
11/27/2009 11:57 AM
thurst63
Posts: 530 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 2 2 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by contrarian23 on 11/27/2009Real life closers, especialy those of recent vintage, actually have a severe disadvantage, in my opinion.  Since most managers use their closers for 1 IP only, you tend to see these guys with IP/G or right around 1.0.  Which means they are only good for 15 pitchers per game before fatigue sets in, and it sets in quickly.  So if a batter or two reaches base, either your closer sees his performance deteriorate rapidly from fatigue, or you have to replace him.This is a slight generalization, but low IP starters with low WHIP (Milacki, Niggeling, Northrop, Babe Adams, etc) are, in my opinion, the best closers because they never face this "in-game" fatigue problem.


WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11/27/2009 5:39 PM
truemen
Posts: 377 (0)
Hall of Famer
93
Prospect
I just got a Black Molly (a fish) and named him "Milacki".
11/27/2009 6:36 PM
seels
Posts: 72 (0)
All Star
30
Prospect
Not sure if I agree 100%. The low IP starters have a different problem - the low games/IP make it so its very rare you can get back to back save opportunities without the "tired from recent game activity" fatigue. To me the best closers are the modern closers (or good setup men) with around 50 or so IP so you just set it to close in save opportunities only and pitch the 9th only. Cla Meredith and Troy Percival are my favorites.
11/27/2009 8:17 PM
contrarian23
Posts: 20397 (3)
Hall of Famer
1802 1
Hall of Famer
I do not have this problem with low IP starters as closers. If a guy has 50 IP I do not notice any difference in "tired from recent game activity" fatigue, regardless of whether the player was a starter or a reliever. Haven't studied it systematically, but I have certainly not noticed it as an obvious problem.
11/28/2009 1:39 AM
zubinsum
Posts: 1731 (0)
Hall of Famer
72
Hall of Famer
I don't think real-life starters are any better or worse than real-life closers, but I do know there are trade-offs:

1) Real-life starting pitchers (RLSP) perform worse in relief roles than they would as starters. I believe this drop-off equates to a ~10% higher OAVG. I am unsure of how BB/9 and HR/9 are effected, but I think it is similar.

2) RLSP also suffer in-game fatigue quicker when used in relief than when used as starters. I am quite unsure of the ratio, but I'd guess fatigue sets in 2X as fast.

3) While I don't know how it is calculated, I understand that appearance fatigue exists and when a pitcher exceeds his RL appearances, he fatigues faster.

4) Appearances are part of the salary calculation and therefore RLSP are cheaper than real-life relief pitchers (RLRP) given otherwise equal stats.

5) Once a pitcher hits his (estimated) real-life pitches per appearance (~ 16*IP/g) in a game, his performance falls.



11/28/2009 4:26 AM
cameraeye
Posts: 5 (0)
Pro
14 1 3
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zubinsum on 11/28/2009

I don't think real-life starters are any better or worse than real-life closers, but I do know there are trade-offs:

1) Real-life starting pitchers (RLSP) perform worse in relief roles than they would as starters. I believe this drop-off equates to a ~10% higher OAVG. I am unsure of how BB/9 and HR/9 are effected, but I think it is similar.

2) RLSP also suffer in-game fatigue quicker when used in relief than when used as starters. I am quite unsure of the ratio, but I'd guess fatigue sets in 2X as fast.

3) While I don't know how it is calculated, I understand that appearance fatigue exists and when a pitcher exceeds his RL appearances, he fatigues faster.

4) Appearances are part of the salary calculation and therefore RLSP are cheaper than real-life relief pitchers (RLRP) given otherwise equal stats.

5) Once a pitcher hits his (estimated) real-life pitches per appearance (~ 16*IP/g), his performance falls.

this is true.. trying 1908 Bill Burns in a setup role. He will never get to his 170 IP because of apprerance fatigue.





11/28/2009 6:32 AM
contrarian23
Posts: 20397 (3)
Hall of Famer
1802 1
Hall of Famer
3) While I don't know how it is calculated, I understand that appearance fatigue exists and when a pitcher exceeds his RL appearances, he fatigues faster.



Can anyone shed light on this? As I posted above, I have not seen this effect noticeably - but I also haven't carefully looked for it.

My understanding for 3+ years has been that there are 3 kinds of pitching fatigue:
1.) Total usage across the season - based on the pitcher's pitch count "bank".
2.) In-game fatigue; based on the pitcher's allowed per-game pitch count (which is roughly 16*IP/G)
3.) Appearance fatigue - which I believe exists, but which I thought was roughly equal to 100 G across the season for all pitchers, and not directly related to the individual pitcher's actual GP.
11/28/2009 7:01 AM
contrarian23
Posts: 20397 (3)
Hall of Famer
1802 1
Hall of Famer
As an example, I regularly use the 1940 Bonham as a Long A or Set Up A.

Bonham pitched 12 games that year, all starts. His IP/162 is 105. I routinely pitch him in 40-50 games and can stretch him to 115-120IP, with no problems.

1988 Milacki pitched 3 games, all starts, with 26 IP/162. I can usually get 25-30 games out of him, with up to about 35 IP, with no problems.

1888 Elton Chamberlain pitched 14 games, all starts, with 135 IP/162. I am on pace to pitch him in 64-65 games in relief in a current league. He is not suffering any fatigue problems.

If there is "appearance fatigue" that affects starting pitchers used in relief, it seems to me to be (at worst) a very very small effect that is not noticeable even if the pitcher is used in 10x the number of real life games.
11/28/2009 7:09 AM
seels
Posts: 72 (0)
All Star
30
Prospect
contrarian,

You usually cannot see "appearance fatigue" when you look at stats as a whole, because it only lasts a game or two, no matter how many more games he has in the sim as he does in real life. The problem is with pitching a pitcher two or three games in a row. To use what you have above, If you set Chamberlain to play only 1 inning a game he would never get close to is 135 because the sim would not allow him consecutive games after a little while so he would probably only get around 85 or so appearances. But if 1979 Mike Marshall were on the same team he would get very close if not surpass his real life total if set the same as Chamberlain because he has many more appearances.
11/28/2009 7:39 AM
contrarian23
Posts: 20397 (3)
Hall of Famer
1802 1
Hall of Famer
Perhaps. But this is, again at the very worst, only a minor minor drawback. I have never built a team with the need for my closer to have anything like 100 appearances. I'm usually aiming for 60 or so, and since I usually have either 2 good set-up As and/or a closer B (especially if I'm using Milacki), the occasional game where my closer A is not available is more than worth it, because the guys I use as closers (a) can pitch 2 innings if required and (b) will not fall off the fatigue cliff if they allow a baserunner or two.

I never use the modern 1.0 IP/G guys as closers now; possibly set up A, but only then because I plan on having at least 2, and possibly 3, good pitchers in that role.
11/28/2009 9:46 AM
skonley
Posts: 1363 (0)
Hall of Famer
689 19 19 2
Veteran
Quote: Originally posted by contrarian23 on 11/28/2009I do not have this problem with low IP starters as closers.  If a guy has 50 IP I do not notice any difference in "tired from recent game activity" fatigue, regardless of whether the player was a starter or a reliever.  Haven't studied it systematically, but I have certainly not noticed it as an obvious problem.

Couldn't agree more. I'm pretty sure WIS at one time acknowledged there is no difference in role.
11/28/2009 11:45 AM
12 Next ▸
Closers Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.