How Much Does Age Matter For Closers?
I don’t necessarily agree with all of the conclusions that Mike Podhorzer came to about the closers in Milwaukee and Chicago earlier today, but his writeup makes sense, and it is still notable what’s happening in those cities. The fireballing favorite was passed over for a couple of veterans. That’s too bad because the only thing I’ve seen that says much about closer change is fastball velocity and strikeout rate. Neither Matt Lindstrom nor Francisco Rodriguez own real leads over Nate Jones and Jim Henderson in those categories. And yet, it’s the veterans with more service time that are closing right now.
Maybe that’s not by accident. Matt Murphy wrote a great piece about how it’s possible that teams are using veteran closers on short term contracts in order to keep their arbitration-eligible young relievers cheap. No saves means no bucks in arbitration. Whether or not teams are actually doing so on purpose, there are ready examples in Oakland, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay (and now Chicago and Milwaukee) where the arbitration kid lost out to the free agent contract vet. Should we add age to the equation when we are thinking about closer changes?
In the past, Derek Carty has shown that ‘closer experience’ doesn’t matter much to the future. This is a little bit different. Matt Lindstrom doesn’t have a ton of closer experience. But he is older, and signed to a deal, and by having him close, the White Sox might keep Nate Jones cheap.
So, does age matter? Maybe:
We have two “facts.” One: Closers are older than your average pitcher and the general baseball population in general (and might be getting older while the average population is getting younger). Two: Arbitration overvalues closers (at least according to one executive).
We don’t know that these two things are linked, and especially we don’t know how causal the relationship is. After all, Craig Kimbrel, Addison Reed, Kenley Jansen, Drew Storen, Neftali Feliz and Jordan Walden all got their chances before they turned 25. Steve Cishek and Ernesto Frieri didn’t have a lot of service time before they got the jobs.
Does one thing unite those young pitchers? They were all on teams that were reasonably close to contention (other than Cishek). Are the White Sox or Brewers that close to contention? Maybe no. But what about the Indians and Rays? If Jake McGee and Cody Allen are their best relievers, should they be closing by this rubric we’re creating here?
Unfortunately, I’m not sure there’s enough here to add this to our Closer Divining Toolbox. Maybe there’s a slight favorite to the veteran closer, but it’s still possible — and I would say in the case of Nate Jones, who plays for a team that recently gave a young closer the job and let him run with it, perhaps probable — that these two (younger) superior-seeming relievers in Milwaukee and Chicago get their jobs back from the more ho-hum current (older) closers on their teams.
In the end, I’ll bet on gas and strikeouts, and I’m holding Jones and Henderson where it’s feasible for me to do so. Velocity and strikeouts are what you expect out of the role, and they are the easiest skills to find in a short sample. We’ll have to watch a little longer to know if service time is a big deal when it comes to predicting closer changes.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
Wouldn’t you say Farquhar fits that mold as well?
Yes it does, could have been one reason the Mariners chose to sign Rodney. Effective cost for Rodney becomes much lower by keeping Farquhar cheaper once he hits arbitration.
And you left out Daniel Webb, my Katy Perry (dark horse reference. Damn kids)
It is really important to consider the big difference in sample size of the two groups in comparison here…
It is, which is why the curve at the top is so much more erratic. But my point in general is that this won’t be predictive for many reasons, so it’s hard to include in analysis.
I find it ironic you are holding onto Henderson because of velocity when the manager removed him from the role because of velocity among other issues. I think he is gonna land on DL.
At 93.5 this spring he’s not that far from the 95 he sat and he’s 2.5 over K-Rod, though.
I’d hold onto Henderson too (not just because I own him in one league…hah), with Francisco Rodriguez’s latest track record it’s safe to own Jim.
“Maybe there’s a slight favorite to the veteran closer, but it’s still possible — and I would say in the case of Nate Jones, who plays for a team that recently gave a young closer the job and let him run with it, perhaps probable — that these two (younger) superior-seeming relievers in Milwaukee and Chicago get their jobs back from the more ho-hum current (older) closers on their teams”
Isn’t this pretty much the reason they gave the job to Lindstrom? They gave the job to Reed, he did well, then they couldn’t afford him in arb. They likely want to avoid going down this road again with Jones, right?
The Dodgers tried very hard to keep Jansen out of the closer role. Beyond keeping salaries down, I think teams want to have their best reliever available at any time, but they’re also cognizant that players really like roles. If your second best reliever is good enough to close, then having the best reliever available for tough spots in other innings is a blessing.
I think this is true for teams making rational decisions. But we know a lot of the old school managers are more committed to arbitrarily defined traditional roles.
Also important to note, of the young closers you mentioned, many of them (at least Reed, Jansen, Cishek and Frieri) only became closers after one (or more) guys in front of them failed to get the job done.
What makes a closer?
Generally it is a pitcher with some skills but who was ineffective (for whatever reason) at deploying those skills as a starter. I think that very selection process tends to lead to older players in the role.
Off topic boys apologies, but the back end of my rotation is littered with “upside guys” who while very we’re all very curious about, are scary to actually play this week. Shall I throw Hutchison right in the fire tonight against the Rays whose bats look lively? Does Cosart warrant a start against the new look Yankees? I’m already giving a no to Paxton’s first start against the Angels, and the same for Yordano’s against the Tigers. I don’t know much about Hutch, does he profile as a guy who could sniff over 8 K’s per 9?
Throw Hutch in. I mean, you went through the trouble of rostering him, might as well use him. I had Cliff Lee get blown up yesterday. Even players with track records can burn you. The game is at the Trop, which is actually a pretty good pitcher’s park. I say roll the dice!
Not to toot my own horn (erm…), but this is exactly the kind of question the Daily Grind is designed to answer. In other words, you’d be on topic there.
Hutch is definitely a good gamble against the Rays due to park and the Rays having a mid-tier offense. He’s not a great bet to last deep into the game or record a win, but he should be solid otherwise. I advise you to pass on Cosart until we see if he can strikeout more batters. There’s upside potential there, we’ll see.
Great article, interesting stuff. I watched the Nolan Ryan/Ventura fight 8 times to feel better about banking my whole bullpen on Jones