This pre-season, in the midst of major deadline hell, I had to forfeit something--and unfortunately it was the chance to follow all the great spring training hype, who's where, who's there, trades, etc...

So one of the things i missed was this "bullpen by committe" thing everyone's referring to vis-a-vis the Red Sox and how the bullpen is losing all these games...

can someone define this for me? aren't most "bullpens" "committees" on some level? Does this refer primarily to the closer role, some kind of revolving door? Is it actually some kind of "theory" of baseball I've never heard of? And why didn't they jsut bring back Ugueth Urbina, wasn't he pretty successful for them? Is Derek Lowe due to repeat last years success?? I'm a huge Yankee fan here, but you know how it is, ya gotta keep your eyes on the comp...

HELP my brothas... :confused:

I think the bullpen by committee thing is that they don't have a single designated closer. The Red Sox don't have a Mariano Rivera like the Yanks or Rob Nen of the Giants or a John Smoltz of the Braves who will, provided they are healthy, come in for pretty much every save opportunity.

Yeah, a more accurate name would be "closer by committee." Which would've been incomprehensible before Bruce Sutter, since the term -- and this strange idea that your best reliever should ONLY be used in the 9th with a lead -- began with him (his manager, anyone?).

The "closer" concept is a weird one that has disproportionately enriched one pitcher per team and their agents. Alas, if the Bosox pitchers just happen to stink, people will blame the lack of a closer. But that's what happens in a world where Rob Dibble is an analyst... Use your best reliever in whatever inning you need him, dammit!

[ April 11, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

At this point, I'd welcome a closer by committee.
It couldn't be worse than having Armando "Let me give up a homerun every f**king time I pitch" Benitez on your team.

Josh

My understanding of the "bullpen by committee" concept is that they don't want to be constrained in the normal "starter-middle reliever-closer" model. If they want to bring in someone for one inning in the sixth or seventh because it's the middle of the line-up or something, they will,and then might bring in another reliever for the seventh, eighth and ninth.

The problem with this idea is that your bullpen has to be able to get outs when called upon to do so. It would have made more sense to keep Ugie, and then have him pitch in the sixth or seventh inning if you wanted. Instead, they've got a group of guys who can't be counted on to get a side out, whether it be the sixth or the ninth.

Josh, buwahahahaha! Sounds like too many Angel's *cough* closers *cough* that I've had to experience.

I've always taken B-b-C to be sort of a put-down, sort of to mean "all our relievers are crap, so we'll throw whoever in". Now it's all become so specialized that teams can sometimes carry, say, a left-hander that will usually pitch to one batter. It's funny to see a stat line like this:

G: 72
IP: 45 1/3

Bill W, wouldn't Sutter's manager have been Whitey Herzog?

I really think the practice began (or at least became de riguer) with Tony La Russa managing Dennis Eckersley in Oakland in the late 1980's. (And, to a lesser extent, Tom Henke pitching for Bobby Cox's Toronto Blue Jays).

I looked up Sutter's four years under the best manager in baseball history -- Dorrel Norman Herzog -- and they don't support your theory:
1981: 48 games appeared in, 82 innings pitched, 3-5 record, 25 saves
1982: 70 games appeared in, 102 1/3 innings pitched, 9-8 record, 36 saves
1983: 60 games appeared in, 89 1/3 innings pitched, 9-10 record, 21 saves
1984: 71 games appeared in, 122 2/3 innings pitched, 5-7 record, 45 saves

Not only is the games to innings ratio not supporting your theory, Sutter's getting far more decisions than Henke or La Russa's Eck ever would get in a season.

So don't blame Whitey for this orthodoxy.

Boston's bullpen has been an unrelenting embarrassment, to the extent that they were rather loudly booed during their introduction on opening day at Fenway, after ten scary away games. Grady Little's solution yesterday, after Derek Lowe pitched 7 innings to the Orioles for 5 hits & no runs, was to bring in (woof-daddy) starter Tim Wakefield to secure the 8th and 9th, for a 1-0 Boston win. Dan Shaughnessy called Wakefield a "committee of one." Now Theo, what's up with that other committee, the one that cost so much less than Ugie Urbina, last year's 40-save closer?

Speaking of booing in Beantown, get this: Pedro Martinez left the field to a mixed chorus of cheers and boos on Saturday after giving up ten runs in 4 1/3 innings against Baltimore, his worst outing ever in big-league ball. He had pitched well in his previous two games this season, last year's injuries apparently not bothering him. He was just having a real bad day. Like those other five useless fools. (Oops, did I say that?) The game ended in a 13-6 loss.

Sorry to veer off-topic for a sec, but also during Saturday's bizarro game, two other unfortunate incidents occurred when home plate umpire Jerry Layne was hit on his facemask by a stray ball in the 4th, and Red Sox third base coach Mike Cubbage had a seizure attributed to his diabetes. Both were hospitalized overnight, released on Sunday, and the damage appears to have been temporary, thank goodness.

[ April 14, 2003, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Thanks for correcting my historical dyslexia, CITT... obviously it was LaRussa/Eck that was the trend-setter.

I don't think the history of the closer is as simple as being the creation of one manager/pitcher combination. I looked at the average # of saves per appearance and appearances per innings pitched for the top 5 in saves in the NL at five year intervals:

Saves/Appearance Appearances/IP
1967 0.30 0.71
1972 0.42 0.64
1977 0.39 0.57
1982 0.38 0.65
1987 0.51 0.74
1992 0.53 0.82
1997 0.56 0.96
2002 0.69 0.95

By 1970, some managers were clearly experimenting with a designated closer, as a few pitches received saves in the majority of their appearances e.g. Fred Gladding (1969), Wayne Granger (1970). However, it remained an unusual choice and wasn't repeated year after year. It looks as though the first people to really get the closer role consistently were Bruce Sutter (in Chicago under Herman Franks) and Rollie Fingers (several managers), beginning in 1977. That's when the idea seems to have begun to catch on, and by 1987, having a designated closer was normal. But most of these guys quite often pitched more than an inning. Even Eckersley averaged about 1.2 innings/appearance until 1993, none of the top 5 relievers in the NL pitched that many innings/appearance last year.

As one baseball writer noted, the save is the only statistic in the baseball lexicon that dictates managerial strategy, and managers have become progressively more and more doctrinaire about it. Unfortunately, while there's nothing wrong with the bullpen-by-committee concept, it has a tendency to get used when none of the relievers are very good. So when it fails, it's the absence of the closer that is blamed--but the team's bullpen would have been a mess without decent set-up men anyway.

Some comments from Red Sox starter Derek Lowe on the "committee" concept:

I am SO sick of players singing this tune!!! That goes for non-pitchers on "needing" to hit in the same lineup slot, and myriad other managerial options...

Since 95% of players know zilch about baseball history, maybe they should all be told ONCE (at a union meeting?) that the most successful manager of all time, Casey Stengel from 1949-61, platooned his players at many positions, pinch-hit in early innings, used starters to relieve and vice-versa... and all he did was win 11 pennants in 13 years.

TAKE THE SALARY AND PLAY WHEN YOU'RE ASKED. Roles are for actors!!!

The closers by calamity struck again last night - Bob Hohler, Boston Globe, 4/28/03

It's got to stop, I can't afford this feeling every night. - Red Sox manager Grady Little on his inconsistent bullpen (Ibid.)

It's sure not working very well. I'm expecting Little to revert to the familiar starter-reliever-closer model, with Ramiro Mendoza -- assuming his "mechanical problems" really are behind him -- and Brandon Lyon currently the top two candidates for the closer role, Alan Embree and Bob Howry stepping in should calamity strike again.

Texas seems real happy with former Red Sox closer Ugie Urbina: "Ugie's been great for us from Game 1. He's been a leader in the bullpen. He works hard and he has no fear. The thing I like about him is that if and when he blows a save, we know we can run him back out there the next day and it's not going to affect him." -- Rangers manager Buck Showalter. <sigh> So far this season, Ugie's got 8 saves for 8 opportunities; the entire Red Sox bullpen is 6 for 10. Oh well, I trust it'll all work out...

[ April 28, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Arghhh!!! Why do the Red Sox even bother having a bullpen? Why not just put the ball on a tee and have their opponents swat away at it? :mad: :mad: :mad:

No wonder Grady Little has all that gray hair. I just hope it doesn't all start falling out of his head now, cause I think he looks great. wink

Personally, I just LOVE the Red Sox bullpen!! I'm going to the game tomorrow, and to the Labor Day game (rescheduled from Friday), and I hope to see lots and lots and LOTS of the Red Sox bullpen both days!!!!!!

With the NY-NY rainout, Fox got a good show this afternoon!

Another installment today...from a 2-run deficit to a 5-run deficit in four batters.

<Homer voice> Mmmmmmmmm....Red Sox bullpen...... </Homer voice>

:mad: :mad: ARRRRRRRRGH!!! :mad: :mad:

And the Phillies' Brett Myers allowed three hits, no runs over nine innings.

HEADS WILL ROLL!!

I was at that game, Joe. Wow did my Sox look bad. And wow did your Philly fans give me a hard time. And wow does the Vet suck.

You should've told me you were coming, I'd have protected you.

That's the understatement of the season, BostonFan....I think I can say with a high degree of certainty that, unlike when many historic ballparks in other cities have been imploded/demolished and you would see dozens of longtime fans and former players weeping nostagically as their former "shrine" was razed, NO ONE in the city of brotherly love including any of the Phillies brethren will be sad to see this concrete monstrosity finally gone (am I correct in that assumption, JoeInPhilly?).

I have had the "pleasure" of seeing over a dozen Phillies games (not to mention two Eagles contests) there over the years and while the behavior of the fans is in a league all their own the complete lack of any aesthetic appeal (compounded by that AWFUL artificial surface) has had a direct influence upon the team's poor performance IMHO (the Phils 1980 championship team notwithstanding).

Few teams in the history of American sports have ever NEEDED to move out of a concrete mausoleum more than the Phillies have....one question that comes to mind, though, is whether or not the "jail cell" in the bowels of the Vet that is used to hold unruly fans (at least at Eagles games anyway) will be in place at the new Citizens Bank ballpark or will that no longer be necessary as a result of their new stadium attracting more of an upscale "wine and cheese" crowd as took place when the O's moved from Memorial Stadium to Camden Yards (which is a fantastic park in its own right, btw, but that's another thread) eleven years ago?

Sorry to veer WAY off topic (AGAIN ) but B-fan's comments about his weekend visit to the Vet deserved to be expounded upon.

[ June 23, 2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

you forgot to point out the booo'ing of santa... all that was missing from the form letter.

Hard to say. The Eagles front office basically ignored their final season. They didn't commemorate it at all, even though their Vet tenure was mostly superior to that of the Phils. The Phils, on the other hand, are doing all kinds of things, including this past weekend's salute to the 80s. Personally, though it's certainly got its flaws I find myself rather nostalgic about the impending end of the Vet.

Completely wrong. The team's failures were a direct result of the front office making poor decisions and/or not spending money.

There was no "jail cell" at the Vet. A judge decided to set up a court a couple of years ago in a room inside the stadium so that anyone who was arrested could go right to him to be processed. After doing it for maybe a couple of games one season, the following year they moved it out to a nearby police station...and by the way, it saw very few "customers" last year.

Sorry to touch on such a raw Philly nerve, folks. I actually saw a couple of guys at the game wearing "Save The Vet" t-shirts, but I have a feeling the movement doesn't quite inspire like the "Save Fenway" phenomenon.

Sorry I didn't make contact, Joe, but it turned out to be a last minute decision to go. I've got tix to the Phils in Baltimore. Why don't you meet me down there?

The only day I could be in Baltimore is Sunday. My brother is considering driving down for the day and I might join him.

Don't worry about touching a raw nerve...and just ignore whatshisname who referred to Santa Claus...

[ June 24, 2003, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Kim to the rescue? The Boston Globe says the Sox are making Byung-Hyun Kim their closer.

Well they have to do something. Lyon STINKS, Rupe might be the worst pitcher ever to put on the uniform. Across the board their bullpen bleeds runs. That Phillies game was SOOO frustrating (just another day as a Sox fan).