Goose Gossage is Right: Closers and Relief Pitchers Cannot Be Compared

by Harold Friend

When discussing the greatest pitchers of all time, only starters are ever considered. It is impossible to compare starting pitchers to relief pitchers, and it is impossible to compare the relief pitchers of yesteryear to modern closers.

Relief Pitchers Were "Firemen"

From the glory days of Washington's Firpo Marberry and the Yankees' Wilcy Moore, to the days of Hoyt Wilhelm, Elroy Face, Tug McGraw, and Steve Bedrosian, relief pitchers were "fireman" who came in to put out the fire. It was not unusual for a team's best relief pitcher to enter the game in the seventh or eighth inning in close games. They weren't specialists who were used only in the game's last inning to protect a lead.

Impossible to Compare a "Fireman" to a Closer

A few days ago, Goose Gossage stated that he considered Mariano Rivera the greatest of all closers, but that it was impossible to compare closers with relief pitchers. Gossage contends that he, Rollie Fingers, Dan Quisenberry, and Sparky Lyle were relief pitchers who did a job that requires three pitchers to accomplish today.

Why Rich "Goose" Gossage is Right

Rich Gossage is right on target. Starting an inning with the bases empty and no outs cannot be compared to entering the game with runners on base. The closer has the luxury of allowing a hit to the first batter he faces, and even to the second batter, because he has the opportunity to work out of his own jam. A relief pitcher that comes in with a runner in scoring position cannot allow a hit because he cannot let the runner score. It is an entirely different ball game.

Jonathon Papelbon and George Sherrill

Jonathan Papelbon would like to become the next Mariano Rivera. He may accomplish that seemingly impossible dream, but he will never be the next Rich Gossage.

Jonathan Allows One Hit and His Team Loses

On June 30, 2009, Jonathan entered the game in the eighth inning with Baltimore runners on first and second and one out. Boston was desperately clinging to a 10-9 lead that had been a 10-1 lead an inning earlier. Papelbon struck out Felix Pie for the second out, but then Nick Markakis hit a double to left center field to give the Birds the lead.

George Allows One Hit and His Team Wins

Baltimore brought in closer George Sherrill to pitch the ninth. Jeff Bailey greeted Sherrill with a ringing single to left. If Sherrill had entered the game in the situation Papelbon found himself in an inning earlier, he would have blown the save. The Orioles' closer retired Julio Lugo and Dustin Pedroia, hit Kevin Youkilis with a pitch, and struck out Jason Bay for the save.

Rich Gossage and friends didn't have the luxury of starting the last inning with the bases empty. In the Orioles-Red Sox game, Papelbon didn't have that luxury and his team lost. Sherrill had that situation, and although he allowed two runners, he "earned" a save. Closers have it much easier than the relief pitchers known as "firemen."

Reference:

Rich Gossage Interview

RomiezzoLegend

173 days ago

Score 0

Another article regarding the saves...

You touched on a very valid point, as usual, LouGehrig. When Gossage came into the game, he was a "fireman" (very good term to define what a reliever was back in the day). I'm sure that 9 out of 10 closers today would be nowhere near what their stats would say now if they had been in Gossage's, Finger's, or Quisenberry's shoes. You wouldn't have half the guys saving over 25 games, never mind 40 or 30.

Guys like Papelbon and Sherrill, along with many others who are/were considered successful at one point in time (Armando Benitez, Jason Isringhausen, Antonio Alfonseca, Joe Borowski, Todd Jones)... these guys are not considered firemen at all. These guys are more like the pinch-pitchers. If the guy gets tired and loses a couple miles/hour on the radar gun, they can bring in that guy that pitches 96-97 miles/hour and [hopefully] get the save. And you know what? If they put a couple runners on, it's all good. As long as they have a 1, 2, or 3 run lead (hopefully it's 3).

Permalink | Reply

RomiezzoLegend

173 days ago

Score 1

Oh, and here's something to ponder: How many saves would K-Rod have (and how many would he blow) had he been in the middle of a gem in the 7th/8th inning rather than just getting himself out of his gem in the 9th?

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

173 days ago

Score 2

It was actually 10-6 to start the 8th. It had been 10-1 at the start of the 7th.

It's funny though, right when I saw the title of the article, I thought of Papelbon's situation last night. Watching the game, I had wanted to see Papelbon come in earlier, to relieve Okajima perhaps. That's when it was a 10-7 game in the 8th, with the bases loaded, and 0 outs.

But Papelbon's essentially a 1 inning guy, at least that's what the Red Sox like him to be during the regular season. In 2006, he wore out and couldn't pitch in September, so now it's only 3 out saves, and never more than 2 saves in a row. That hesitation to bring him in cost the Sox last night. They literally only used him when they'd used up everyone else.

Permalink | Reply

RomiezzoLegend

173 days ago

Score 2

That's true. Papelbon is essentially a 1 inning guy (as well as everybody else). However, I think this is also because of the fact that there are a lot more starters who don't go that far in the game without a decrease in their velocity. That's why you have 1, 2, or 3 set-up men (a la Okajima, Delcarmen, and Bard): #1 because if you want someone to turn to, you don't have to rely on the same pitcher every time, and you can always change it up... and #2 to prevent injury to your best reliever.

And the thing with Francona is the fact that he has a pretty good bullpen with those four. But Tito has relied on him for more than one inning a few times (at least from what I've seen last season). I definitely agree with you though, Rawb: Paps is a one inning guy, and will probably stay a one inning guy with the depth in their bullpen right now.

Permalink

Taytay 24All-American

173 days ago

Score 4

Regarding starting pitchers, Romi, I agree with Nolan Ryan. He has raised expectations throughout the Rangers system and put an emphasis on stamina. This year, Rangers starters are averaging 6.06 innings per start, compared to 5.36 last year. If pitchers condition themselves for it, they can be effective further into the game.

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

173 days ago

Score 2

I hope Ryan's belief and impact is felt and adjusted througout baseball. I think it's a good thing to let a pitcher work out of a jam, and to take his lumps every now and again.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

173 days ago

Score 2

Not to take anything away from Ryan, but how much has that number been boosted by Kevin Millwood, who's only 56 innings shy of his total from last year? He's averaging 7.04 innings per start this season. Last year it was 5.82. Texas also had trouble last year with getting starts from the same 5 guys, which they haven't had much of a problem with in '09.

Permalink

Taytay 24All-American

173 days ago

Score 2

Millwood was the first pitcher that Nolan, Jon-boy and Wash approached this offseason about improving his conditioning. He bought in and the rest of the staff fell in line. I would say that his improved numbers are evidence that it works, not something to be omitted. And I would argue the same for getting consistent starts from five guys. They aren't exactly throwing out the mid-90's Braves rotation this year. They went to spring training with really only two confirmed starters (and that included Padilla) that has to this point in the season overachieved. You dismiss it; I say Nolan and Mike Maddux are on to something.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

172 days ago

Score 2

Whatever Millwood is doing has worked, but it seems as though he's going deeper into games because his ERA is 2.40 runs lower this year. When you allow fewer walks and hits, you face fewer batters, and can go deeper into games. When you have an ERA of 5.07, managers tend not to stick with you deep into games.

The Rangers don't have a 1990's Braves kind of rotation, I was simply comparing it to last year's. In 2008, only 3 Rangers had 20+ starts, eight Rangers had 5 to 15 starts. Outside of the top 5 in games started, a total of 54 games were started by other pitchers. This year, outside of the top 5 in games started, only 11 have been started by other pitchers.

I'm sure Ryan has helped, but it helps just to have good pitchers. To me, the IP/starts stat is more an indicator of efficiency and quality, rather than stamina. And I know I'm picking hairs here, but I hate it when one person gets credit for everything when it's in fact a very complex situation.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

172 days ago

Score 2

But I did see that Millwood is averaging like 111 pitches per start, which is high, especially compared to his 93 pitches per start in '08. If he's pitching effectively in those last 15 to 18 pitches, then perhaps Nolan Ryan and the new stamina philosophy in Texas deserve more credit than I've given them.

Permalink

Taytay 24All-American

172 days ago

Score 1

That last comment, Rawb, is my link to Romi's original thought about starting pitchers. They are going farther because they are more effective later in games, at least in part. Certainly there are several factors involved--one being Maddux's approach to pitching that he has brought to the staff. I have heard him say several time that the perfect inning is not three strikeouts, it's three pitches. Add it all up and the result is a more effective staff, and Nolan's emphasis on conditioning and expectations of a starter going beyond five innings is certainly a significant part of that.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

172 days ago

Score 2

The changes Ryan made to the pitching philosophy are mandatory and have been in effect since 2008. Millwood and the others weren't asked, they were told.

Long toss every day. Live BP sessions replacing bullpens. Mandatory conditioning work. It has rubbed off, just look at the differences in Seattle and Kansas City, just to name two.

This isn't groundbreaking stuff. The implementation of pitch counts and the reliance on the bullpen has more to do with the Players Association and protecting an investment than lack of ability.

Teams are now realizing, thanks to Ryan and a couple of others, that starters can and should go longer, that pitch counts don't matter if you're in shape and that there are plenty of innings for the bullpen to share.

It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

Permalink

RomiezzoLegend

172 days ago

Score 1

Long toss is one of the best exercises for pitchers. If they do it at least once every day for 15 minutes or so, it really improves your velocity and your endurance once you get on that mound. And yes, AF#1. I definitely feel that there's a definite change to KC's and Seattle's pitching staff. However, they've always had the potential to be good pitchers. Zack Greinke, Gil Meche, Luke Hochevar... just to name three for KC... and Felix Hernandez, Erik Bedard, and Jarrod Washburn... just to name three for Seattle.

Permalink

Taytay 24All-American

172 days ago

Score 1

AF1, thanks for the contribution. Allow me to clarify a few things--I think we are really in agreement on this topic.

Yes, Ryan's philosophy was implemented last year, but it wasn't reflected in the results because he joined the team pretty late. With a full off-season on the program, we are starting to see the dividends this year, and I believe we will see even more improvement in the coming years. The Rangers have a lot of good young arms in the minors right now who are being brought up with the expectation that five innings and a decision are not good enough.
Millwood and the others may have been told, not asked (I used the word "approached"), but that doesn't mean they had to buy in. I give them, and especially Millwood, credit for taking some constructive criticism and trying a new approach.
Lastly, of course it is common sense. But it hasn't been done in Texas ever. This is a big change for this team, and it's long overdue. The Rangers have long tolerated excuses like "hitter's park" and "summer heat". That won't fly as long as Ryan is in charge.

One more thing: sign up!

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

173 days ago

Score 0

I always think of the relievers of the 70s when discussions like this come up. It wasn't unusual for a guy like Bruce Sutter to come in at the end of the 7th and then pitch the rest of the game. This may not be a significant difference, but Sutter routinely pitched 100 innings a season in a relief role. Compare this to the 68 IP Francisco Rodriguez recorded in his 62 save season.

I don't hear much about the "Rolaids Relief Man of the Year" award these days. I was surprised to see it still exists. Some great names on the winners list in the earliest days of the award (per Wikipedia, it started in 1976) - Rawly Eastwick, Rollie Fingers, Goose, Jim Kern, Sutter, Dan Quisenberry...

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

173 days ago

Score 0

To be fair to relievers of today, there are a lot better hitters playing now than back in the 70s. Scouting reports/tapes are also much more sophisticated. It's much harder to go 3 innings in relief before getting figured out by the opposing team, especially for a guy who, by definition, doesn't have enough stuff/stamina to be a starter.

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

173 days ago

Score 2

I'm not sure if I'd agree that today's hitters are better. There were a lot of good hitters back then, and I'd argue they'd break even at the very least. But this is an endless discussion.

For all the Rose, Carew, Brett, Oliver, Madlock, Parker, Schmidt, Winfield, Bonds, Jackson, Rice, Buckner, Garvey, Yount type names I mention, there are probably just as many of today's hitters that could be mentioned.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

173 days ago

Score 0

I think more that the average hitter is much more fearsome today, and much more capable of hitting a ball out of the park. At the very least, I think we can agree that scouting has improved, and there is much more emphasis for hitters to be patient and make pitchers work.

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

173 days ago

Score 1

I can agree with that. But a certain Phillies leadoff hitter might not agree... :-)

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

173 days ago

Score 1

Maria?

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

172 days ago

Score 1

Ha ha. Well played.

Permalink

LouGehrigRed-Shirting

172 days ago

Score 2

If today's hitters are more patient and make pitchers work, why was it that until around 1950, there were many teams that walked more than they struck out? How would the hitters of the 1970s done if they had the advantages many hitters in the 21st century had until recently? And there are still great advantages modern hitters have.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

172 days ago

Score 0

There's much less aversion to striking out. And just because you strikeout doesn't mean you haven't made the pitcher work.

Permalink

CheezerAll-Star

172 days ago

Score 1

So Rawb's contention is not that walks have gone down, but strikeouts have gone up. Thus the change in Walk:Strikeout Ratio.

The question is... Has the average number of walks (or strikeouts) shown any trends over the years? Rawb also stated that the average hitter is better now. Has the average hitter's batting average (heh) shown any trends over the years? These trends would just be starting points for analysis of course. Statistics aren't the be all, end all.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

172 days ago

Score 1

I wish we could look at pitches per plate appearance from way back, but I don't think they tracked this stat back then.

My whole point was that hitters have more advantages today, which makes them better in the struggle between hitters and pitchers. It's not a slight on the hitters of the 1970's.

Honestly, I find most of the arguments people offer as to why pitchers don't pitch deeper into games anymore to be baseless and highly theoretical, all boiling down to "Back in my day..."

Pedro Martinez's arm doesn't fall off at 100 pitches. But he's no longer capable of the precise control that makes him effective through those first 100 pitches. He's strong enough to make the pitch, but will make more mistakes, and hitters today are better suited to capitalizing on those mistakes.

It's easy to say "people were tougher back in 19xx (or 18xx)" It's a lot harder to compare the different situations the game was in at different stages of development.

Permalink