Search the Community

In recent years, the Twins have managed to stock the farm with flame throwers who project as late inning relievers. Several are projecting as shut down closers. These days, MLB pitching staffs have evolved from two positions, starter and reliever, into several positions: Starter, long relief, LH specialist, 7th inning guy, set-up guy, and closer.The hierarchy moves two directions: long relievers want to be starters, 7th inning and set-up guys want to be closers (I don’t know what to say about the aspirations of LH specialists- they are special). Very few teams ever seem very interested in or able to utilize a closer by committee type of late inning relief system. I’ve only been a TD member for about a year, and lurked for a couple years before then, and in that time, I can’t recall any standout discussions about closer by committee. But it seems like such a debate must have taken place somewhere along the way. So, hopefully I’m not opening some old ridiculous can of worms, beating a dead horse, or-r-r-r disturbing any sleeping dogs. For the purposes of this piece, and in light of what the Twins have coming up over the next few years, I’m going to advocate for it. Although, calling such a system “closer by committee” doesn’t seem quite right. It seems more like the position of closer is just eliminated. There can really only be one closer. If you have multiple relievers who all pitch in save situations, they wouldn't all be called 'closer', would they? Ugh, what am I talking about? Okay, this system would only work if you had three to five relievers all of closer quality. This doesn’t work if you have no relievers of closer quality and are just trying to puzzle it together playing match-ups. Neither does it work if you have one legit closer and a few guys who are okay. The Twins current relief corps could not do this. Maybe no team in baseball could. I think maybe the Royals could have done it last season. What they had in Herrera, Davis, and Holland was possibly unprecedented. It was also their ticket to the postseason and their key to success therein. It seems like any time a team has more than one successful late inning reliever, they will lose one in the following offseason. Either the closer leaves and the set-up guy becomes the new closer, or the set-up guy goes elsewhere to become a closer. So this is a market-driven issue as closers get more money than do other relievers, and teams aren’t yet willing to pay closer money to a non-closer. So, in the event a team accumulates three or more closer types at once, how should theat team use them, and how can they keep them around? When I look at the Twins minor league relievers, I think these become serious questions. Here’s a list of dudes: Nick Burdi, J.T. Chargois, Jake Reed, Mason Melotakis (L), Zack Jones, Yorman Landa, Fernando Romero, Michael Cedaroth, Cameron Booser (L), Alex Meyer, CK Irby, Brandon Poulson, Cole Johnson, Tyler Jones, Todd Van Steensel, Brandon Peterson, and Corey Williams (L). This is admittedly a wild list. It includes pitchers from Rookie to AAA, a few guys who are still starting but get plenty of press as possible future closer types. 75% of them throw in the upper 90s (a few hit triple digits) and the ones who don’t still boast K rates around 10/9. All of them but Poulson have solid secondary offerings. Several of them have sustained significant injury, some have returned already, some are still in recovery. So, hypothetically, Burdi, Reed, Chargois, Melotakis (L), and Meyer are all ready in 2016, and then Meyer doesn’t pan out as a starter. I pick these guys, because they all project as closers (if Meyer doesn’t cut it as a starter), they all throw gas, and they all are close enough to be up by 2016. You could push it back a season, and/or trade out names if you want. The point is that 2016-2017 is when the Twins should be back in business, and some combination of these guys could be ready. I think the Twins should be prepared to do something unorthodox with the situation, rather than trade what is perceived as excess or keep it stuffed in the minors or do a traditional 1, 2, 3 like the Royals, with Perkins at the top. Maybe something like a back-end five man rotation would work. It wouldn’t be predictable like the starting rotation, and it could be entirely match-up based, or partially, but probably not reliant on the hot hand. It would ideally keep opposing offenses from preparing to face one closer. I think eventually most closers gain enough regular exposure that their effectiveness can diminish. When a team comes to play the Twins, I think their hitters prepare to face the starter, and Glen Perkins. I don’t think they prepare for Caleb Theilbar- not because he isn’t good, but because of the unpredictability of facing him and also the unpredictability of the situation in which you might face him. If you are facing a closer, you know who it will be and you know the situation really counts. In one series you could face Perkins every night, and Theilbar not once. It seems like taking away the predictability of the closer position, thus taking away the ability of the offense to prepare, is a significant advantage. Especially, and maybe only, when the options to fill the role are multiple of comparable quality. What are the obstacles to implementing this kind of system, or something like it? Are managers too attached to the reliability of the traditional system? Are relievers too attached to the hierarchy of the 7th inning, set-up, closer system and the financial consequences involved? It seems like now might be the time to challenge those obstacles, if they exist. There is a new manager who could be open to different ideas. The relievers will all be new major leaguers, ideally more focused on performance than on title and/or relative pay. If such a system were to prove successful, why not the pay accurately reflect the value of each man. What am I missing here? Is this trying to reinvent the wheel? I don’t really know diddly about managing a pitching staff. I just see all those names about to be knocking on the door, and see those numbers attached to those names: 97mph, 98mph, 99mph, 100mph, 101mph, and think there’s got to be a way to put them all to work in equally contributive roles. Will everyone on the list make the show? Unlikely. Will all the ones who do be of closer quality? Unlikely… …but the scouting reports do look pretty damn good. Click here to view the article