The biggest problem with closers is that you put so much money into one player who only provides a huge advantage in one category. Yes, the best closers also help in ERA/Ratio, but you can get the same value out of slightly worse ERA/Ratios form starters at lower prices and those pitchers generally double the closers in Ks.I don't like paying big money for closers either. However, the Patton $ formulas dispute the notion that top closers (or any top reliever, for that matter) can't or don't earn the big bucks in ERA and WHIP.
Top 10 Earners ERA + WHIP: A.L. 2009
| # | Pitcher | ERA$ | WHIP$ | Qual$ | $ | Sal |
| 1 | Zack Greinke | $11 | $9 | $20 | $44 | $21 |
| 2 | Felix Hernandez | $10 | $7 | $17 | $40 | $21 |
| 3 | Roy Halladay | $8 | $7 | $16 | $37 | $28 |
| 4 | Andrew Bailey | $5 | $6 | $11 | $27 | |
| 5 | CC Sabathia | $5 | $7 | $11 | $34 | $31 |
| 6 | Justin Verlander | $4 | $6 | $10 | $37 | $15 |
| 7 | Mariano Rivera | $4 | $5 | $9 | $27 | $25 |
| 8 | Joe Nathan | $4 | $4 | $8 | $28 | $26 |
| 9 | Matt Guerrier | $4 | $4 | $8 | $14 | |
| 10 | Michael Wuertz | $3 | $4 | $8 | $19 |
Half of the pitchers on this list are relievers. And they're not all necessarily at lower prices than the relievers on this list. Greinke, Hernandez and Verlander are, but Halladay and Sabathia are not. The power of getting the same qualitatives out of a bullpen arm is difficult to underestimate...yet I continue to contend that middle relievers are extremely underrated in 5x5.
It's easy when you just look at the success stories. What about the A.L.'s 10 best expected pitchers?
Top 10 Salaries, A.L. Pitchers (w ERA/WHIP)
| # | Player | ERA$ | WHIP$ | Qual$ | $ | Sal |
| 1 | CC Sabathia | $5 | $7 | $11 | $34 | $21 |
| 2 | Jon Papelbon | $4 | $2 | $6 | $22 | $29 |
| 3 | Roy Halladay | $8 | $7 | $16 | $37 | $28 |
| 4 | Joe Nathan | $4 | $4 | $8 | $28 | $26 |
| 5 | Joakim Soria | $3 | $2 | $5 | $19 | $26 |
| 6 | Mariano Rivera | $4 | $5 | $9 | $27 | $25 |
| 7 | Josh Beckett | $2 | $5 | $7 | $28 | $23 |
| 8 | James Shields | $0 | $1 | $2 | $18 | $23 |
| 9 | Bobby Jenks | $1 | $1 | $1 | $14 | $22 |
| 10 | Brian Fuentes | $0 | -$0 | $0 | $17 | $21 |
The starters here are generally more successful (i.e. predictable) in ERA/WHIP than the relievers. At the same time, there does seem to be a certain hierarchy among the relievers. Nathan and Rivera are definitely the crème de la crème (Papelbon sneaks past them), while Jenks and Fuentes are definitely getting paid for their saves and little else.
This is where I'm inclined to agree with Eugene. I like paying top dollar for closers like Nathan and Rivera...since I am pretty confident that they'll earn big money in ERA/WHIP to go along with their double-digit earnings in saves. I don't like paying more than $20 for relievers who I believe are a risk in ERA/WHIP. If they go down in those categories, I'm paying too much for saves, especially in the 5x5 format.
However, the mythology that relievers don't earn as much money in ERA/WHIP as starters is exactly that. Thirty-three pitchers in the American League earned $5 or more (including rounding) in ERA/WHIP. Only 13 of these pitchers were starters; the other 20 were relievers. Eugene is correct that you need to own starters to make sure you get the strikeouts you need to compete in the category, but you are going to taking more of a hit in ERA/WHIP with a starting pitcher than you are with a reliever.
2 comments:
Is it possible the valuation methodology underlying this discussion overvalues the contribution of relief pitcher ERA and WHIP ? Let's take an extreme case of 65 IP with a 1.10 WHIP and 3.00 ERA and also assume a team total of 1300 IP with a roughly league average 1.35 WHIP and 4.25 era. Absent this reliever, team WHIP would be 1.363 and team ERA would be 4.33. So, the reliever's presence might move you up one standing point each in WHIP and ERA. How much is a one point move worth ? Perhaps $1-$2 ? But the valuations you use are showing figures for ERA and WHIP each in the $4-$5 range. Please note, this is not a debate about valuation systems - I, in fact, am not a fan of the "standing points gain" approach, but the methodology in this case helps to point out the limited impact of reliever WHIP and ERA on overall team totals. And if one took a less extreme example such as 1.25 WHIP and 3.50 ERA, the move up would be proportionately less, implying little added dollar value. Thoughts ? Comments ?
Mike,
I think it would be helpful to show all presumed closers at draft time. Granted Nathan and Rivera were reliable and earned a lot in ERA/WHIP and do annually. But the three other relievers were undrafted, so I think it's a bit deceiving to have 5 and 5. All of the starters were drafted. If you list the 14 presumed closers, I guess you should also list the 14 most expensive starters as well and their ERA/WHIP earnings.
I might be more convinced if more than two or three closers actually earn a positive return in ERA/WHIP. My guess is that most are break even, so buyers better not spend more than their saves and Ks are going to earn, otherwise it's an automatic loss for 1 category.
Post a Comment