Why is it that once a “closer” wins the job for a big league baseball team, that he just won’t come out of the game, no matter how much he sucks at that job?

Exhibit A: Matt Lindstrom, Florida Marlins.

After being extremely decent at best in his first two years in the show, Lindstrom won the closer’s job in Florida this season. Coming into tonight, he had three saves and one blown save, with decent numbers overall.

Jump to tonight’s game against the Phillies. With a 3-0 lead to work with, Lindstrom proceeded to go ground out, double, walk, single, walk, strike out, walk, grand slam.

At what point, with the bases loaded and two runs in with a one run lead, was it a good idea to leave this hump in to face Shane Victorino. Lindstrom couldn’t throw a strike with a fastball if his life depended on it, yet God forbid you take him out. He’s the closer, after all, and it’s just taboo to remove a closer from the game while you are still winning.

You want to know why the Marlins have zero chance to win the NL East in 2009? Matt Lindstrom + Fredi Gonzalez = failure. You may not see it in the numbers yet, but trust me when I tell you that this combination will cost them more games than any other. They have great starting pitching, and an unbelievable infield, but they have a hump for a closer and a manager that will let him continue to be a hump, despite all of the evidence saying that he should not be on the field.

Gonzalez clearly went to the New York Mets school of bullpen management, and for that reason, he will most likely continue to fuck up situations like this one against the Phillies.

It never ceases to amaze me that every team in the league thinks that it has a “closer.” Every year, there are about five good closers in baseball. The other 25 teams have guys who hold that title, but are just not good at closing games. Why piss away wins by putting in a guy with an arbitrary title, rather than put the best pitcher for a particular situation on that day in.

There are few things as poorly run in sports as baseball bullpens. When a guy takes a 3-0 lead and walks in a run to make it 3-2, leaving him in to face the next guy is admitting defeat. You wouldn’t leave any other pitcher in the bullpen in the game in that situation, so why do you do it with a closer.

You get what you deserve and the Marlins deserved to lose this game with their ninth inning management. Simple as this: When a guy has walked three people, given up a double and allowed two runs to score — YOU TAKE HIM OUT OF THE GAME! There is no discussion here. He clearly was not going to get Victorino out, so why leave him in. They had a lefty warmed up in the bullpen, but apparently, until the save is officially blown, it is illegal to remove a closer.

I am not a Marlins fan, but it pisses me off to no end to see some of the ridiculous “managing” that gets pulled in Major League Baseball games.

Matt Lindstrom’s line: 0.2 IP, 4 H, 7 R, 7 ER, 3 BB, 1 K, 2 HR.

Good thing he’s the “closer”, and an even better thing that you chose to stick with him after walking in a run. Clearly he was going to “save” the game for you. Good job, coach.

After the game, Gonzalez wouldn’t stop talking about what a great situation that it was for Lindstrom to close out that game (despite having proven that he was about to lose the game), what with all the juices flowing and the crowd getting into it. He said that Lindstrom has to learn to close out games to be a great closer, and the situation was perfect for him to learn from.

Here’s an idea — use the best possible pitcher for the current situation. You don’t have to have a “closer” that must learn to be a great closer. The object of the game is to win. Pissing away a 3-0 lead is not a learning experience — it is failure. If you want to teach your closer to be a good closer, you don’t let him fail. It’s as simple as that. The reason that most closer’s don’t have any staying power is that they are often mentally weak. This game could have ruined Lindstrom’s season. We don’t know yet, but when you take a guy that can’t throw strikes, let him walk in a run and fall down 2-0 with the tying run on third, you know what is going to happen — he’s got to throw a meatball to get a strike and any good hitter is going to hit it hard. That’s what happened. It’s not a good learning experience — it’s a terrible one.

It never ceases to amaze me the low level of baseball managing in today’s game. It’s really pathetic, actually.

Speaking of shitty managing — let’s jump over to the New York Mets game on the same day. First inning — leadoff double by Jose Reyes and Luis Castillo comes up to bat. First inning, guy on second, nobody out — what do you do? If you’re the Mets, you sacrifice bunt. That’s right, before even one out is recorded in the game, you try to sac bunt your leadoff guy to third. I’m sorry, but in 100 percent of baseball situations, a sac bunt after a leadoff double in the first inning is the wrong decision.

Honestly, do these guys know anything about baseball, or are they only versed in the politics of coaching (ie. how to make all decisions that will best put you in a situation you don’t have to take blame for)? The Mets are a talented team, but their inability to put a quality coach on the bench is embarrassing. Another team that will get what it deserves, and guess what — in both instances, the Phillies pick up the pieces and are likely to win the division.

Share this story...

Discussion

No comments for “Why Must a “Closer” Stay in the Game?”

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.