Baseballhead:
Coffee Is For Closers

Michael Cox

As I scribble out this Baseballhead, one Strikethree Towers office TV is tuned to the ESPN Sunday night game and another plays a DVD of Glengarry Glen Ross. I can't help thinking that the latter looks a lot like I imagine the Royals' front office.

Before we begin, I'd like to thank you Pirates fans for not writing in to ask if I want to retract my preseason predictions. (Royals fans have also refrained from gloating, but I know that's because they're even more pessimistic about the 5-0 start than I am.)

Cold shoulder: This should show you how jaded I am with the media: I'm actually surprised no one's tried to link Derek Jeter's and Ken Griffey Jr.'s shoulder dislocations.

However, a couple of things did strike me as amusing—first and foremost, the number of columnists who spent way too much time suggesting there'll be a few C-cells hurled Ken Huckaby's way when the Blue Jays visit the Bronx, yet conveniently neglected to mention that it was Derek Jeter who erred—nay, bungled—by sliding headfirst into a close play.

As always, the Post's Joel Sherman takes the fifth-grader's stance on the issue, suggesting that the third-base collision will potentially "haunt [Huckaby's] career." Sherman seemed to barely avoid prefacing the comment with "I hope."

Then there was The Sporting News' Ken Rosenthal, who apparently knows where Miss Cleo is hiding, writing under the headline "Only the Yankees could pull off losing a player like Jeter":

You can see it coming: Erick Almonte will hit .275 and play respectable defense replacing injured Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter, then get traded for a hotshot reliever in July.

Only the Yankees could turn a serious injury into their gain.

Considering that right now most GMs likely think Almonte was the Little Leaguer with the forged birth certificate, that's assuming a lot. But wait, there's more:

Only the Yankees could lose Jeter and continue pounding opponents mercilessly.

Of course, those "opponents" have included the Blue Jays and Devil Rays, the latter of whom one should fret over not pounding.

The Griffey owie, on the other hand, sparked a chorus of "ho hum—another year, another injury," despite the incredible irony that this one happened after all the hard work The Former Kid put into preventing future leg injuries. He really can't win for losing.

Still, I see him coming back and easily picking up the handful of homers he requires for a Hall pass, after a tough rehab regimen which will include doing pull-ups while chanting, "Bowden...Bowden..."

Save it: If I had a dime for every different opinion on what makes a good big-league closer, I'd be able to afford that pony I've had my eye on. An overpowering flamethrower? An imposing (or just plain crazy) presence who intimidates hitters? Or as Harold Reynolds (usually a surprisingly smart guy for an ex-player) opined last night, a wily veteran who "knows what it takes to get guys out"?

Really, it just takes a good pitcher. Look at the A's, where Billy Beane is now on his third different closer in three seasons, swapping them out as if they come stamped with an expiration date. Almost every other successful team holds on to its closer as if that success rides on him, wringing their hands in despair if the chosen one should go down to injury.

Not that I think this year's Red Sox' "closer-by-committee" is necessarily the right way to go either, although I wouldn't necessarily call it "This Week's Outrage" as the Hartford Courant did. (Apparently blowing two saves is considered a failure in Red Sox Nation.) The implication there is that the endgame assignment is random or democratic in some way, and that's just as bad as clinging dearly to one man. Let's face it, you don't want Steve Woodard on the mound in a one-run game with the heart of the Yankee lineup on deck just because it's "his turn."

If I were a crafty GM-manager team (and we all know I am not), I'd sign a damn fine bullpen righty and lefty, reserved for the last 2-3 innings of a close game. I wouldn't be scared to let either come in in the seventh and pitch three full innings if necessary, since I've got the other available the next night. If you want to get fancy, make one a soft-tosser and the other a flamethrower, to allow a different look depending on the preceding starter or middleman. But no more than two, used situationally and allowed to stretch out on occasion.

Thus, for most games you've got a combination setup man and closer in one, saving you money you can use to either try and sign a good starting catcher (if you're the Mariners) or make a personal loan to the Commissioner (if you're the Twins).

Next week: why every player should be a DH. Unless I think differently by then.

about the author

Michael Cox believes Milwaukee and Detroit still have a lot to live for—without you, most of America would be without pizza. Send coupons to mc@strikethree.com.