Byrd as next year's closer??

by jerseywahoo on Jul 27, 2008 1:07 PM EDT Comment 43 comments

Sheldon Ocker wrote this article today in the Akron paper. Here's the link. As crazy as it sounds, I've heard a lot crazier things. I like this option a lot better than the recent past. We do need to bring in someone else unless Kobayashi answers the question for the remainder of the season. I'm interested to see what you think.

It seems as though this season has passed us by. The last 60 games or so should determine the makeup of our run at the next pennant. Why not? It is an odd year.

Poll

Who will be the Indian's closer in 2009?

Masa Kobayashi

11 votes

Rafael Perez

12 votes

Rafael Betancourt

5 votes

Jon Meloan

15 votes

Outside Free Agent

47 votes

Paul Byrd

10 votes

100 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I really don’t see Byrd as a closer; he’s way too hittable for that. I know that Betancourt hasn’t pitched well this year, but I know he’s better than this. Of course he won’t be as dominant as he was last year but he can still be effective. I’d like to give him a shot next year as our closer. Perez is also an obvious option because he’s effective against both lefties and righties. I do see the Indians signing someone in the offseason to help in the bullpen, be it a “proven closer” or another reliever that can compete for the job with the two Raffies and whoever else we have next year.

The Shin-Soo Choo of LGT.

by Buckeye Brad on Jul 27, 2008 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i vote for anybody but Paul Byrd.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jul 27, 2008 2:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Would that include Guillermo Mota? Roberto Hernandez? Danny Graves?

by odradek on Jul 27, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, i would have liked to limit it to players on the 40-man roster, but why the hell not. Throw in Scott Sauerbeck if you want to dig through the bushes.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jul 27, 2008 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

Byrd as closer is better than Sheldon Ocker as sportswriter.
Byrd as closer is better than a poke in the eye.

by odradek on Jul 27, 2008 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, no.

by fleerdon on Jul 27, 2008 4:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is just a terrible idea.

by ClarkM on Jul 27, 2008 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Even crazier would be to get Blake back and have him close.

LGT's resident beer connaisseur.

by LGT Patrick on Jul 27, 2008 5:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Is Ocker drunk off his mind when he writes his articles?

by Gradyforpresident on Jul 27, 2008 5:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, it would allow Byrd to ramp up his velocity to about 85 mph or so.

by Ryan on Jul 27, 2008 5:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

he wouldn’t have to worry about letting guys put the ball in play for 5-7 innings. now he’d just have to focus on letting guys put it in play for one or two innings at most.

by Brick. on Jul 27, 2008 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ocker has gotten into his head that one of the things you look for in a closer is the ability to induce really, really hard-hit balls.

by Jay on Jul 27, 2008 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

It’s not like Shapiro has done much during his tenure to dispel that notion.

You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person

by jakesinger777 on Jul 27, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can’t argue with that.

by Jay on Jul 27, 2008 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was actually the first time I’d read any of his work. Is he always that poorly rooted in reality?

Not that this is a totally apt comparison, but in the first inning of Byrd’s 2008 starts, he has allowed runs four times in 19 games. He has retired the side in order only six times.

Yeah you could try and argue that. However, in pitches 1-15 in 2008, Byrd’s opponents are hitting .353 off of him, giving him a WHIP of 1.72. It gets better in 16-30, but I fear we would rarely get that far.

I still can’t get over how bad that article was. Does he step away from the computer thinking that he’s really dissected the issue well? The only dumb argument that he missed was the often-stated view that Byrd seems to get hit hard late in games, therefore using him as a closer would make perfect sense since we would be getting his early work.

Bottom line…..puke.

by supermarioelia on Jul 27, 2008 7:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He also states that Byrd probably won’t make any more than 2 million for next year, based on the year he’s having.

That’s way off-base, right?

by supermarioelia on Jul 27, 2008 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course. If he’s healthy, he’s getting at least $5M.

by Ryan on Jul 27, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s always that terrible. It’s amazing how often he gets basic facts about the game wrong in his game articles. Makes one wonder if he actually watches.

by ProgMetaller on Jul 27, 2008 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1st choice: outside FA
2nd choice: Meloan

Dear Mr. Sabean, I hear you have a reputation of being stupid. Want to deal Lincecum or Cain? You can pick THREE of these 4 players for either: Borowski, Dellucci, Blake, Byrd.

by westbrook on Jul 27, 2008 7:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Going into 09, I still think Betancourt is our best option. Maybe a new calendar year and some new perspective can’t help him break out of his funk (ala Cliff Lee).

Byrd is a horrible choice. If we want a soft tossing guy that can get groundballs .. we already have Newsom in the minors.

by Toxicadam on Jul 27, 2008 8:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hello everyone,

I agree about Byrd – I can’t see him as our closer. We were on pins-and-needles with Borowski in 2007, and his stuff at that time was 1-2 notches better than Byrd’s.

I too believe that Betancourt should not be dismissed so quickly – like I’ve said a few times before, I really think the high IP and pitches thrown due to the long season has affected him – if he’s given proper rest (i.e. shut him down early), I think he has a good chance to rebound next year. After all, even before 2007, he was certainly an above-average reliever, so 2008, at this point, is the outlier, not necessarily the trend he’s now on.

Ironically, on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball, Orel Hershiser or Steve Phillips (not sure which) mentioned about how the Red Sox’s 2005 bullpen was not that good after they were so good in 2004, leading to them winning the WS.

Therefore, this dropoff from our bullpen is not that surprising when you consider the long season, combined with the fact that virtually none of them pitched that many IP and pitches. That’s likely a major factor in both Betancourt’s and Lewis’ drops in velocity, and those two and Perez haven’t been as sharp as they showed in 2007, or in Betancourt’s case, throughout his career.

Therefore, I’d still consider all of the following as potential closer candidates:

Rafael Betancourt
Rafael Perez
Jensen Lewis
Masa Kobayashi
Jon Meloan
Edward Mujica
Tony Sipp
Jeff Stevens
Adam Miller (? – if he can show he’s healthy and the Indians feel he’d have a better chance of staying healthy as a reliever. While we’d all like him to be a top-flight rotation starter, if he can stay healthier being a great reliever, particularly a great closer, I’d think we’d take that over not getting any meaningful contribution from him at all).
Tom Mastny (I don’t really see him as a closer-type, and almost forgot about him, but he was in the closer’s role briefly before, so I’d consider him before totally writing him off, but I suspect the choices above have better chances of filling that role than Mastny does).

As mentioned, it wouldn’t surprise me if 1-2 FAs are brought in and put into that mix as well – and, arguably, I think all of them would be better choices than Byrd, being that virtually all of them have better stuff than Byrd, and therefore, more margin for error when they make mistakes on the plate (and virtually EVERY pitcher makes a mistake on the plate now and then).

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 28, 2008 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Being that bullpen guys so often pitch from the stretch full-time, a move to the closer’s role would cost Byrd his greatest weapon—the double-pump windup.

by CBusSteve on Jul 28, 2008 4:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bullpen guys in general, yes, but closers who aren’t dominant generally are given a clean start to the 9th inning to work with.

by Jay on Jul 28, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never seemed to help Wickman or Borowski, they almost always ended up in the stretch, just like Byrd.

Maybe Ocker has just been brainwashed by the junkballer closers we’ve had over the years (the above two and Doug Jones). I know, I know, we had Mesa, but other than him, I can’t recall a fireballer since Kern. Olin maybe, but he was more of asubmariner than a fireballer.

by talonk on Jul 28, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Almost always? No.

About two-thirds of the time, any decent pitcher is going to get the first batter out, and maybe the next batter at least 60% of the time. That means that he’s not pitching out of the stretch for about 75% of the first three batters each inning.

by Jay on Jul 28, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even Borowski got the first batter out 69% of the time during 2007-2008. Wickman was about 72.5% during his time in Cleveland. I don’t know about the second batter. Not that these stats mean anything, really.

by FredOx on Jul 28, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They mean something about how many batters they got to face without pitching out of the stretch.

by Jay on Jul 28, 2008 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When I said almost any, what I meant was the % of 1-2-3 innings for Wickman and Borowski had to have been less than 30%, if not lower. Most likely the worst percentages over the past decade I would guess (no data researched).

I can't tell you how many other ESPN games I've watched with other closers and it seems like the Rivera's Papelbon's, nathan's of the world will have 1-2-3 innings probably closer to 50%. That is all I meant.

by talonk on Jul 28, 2008 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last paragraph should read that the other elite closers Nathan, Rivera, etc probably have 1-2-3 percentages closer to 50.

by talonk on Jul 28, 2008 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In save opportunities, Borowski gave up no hits and no walks 34.5% of the time (57/165). In Cleveland, the number was a bit lower (20/63 or 31.7%). Nathan is 45%, K-Rod 35%, Rivera 42.6%. There are plenty of closers who are worse – Francisco Cordero, the first one I tried, was 31.2%. It’s great to have a 1-2-3 save, but Borowski’s problem was too few 1-BB-2-3 outings and too many 1-BB-H-BB-HR disasters.

by FredOx on Jul 29, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully the whole Byrd as a closer thing is pure fantasy (nightmare?).

I only meant that most career relievers tend to pitch from the stretch at all times. Wick and Borowski were always in the stretch, because they always pitched from the stretch, not because they always put guys on base. Certainly Byrd could keep the wind-up if he wanted. Given his propensity for giving up homers, the bases will often be clear.

by CBusSteve on Jul 29, 2008 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Byrd throws harder than Borowski, and just as hard as Todd Jones. He’s got great command. Who knows? He may succeed in such a role. I don’t think it is that crazy.

by oxforddave on Jul 29, 2008 10:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t want JoeBo or Jones, either

by FredOx on Jul 29, 2008 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or Wickman. But when one of them was on, any of them were much better than what the tribe has now. Ideally one would try Byrd as a reliever this year, but with his free agency coming that seems impossible.

by oxforddave on Jul 30, 2008 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It bugs me that people lump Wickman in with Borowski. Wickman had a great career, is our all-time Saves leader, and generally was very, very effective for the Indians. He was totally stellar in the only two pennant races we ever had with him, 2001 and 2005.

by Jay on Jul 30, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree. People look at the guys and see not-exactly-svelte and not overpowering stuff, and assume they’re the same guy, but Wickman had a career ERA of 3.37 as a reliever. He didn’t mow you down, with a WHIP of 1.36 and 713 Ks (to 355 BBs) in 895 IP. That’s almost exactly the same number of baserunners as Borowski allowed, but Wickman kept them from scoring. One big reason is Wickman allowed 12 more HR, but pitched 443 more innings (0.64 HR/9 vs. 1.03).

by FredOx on Jul 30, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Jay, I wasn’t trying to lump Wickman with Borowski as identical closers, only that they both made things very intersting in the 9th. Of course, JoeBo was worse at it (at least from my perspective). My original premise was that they both were not fireballers, whicj I believe holds true as well.

I’d much rather have Wicky in the 9th inning than JoeBo or Doug Jones for that matter,

Again, I’d like to find a guy (I know, tough to do) that can actually dominate the 9th ala Rivera, Hoffman, Nathan, etc. They may not reach that 50% threshold for 1-2-3 9th innings, but they also don’t typically put 2 or more guys on base either.

by talonk on Jul 30, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I’d like to have a Gold Glove shortstop who can hit 40 homers and a left fielder who can hit .380 and a first baseman who just doesn’t SUCK. Real relief dominators are pretty rare.

Check out Wickman’s 2005 stretch run ... that’s dominating enough for me.

by Jay on Jul 30, 2008 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damn, I forgot the real weirdness of Wickman in 2005. He gave up four runs to blow an easy three-run save in his first appearance of the year — 1B, HR, HR, 2B, IBB, sac bunt ROE, game-winning sac fly — so he basically didn’t even retire a batter “for real.” After that four-run debacle, he only allowed 13 ER the entire rest of the season, good for a 1.90 ERA. So he was basically Borowski for one day, then Betancourt 07 for the next six months.

by Jay on Jul 30, 2008 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it’s (not) amazing how our hot years always involve an unconscious reliever or two or three.

by Brick. on Jul 30, 2008 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe the word is “ergonomic,” or perhaps “iridescent” or “consanguine.”

I think we also tend to get luckier for stretches with the temporary bullpen guys. Fultz had one decent stretch last year, for example. Heck, even Ferd was an asset for a little while.

by fleerdon on Jul 31, 2008 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello talonk,

While I didn’t like Wickman’s “9th inning adventures” either, I thought he was better than JoeBo. Also, keep in mind that Wickman could excel at getting the groundball – always a plus, especially when you don’t throw hard and have dominant stuff, whereas JoeBo wasn’t able to get the groundball nearly as often (if I recall correctly), plus didn’t have great velocity or have dominant stuff.

So while I think Mesa in his prime and even Jackson were better and more dominating than Wickman, I would definitely put Wickman a notch or two above Borowski (probably two notches, especially since I think Borowski’s 2007 was very flukish, due to the fact the defense bailed him out on more than a few occasions when he had runners on base, which was often the case with most of his save opportunities).

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Aug 1, 2008 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alright, for one last tme. I am not trying to lump Wicky to JoeBo in all facets. My main point was that neither of them had dominating stuff and both loved to have an adventure in the 9th (i.e. 2 or more baserunners).

I would rather have Wicky every day of the week (and twice on Sunday) instead of JoeBo. I hope this cleas up this misconception.

by talonk on Aug 1, 2008 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs