MVN - Most Valuable Network

12 Responses to “Who should be the closer for the Cleveland Indians?”

1. Greg says:
   

   April 8th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

   umm… Jake Westbrook?

2. Geoff Beckman says:
   

   April 9th, 2008 at 4:14 am

   I voted for Joe Borowski, as the least worst option at the moment. Rationale being:

   1. Rafael Betancourt isn’t any better right now. He tied a career high in appearances and set a career high in innings last year. It is possible that his arm is weary (since he keeps hanging breaking balls and throwing flat fastballs).

   2. Jensen Lewis and Rafael Perez are both inexperienced. It’s not just that they don’t have a lot of major-league experience– it’s that both are converted starters (Perez in last 2006 and Lewis in 2007).

   3. Masahide Kobayashi is still trying to get his feet wet. He might be a good closer, but I wouldn’t choose the Kobayashi Maru scenario just yet.

   4. Jorge Julio is erratic, and lord knows if this is going to be one of his good years.

   5. Changing closers after seven games, absent some compelling reason, would look like a sign of panic, and put pressure on the offense and the rest of the staff.

   I don’t think Joe Blow has “earned” any trust, and I wish the Indians had replaced the guy over the winter. But if you don’t have an alternative that seems clearly better, you don’t make a change.

   If the Indians wanted to invent a reason, they could. According to the paper of record, Borowski’s velocity is way down, and when Paul Hoynes writes about a player’s radar gun readings being down, that’s his way of saying “Geez, this guy sucks.”

   If the Indians wanted to saw “Borowski seems like he has a tired arm and we’re going to give him some rest and exercise and in the meantime…”, they could. But since no one else has been a standout, who do you go with? If Perez or Lewis has a Carmona-in-2006 style implosion, obviously that’s not helpful.

   So, much as I hate seeing Joe Blow work, I’d give him until the end of April– or until someone else is going unmistakably well– or he stinks out a few more games– whichever comes first.

3. Mick says:
   

   April 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am

   By some reports, Jeff Stevens is big league ready. I know it’s a big risk throwing a rookie into a high pressure role but it’s not without precedent.

4. Geoff Beckman says:
   

   April 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am

   Mick, Stevens has made an impressive transformation– from no prospect to a definite possibility. The only knock you can make is that he’s old (24, will turn 25 in September) for his level. A decent prospect is 22 when he’s in AA.

   That said, his AA numbers this year are lights-out: two appearances, 4.1 innings, no runs, no hits, no walks and five strikeouts.

   There have been a lot of guys who struggled as a starter and then came on like gangbusters when moved to relief. Rich Gossage is the most famous, but certainly not the only one. I’d bet that Stevens storms through AA and AAA and will be will be ready for the majors by the end of this year, if not sooner..

   But would I yank him up two levels and drop him in at the closer’s spot? Only if anthrax strikes the Cleveland bullpen. He’s going to have some learning curve… now that he has a future, I’d be reluctant to jeopardize it by moving him along too quickly.

   You didn’t mention him, but since I’ve never taken a public position on the guy, I might as well use the opportunity. I finally got a look at the fabled Adam Miller– there was a clip of him throwing on YouTube or Google Video.

   I’ll offer two disclaimers up front. I’m not the world’s greatest scout by any stretch of the imagination. Also, the people who taught me what little I know are from the Dodger or Orioles school. They covet pitchers with a smooth, classic delivery– no hitches, no jerkiness, no waste motion.

   Those biases stated, this guy looks like a colossal joke. I’m not surprised that Miller gets hurt– the wonder is that he ever stays healthy. His delivery screams “arm injury”– a series of violent motions and abrupt jerks. If his shoulder doesn’t give, you’d figure the elbow would. And if that stays attached, the forearm muscles look like they might tear away.

   One thing I know from experience– durability is a skill. If a player is continually getting hurt when he’s young, his injury rate is likely to go through the roof as the wear and tear starts to pile up. There have been really gifted prospects who never had much of a career simply because they couldn’t stay healhty.

   And Miller sure looks like he’s gonna be in that group. Unless someone files off a lot of rough edges, that is.

5. David says:
   

   April 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am

   I would vote for Betancourt but I think he was overworked last season and may end up being a bust this year. If he isn’t, however, he is probably best used in higher leverage situations in the 7th and 8th innings. I would like to see a little more from Jensen before I hand him the job. Miller is a great idea but perhaps too great for this organization to do it. Therefore, I have to go with Kobayashi. He has the experience. I realize you can say the same thing about Borowski, and the two seem very similiar in terms of stuff, but I would at least give Kobayashi a chance while keeping him on a short leash. But Borowski needs to be GONE. Not just from the closer role, but the team altogether. Unless he’s willing to be a long man.

6. B. Zion says:
   

   April 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am

   Agreed, Geoff. James seems to think there are going to be a bunch of Borowski “apologists” screaming bloody murder if the conversation turns toward replacing him. I don’t think anyone likes the idea of a save never being a slam dunk with this guy. And I think all of us would welcome a change if there were an obvious choice. That’s where at least my argument comes in the growing “kill Borowski” movement: where is the ideal replacement? Everyone has their answer but its all amateur punditry and none of us knows for certain what decisions the “deep thinkers” will make and why. The one thing I think we all could agree on is this: we’ve got a closer who, for better or for worse, saved 45 games last year. He needs to be kept on a pretty short leash this year, and, at some point, the club is going to have to take a leap of faith and plug someone else in there and hope for the best. Maybe it works or maybe it doesn’t, but it’s a dicey prospect to make such a change in the middle of a season in which you’re hoping to contend for a division championship and beyond.

   The screaming from the Borowski “apologists,” I think, should have ended at the end of last year. It should have been a given that he would come into this year as the closer if the front office didn’t nab anyone else, and it should have been understood that if he’s on pace to save 40 games again in May, you keep rolling the dice with him all year. If he blows four or five in the first couple months while his ERA climbs, you see who else fits in there. To have dropped him from the role last year when he led the league in saves (and had more 1-2-3 saves than JJ Putz) just because he did it in a fashion that was mostly un-watchable, would have been a pretty dangerous capitulation to the fans and media types who just loved to crucify this guy. And the Tribe, to its credit, refuses to play that game.

   I’ll tell you this much: I’d rather hand Borowski a one-run lead in the ninth then hand him a two-on, one-out jam in the seventh or eighth while the Indians are clinging to a one-run lead, or in a tie game, or trying to stay just one run behind. How’s that for a strange dilemma with your closer?

7. Charlie says:
   

   April 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am

   The Plain Dealer is saying that JoBo topped out at 84 mph on Monday … if that’s the case, we might faced with needing to answer this question sooner than expected.

   I imagine Betancourt or Kobayashi would assume the closer’s role if Borowski gets hurt or implodes, but I’ve thought Jensen Lewis has the stuff & mentality to close for some time now. There’s virtually no way JoBo comes back next year, so Shapiro has to already be thinking about who he sees as closer in 2009. If it’s someone already on the team, I would prefer to see them get a shot at closing this year if Borowski stinks it up–be it Lewis, Kobayashi, or someone else. Personally, I haven’t seen enough of Kobayashi to make much of an opinion, despite his track record in Japan.

   B.Zion - The more ironic dilemma with JoBo is that if he wasn’t the “closer” … would he even be on the team? Honestly, I’d rather see Mastny in the 6th or 7th of a close game than JoBo. Yet, by calling him “closer” we imply he’s the guy we believe has the best chance at getting the final three outs of a close game in the 9th. Go figure.

8. Geoff Beckman says:
   

   April 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

   B.Z.: Since you acknowledge Borowski’s flaws, I can’t get too worked up. But I’ll make four points:

   1. The reason you feel more comfortable with Borowski in the 9th, as opposed to the 6th or 7th is that his working conditions are less demanding. He never enters the game with men on base; as long as the game ends before the tying run scores, he is considered a success, no matter how poorly he pitches.

   A middle-inning reliever who lets the opponent narrow the margin is considered to have failed.

   2. If a team is forced to try a risky, stopgap solution– and it does not blow up in their faces– the correct response isn’t to say “We got away with it once– let’s see if we can beat the odds again.” The correct response is to find a less risky solution.

   This is especially important with relievers, who are notoriously inconsistent from year to year. And it’s even more essential when the player in question is (a) old and (b) injury-prone.

   3. The front office understands this– that’s why, after 2005, they tried to replace Bob Wickman. Wickman also had 45 saves, but his ERA was more than 2 1/2 runs lower (2.47), and he allowed less than a hit an inning (Borowski allowed 77 hits in 65 innings). While he was older and out of shape, he was more durable and more.consistent.

   The reason Borowski wasn’t replaced: unlike 2005 (when B. J. Ryan and Trevor Hoffman were available), there were no impressive closers on the market. Not wanting to give up a bunch of propects for a closer, the front office decided to hope that Borowski, Betancourrt and the two young relievers would be enough to get them through 2008.

   4. Just an FYI: I know what they were thinking because I have two good connections to the front office. Also, I’ve worked on two books about this franchise. And I was using the tools these guys rely on to make decisions at a time when they were in high school.

   I’m not saying I’m smarter than they are. But the framework they use to isn’t a mystery– it’s largely the same stuff Bill James was writing about 20 years ago.

9. Wile. E. Boggs says:
   

   April 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am

   Thanks, Mr. Beckman. It must feel amazing to come in armed with more insider info than we commoners (I, unfortunately, have never authored a book on the Indians, and have only once met a member of the Indians front office, and that was at a pre-season press tour stop. I’m sorry to say that I consider him neither a friend nor a “connection”). You could use your powers for good and throw it around in fun. But I’ve never been in your position. Maybe the idea of taking yourself a little too seriously and taking every opportunity to let everyone feel just how little they know about this game and this team is too tempting.

10. Geoff Beckman says:
    

    April 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Tell you what, Mr Bogs. You go work as a baseball writer and researcher for 25 years. Do seven sports books, help get a baseball research organization that breaks the monopoly on stats off the ground, help prepare a few dozen arbitration cases, have a staff writer’s job on a major outlet and a brief stint as on on-air personality.

    Do a pile of baseball research every year and give almost all of it out for free, until (after a couple of decades), people begin to remember your name, then start asking you for your opinion and then paying you for it.

    And meanwhile, watch some of your friends move into front offices, doing the same stuff that you and they were doing in the 80’s and 90’s (and freely admitting it), and the idea work like gangbusters.

    And then see how you react when someone describes you as an amateur pundit who’s just speculating. I don’t expect anyone to kowtow, but if people who do baseball for a living say “I don’t agree with this interpretation, but I understand your reasoning and you might be right”, I figure I ought to be able to get a comparable response in a comments forum.

11. marco serafino says:
    

    April 11th, 2008 at 7:51 am

    Personally, i find Beckman’s commnts very usefull. I came across this site because i have JoBo on my fantasy baseball team (save the laughter for later), and want to see who the best “handcuff” is for saves. If everyone just agreed with the points that others were making, we’d never get any inormation out of anyone.

    so with westbrook going the distance the othr day, and just some mop-up work thursday, really no recent news here, but let’s keep tabs during this oakland series. should be a good opportunity for Joe to turn things around. but if he blows a couple saves, with betencourt showing some signsfrom last year, could be news again. jsut nothing worse that being stuck in limbo, not knowing whos gonna be their closer, when you drafted him as your #2 closer on your fantasy team.
    look forward to getting the info!!

12. Wile E. Boggs says:
    

    April 17th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Sorry I didn’t see this one sooner.

    All fine and good, Mr. Beckman. But I don’t think anyone was calling you an amateur pundit personally. At least I certainly get that impression from what Zion said…. nor do I think anyone can assume that someone as esteemed as yourself is offering up insights and opinions on an obscure Tribe-specific blog. I think even you could concede that you would be considered the exception to the rule on a site such as this one. Wouldn’t MOST, and by MOST I mean everyone but, apparently YOU, of us be considered “amateur pundits?” Is that a BAD thing to be? I would say it basically means you’re someone who is speculating on something because you have a passion for it, but don’t necessarily have the inside dope. You apparently have this “dope.” And for that I envy you. But you throw it around like better-informed Cliff Clavin and you come off as a colossal prick. I agree with the guy who posted after you: you do have something to say and something to add to this site. And maybe no one else on here sees it this way, but your tone is one that makes you come off as a bitter big fish resentful of his small pond and you take entirely too much joy in taking the piss out of legitimately curious fans.

Leave a comment