Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems that setup men are way undervalued and underpaid. Nowadays, the setup guys often pitch more innings than the closers and usually come into the game in more difficult situations. In fact, most managers don't like bringing in their closers in any situations except to start the last inning, before anyone is on base.

I guess the answer is purely statistics: saves are sexier than "holds." But if I were a gm, I would be placing at least as much importance on getting a reliable setup guy as getting a closer or even a 4th starter.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

Lots of pitchers can pitch "setup." Very few can go six innings of quality work.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

He was speaking in comparison to closers.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

Setup men are a dime a dozen. Sure, there's a demand for quality setup men, but there's a huge supply of them as well.

Also, it's not so much that setup men are being underpaid, but more that closers are being overpaid.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

I'm going to say the opposite of the previous poster - there aren't many excellent set up men, which is why they are a dime a dozen. Great set-up men inevitably become closers, and if they fail get put back into the set-up man hopper; [censored] set-up men hang around for years, left-handers especially. The Yankees were rumored to be interested in BJ Ryan and finally paid a ton for Kyle Farnsworth but that was because he had a closer's price tag. Most teams just can't afford paying millions for a set-up man.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

There really isn't much difference between a good setup man and a good closer. /captain obvious

I wouldn't sign any one-inning reliever to a large or long term contract at typical free agent prices.

Closers are paid so much because most GMs don't realize any of this.

p.s. jim hendry sucks.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of pitchers can pitch "setup." Very few can go six innings of quality work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was primarily comparing setup men to closers, but I also disagree that lots of pitchers can effectively pitch setup. My main point is that the setup man is often pitching at the most critical stage of the game, with men already on base.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, managers brought in closers in DIFFICULT situations, frequently for more than one inning. But now it is the setup men who face those situations more than the closers. But for some reason, the market has not recognized this shift in responsibilities.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

supply and demand

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

The reason is that that the media, especially ESPN, make the save into a much more important stat than it really is. Most good setup men become closers to get more money. Look at that rediculous BJ Ryan deal. If you give him a bunch of holds, rather than saves, he gets less than half of what he got.

The "closer mentality" is greatly exaggerated. On Baseball tonight the other night, they said Papelbon was the most important player on the Red Sox right now. The truth is the vast majority people that can get outs in the 7th inning can get outs in the 9th inning, and vice versa.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There really isn't much difference between a good setup man and a good closer. /captain obvious

I wouldn't sign any one-inning reliever to a large or long term contract at typical free agent prices.

Closers are paid so much because most GMs don't realize any of this.

p.s. jim hendry sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Red Sox tried this a few years ago. Didn't work out so well.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There really isn't much difference between a good setup man and a good closer. /captain obvious

I wouldn't sign any one-inning reliever to a large or long term contract at typical free agent prices.

Closers are paid so much because most GMs don't realize any of this.

p.s. jim hendry sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Red Sox tried this a few years ago. Didn't work out so well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grady.

Little.


edit to add that I will never understand why people are so opposed to the idea of using your best RP in the most important situations and with the best matchups. It's not like 9th inning only relievers are a long and storied part of baseball tradition.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

If anyone is interested in this, there is a very thorough chapter in The Book about how best to leverage your relievers in order to get the most wins, not saves.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

Anybody can pitch in relief.

It takes a Special Player to close.

Sincerely,

Some Talking Head or Beat Writer

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Anybody can pitch in relief.

It takes a Special Player to close.

Sincerely,

Some Talking Head or Beat Writer

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Anybody can pitch in relief.

It takes a Special Player to close.

Sincerely,

Tony LaRussa

[/ QUOTE ]

unecessarily fixed your excellent post

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody can and should throw 190 pitches per game every three days.

Sincerely,

Dusty Baker, Jim Leyland, and Jimy Williams

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is the vast majority people that can get outs in the 7th inning can get outs in the 9th inning

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is the vast majority people that can get outs in the 7th inning can get outs in the 9th inning

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there's ample evidence to prove that this is true. I think there's also a bit of evidence to prove that it isn't always true. Still, the ability to protect a 3-run lead in the ninth is vastly overrated.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that there's ample evidence to prove that this is true. I think there's also a bit of evidence to prove that it isn't always true. Still, the ability to protect a 3-run lead in the ninth is vastly overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jack,

I agree with you that protecting a 3-run lead is overrated and my comment, "not necessarily true," was said b/c of your exact comment...that there is a little bit of grey area there.

With this said, there isn't a whole lot of grey area when discussing the difference between a lefty mid-eighties specialty reliever and a lights out closer preserving a 1 run lead in the ninth. The 9th inning is a completely different game than the 6th and 7th. In the middle innings if the leadoff hitter singles you may not see the next guy bunt him into scoring position as the case always is in the 9th. You need the overpowering stuff, the strikeout potential b/c of these situations. I think closers are overpaid and am not defending that, but I know for a fact that closing out a 1 run game in the ninth and being a specialty reliever in the middle innings are two different worlds...that is fact. This is a mentality issue and not a numbers issue.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is the vast majority people that can get outs in the 7th inning can get outs in the 9th inning

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to clarify that I said vast majority because there have been cases (LaTroy Hawkins) of guys that are good setup men but do poorly as a closer. Relievers with great stuff eventually find themselves as closers. Guys like Lidge and Rivera were setup guys until they became closers. They are excellent at both because they have filthy stuff, not because of a closer mentality. I don't think there are many cases of guys who were great setup men that just couldn't close.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

It seems to me often pitchers who throw 1 or 2 different pitches, but throw them really, really, well who become closers/relievers. Does the evidence point to that?

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

ES,

The evidence leads to the guys that can throw only two pitches exceptionally well tend to have a hard time as starters, of course, like in anything there is exceptions but starters need to have three pitches. A starter could get by for 3-4 innings with 2 dominating pitches but the problem is that he is going to box himself in a corner without a 3rd pitch the more times he gets through the lineup. Relievers can get by with two pitches b/c they are seeing batters once, but of course there are relievers/closers with 3 plus pitches as well.

As a hitter its hard to center a guy like Lidge with an explosive fastball and great slider if you only get one at-bat, but if you get 4, Lidge is going to have to learn a Change/Split, instead of throwing everything hard, when everything is coming at you hard and the difference in speed isn't at 3 levels sometimes this can be a bad thing for pitchers. For instance, if a pitcher throws a fastball at a range of 95-97 and a slider at 87-88, the difference in speed isn't that great but the pitches may be dominant at first. Once the hitters get the timing, say the 4th inning, is when a change up around 79-81 would completely muck them up. Starters usually need 3 different levels of velocity. May not be a good example b/c I am not sure if he has more than 2 pitches, he may have a chang-up?

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone is interested in this, there is a very thorough chapter in The Book about how best to leverage your relievers in order to get the most wins, not saves.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's also a very good chapter in "Basbeall Betwenn the Numbers" regarding how to most effectivley use your closer. It discusses leverage too. Basically if the situations (run differential/bases occupied/outs) are the same, an out later in the game is more valuable because it increases your chances of victory much more.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

Lidge throws just the slider and the fastball. Still, his slider's pretty unhittible (unless your Albert Pujols).

Mo is another 2 pitch guy (Cutter) and BJ Ryan (Slider). When Smoltz was a closer he mostly used his splitter and fastball.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

"Why aren't setup men paid better?"

It's kind of like asking why utility men aren't paid better...after all, they can play four positions.

If a setup man has the cajones to become a closer, they will get paid better.

Closers put out fires. That's what they're there for. However too many managers are so bean-headed that they allow the save statistic to dictate how they use their pitchers. "Let's see, we're up 3 in the 9th, there's a man on first and two out...better get Hoffman in there."

If more managers were willing to defy convention and use their "closer" at the pivotal point in the game (perhaps they're in real danger in the 7th) we'd understand why closers are paid more.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a setup man has the cajones to become a closer, they will get paid better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "cajones," it's a matter of opportunity. Many players have gone from setup men to closer, or starter to closer without a hitch.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Closers put out fires.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is my main point: closers today hardly ever put out fires. Rather, it is more often the setup guys who put out the fires. And I think that the guy who comes into the 7th or 8th inning with one out and a man in scoring position is doing something more valuable than the guy who just happens to pitch the ninth without anyone on base.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Closers put out fires.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is my main point: closers today hardly ever put out fires. Rather, it is more often the setup guys who put out the fires.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. And that's done by managers who are afraid to defy convention for a move that just makes sense.

Didn't John Gibbons bring in B.J. Ryan in the 7th to get the Jays out of trouble recently?

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a setup man has the cajones to become a closer, they will get paid better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "cajones," it's a matter of opportunity. Many players have gone from setup men to closer, or starter to closer without a hitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a for every Duane Ward there's an Octavio Dotel, Tim Worrell, Robert Person, Jeremy Affeldt and a Shawn Chacon.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

lol. Shawn Chacon had 35 saves with a 7.11 ERA. I think that kinda disproves your point, no?

Octavio Dotel was pitching pretty much without an arm.

Tim Worrell? 38 saves at 35, with a sub-3 ERA. He has 6 saves this year.

For all those guys you mentioned...

Gagne
Mo
Lidge
Dempster
Isringhausen
Todd Jones
Danys Baez
Joe Nathan
Chad Cordero
Miguel Batista
Eddie Guardado

And that's just last year.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems that setup men are way undervalued and underpaid.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are probably mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]
Nowadays, the setup guys often pitch more innings than the closers and usually come into the game in more difficult situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true, for the most part. Certainly in some cases, it may be true. I have a statistic called Leverage Index (LI) which quantifies the crucialness of a situation. The leaders are almost always the annointed closers. You can read about LI here:
http://www.tangotiger.net/crucial.html
All the links are broken, except for the last one, which you may enjoy.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, most managers don't like bringing in their closers in any situations except to start the last inning, before anyone is on base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not "any", but, you are right, they are not very visionary about it, these days. Here is how Sutter and Gossage were used:
http://www.tangotiger.net/bullpenuse.html

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the answer is purely statistics: saves are sexier than "holds." But if I were a gm, I would be placing at least as much importance on getting a reliable setup guy as getting a closer or even a 4th starter.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fourth starter is likely more valuable than a setup guy.

Tom

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

I like the way the Jays have been using Ryan this year.(Not literally, being a Yanks and Rays fan)

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

Going to bed now, Tom, but I will look at those links carefully tomorrow. Thanks.

This discussion does remind me of Billy Beane's attitude, as conveyed in Money Ball. If memory serves, I believe he took the attitude that it wasn't such a big deal to lose or trade a closer, since the market tended to overvalue/overpay them so much. He seemed to think that closers were relatively fungible.

This has nothing to do with the debate about setup men viz closers, and you may question the source. But I thought it was interesting anyway.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

I agree with him. While closers are leveraged at twice what starters are leveraged at (i.e., 1.5 innings of a closer is equal to 3 innings of a starter), most of that leverage is controlled by the manager and can be passed on to the next best guy.

Once you start a chaining process (i.e., take out closer, and move setup guy one notch, and move the #3 guy one notch up, etc), you will find that the closer's true leverage is about 1.3 times, and not 2.0 times. Kinda complicated to explain in one sentence.

Long story short: yup, closers are overpaid, and setup guys too. If I had a ballclub with 75 million$, I allocate 30 million$ to pitchers. Of that, less than 10 million$ would go to relievers. Probably even less than 7. Haven't worked it out yet. If it were me though, I'd turn most pitchers into short-game pitchers.

Tom

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
lol. Shawn Chacon had 35 saves with a 7.11 ERA. I think that kinda disproves your point, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's he closing for now?

[ QUOTE ]
Octavio Dotel was pitching pretty much without an arm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seemed fine before he bombed out as the closer of the future.

[ QUOTE ]
For all those guys you mentioned...

Gagne <font color="blue">Was a crappy starter, never a setup man </font>
Mo <font color="blue">Remember when his setup man Ramiro Mendoza became a closer? Yeesh.</font>
Lidge <font color="blue">No argument. Stud.</font>
Dempster <font color="blue">see Gagne</font>
Isringhausen <font color="blue">what about Buddy Groom, T.J. Mathews, Brad Rigby, Ron Mahay, Blake Stein and everyone else he pitched with in Oakland the year before he became a closer? How did they do as closers?</font>
Todd Jones <font color="blue">Who begins their major-league career as a closer? (besides Huston Street)</font>
Danys Baez <font color="blue">See Todd Jones</font>
Joe Nathan <font color="blue">He was a starter too</font>
Chad Cordero <font color="blue">Stars don't come out of college and immediately slide into closer roles -- See: Matt Anderson</font>
Miguel Batista <font color="blue">Starting 89 games the 3 years before he closed doesn't qualify him as 'a setup man'.</font>
Eddie Guardado <font color="blue">Isn't he Rich Garces?</font>

And that's just last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a setup man has the cajones to become a closer, they will get paid better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "cajones," it's a matter of opportunity. Many players have gone from setup men to closer, or starter to closer without a hitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a for every Duane Ward there's an Octavio Dotel, Tim Worrell, Robert Person, Jeremy Affeldt and a Shawn Chacon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Person? Affeldt? Chacon? Those guys couldn't get people out as starters, so why should they be effective closers? I'm fairly certian they'd be terrible as setup men as well.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a setup man has the cajones to become a closer, they will get paid better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "cajones," it's a matter of opportunity. Many players have gone from setup men to closer, or starter to closer without a hitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a for every Duane Ward there's an Octavio Dotel, Tim Worrell, Robert Person, Jeremy Affeldt and a Shawn Chacon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Person? Affeldt? Chacon? Those guys couldn't get people out as starters, so why should they be effective closers? I'm fairly certian they'd be terrible as setup men as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are a few examples of why I believe closers aren't just like setup men, except closers are given the opportunity to get saves. Closers are better pitchers in clutch situations.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a setup man has the cajones to become a closer, they will get paid better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of "cajones," it's a matter of opportunity. Many players have gone from setup men to closer, or starter to closer without a hitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes it's better to read a post before you take 10 minutes to respond to it.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

Re: Shawn Chacon. Shawn Chacon is probably the best counterexample to all the closer nonsense. He was a terrible pitcher, but he was still able to close out plenty of situations (he converted 35/44 saves). Today, a closer's job isn't to post a 0.82 ERA or whatever, but it's to not blow ballgames. Chacon, even with an abysmal ERA, turned in a decent performance on that regard.

That's not to say you don't want Mo out there in the most important situations. You obviously do. But to shell out 9 mil a year to closers is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

Re: Why aren\'t setup men paid better?
 

I really don't get the Dotel example. He was a good setup man, he got turned into a closer, and then he got hurt and the injury has more or less ended his career. Did he get hurt because he wasn't clutch enough?

Is there any pitcher who was a good setup man, a bad closer, and then a good setup man again? That's the example you need.