Why aren't setup men paid better?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ 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.

[Wynton]

[ 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.

[ChuckyB]

[ 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?

[tangotiger]

[ 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

[Wynton]

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.

[tangotiger]

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

[Victor]

a good stat is how many inherited runners pitchers keep from scoring.