Roe vs. Papelbon

I tried, with terrible smartphone typing, to ask a question of my favourite Jays blogger, Tao of Stieb, about something that's been on my mind lately. See, my sports-brains's been rendered idle since baseball ended and basketball's still a twinkle in some hotel boardroom's eye. But with the recent signing of Jonathan Papelbon to the Phillies, I got to wondering if the closer is the last litmus test for intelligent baseball management.

Of the big three free agent stories this winter, I would have thought the closer story would be a distant third. There's Jose Reyes, whose only issue, in terms of backing up a dump truck for a cash in front of his house, is his injury history.

Then there's the 1B sluggers, Fielder and Pujols. With each of them, there's considerations of age and body-type and defence. These questions, as far as I can tell, are still unanswered in the arena of baseball knowledge. We don't quite know how or when players of Fielder and Pujols' ability might project. Maybe $200 million is insanely overpriced or maybe it's a bargain.

But we're left, then, with a bunch of closers: Papelbon, Bell, Nathan, Valverde. And I feel, and this is just a feeling, though snowballed thanks to Jonah Keri and Dave Schoenfield, is that the question of how valuable 9th inning guys are have already been asked and answered.

I confess, profusely, that I'm a baseball fan more serious than casual but still confused enough by Fangraph's glossary that I often have to ask zgall1 for primers. But, like equal rights and the health effects of smoking I was so sure that we'd figured it out: Closers are overvalued, inconsistent and poorly used by managers based on inning, not leverage. The quantitative evidence is set, says the smart people and as for empirical evidence--I lived through BJ Ryan.

So, what's going on? $50 million for a limited-use arm? I find, that in the NBA, if a General Manager insisted that he wanted only one player taking a shot at the end of the close game because the game inextricably mutates in the fourth quarter, he's signalling to me I shouldn't take anything he says or does seriously. It's a litmus test for getting "it." The 2%. For having big, shiny money balls, however you define it. Since no one's really confused about how to value .300 average, low OBS players anymore, I wonder if how an organization views closers and saves is the new litmus test or secret handshake as to whether they get "it" or they don't.

I've been thinking, lately, that Alex Anthopoulos is one of those guys who gets it. And I'm thinking, after hearing about the Papelbon contract, AA let out a big ol' belly laugh.

Tao, succinctly, responded: "I wouldn't be absolutist about it, but I'd be hard pressed to think of successful teams who spent big on a closer."

I think so, too.