The Closer Conundrum

What self-respecting Baseball Draft Guide would be complete without addressing the timeless debate over the value of closers? The fantasy world is split, though not even remotely 50/50, on the drafting of these specialists. Some will tell you it is paramount to your fantasy success, while others will intimate that it is completely unnecessary when saves are so readily available throughout the course of a season. The former will tell you how wise it is to invest, while the latter will dismiss it as a colossal waste of draft picks or auction dollars. Both sides can make strong arguments in support of their beliefs, but only I have the floor right now. And for me, the closer is one of the most underrated assets in the fantasy game, which is why closers have always been integral parts of my championship seasons.

To be fair, I’ll lead with the reasons as to why there is so much opposition to drafting these specialists each year. First and foremost is the volatility of the position. Plain and simple, closers lose their job more than any other player in the fantasy game. In 2014, of the 30 MLB teams, seven had changed their closer before the month of May was even over. By the All-Star break, that number jumped to nine and by July 28th, there were already a dozen new names from the original list to open the season.

Those who drafted these players found themselves fighting to recover their lost saves on the waiver wire against those who possibly skimped on saves and gave themselves a potential advantage at another position. Why waste the draft pick when you can just invest some FAAB money later on, which is what numerous owners had to do anyway?

Those who preach against the investment of closers also criticize these players as one-category contributors. Why invest in a guy for just one category when you can invest in another pitcher who contributes in four? Even a middle reliever or set-up man, someone who will cost significantly less than most closers, can provide you with more across-the-board production. Just look at Dellin Betances, Wade Davis, Brad Boxberger and Andrew Miller from last year. None of these guys were drafted to open the season and none of them were considered strong waiver pick-ups during the first two months and yet each of them finished the year with over 100 strikeouts, an ERA under 2.40 and pitched just as many innings, if not more, than some of the more elite closers in the game. Who cares that they weren’t picking up saves for you? They did everything else, including vulturing a cool 24 wins as a group.

But while both points of view are valid and can both be presented as strong arguments against the investment of closers, I remain adamant that you can do so much more with your pitching staff just by locking in a pair of ninth-inning elites.

In 2014 there were 1,263 saves, an average of 42.1 per team.
There were 49 men who saved five games
There were 39 who saved 10 games
There were 30 who saved 15 games
There were 25 who saved 20 games
There were 21 who saved 25 games
There were 17 who saved 30 games
There were 13 who saved 35 games
There were 7 who saved 40 games
There were 4 who saved 45 games

Let’s start with the volatility argument. Do lots of closers lose their jobs? Yes, they do. But are those closers of the elite variety? No. Sure, you can have a fluke injury like that which happened to Aroldis Chapman, but Craig Kimbrel, Greg Holland and Kenley Jansen all held their respective jobs all year. Even the second tier of closers, which featured names like David Robertson, Jonathan Papelbon, Huston Street and Glen Perkins, remained intact. Sure, there were certain instances like Koji Uehara getting hurt or Jim Johnson sucking eggs, but frankly, if you didn’t see some of their red flags ahead of time, is that the position’s fault or yours for not doing your due diligence? Those who sat there complaining about wasted picks were investing in the likes of Nate Jones, Jose Veras and Tommy Hunter. So again I ask you, whose fault is that?

But again, I don’t just preach closer. I preach elite closer. The crème de la crème, if you will. I say grab the high-end guys when you can. Don’t be afraid to be the first guy to take a closer in your draft. Why? What was wrong with Craig Kimbrel’s numbers last year? He was in just as much danger of losing his job as Clayton Kershaw was. Your elite closers are guys who can simply be left alone in your starting lineup and never thought about again unless there’s some fluke injury. Can you say the same about that starting pitcher you picked up in the fifth or sixth round? Not if his name was Matt Moore or Mike Minor. And in that elite closer, you’re getting four-category production, passing on wins, a category even more arbitrary than the save. 

While we’re on the subject of starters, let’s not forget the ridiculous depth to be found in starting pitching. Fantasy experts from all over will tell you to wait on starting pitching because it is so deep, so why not listen to them and wait? If you want to have a foundation upon which to build your staff, why not do it with elite closers? Owning a pair of elite closers can help you balance your ratios and augment your strikeouts with more of your bargain-variety starters in whom you will invest much less later on. Pairing someone like Kimbrel with Chris Archer can be vastly more productive than investing in someone like David Price and shopping late with Ernesto Frieri. 

Each and every year, there are a number of starters found in the later rounds of your draft who end up posting higher values than some of the guys taken amongst the top-20. We don’t even have to cite AL Cy Young winner Corey Kluber here. We can throw out names like Julio Teheran, Phil Hughes, Jake Arrieta, Tanner Roark and Tyson Ross. You could have drafted both Kimbrel and Holland and still owned all five of those starters. You’re telling me the guy who invested in Max Scherzer, Gio Gonzalez and some mid-to-late round starters and then bargain-shopped for closers was happier by the All-Star break? Doubtful. He was too busy blowing his FAAB budget on the closer du jour to experience any semblance of happiness.

Which leads me to my final point, which is the wasting of those all-too-valuable FAAB dollars chasing the one category you scoffed at before the draft. Sure, there are plenty of saves available on the waiver wire all year long, and you too can blow your FAAB budget going after them. Meanwhile, I’m coasting with my elite closers and spending my FAAB budget on helpful position players and the plethora of overlooked starters who have the potential to become serious fantasy assets as the year goes on. My pick-ups are proactive; yours are reactive. My free agent acquisitions augment the roster I originally drafted, while yours are desperate attempts to replace a wasted 18th round selection.

Now, obviously, some of the examples I’ve mentioned are cherry-picked to help illustrate my point, but the concept itself is dead-on-balls accurate. Yes, that’s an industry term for fantasy writers too. If you heed the advice of the multitude of experts and wait on starters, you can build your offense, snag a couple of elite closers and spend those mid-to-late rounds grabbing solid starters whose values are depressed due to the multitude available. Do you have to study the pitcher player pool a little deeper to make it happen? Of course you do. But once you get it done, the rest of your season is cream cheese.