Here was the thing: Joakim Soria seemed magical. That was the word. Magical. He came to the Royals as a Rule 5 draft pick, an almost complete unknown, and by the end of April he was already being asked to close some games. He had a nearly two month stretch -- from the end of May to the end of July -- when he did not give up a single run. By the end of the season, he was the Royals full-time closer. The next three seasons, he averaged 38 saves and had a 1.84 ERA for bad Royals teams and while his nickname around Kansas City was the Mexicutioner, he was known around baseball as "One of the Royals few bright spots."
The thing that made him magical, though, was that he succeeded subtly. Mysteriously, even. There was no OBVIOUS or BLATANT reason that he dominated hitters. He did not throw his fastball in the mid-to-high 90s like other dominant closers. Often, he did not even throw his fastball in the low 90s. He did not have a Mariano Rivera cutter or a Trevor Hoffman change-up or a Bruce Sutter split-fingered fastball. He did not have a wild-man act, did not stomp around the mound or glare batters down or intimidate in the slightest. He mainly looked like he had just woken up from a particularly refreshing nap.
How did he do it, then? That was wizardry. It wasn't one thing. It was, like a great witch's brew. He threw four pitches -- fastballs, slow curveballs, sliders, change-ups -- and he threw strikes with all of them. He did not just throw regular strikes either. He sliced corners. He burned the knees. He was a blur to hitters, coming at them from all sides, Sugar Ray Robinson flurry -- fastball for strike one, slider fouled back, Bugs Bunny curveball at 60 mph for strike three. At-bats were over before they began. For four years, batters hit .197 against him. They slugged .287. He struck out four times as many as he walked. He was the king of the 1-2-3 inning, the easy save.
And everyone was left to wonder how he it happened ... how had this perfect young pitcher just shown up, out of the blue, complete, and in Kansas City, no less. How? Around baseball, the Royals were a virtual non-factor and so the only people around the country who really knew anything about Soria were those who had him on their fantasy teams. And even they almost never saw him pitch. All they really seemed to know was that, if the Royals actually won a game, chances were that Joakim Soria had gotten himself another easy save. In three years, the Royals won 207 games. Soria won or saved 121 of them.
Magical, yes. And that's why I think this year came as such a surprise to many of us. He got his typical 1-2-3 innings his first two times out. He worked out of trouble but did not allow a run his third time. He got another 1-2-3 his fourth time out. He looked the same.
Then he gave up four hits and four runs against Chicago -- it was the first time in his career he had given up four runs in an outing. Next time out he got a save, but not before giving up a homer to Detroit's Ryan Raburn. Two outings later, he walked two and gave up a run. He wasn't terrible, not yet. But something seemed off. He blew a game at Yankee Stadium after a leadoff walk (though the Royals eventually won). He gave up a run in a tie game against Texas. He walked two and gave up a hit against the Cardinals.
And then it all fell apart -- three runs at Baltimore, two more runs at Texas, blown leads both. Then Monday afternoon, with the Royals up a run in the ninth, he allowed Bobby Abreu to punch a single the other way and then grooved a thigh-high fastball to Torii Hunter ... a pitch Hunter blasted into the left-field seats. It was then that Royals manager Ned Yost decided it was time to give Joakim Soria a little time away from the pressure of being a closer.
"There's a little bit of trying to understand exactly what the problem is," Yost told reporters.
"We have theories. Everybody has theories. ...
"His fastball is missing that little hop. ...
"He's not off by a whole lot. ...
"It's just not quite ..."
It's just not quite. The easy part is explaining why Soria is struggling.
1. Hitters are no longer swinging and missing Joakim Soria's pitches. Throughout Soria's career he would get swinging strikes 11 or 12 percent of the time. This year, they are swinging and missing less than 7 percent of the time. This is in part because ...
2. Hitters are no longer swinging at pitches Soria throws out of the strike zone. He could count on them doing that about 30% of the time in the past. Now, it's less than 20%. In truth, batters are just swinging at fewer Soria pitches, strikes or balls. This is in part because ...
3. His command just seems off. He's throwing the lowest percentage of strikes of his career. It used to be that when Soria was pitching, you might as well come out swinging because he was going to throw strikes. Now, he struggles with the strike zone sometimes. He gets behind hitters. The mushball fastball he threw to Torii Hunter was on a 2-0 count.
4. He has lost his ability to put hitters away. It used to be when Soria had two strikes on a hitter, the battle was over. Hitters hit .116 against Joakim Soria with two strikes coming into this season. Their OPS was .340. It made sense. Soria -- with a fastball he could put anywhere, a slider he could put anywhere, a change-up that looked just like his fastball coming out of his hand and that dizzying slow curve -- was all but impossible to beat with two strikes. This year, with two strikes batters are hitting .350 and slugging .600. Obviously that's in a very small number of at-bats but something drastic has changed.
So all that's easy. It's easy to see he's pitching differently than he did. But WHY is he pitching differently? That's the only question that really matters. And that question has no concrete answer. Ned Yost suggests, as you see above, that maybe his fastball just doesn't seem to hop like it did. Close observers say that he's just going through a stretch where he doesn't have the superhuman ability to put pitches EXACTLY where he wants ... and his confidence has been shaken a bit. A few fans say that hasn't been the same since asking everyone to stop calling him the Mexicutioner in response to the violence in his native country.
Maybe. But there's another potential explanation: Is this simply what happens to closers? That is the theory of one baseball man I talked with on Monday. The list of closers who were great for short bursts of time is daunting. Mark Davis won a Cy Young in 1989, he was all but unpitchable one year later. Bobby Thigpen saved 57 games in 1990, he was was minus-1 Wins Above Replacement for the rest of his career. Bryan Harvey ... Chad Cordero ... J.J. Putz ... Robb Nen ... Michael Jackson ... Derrick Turnbow ... Jeff Russell ... B.J. Ryan ... you can name two dozen others ... they had dominant seasons as closers, some of them had multiple dominant seasons, but then it ended, maybe because of injury, maybe because the league figured them out, or maybe because closers, like running backs and boy bands, live thrilling but short lives.
Another baseball executive kept asking me through the years why the Royals would not make Soria into a starter. I had written about that topic a few times, and he was adamant that the Royals were making a huge mistake keeping Soria in the closer's role. He had three reasons. His first reason was that the Royals, being a lousy team, did not need a closer. Made sense. His second reason was that Soria was worth SO MUCH MORE as a starter than as a closer, and it's the job of lousy teams to maximize their assets. Also made sense. But three, he believed that -- sooner rather than later -- Soria would become ineffective as a closer because that's what happens to all but the a handful of them. And when that happened, he said, the Royals would be stuck with the least valuable commodity on earth: A worn out closer.
I believed in the logic of his first two reasons -- I thought that the Royals really didn't need an established closer in their stage of development, and I thought that they owed it to themselves and Soria to at least find out if the guy could become a dominant starter. He had many of the attributes. He had four pitches. He had been a starter throughout the minor leagues. He seemed vaguely interested in becoming a starter again (though he never said anything publicly ... that's Soria).
But I have to say that I did not buy the third reason at all. I figured Soria would be a dominant closer for a long time to come. I figured that his kind of magic does not wear off, not until he was much older. Soria only turned 27 two weeks ago. Then, this year happened and Soria has been pulled as closer.
The magic could return. This could just be a dry spell. This could just be a blip. He could be hurting a bit. He could take a little time off from closing, regain his command and the swing-and-miss movement of his pitches, return to the closer role and be the old Joakim Soria again. Absolutely that could happen. Soria, above all else, is a driven young man who has handled beautifully every baseball challenge in his life.
But it's also true that the history of struggling closers is not kind. The Royals have become a fun team to watch in many ways. Eric Hosmer is a terrific young hitter. Alex Gordon seems to have found his groove after four up-and-down-and-very-down years. Alcides Escobar can't hit a lick, but he is playing breathtaking shortstop -- it's only 50 or so games but it's already apparent that he's remarkable throwing out runners from the hole. He gets to those ground balls deep in the hole, and you wonder if he has time to even make the play close, and he throws out hitters by two steps. It feels almost singular the way he does it.* The Royals have a bunch of promising young pitchers in the bullpen, and now that Danny Duffy has been called to the big leagues the parade of promising young starters that overflows in the system is arriving.
*This is one of those times when the eyes and stats match. Every game, it seems, Escobar makes a play -- especially to his right -- that blows the mind. And sure enough, Escobar is a startling +17 on the Dewan Plus/Minus, and +13 on balls hit into the hole.
There are many more prospects on the way which is why it should be fun to be a Royals fan for the next few years. But I think most Royals fans simply assumed Soria would be the dominant closer. He seemed like the one sure thing. But that's the thing about baseball isn't it? With closers there are no sure things -- at least no sure things not named Mariano Rivera.
Circle me, John Rocker.
ReplyDeleteIt's always hard when "poor" teams are continually selling off their major league assets, but this is why the Royals should have moved him last year when his value was high. In July they might still find a pennant team desperate enough to upgrade the pen that they take a chance on Soria rediscovering his stuff, but certainly less than they should have received for a player so great. It's one of the things the Rays have done so well, staying a half step ahead of the bell curve with their players to ensure maximum value.
ReplyDeleteI've known about Soria and the debates over whether he should start or close, but I'd never read about HOW he was such an effective pitcher. With four pitches and great control, it seems like a no-brainer that Soria should be starting. If Soria was in any other market he would absolutely have been a starter. Just another example of the Royals perennial futility I guess.
ReplyDeleteI like how even the "he's not calling himself the Mexicutioner" theory gets a fair mention.
ReplyDeleteI think Soria is hurt but won't admit it. Sore arm, sore shoulder or something like that. He has done it before and tried to pitch through it. It looks like his calm edge is still there and seems to be something physical.
ReplyDeletery.live: "If Soria was in any other market he would absolutely have been a starter. Just another example of the Royals perennial futility I guess."
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree. Just about every team out there overvalues closers. Look at Boston w/ Papelbon. I seem to remember a few years back, Oakland refusing to give Huston Street a chance to start. And these are supposed to be the smart teams. It's not just trhe Royals, EVERYone loves a good closer for some reason.
I had heard of the moniker "the Mexicutioner" and admittedly chuckled when I first heard it a few seasons ago. The term is okay with me, I'm far from a PCer but I wonder how well this would play in LA or San Diego? - perhaps even better than in Midwestern KC or maybe it's just too derogatory as a nickname for this era of insane violence along our southern border
ReplyDeleteDid he come up with the name? Did Joe? Just curious...
Re: overvaluing closers.
ReplyDeleteThe two dominant teams of the recent past were the Yankees and the Braves. The Braves never believed in spending money on the bullpen. Relievers aren't dependable from year to year, so why not throw together a 'pen of scrubs and cast-offs and see who catches lightning in a bottle? Then next year rinse and repeat. The Yankees had Rivera. Perhaps correlation does not equal causation, but I believe the Yankees have "taught" baseball that everyone needs a good closer.
Joe Borowski still throws strikes
ReplyDeleteBatters still hit Joe Borowski's strikes
ReplyDeletePutz has come back and is pitching well for the surprising Diamondbacks.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe there's hope for Antonio Alfonseca, still pitching for the Bridgeport Bluefish. His teammates include Angel Berroa, Eric Munson and Joe Borchard.
Most closers have one or two pitches they can throw for strikes. A pitcher who has shown command of four pitches should be a starter. Having four plus pitches should lead to a pitcher being able to effectively throw two or three times through the lineup. Soria, and the Royals, would have been better off with him starting and another one or two pitch guy closing games.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they can start using him in long relief then slide him into starting in July. Potentially great trade bait by the deadline if the Royals fall to far back.
@NMarkW: The nickname came from sports talk radio people in Kansas City, if I remember correctly. It caught on a few years back but wasn't started by Soria or by Joe.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an area where some actual analysis, rather than just a few anecdotes, would be useful. We could ask, for instance, what else would be true if in fact closers are particularly vulnerable to short careers? In general, are closers who have roughly similar careers, so far, to Soria, typically very short career guys? Are closers who have episodes of struggle - where they can't get anything to go their way - less likely than starters who have episodes where they struggle to recover and be effective pitchers again? Just to get the ball rolling, I'll look at closers with career save totals in Soria's neighborhood (139), those with between 130-150 saves. Accept, for the moment, that we can look pitchers who are relievers finishing games but not starting them and count them as closers, even though a lot of these guys pitched before that term was in use, and when usage patterns for relievers were very different.
ReplyDeleteStarting at the top, you've got Greg Minton (16 year career, almost all bullpen, essentially a closer for SFG for 4 or 5 years, struggled, recovered effectiveness with Angels);
Ted Abernathy (struggled as starter when young, very effective reliever into his very late 30s);
Brian Wilson (so far so good, but too soon to really tell, I think );
Willie Hernandez (classic example of a closer whose career implodes, though he had been a decent reliever and a few ok seasons after 1984);
Dave Guisti (another failed starter who had maybe 4 good years closing);
Jesse Orosco (very long career);
Mike Williams (a few productive seasons in his early 30s, then collapse);
Clay Carroll (15 year career, struggled at age 28 after several good season, recovered to be effective through age 36);
Darold Knowles (up and down, but kept recovering after he faltered and lasted 16 years);
Michael Jackson (not really a closer until early 30s, got hurt, but had 17 years in MLB);
Mike Timlin (long career, albeit mostly in other relief roles);
Gary Lavelle (after 5 or 6 strong seasons, struggled for 2 years, recovered for another 4 strong before injury);
Jim Brewer (another guy give a shot at closing in his early 30s, effective for 5 or 6 years and still pitched well after moving out of closer spot);
Steve Farr (another late bloomer, really only 5 years as an effective pitcher);
Bob Stanley (only a 13 year career, with several seasons mostly as a starter, very effective for most of it, but didn't last long after age 31);
Joe Borowski (either extremely inconsistent or injury prone, or both. Had 3 good seasons).
So, out of these 16 pitchers, about a third of them (Hernandez, Farr, Guisti, Williams, Borowski) really exemplify the concern you're raising with Soria. Several of these pitchers recovered from mid-career episodes in which they were ineffective, and pitched well into their late 30s. I'm not sure a Royals fan should be too worried, just yet, though answering some of the other questions I posed above would help clarify the situation.
What you forgot to mention is that Crow really should be a starter. And now they're making him the closer. When he does great, he'll stay there instead of making the transition in the offseason that he should be making. Same thing all over again...
ReplyDeleteOkay, great--Soria should have been a starter! But how many established closers--not named John Smoltz--have been turned into successful starting pitchers? Also, how much of a difference would it have really made to the Royals over the last four years to have a league-average starter instead of an elite closer?
ReplyDeleteOkay, great--Soria should have been traded! But how often do established closers, in their prime, really get traded?
Soria was a huge win for Dayton Moore--even if he never pitches again. But now he's being used as yet another club to beat Moore over the head with.
The Royals can move a guy performing at Aaron Crow's level into the closer's role. That should be a win for Moore and "The Process." But they're not making Crow into a starter. So the Royals must be idiots.
Remember that post about how most of what we discuss regarding sports is pointless?
If you do the research, I don't think you will find that right-handed pitchers with below 90-mph fastballs have long careers, and I've never expected Soria to have one for that reason.
ReplyDeleteIt's four or five good years if they are lucky and that is all. Think Oil Can Boyd.
The whole "closer" or "save" situation is so horrible. It's amazing how teams play into it.
ReplyDeleteIs there a stat called "saves above replacement"? How many saves are garnered when a closer enters the game at the start of the 9th inning (nobody on, no outs)? I'm guessing a high percentage. At what rate would "replacement-level" closers get the save in this situation? I'm guessing not too much different than Rivera, or any other ace closer.
It's just so silly to take a pitcher who you think is really good and "save" him to use him in the 9th inning, when you may or may not even need his skills.
I would like to see the "save" and "hold" stat combined into a single stat, allowing multiple players to earn a "save" in the same game. This would free up managers to use their bullpen ace in the 7th, 8th or 9th inning. Rivera would be more useful in the 7th inning with Bautista at bat and a runner on base, then in the 9th inning with the Yankees down by a run because the middle reliever gave up a homer to Bautista.
For years I have been saying (mostly to myself) that one of the things you need to be a championship team is a dominant closer a la Mariano Rivera or Brian Wilson. A guy has to be completely automatic during the regular season to have a shot at succeeding in the post season where the pressure is higher, the games are closer and the teams are better. For the last three years I have thought, well, at least the Royals have one of the things they need to contend. Now that some of the other elements of a winning team are at least starting to possibly come together, the one thing they had has gone in the toilet. Such is the life of a Royals fan.
ReplyDeleteGrady Little nicely illustrated for us the role of the big time, big name closer. A real closer is the go-to guy when the manager is so overwhelmed by the situation that he can't think straight.
ReplyDeletemaybe he's the next derek lowe...that wouldnt be so bad.
ReplyDeleteAs pointless as the stat appears to be, if saving games were that easy to do, you'd have a lot more career closers. It's a skill. As to the number of pitches they can throw, the closer doesn't need four pitches-two should be enough (one, if you are Rivera)-because he's not going through the line-up more than once. We don't know that they can't throw more, it's just that they are out there using their plus-pitch(es).
ReplyDeleteRichard: Very nice listing of relievers/closers, some of whom I had long since forgotten about. You mentioned Dave Guisti...As a long-time Pirate fan I recall when he was Pittsburgh's "save man" in the early '70s. He wasn't overwhelming but he did the job effectively. Guisti had developed what he called a "palm ball" maybe similar to a change-up/split-finger where the ball dipped down at the plate. Guisti threw a decent straight fastball so the palm ball at a bit slower speed was his "out pitch"- Unfortunately, Dave didn't have an out pitch against Johnny Bench in bottom of 9th inning of Game#5 in 1972 NLCS!
ReplyDeletePut me in the "closers are overrated" camp.
ReplyDeleteMost innings are scoreless . . . in the May 30 results frinstance, only the Houston-Cubs game produced more crooked numbers than zeroes on the scoreboard. I'm picking that's typical.
Surely it's more difficult for a pitcher to produce a scoreless fourth and fifth inning than a scoreless ninth. Another guess, but surely a third of the time a closer comes up he's facing lower-order batters, one of whom will be a desperation-move pinch hitter.
OK, the game is on the line . . . but no more so than it was at the start of the first inning.
I reckon Joe's executive pal is right on the money. Soria was mis-used.
Finally, I don't keep close tabs on the Yankees but from what I've gleaned by following the Orioles, is Mariano Rivera's star fading?
— Graphite
One of the reasons Soria wasn't tried as a starter is a minor history of arm problems about the time that "turn him into a starter" idea was gaining momentum, wanting to limit his pitch count.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering how many starters have kinda faded out and become good closers, a/la Eckersley?
This is why Mariano Rivera is all the more impressive. The Eric Gagnes, the Papelbons, the Sorias, the Brad Lidges peak and then disappear. But the Sandman, maybe not at the top of his game these days, is still around. He won't be forever, of course, but every time I read about a dominant reliever who all of a sudden loses his edge, it reminds me just how impressive Rivera's career has been.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Hough and Dave Stewart are two examples of closers becoming effective starters.
ReplyDeleteI think that steroids made Eric Gagne.
Greg Maddux was a righty with a pretty good career and not much of a fastball.
I think everybody is different. If Soria had a history of arm troubles, then his maximum value would have been as a closer, not as even a good 4-5 years as a starter before blowing out. The Royals' problem was not trading him last season.
Boy, you guys denigrating closers have not been around the Royals for long. Since Jeff Montgomery we have spent years chasing a guy who could get three outs in the 9th. That White Sox game was a crusher....2 outs and nobody on (if I remember correctly) and then he gives up 4 runs. Sorry, those take the starch out of the fans. And we have seen that many times in the years before Soria arrived. Many......
ReplyDeleteAnd when you were at the ballpark and Soria came in to pitch the 9th, the crowd was ecstatic. No, if a closer were over-rated then Rivera would not be making the dough he is. These guys make all the difference. for whatever reason few seem to remain dominant for years, but it was sure a treat while it lasted (if it's over, but I sure hope not!)
Baseball survived without "closers" (1 inning guys) for about 100 years. Just because it has "worked" for the past 25 doesn't mean it is the right way to do things.
ReplyDeleteDinky, I don't mean this to sound snarky, but it is denigrating to ace relievers, like Charlie Hough and Dave Stewart were to start their careers, to call them closers. Goose Gossage was worth as least 2 of the best closer in the world (yes, even Mariano).
I don't fault the Royals for not making him a starter. I would have liked to have seen it, but there were the arm troubles, (which I agree is also happening now), and also the fact that Soria had the perfect makeup to be the closer. No matter what happened he was unflappable.
ReplyDeleteSomething Joe didn't mention, but I would be curious to know more about, is that Soria supposedly just started throwing a cutter recently. If he changed his motion or did anything else to try to make the cutter effective it could have thrown everything else off, and in particular made his fastball no longer have the movement it once had. I buy into this theory, but I have no idea if there is any truth to it.