The habit of baseball teams using a single closer has become so well established, it’s hard to imagine another approach.  Can multiple closers work?  I think they can and should definitely be tried by some teams.  I’m not talking about teams with premier relievers like Mariano Rivera, BJ Ryan or Trevor Hoffman.  These guys are so good, it’s hard to argue that they shouldn’t finish every close game when their team is ahead.  I’m looking at a situation where a team has 2-4 above average but not elite relievers, all of a similar effectiveness, say ERAs within 0.5 runs per game of each other (I know-ERA isn’t the best indicator of reliever effectiveness but I’m trying to keep things simple here).  Using a few pitchers in tandem could provide a flexibility rarely seen in today’s bullpens.  It will only work if the players and managers buy into it though.

Imagine a team with three decent relievers.  Maybe you don’t want to bring reliever A in for the 9th inning because he’s a sinkerballer and you’re playing on artificial turf.  Bring in reliever B.  If two of the three due batters have lifetime averages over .400 against reliever B, use reliever C.  You have much greater matchup flexibility.  Two inning saves could become more common, as you’d still have another closer for the next game.  Injuries to closers become less devastating.  If a closer goes down, there’s at least one other pitcher to trained in the zen of closing to pick up the slack.  It would also be great for small market teams.  Two decent relievers cost a lot less than one elite one.  Teams could spend the savings on another position player or at least a new water cooler.

It’s not all upside.  There’s a perception that this approach just won’t work and this can be a self fulfilling prophecy.  Some pitchers only pitch well in defined roles and might not take to being a sometimes closer.  There’s also the macho aspect of a closer being the alpha male of the bullpen.  Two or three alpha males make for great press but bad karma.  Today’s closers appear in 50-80 games a year.  This is enough work to keep them sharp.  The issue of rest vs. rust is complicated and varies from pitcher to pitcher but splitting up a closer’s innings among a few pitchers could lead to ineffectiveness through lack of action.

The most compelling argument against bullpen by committee has to be the 2003 Red Sox, the last good team to enter a season with this as a plan.  It worked so poorly that they gave up on May 29th and traded for Byung-Hyun Kim, who became THE closer.  10 pitchers accounted for 36 saves that year, with Kim leading with 16.  Yankee fans in particular like to burst out in laughter when talking about this bullpen.  But it wasn’t the idea that was bad, only the pitcher selection.  Ramiro Mendoza had undergone so many arm surgeries that he couldn’t get anyone out and was known as the embedded Yankee.  Brandon Lyon was a rookie and just not ready.  Mike Timlin had a history of not being particularly effective in the 9th inning (he’s since figured it out).  Alan Embree was actually pretty effective but the manager couldn’t resist using him mainly as a matchup lefty and he rarely pitched an entire inning. This was one case where the problem really was with labor, not management.

Use of multiple closers is a viable approach, if managers would just shake the cobwebs from their head and try it.