The "Pump and Dump" Method for Handling Closers
by Jody Madron
Published July 4, 2003

Jody Madron has been in the publishing business for over a decade and has acted as a publisher for over a dozen newsletters (mostly in the financial/investment arena). He is a former sports reporter for the Cecil Whig and previously co-hosted a weekly sports talk show in Maryland, which included post-game analysis on on the local Baltimore Orioles affiliate station. He can be reached at jmadron2003@aol.com.

The “Pump and Dump” Method For Handling Closers

One of the more interesting stories to emerge during the early part of the 2003 baseball season has been the release of Moneyball, Michael Lewis’ insightful look at Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s, and the subsequent reaction throughout the major leagues. While many scouts and general managers have scoffed at Beane’s less-than-traditional methods of doing business, there is no arguing that his clubs have proven successful at winning in spite of a limited budget.

One idea presented in Lewis’ book that is worth further examination involves the role of the closer and how it is possible to use this position to develop – and then trade off at a “profit” – closers year after year. Here is the theory as presented in the book:

“Established closers were systematically overpriced, in large part because of the statistic by which closers were judged in the marketplace: “saves.” The very word made the guy who achieved them sound vitally important. But the situation typically described by the save – the bases empty in the ninth inning with the team leading – was clearly far less critical than a lot of other situations pitchers faced. The closer’s statistic did not have the power of language; it was just a number. You could take a slightly above average pitcher and drop him into the closer’s role, let him accumulate some gaudy number of saves, and then sell him off. You could, in essence, buy a stock, pump it up with false publicity, and sell it off for much more than you’d paid for it. Billy Beane had already done it twice, and assumed he could do so over and over again.”

-- from Moneyball, by Michael Lewis

Looking back at Oakland’s recent history in the saves category, it’s easy to see exactly what Beane was up to. Billy Taylor saved 26 games for the A’s in 1999 and was traded to the New York Mets. Jason Isringhausen then became the A’s closer and saves 67 games in two years…only to be let go. And last year Billy Koch saved 44 games for Oakland before being dealt for Keith Foulke. In each case, Beane successfully “pumped up” the price of his closer’s stock and then received solid value in return. It’s also worth noting that he also successfully replaced each closer that he let go. So, in a sense, Beane has “created” value for his team, which is very important when you’re being asked to compete with other clubs whose resources are more than double your own.

Does the “Pump and Dump” Work For Rotisserie Owners?

The idea is certainly an interesting one; a concept that has worked well for Beane and the A’s within the parameters they’re forced to operate in order to stay competitive. So now that Beane’s ideas and methodology have become public knowledge, the question becomes: is it possible to replicate Beane’s “Pump and Dump” closer strategy successfully in Rotisserie Baseball? And if so, how would such a strategy be executed?

To answer the question of whether or not Beane’s idea is a viable one for Rotisserie owners, let’s take a moment to examine the volatility of the closer position. No matter your opinion of the save statistic as it’s currently constructed, the fact remains that it is one of either four or five pitching categories in nearly every Rotisserie league in existence. Since the save statistic doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon, we are forced to deal with it. The problem, however, is that the closer position has proven to be extremely volatile. To illustrate this point, let’s take a look at the saves leaders from the past year as compared to this season:

Closers: A 50-50 Proposition

Through games of June 29, there were 21 closers in the major leagues who had registered 14 or more saves. Of that group, slightly more than half – just 11 out of 21 – finished in the Top 20 in saves last season. To put that another way, only about half of the Top 20 closers from 2002 – in terms of saves – were contributing at the same level relative to the rest of the league in 2003.

Among the nine pitchers who have dropped off of the “Top 20 Saves List” are three who had been converted to starters: Kelvim Escobar, Byung-Hyun Kim and Danny Graves. Likewise, four others – Robb Nen, Trevor Hoffman, Kazuhiro Sasaki and Jason Isringhausen – can have their disappearance explained by injuries.

The other two who have slipped are Billy Koch (who just barely missed, checking in at #23 on the 2003 saves list) and Juan Acevedo, who went from 28 saves in 2002 to losing his job…in TWO different cities.

No matter the explanation, however, a “turnover rate” of nearly 50% is still somewhat alarming. Unless you have somehow landed a Smoltz, Gagne or Guardado, it’s a safe bet that you have found yourself scrambling for saves at some point during the past year or two.

Part One: How can I get “cheap saves”?

As the volatility of the closer position demonstrates, accumulating points in the saves category requires a Rotisserie owner to either: (1) acquire one or more top-flight closers, or (2) become very resourceful. We’ll have to assume that your league is a competitive one, which means it’s a safe bet that the more reliable closers (Smoltz, Gagne, Guardado, etc.) are not available at bargain prices. So that means we’ll have to be resourceful, which is where the “Pump and Dump” strategy comes into play.

In order to take full advantage of this idea, you must do two things. First, you need to acquire closers at deep discounts. And second, you need to trade away these closers when their value is at or near its peak.

You’ll notice that this first part of the plan – acquiring closers at deep discounts – is slightly different than the first part of Beane’s strategy with the A’s. But that’s by necessity. As Rotisserie owners, we have no control (unless you have the same access to major league managers that Beane has) over which big league pitchers get save opportunities. So we’re forced to anticipate which pitchers may become closers in the near future.

This is a bit of a risky proposition, of course. You’ll need to set aside one or two of the pitching slots on your roster for “closer development”. Those are the spots you should look to fill from a pool of potential closers rather than mediocre starting pitchers and/or middle relievers who provide very little value. The strategy requires a bit of forward thinking. If you’re in the hunt for a championship this year, those one or two roster spots may be needed to acquire last-minute help in a particular category. But if you’re willing to take a modest risk, the reward may be well worth your investment.

Just how well might you be rewarded? Let’s go back to the list of pitchers with 14 or more saves in 2003. Among the names on that list are: Rocky Biddle (22 saves), Keith Foulke (21), Mike MacDougal (20), Scott Williamson (18), Tim Worrell (17) and Joe Borowski (15). With these names in mind, think back to the last two months of the 2002 season. None of these players held down a regular closer job at that time, so they could have easily been picked up at bargain prices. Who might be on the list of “Surprise Saves Leaders” in 2004? No one can know that for sure. But you can give yourself a reasonable chance of grabbing a pitcher who might appear on that list by doing a bit of research and “sacrificing” one or two roster spots for the rest of this season.

If you look around the league, you’ll find some teams – such as Los Angeles, Atlanta and Minnesota – with bullpens that appear to be cast in stone. But in many cases, you’ll find a potentially unsettled situation that might lead to an opportunity for you to grab cheap saves. Here are four examples to consider:

Texas – While moving Ugueth Urbina might not be an easy thing for John Hart to do, it is still likely to happen because of the owner’s desire to shed payroll. Which means that Francisco Cordero – currently Urbina’s setup man – has a good shot at competing with Jeff Zimmerman for the closer’s job next spring.

Chicago Cubs – Joe Borowski has saved 15 of 18 so far this year for the Cubs and has been a pleasant surprise, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be able to keep 26-year-old Kyle Farnsworth from taking the job at some point in the near future.

Cleveland – Danys Baez was converted from a starter to the Tribe closer during the 2002 season, and he is 18-for-23 in save opportunities so far this year. That said, there is no guarantee that the Cleveland front office will want to keep Baez’s talented right arm out of the rotation forever, which gives pitchers like David Riske an outside shot at save opportunities in 2004.

Toronto – With Cliff Politte having been placed on the DL last weekend, most are guessing that Aquilino Lopez becomes the third closer of the season for Toronto, at least temporarily. Given Politte’s high ERA (6.42) and five blown saves in 16 chances, there’s a chance that Lopez – or even Juan Acevedo, when he returns from bereavement leave – could take over on a more permanent basis.

Again, I have only presented a handful of opportunities in this space. And I’ve presented fairly obvious examples so as to illustrate my point. A more thorough look at the bullpens around the league will yield plenty of opportunities, depending upon the competitiveness of your league. In addition, some clubs that appear to have more stable closers in place – such as Seattle and the Yankees – may be more unsettled than you might think because of injury. Keep your eyes open for opportunities and remember that you could very easily “steal” a 40-save man in 2004 with shrewd roster management in the second half of 2003.

Part Two: Be Sure You Sell High

Another aspect to the idea favored by Billy Beane involves “selling off” a closer for much more than your original investment…and then repeating the process all over again. This may be a painful idea to consider as emotions sometimes tend to cloud the judgment of even the best Rotisserie players. It may prove difficult to part with a closer you “discovered” and held onto for months until he was awarded the job. Those emotions need to be put aside. Case in point: Juan Acevedo. In 2002, this 31-year old right-hander suddenly went from journeyman reliever to Tigers closer when Matt Anderson was injured. Almost overnight, Acevedo, who had saved just nineteen games total in six previous seasons, emerged as a viable fantasy option, racking up 28 saves for a Detroit team that won just 55 games all season long. An owner who spotted Acevedo as a potential closer and picked him up “on the cheap” may have felt awfully good after those 28 saves. But how good would that same owner have felt this spring after learning that Acevedo would no longer be a full-time closer?

Generally speaking, there are two “rules of thumb” from which you can choose to make sure you never hold onto a newly discovered closer past the point of no return.

The first “rule” is to be sure to trade the player at the time he’s awarded the job. For example, when Kelvim Escobar was moved back into the rotation earlier this season, Toronto anointed Cliff Politte its new closer.

At that point, a shrewd owner who had been holding Politte in the hope of his becoming a closer could have shopped him around to his fellow owners to see what could be obtained in return. Typically, there is a certain amount of hype surrounding a new closer taking over – positive articles in the papers, a profile on ESPN, etc. – that may artificially inflate the player’s value.

The second rule for “selling high” is to trade the player after an initial burst of success. In the case of a closer, a stretch of three saves in a week or perhaps a half-dozen consecutive successful save opportunities might be enough to drive up the player’s value.

Trading a closer as early as I am suggesting is a difficult thing to do. After all, in your attempt to “sell high” you may potentially let a superstar closer get away at a price that, years from now, will be judged far too low.

But given the extreme volatility of the saves category – remember, only about half of the 2002 saves leaders are performing at the same rate this season – it is a risk that is very much worth taking.

Conclusion: Buying Low and Selling High Requires Some Hard Work

Remember – the point of the “Pump and Dump” method is to create value simply through your own research and roster management. You may not have the same disadvantage that Billy Beane does, but by creating value and then taking advantage of it, you will have given yourself a distinct advantage over your fellow owners.

There are risks involved, of course, when attempting to execute the “Pump and Dump” method of acquiring saves. Here is a brief recap of the three most prominent risks:

Roster space – Ideally, you’ll sacrifice just one or two spots in the hopes of “grooming” a potential closer. Depending upon your situation as the season draws to a close, you might want to increase or decrease this number.

Unsettled saves category – Given the fact that you’ll be dealing away closers who are primed to accumulate saves, there is a chance that you’ll suffer a bit in the saves category. This risk can be offset, however, by holding on to one established closer as a “hedge” position.

Ridicule – There is the distinct possibility that by attempting to trade away a closer at or near his peak, you may ultimately deal away a superstar for far less than you might have received had you waited a year or two.

These risks, of course, are fairly minimal. The one or two roster spots you set aside for potential closers are most likely being held right now by pitchers who are not actually helping your staff. You might be holding on to a fourth or fifth starter who could be hurting your ERA and/or WHIP…or you might have a setup man who gives you no more value than one of the potential closers worth considering.

As for maintaining some consistency in the save category, this can also be done with ease. Just be sure that you always retain at least one active closer that is not part of this “Pump and Dump” strategy and you should do fine.

Lastly, as for the risk of ridicule, I’ll simply say this: For every Eric Gagne who appears on the scene, there are at least two Juan Acevedos. So while we might be able – in some cases, anyway – to tell the difference ahead of time, that’s not always the case. In the end, the numbers suggest you have about a 50 percent chance of getting equal production from one year to the next. With odds like those, the only thing that is certain about closers is that nothing is certain. Which makes the “Billy Beane Pump and Dump” strategy all the more attractive.