I will begin by saying that this is an idea that has worked its way into my brain just in the last few weeks, and one that is still in the "draft stage" and by no means a set stance or opinion yet, and it is certainly malleable. And it is definitely not a criticism of Hector Rondon, the Cubs likely closer in 2016, in any way. I think rather that it is a working idea or a wondering about the way that bullpens are used and the possibility that the rigid approach to the closer specifically might not need to be quite so fixed.

Though the term "save" had been in used for a while before it officially became a recognized statistic in baseball, since its inclusion in the statistical lexicon in 1969, the save has probably done more to alter the way that pitchers operate than just about anything else. Such a premium is now placed on pitchers who can get the last three (and sometimes four) outs of a close game, that they are the blockbuster trades and free agent signings in winter markets that were once dominated by power hitters and power starting pitchers.

And I'm not sure I think they're ever worth it. The Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman kinds of pitchers are the exception to the rule, not the norm. Aroldis Chapman is certainly putting together a fine career, and may one day be mentioned in the same realm as Rivera, but I am admittedly skeptical. Like the running back in the NFL, the shelf life for closers seems to be shortening, and I begin to wonder if the way that closers are traditionally used needs to be reconsidered. This leads me to the working idea that I referenced in the first paragraph.

Current bullpen structure

As it stands now, teams generally rely on two key pieces of their bullpen in close games. For a long time, it was just the closer in the 9th inning, but of late we have seen a rise in the perceived value of the 8th inning setup guy who can get the "hold." And in games when a back of the rotation starter is taking the mound, managers can often be looking to how they can bridge the gap from the 5th or 6th inning to the setup and closer, leading to the increased emphasis on pitching specialists, whose job is to come in and get one or two outs, or in some cases, face just a single batter and leave the game, no matter the outcome. And, along with that, 7th inning pitchers can be credited with holds along with the pitcher who comes in for the 8th.

This is not, of course, exactly how bullpens are used in every game, but in the games when these pitching specialists from the single matchup pitchers to the closer are needed the most, I have begun to wonder if there's a different approach that's possible.

Option 1: Use the "closer" when most necessary

This might seem obvious or silly, but I do often wonder at the seemingly fixed view that the closer is to be used in the 9th inning. Assuming all other things the same, it seems as though he would be even more useful to his team during the 7th or 8th inning, depending on the hitters coming up in that inning. It may not be the best example to demonstrate what I mean here, but I chose to take a look at one of the NLDS games in which, even though the Cubs ultimately won, it looks like a prime opportunity to have used the closer in a different way. Here's what I mean, found in the fourth game of the NLDS on October 13:

If you look at the 7th inning of the game (full play by play here), Fernando Rodney comes in relief and is set to face the 1 -2 -3 hitters of the Cardinals lineup in Matt Carpenter, Stephen Piscotty, and Matt Holliday. Because of a walk to Piscotty, he also faces Jason Heyward. So, arguably the most dangerous part of the Cardinals' lineup, but we are not using our supposed best relief pitcher because he's being saved for the 9th inning. Now, I should give credit to Rodney in this particular case because he was successful in getting the three outs without allowing any damage, but it shouldn't be outlandish to think that things could have imploded rather easily in an inning like that one. The Cubs were up by just one run in the 7th that night, and against that group of hitters, things could have gone south very, very easily.

At the end of that game, Rondon does come in for the save, but he's facing the 8 - 9 - 1 hitters. Again, things ended in our favor here, but my hope is that this illustrates a potential problem. Maybe Rondon would have been better used in the 7th inning in a game like this, because of who he would have been facing. In a sense, he's still "saving" the game, as he is preventing the opportunity for the Cardinals to tie the game or even take the lead. True, it would not be as glamorous to then have Rodney pitch the 9th inning, but if it means the difference between seeing a very valuable lead lost in the 7th inning, and then our offense struggle to get it back, and having our closer operate in the way that is expected, I choose the method that best protects a fragile lead.

Option 2: Play the matchups

This idea is probably less appealing to me, but I'm still curious to see what it might look like. What if, in the same way that we see matchup specialists brought in to get a single out earlier in a game, we saw them used to get the final three outs? It would draw out the final inning and enhance the drama (or prolong the suffering, depending on how things are going), but it could be even more effective than almost always relying on the same pitcher to keep the lead safe in the final inning.

Again, this idea holds a little less appeal to me because I still hold to the belief that certain pitchers are just masterful at getting through tough innings at the ends of games, but this could simply be a holdover from seeing how the relief pitchers are used in game after game. I would be curious to see what this would look like in practice, as I have not seen it done really at all. But if the goal is to get the three outs needed without losing your narrow lead, I do have to wonder at the possibility of two or three relievers being used in the 9th inning, as opposed to just the same one almost every time.

Concluding thoughts

Maybe this is all a product of it being late January and the start of the season still feeling too far away, but I spend probably too much time wondering about these kinds of things. It's a wondering that has popped up in recent weeks, and I chose to take the time to flesh it out a bit here. And again, this is a working idea, so I welcome the thoughts and insights that (hopefully) will follow in the comments here.