A Crazy Thought...

The Royals bounced back Friday night and defeated the Texas Rangers, 4-2. Zack Greinke seemed comfortable, and the bullpen wasn't awful. I don't think the victory, or the way Greinke pitched is worth getting excited about. Much like the loss to the Rangers meant nothing, the victory Friday was meaningless as well. Spring Training is not a reliable indicator of any player or any team's ability once Opening Days comes around. There was something that I did take note of, however.
Joakim Soria is always on my brain in one form or another when I am thinking about Royals baseball. He reminds me a lot of Alberto Callaspo in that, he is largely wasted talent (on this team). Bullington closed out the game on Friday and got the save. It wasn't a big deal...AT ALL. In fact, he really didn't put up great numbers in his one inning of work. He gave up two hits AND a run, in ONE inning of work. He didn't "save" the game, on the contrary... he managed not to lose it. This is my problem with Joakim Soria. There is little doubt that he is a legitimate talent. The guy can flat out pitch. Watching former Royals closer Mike MacDougal take the mound in the ninth was an absolute nail-biter. No one was certain what the outcome would be. When Soria comes in, however, most of us have a great deal of faith that the lead will be maintained. It's amazing. The Royals have a great closer, but...WHO CARES?



When I think of the reasons why the Kansas City Royals have flirted with 100 loses for so many seasons, the closer role rarely comes to mind as one of the big factors. Instead, I tend to think of: a lack of timely hitting, poor defense, failure to advance runners, a sketchy bullpen at times, etc. The closer role is like the cherry on top: it's a nice finish to my sundae, but if the rest of the sundae is crap...it really doesn't add enough to overcome the "crappiness".
Baseball didn't always have closers. In fact, most of baseball has been without closers. The save wasn't even in existence until 1969, and it wasn't a one inning affair at that time (think Goose, think multiple innings). In fact, it is only recently (1995) that the closer role has almost become exclusively a one-inning job.  The closer has certainly effected the way the game is played, but it hasn't resulted in more wins...or less runs scored in the ninth per se. In fact, when you really step back and think about it, all the save amounts to is NOT LOSING the game. Sometimes it is more meaningful than others, but let's face it: a closer can give up hits and even runs and still "get the save". So, do the Royals really need a guy who is excellent at not losing the game in one inning of work? It is a nice thing to have, but couldn't they use the talent elsewhere? Aren't there other teams that would benefit from Soria more than the Royals? The question is not easily answered, but certainly warrants some investigation.