Why do we have closers again?

Even in that era, those starting pitchers faired pretty mediocre when the got to the 9th inning.

 

Statistics can be quite misleading. Now I'm not saying that this 95.5% statistic is misleading, but there are a lot of different things to factor in.

A true analysis on whether closers are better at holding leads would have to take into account a boatload of other variables such as:

What was the average lead entering the ninth in 1952 and 2010? Was the average lead entering the ninth three runs in 1952 and two runs in 2010? Now I'd hardly guess that the difference was something like a full run, but even a fraction of a run makes the percentages much different.

Then, even it the average lead was the same, there can still be other mitigating factors such as: What was the average number of runs scored in a game in the two years. If the average number of runs scored in 1952 was seven runs per game and the average number of runs per game in 2010 was 10 runs per game, that means that it's more likely for a run to be scored in the ninth inning of a game in 2010 vs. 1952, so it would still mean that 95.5% in 1952 is less impressive than 95.5% in 2010.

Were either one of those seasons part of what's considered a dead-ball or live-ball era? So many things to take into account that just saying 95.5% in each year doesn't necessarily mean a thing.

Thus, I'd have to know a lot more before I'd be willing to make a statement on whether closers are worthwhile or not. For now, I'd guess they are. And then again, always remember that all closers are not equal. There are some closers who simply are not really closers but rather gasoline throwers.