Definitely an interesting article.
But one downside to it. Before the days when closers were common the 9th may have largely been your starter's effectiveness in the 9th verses my starter's effectiveness in the 9th. With a closer it is my closer against your closer.
Would you not need to compare how one team does when relying on starters to go 9 innings verses relying on the starter to get you to the point you can hand it over to a closer. Or just to get the game to the point it can be handed over to a bullpen of setup men and closer. I think the real value of bullpen and closer is that they allow the starter to go all out more frequently for just 6 innings not needing to save anything verses one who has to hold it back a notch or two early to have something left finish a game. Having that bullpen allows a guy to pitch around more hitters because if you get your pitch count up and are gassed after just 6 that is ok because the bullpen will now take over.
Problem is how do you compare one method against another? How do you compare how things might go with a staff full of complete game horses against a team built around a bullpen? How do you play one era against another?
Hey, that is what ATG Strat is for.