Jump to content

MLB 2008 PT 2

Duck-Billed Catechist
 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

bobbob1313

bobbob1313

Posted
Posted
No, guys are not born with the mental make up to close. They acquire it through being groomed for the role. Just like a starter. I also disagree that any pitcher can come in to get the last 3+ outs when the team is up by 1, 2 or 3 runs. Saving a Rivera or a Papelbon or a Putz, etc. for situations when the team is down a run or tied ("highest leverage") , usually in the 8th or 9th, may be an ideal spot for them to utilize their skills- but, assuming they do their job and stop the bleeding/hold the line, and their team can put up a run or more, then you have a less effective pitcher coming in to close the game for the win. I agree you want your best reliever coming into a game when it's close like that, but I'm not convinced that the alternative of having a weaker pitcher trying to wrap up a game when your team is up by 1, 2 runs is a safer option....

 

 

Well, according the Bill James, anyways, the optimum usage of a closer is this:

 

2 innings at a time in the 8th and 9th when you are tied

2 innings at a time in the 8th and 9th when you are down

Normal "save situation" in the 9th if he hasn't worked in a few days

 

And believe me, if Papelbon could be as good as a starter as he is a closer, they would definitely put him as a starter. He'd probably be a league average starter, which would actually probably have more value to the team, but he's going to make way more money and get way more credit and press being a "dominant closer" in a big market than being a mediocre starter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jenbobblehead

jenbobblehead

Posted
Posted
So you're gonna take shots at Hamilton?

 

The guy was a fucking junkie who was heading for a very nasty end and he turned his life around. Sorry if you aren't inspired by such a story.

Relax, Daddio. My point was that the media picks its darlings and we don't have any control over who they decide to highlight. And, that he's a player not in a major market but his story managed to get told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbob1313

bobbob1313

Posted
Posted

Basically, what you are saying is if you aren't a Met, Red Sock, or Yankee, in order to get the type of press their normal players get, you have to become addicted to heroine, be pushed to the brink of death, have a drug induced hallucination about hitting baseballs in New York, have a grandma, come back and have one of the best years in baseball? Easy as pie.

 

So Red Sox fans, honest question:

 

You really don't think players on your team get more attention than they deserve from the national media?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jenbobblehead

jenbobblehead

Posted
Posted

Of course they get lots of national attention, but we don't have any control over that! You have to remember that because the sox are in boston, and because SO MANY immigrants settled in the boston/new england area, and then spread out all over the country over the last 100 years, that there are red sox fans (several generations deep) all over the place. That can't be denied. I think that the same would definitely hold true for New York too, if there hadn't been so much turnover in baseball in the NYC area, diluting the fanbase (between NY Baseball Giants and Dodgers, and Mets and Yankees and whomever else played in NY in the last century).

 

So, the market is not only large in the boston/ new england area, but it is massive across the country. I'm sorry that you feel that that somehow takes away from baseball, or that the other teams with MUCH SMALLER MARKETS AND FAN BASES should somehow invoke the equal time for teams law that candidates have, but that's not how tv, radio and newspapers work. It also doesn't hurt that the Red Sox are often a very good team.

 

And that's why you should be a sports journalist instead of a teacher, bobbob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
myboyblue

myboyblue

Posted
Posted
Relax, Daddio. My point was that the media picks its darlings and we don't have any control over who they decide to highlight. And, that he's a player not in a major market but his story managed to get told.

 

HE TURNED HIS LIFE AROUND!!!1

Link to post
Share on other sites
jenbobblehead

jenbobblehead

Posted
Posted
HE TURNED HIS LIFE AROUND!!!1

HE didn't turn his life around, Jesus did it.

 

BTW, haven't we heard a lot about some pitcher in St Louis who sucked as a pitcher and his career was just about over and he came back as an outfielder slugger?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MattZ

MattZ

Posted
Posted
Well, according the Bill James, anyways, the optimum usage of a closer is this:

 

2 innings at a time in the 8th and 9th when you are tied

2 innings at a time in the 8th and 9th when you are down

Normal "save situation" in the 9th if he hasn't worked in a few days

 

And believe me, if Papelbon could be as good as a starter as he is a closer, they would definitely put him as a starter. He'd probably be a league average starter, which would actually probably have more value to the team, but he's going to make way more money and get way more credit and press being a "dominant closer" in a big market than being a mediocre starter.

 

Four thoughts:

1. The Joba experiment should shed some interesting light on the "Papelbon would be an average starter" and "players add more value as starters than closers" debate. I am not saying it will settle anything, but, it should be interesting to see.

2. I understand why you are citing Bill James as an authority above, but to me, the guy is still another dude with an opinion. And we've all got them. For what it's worth, I agree with him, but citing Bill James isn't evidence of anything other than someone that agrees with you (IMO).

3. I haven't read this thread all that closely, and I happen to agree with you that closers are frightfully overrated, but its a bit unfair for you to continue to refer to the issue as "anyone can get 3 outs with a 3 run lead." Sure, that would count for a save, and so the save stat is overrated. But there are plenty of saves in more pressure filled situations, and there is a value to a manager being able to manage for an 8 inning game instead of a 9 inning game. Or if a manager has a flithy set up man, knowing that you need to get to the 7th with a lead to win is an incredible asset.

4. I saw you mention casually that a good closer vs bad closer probably only makes a difference of 5-6 games. That (to me) seems like a big deal in the standings at the end of every year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
myboyblue

myboyblue

Posted
Posted
HE didn't turn his life around, Jesus did it.

Apologies...you are correct.

 

 

BTW, haven't we heard a lot about some pitcher in St Louis who sucked as a pitcher and his career was just about over and he came back as an outfielder slugger?

 

ooh, i do like that story. That's a good one. I can't recall the guy's name though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd

Oil Can Boyd

Posted
Posted
3. I haven't read this thread all that closely, and I happen to agree with you that closers are frightfully overrated, but its a bit unfair for you to continue to refer to the issue as "anyone can get 3 outs with a 3 run lead." Sure, that would count for a save, and so the save stat is overrated. But there are plenty of saves in more pressure filled situations, and there is a value to a manager being able to manage for an 8 inning game instead of a 9 inning game. Or if a manager has a flithy set up man, knowing that you need to get to the 7th with a lead to win is an incredible asset.

I certainly agree with this. Having watched the Red Sox try the bullpen-by-committee approach in 2003 with serviceable major league pitchers (Mike Timlin, Alan Embree, BK Kim, Ramiro Mendoza, Chad Fox, etc.) they couldn't end games. When they got Keith Foulke in 2004 or when Papelbon took over in 2006 I felt it really changed the dynamic of close games. As a fan I was much more confident when it got to the 8th or 9th innings.

 

And I certainly agree that the save is a flawed statistic. The fact that the guy on the Rangers got a save in that 30-3 game last year is proof of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cryptique

cryptique

Posted
Posted
BTW, haven't we heard a lot about some pitcher in St Louis who sucked as a pitcher and his career was just about over and he came back as an outfielder slugger?

We haven't read quite so much about him since that whole HGH thing, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd

Oil Can Boyd

Posted
Posted
jeez la pete!

Are suggesting that we move on (like 10 pages ago)?

But that's the great thing about baseball arguments. They are unwinnable. People in New York are still arguing whether Mantle, Mays, or Snider was the better center fielder ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbob1313

bobbob1313

Posted
Posted
Are suggesting that we move on (like 10 pages ago)?

But that's the great thing about baseball arguments. They are unwinnable. People in New York are still arguing whether Mantle, Mays, or Snider was the better center fielder ...

 

I thought I settled this one already?

Link to post
Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine

sweetheart-mine

Posted
Posted
Are suggesting that we move on (like 10 pages ago)?

But that's the great thing about baseball arguments. They are unwinnable. People in New York are still arguing whether Mantle, Mays, or Snider was the better center fielder ...

another great thing about baseball is that it isn't important, by itself. you can care to your heart's content (and i do that), but it really doesn't matter. yet there's no better mental relief than to settle in at the end of a day, having dealt with real-world problems, and watch the graceful and intricate game of baseball and root for your team, whichever team it is. (but for four nights a week we take a break and watch stewart and colbert, check what's happening in the game during commercials, and then return. ahhhhhhhh.) to me baseball really is a beautiful, graceful game on the whole, and after all these years i still learn from and about it. its scrappy and scrubby moments just make it that much more interesting and endearing (and occasionally ridiculous). it's the only sport i watch, and have since spring of 1986.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbob1313

bobbob1313

Posted
Posted
another great thing about baseball is that it isn't important, by itself. you can care to your heart's content (and i do that), but it really doesn't matter. yet there's no better mental relief than to settle in at the end of a day, having dealt with real-world problems, and watch the graceful and intricate game of baseball and root for your team, whichever team it is. (but for four nights a week we take a break and watch stewart and colbert, check what's happening in the game during commercials, and then return. ahhhhhhhh.) to me baseball really is a beautiful, graceful game on the whole, and after all these years i still learn from and about it. its scrappy and scrubby moments just make it that much more interesting and endearing (and occasionally ridiculous). it's the only sport i watch, and have since spring of 1986.

 

Preach on. Baseball, on the whole is one of the few perfect things in the world, along with Music.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...