@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
Same thing more recently with Hader. Most closers have 1 or 2 good pitches. 1 of those is usually dominant.
Much easier for a starter to go into the BP and be successful it seems. It’s a new routine and some can’t do it but we see it every year in the playoffs or in must win games or in the ASG.
It’s much more rare for a reliever to move to the starting lineup but that also happens.
We all know this but somehow it comes up for debate. I can add more off topic anecdotes on Smoltz. His tailoring has been much better. Remember when it looked like he was a hanger wearing the suit?
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Smoltz was the exception because his role changed; He spent the off season working towards it
All those starters should be in the HOF., I Just dont believe that they should judged the same/ It really is a different aspect.
Theres countless starters that dont do well in relief roles. Johnson and Schilling basically put the Dbacks on their back for the WS win but more often than not starters fail as relievers
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
I agree, it is a fun topic to discuss!
They used Mo as a starter in 1996 and it did not work out. He went to middle relief then finishing games.
can you imagine prime Pedro coming in for one inning bursts!!
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
I agree, it is a fun topic to discuss!
They used Mo as a starter in 1996 and it did not work out. He went to middle relief then finishing games.
can you imagine prime Pedro coming in for one inning bursts!!
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
Failed starter is probably the right way to put it. I dont knock anyone for failing at it just like I wouldnt degrade a 2nd basemen over a SS.
I think the simplest way to put it is its just another position. If we arent going to allow revilers or closers in the HOF then we need to start eliminating a lot of position players too and the NFL needs to get rid of kickers. Catchers and 2nd basemen dont hold up compared to other players
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Smoltz was the exception because his role changed; He spent the off season working towards it
All those starters should be in the HOF., I Just dont believe that they should judged the same/ It really is a different aspect.
Theres countless starters that dont do well in relief roles. Johnson and Schilling basically put the Dbacks on their back for the WS win but more often than not starters fail as relievers
What you are missing is WHY Smoltz role changed. it is because he had an elbow injury and missed a season. when he came back, the Braves were worried about reinjury. they still wanted him to pitch, but wanted to save wear and tear. So...they decided to reduce his innings. significantly. the safest way they could think of was to make him the "closer" most "closer" appearances are when the team is already ahead and the "closer" can take his time warming, unlike "middle relief" where those pitchers have to warm very quickly because a starter is being shelled.
The majority, dare I say, vast majority of "closer" appearances are forecast at least an inning ahead of time. they normally dont have to warm very quickly. That is why Smoltz was given that role until the Braves staff were confident of the elbow and that John could "start" again.
The very instant the Braves were confident in that elbow, they reinserted Smoltz into the rotation, because he was SO much more valuable in that role. The Braves clearly valued the role of starter much higher than "closer" I am surprised you cannot see that. That is why I cannot see "closers" having enough value to make the HOF.
And they traded for a closer too. Farnsworth. I’ve heard Smoltz talk about it. He said he was dying to be back in the rotation where he could help the team the most.
OK, it's been bothering me for a minute...There are many, many revilers in the HOF. We just don't know the extent of all their sins. If we exclude any new revilers, and disqualify and throw out the revilers that are already in, then who's left? Gary Carter?
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
Failed starter is probably the right way to put it. I dont knock anyone for failing at it just like I wouldnt degrade a 2nd basemen over a SS.
I think the simplest way to put it is its just another position. If we arent going to allow revilers or closers in the HOF then we need to start eliminating a lot of position players too and the NFL needs to get rid of kickers. Catchers and 2nd basemen dont hold up compared to other players
It is not a different position. they are All pitchers. they may have different roles, but they all play the same position.
I agree, we should compare positions with like positions. ie, 2b get compared to 2b. ss to ss, pitcher to pitcher etc.
what you are trying to do is compare the starting 2b to a backup 2b. you know, like the player brought in during the 9th inning to replace frank thomas at 1b or cecil fielder in left field for defensive purposes. they are both 2b or LFers, but one is wildly more valuable than the other.
In the same vein, some pitchers are used to relieve starters because they either are tired or not effective that particular game. they are both pitchers, but one is a backup. just like the defensive replacement senario above.
you keep bringing up the NFL. not germane to this discussion.
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Smoltz was the exception because his role changed; He spent the off season working towards it
All those starters should be in the HOF., I Just dont believe that they should judged the same/ It really is a different aspect.
Theres countless starters that dont do well in relief roles. Johnson and Schilling basically put the Dbacks on their back for the WS win but more often than not starters fail as relievers
What you are missing is WHY Smoltz role changed. it is because he had an elbow injury and missed a season. when he came back, the Braves were worried about reinjury. they still wanted him to pitch, but wanted to save wear and tear. So...they decided to reduce his innings. significantly. the safest way they could think of was to make him the "closer" most "closer" appearances are when the team is already ahead and the "closer" can take his time warming, unlike "middle relief" where those pitchers have to warm very quickly because a starter is being shelled.
The majority, dare I say, vast majority of "closer" appearances are forecast at least an inning ahead of time. they normally dont have to warm very quickly. That is why Smoltz was given that role until the Braves staff were confident of the elbow and that John could "start" again.
The very instant the Braves were confident in that elbow, they reinserted Smoltz into the rotation, because he was SO much more valuable in that role. The Braves clearly valued the role of starter much higher than "closer" I am surprised you cannot see that. That is why I cannot see "closers" having enough value to make the HOF.
His role certainly changed bujt it didnt for long, he was a closer for 3 years and went back to being a starter. He was put there because it was the best use of him abd his role on the team at that time
Smoltz was the one that offered to change into a relief role. Smoltz had earned the right to do what he wanted and Cox and Leo didnt have the power to say no
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
Failed starter is probably the right way to put it. I dont knock anyone for failing at it just like I wouldnt degrade a 2nd basemen over a SS.
I think the simplest way to put it is its just another position. If we arent going to allow revilers or closers in the HOF then we need to start eliminating a lot of position players too and the NFL needs to get rid of kickers. Catchers and 2nd basemen dont hold up compared to other players
It is not a different position. they are All pitchers. they may have different roles, but they all play the same position.
I agree, we should compare positions with like positions. ie, 2b get compared to 2b. ss to ss, pitcher to pitcher etc.
what you are trying to do is compare the starting 2b to a backup 2b. you know, like the player brought in during the 9th inning to replace frank thomas at 1b or cecil fielder in left field for defensive purposes. they are both 2b or LFers, but one is wildly more valuable than the other.
In the same vein, some pitchers are used to relieve starters because they either are tired or not effective that particular game. they are both pitchers, but one is a backup. just like the defensive replacement senario above.
you keep bringing up the NFL. not germane to this discussion.
Position sure, but what they are expected to do, how they train,how hey warmup, how they prepare etc is all different.
Throwing a ball doesnt make you a starter. A FG kicker doesnt make you a punter or vice versa. A catcher doent make you a SS or a long snapper doesn't make you a center.
I only bring it up for a comparison. I wont ever argue that a closer is the best pitcher ever. I will however say that the best closers should be in the HOF
Bobby Cox didn't have the power to say no????? you have got to be kidding.
Smoltz always wanted to start. the only reason he "closed" was because on injury concerns. Had they felt his elbow would have held together he never would have been in the bullpen.
Bobby Cox didn't have the power to say no????? you have got to be kidding.
Smoltz always wanted to start. the only reason he "closed" was because on injury concerns. Had they felt his elbow would have held together he never would have been in the bullpen.
Cox didnt at that point. He did for other players but not with Smoltz
Smoltz started for a decade. He closed to help the team for 3 years and make a bunch of money. He closed for 3 years, then started again and was trash after his first three years starting again
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
Failed starter is probably the right way to put it. I dont knock anyone for failing at it just like I wouldnt degrade a 2nd basemen over a SS.
I think the simplest way to put it is its just another position. If we arent going to allow revilers or closers in the HOF then we need to start eliminating a lot of position players too and the NFL needs to get rid of kickers. Catchers and 2nd basemen dont hold up compared to other players
It is not a different position. they are All pitchers. they may have different roles, but they all play the same position.
I agree, we should compare positions with like positions. ie, 2b get compared to 2b. ss to ss, pitcher to pitcher etc.
what you are trying to do is compare the starting 2b to a backup 2b. you know, like the player brought in during the 9th inning to replace frank thomas at 1b or cecil fielder in left field for defensive purposes. they are both 2b or LFers, but one is wildly more valuable than the other.
In the same vein, some pitchers are used to relieve starters because they either are tired or not effective that particular game. they are both pitchers, but one is a backup. just like the defensive replacement senario above.
you keep bringing up the NFL. not germane to this discussion.
Position sure, but what they are expected to do, how they train,how hey warmup, how they prepare etc is all different.
Throwing a ball doesnt make you a starter. A FG kicker doesnt make you a punter or vice versa. A catcher doent make you a SS or a long snapper doesn't make you a center.
I only bring it up for a comparison. I wont ever argue that a closer is the best pitcher ever. I will however say that the best closers should be in the HOF
If a pitcher has the ability to pitch in the most valuable role, the inarguably most valuable role, dont you think an organization would have them "train, warmup and prepare" in such a way as to make that role available to them?
do you think it is possible that in the minors or early in an MLB career that coaching staffs/managers have already sifted out the best pitchers from the lesser ones? and when that determination has been made, then they are trained for their respective roles?
the best pitchers get the most valuable roles (starters) the rest of the pitchers get less valuable roles (relievers)
that is why I do not consider relievers as HOF pitchers.
Bobby Cox didn't have the power to say no????? you have got to be kidding.
Smoltz always wanted to start. the only reason he "closed" was because on injury concerns. Had they felt his elbow would have held together he never would have been in the bullpen.
Cox didnt at that point. He did for other players but not with Smoltz
Smoltz started for a decade. He closed to help the team for 3 years and make a bunch of money. He closed for 3 years, then started again and was trash after his first three years starting again
Ok, if Smoltz was calling the shots (which he wasnt) why didnt he decide for himself to be a reliever earlier? Why not when he was at his peak, in 96-97?
He didnt close to "help the team" he closed because his arm was unable to hold up to the rigors of starting. the best way he could have "helped the team" would to have pitched as many innings as possible, not come in for one inning every third game
The truth is that John Smoltz the Starting Pitcher and John Smoltz the Reliever are not the same John Smoltz. What you don't know is that in 2000 Earth was attacked. This was kept from all of us but for a select few heros sent to fight the alien horde. Commander Smoltz was one of them. What we found here on Earth was that the synthetic produced by General Electric was actually outsourced to a Chinese company - the arm just couldn't support the rigors of starting pitching and they had to use it from the BP in order to avoid too many questions. So they announced that Smoltz had torn a tendon in his elbow, he was sent off to join the Space Force and the rest is history. After the defeat, years later, of the Alien Menace he returned and obviously rejoined the starting lineup.
This is all there even though it was scrubbed and you can find it in 2 seconds unless you don't know anything about baseball. Some of us just like to talk about sports... and aliens... but other people punch the air like lunatics. Stay chatty!
The thing about relievers, for me, is that it is comprised of a few unique roles, which, it just so happens that some pitchers excel at. They might not be as valuable overall as a starting pitcher (however that's measured), but it's a necessary role that someone has to fill because the team is dead without it.
The comparison to position players isn't too far off I think. Is a SS more valuable than a 2B? a CF more valuable than a LF? Perhaps WAR says so, or salaries say so, etc. I think that First Basemen and Corner Infielders suffer in HOF voting today unless they produce offensively enough to offset the perceived (real or not) value (or lack thereof) of the position they played. I think there's an even better position to compare however. DH. That is pretty much the closer for position players. You have to be an amazing DH to get into the HOF. You have to be an amazing reliever to get into the HOF.
@bgr said:
The thing about relievers, for me, is that it is comprised of a few unique roles, which, it just so happens that some pitchers excel at. They might not be as valuable overall as a starting pitcher (however that's measured), but it's a necessary role that someone has to fill because the team is dead without it.
The comparison to position players isn't too far off I think. Is a SS more valuable than a 2B? a CF more valuable than a LF? Perhaps WAR says so, or salaries say so, etc. I think that First Basemen and Corner Infielders suffer in HOF voting today unless they produce offensively enough to offset the perceived (real or not) value (or lack thereof) of the position they played. I think there's an even better position to compare however. DH. That is pretty much the closer for position players. You have to be an amazing DH to get into the HOF. You have to be an amazing reliever to get into the HOF.
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
Not sure why Im getting targeted here but yes it is a well known fact that you have to get to starters early before they settle in and that revilers and closers dont have any margin of error for their ERA.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
Not sure why Im getting targeted here but yes it is a well known fact that you have to get to starters early before they settle in and that revilers and closers dont have any margin of error for their ERA.
You could just admit when you're wrong. Maybe also stop spreading rumors as fact. Don't tell people you know something you can't. Any / All. Give it a try. It's painless.
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
Again, opinions, guesses whatever you want to call it.
Starters know more than relievers when, and against who they are going to start, and last I looked the first inning was ALWAYS clean.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
If you can't see it, I can't explain it any better.
Moving on.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
Not sure why Im getting targeted here but yes it is a well known fact that you have to get to starters early before they settle in and that revilers and closers dont have any margin of error for their ERA.
"Targeted"?
I mention you because you are the absolute best example on these boards of someone who is an expert on everything, never admits to being wrong, and never (that I can remember) offers up any evidence to support your opinions.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to admit it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
If you can't see it, I can't explain it any better.
Moving on.
hmmm, not answering a direct question. deflecting???
do you disagree about my analogy between FANS, not PLAYERS of different sports?
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
Again, opinions, guesses whatever you want to call it.
Starters know more than relievers when, and against who they are going to start, and last I looked the first inning was ALWAYS clean.
nope, not an opinion. It is literally the reason starters often dont pitch as well during the first inning or 2.
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
If you can't see it, I can't explain it any better.
Moving on.
hmmm, not answering a direct question. deflecting???
do you disagree about my analogy between FANS, not PLAYERS of different sports?
The comment was on footb.all. You deflected to something completely different.> @craig44 said:
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
Again, opinions, guesses whatever you want to call it.
Starters know more than relievers when, and against who they are going to start, and last I looked the first inning was ALWAYS clean.
nope, not an opinion. It is literally the reason starters often dont pitch as well during the first inning or 2.
I think you need to watch more baseball Joe.
OPINION. You have no facts to support your statement.
Even if you are "right" you're still wrong. Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.
The FACTS are;
Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save.
Starters can, and often do, give up early runs and can still win the game.
To put Koufax in your original group of starters was ridiculous. For half his career he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. I didn't realize how poorly every other one of your examples pitched in the 1st inning.
But like others here, (don't want to "target" anyone) you will NEVER EVER admit to making a mistake and you will NEVER EVER stop arguing when you are wrong.
Please keep proving me right.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
If you can't see it, I can't explain it any better.
Moving on.
hmmm, not answering a direct question. deflecting???
do you disagree about my analogy between FANS, not PLAYERS of different sports?
The comment was on footb.all. You deflected to something completely different.> @craig44 said:
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
Again, opinions, guesses whatever you want to call it.
Starters know more than relievers when, and against who they are going to start, and last I looked the first inning was ALWAYS clean.
nope, not an opinion. It is literally the reason starters often dont pitch as well during the first inning or 2.
I think you need to watch more baseball Joe.
OPINION. You have no facts to support your statement.
Even if you are "right" you're still wrong. Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.
The FACTS are;
Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save.
Starters can, and often do, give up early runs and can still win the game.
To put Koufax in your original group of starters was ridiculous. For half his career he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. I didn't realize how poorly every other one of your examples pitched in the 1st inning.
But like others here, (don't want to "target" anyone) you will NEVER EVER admit to making a mistake and you will NEVER EVER stop arguing when you are wrong.
Please keep proving me right.
I have ZERO problem admitting to errors/mistakes. I have done a complete 180 when it comes to PED in baseball and the HOF for example.
another example: I remember arguing with Dallas a number of years ago that Jim rice was a great player. I listened to what he wrote and completely changed my view.
In this instance, I am not wrong. you are not making sense here man. look at what you just wrote:
¨Even if you are "right" you're still wrong.¨ I normally like what you write and agree with a very good portion of it, but in this circumstance you are out over your skiis. you are not even reading what I am writing. Any baseball guy will agree with what I am saying. Starters are better at pitching than relievers. that is why they are entrusted with pitching through a lineup multiple times.
¨Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save¨
wrong. a reliever can earn a ¨save¨ when they have a lead of up to 3 runs. that means that if your team is up by 3 and you give up 2, you still get a ¨save¨ that is a pretty healthy margin of error dont you think?? relievers often give up runs during their ¨save¨ opportunities and still get credit for a ¨save¨
I love this little beauty: ¨Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.¨
it is not that the job of getting the first 3-6 outs is any easier than getting the final 3 outs, it is that most starters are so good at pitching that they dont have to bear down like a reliever that may only have one ¨out¨ pitch to get those outs. they have to conserve energy and not show too much of their stuff the first time around a lineup.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
Not sure why Im getting targeted here but yes it is a well known fact that you have to get to starters early before they settle in and that revilers and closers dont have any margin of error for their ERA.
"Targeted"?
I mention you because you are the absolute best example on these boards of someone who is an expert on everything, never admits to being wrong, and never (that I can remember) offers up any evidence to support your opinions.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to admit it.
If Im always wrong it should be very easy to state the case against what was posted instead of resorting to personal attacks
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
Not sure why Im getting targeted here but yes it is a well known fact that you have to get to starters early before they settle in and that revilers and closers dont have any margin of error for their ERA.
"Targeted"?
I mention you because you are the absolute best example on these boards of someone who is an expert on everything, never admits to being wrong, and never (that I can remember) offers up any evidence to support your opinions.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to admit it.
If Im always wrong it should be very easy to state the case against what was posted instead of resorting to personal attacks
We don't have to prove the absence of proof. You said he was suspended for PEDs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You're not always wrong, but when you are, you behave ridiculously.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
Not sure why Im getting targeted here but yes it is a well known fact that you have to get to starters early before they settle in and that revilers and closers dont have any margin of error for their ERA.
"Targeted"?
I mention you because you are the absolute best example on these boards of someone who is an expert on everything, never admits to being wrong, and never (that I can remember) offers up any evidence to support your opinions.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to admit it.
If Im always wrong it should be very easy to state the case against what was posted instead of resorting to personal attacks
This is not a personal attack. It's an honest observation.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
If you can't see it, I can't explain it any better.
Moving on.
hmmm, not answering a direct question. deflecting???
do you disagree about my analogy between FANS, not PLAYERS of different sports?
The comment was on footb.all. You deflected to something completely different.> @craig44 said:
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
Again, opinions, guesses whatever you want to call it.
Starters know more than relievers when, and against who they are going to start, and last I looked the first inning was ALWAYS clean.
nope, not an opinion. It is literally the reason starters often dont pitch as well during the first inning or 2.
I think you need to watch more baseball Joe.
OPINION. You have no facts to support your statement.
Even if you are "right" you're still wrong. Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.
The FACTS are;
Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save.
Starters can, and often do, give up early runs and can still win the game.
To put Koufax in your original group of starters was ridiculous. For half his career he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. I didn't realize how poorly every other one of your examples pitched in the 1st inning.
But like others here, (don't want to "target" anyone) you will NEVER EVER admit to making a mistake and you will NEVER EVER stop arguing when you are wrong.
Please keep proving me right.
I have ZERO problem admitting to errors/mistakes. I have done a complete 180 when it comes to PED in baseball and the HOF for example.
another example: I remember arguing with Dallas a number of years ago that Jim rice was a great player. I listened to what he wrote and completely changed my view.
In this instance, I am not wrong. you are not making sense here man. look at what you just wrote:
¨Even if you are "right" you're still wrong.¨ I normally like what you write and agree with a very good portion of it, but in this circumstance you are out over your skiis. you are not even reading what I am writing. Any baseball guy will agree with what I am saying. Starters are better at pitching than relievers. that is why they are entrusted with pitching through a lineup multiple times.
¨Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save¨
wrong. a reliever can earn a ¨save¨ when they have a lead of up to 3 runs. that means that if your team is up by 3 and you give up 2, you still get a ¨save¨ that is a pretty healthy margin of error dont you think?? relievers often give up runs during their ¨save¨ opportunities and still get credit for a ¨save¨
I love this little beauty: ¨Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.¨
it is not that the job of getting the first 3-6 outs is any easier than getting the final 3 outs, it is that most starters are so good at pitching that they dont have to bear down like a reliever that may only have one ¨out¨ pitch to get those outs. they have to conserve energy and not show too much of their stuff the first time around a lineup.
seriously Joe, this is like baseball 101 here.
Thanks for proving me right, I was never in doubt!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
If you can't see it, I can't explain it any better.
Moving on.
hmmm, not answering a direct question. deflecting???
do you disagree about my analogy between FANS, not PLAYERS of different sports?
The comment was on footb.all. You deflected to something completely different.> @craig44 said:
@Basebal21 said:
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
Again, opinions, guesses whatever you want to call it.
Starters know more than relievers when, and against who they are going to start, and last I looked the first inning was ALWAYS clean.
nope, not an opinion. It is literally the reason starters often dont pitch as well during the first inning or 2.
I think you need to watch more baseball Joe.
OPINION. You have no facts to support your statement.
Even if you are "right" you're still wrong. Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.
The FACTS are;
Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save.
Starters can, and often do, give up early runs and can still win the game.
To put Koufax in your original group of starters was ridiculous. For half his career he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. I didn't realize how poorly every other one of your examples pitched in the 1st inning.
But like others here, (don't want to "target" anyone) you will NEVER EVER admit to making a mistake and you will NEVER EVER stop arguing when you are wrong.
Please keep proving me right.
I have ZERO problem admitting to errors/mistakes. I have done a complete 180 when it comes to PED in baseball and the HOF for example.
another example: I remember arguing with Dallas a number of years ago that Jim rice was a great player. I listened to what he wrote and completely changed my view.
In this instance, I am not wrong. you are not making sense here man. look at what you just wrote:
¨Even if you are "right" you're still wrong.¨ I normally like what you write and agree with a very good portion of it, but in this circumstance you are out over your skiis. you are not even reading what I am writing. Any baseball guy will agree with what I am saying. Starters are better at pitching than relievers. that is why they are entrusted with pitching through a lineup multiple times.
¨Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save¨
wrong. a reliever can earn a ¨save¨ when they have a lead of up to 3 runs. that means that if your team is up by 3 and you give up 2, you still get a ¨save¨ that is a pretty healthy margin of error dont you think?? relievers often give up runs during their ¨save¨ opportunities and still get credit for a ¨save¨
I love this little beauty: ¨Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.¨
it is not that the job of getting the first 3-6 outs is any easier than getting the final 3 outs, it is that most starters are so good at pitching that they dont have to bear down like a reliever that may only have one ¨out¨ pitch to get those outs. they have to conserve energy and not show too much of their stuff the first time around a lineup.
seriously Joe, this is like baseball 101 here.
Thanks for proving me right, I was never in doubt!
And that is what a response written by a man who is losing a debate looks like...
I haven't looked at this stat for quite a while, but historically when a team enters the 9th inning with a lead, that team will win the game about 93% of the time. That's the average, and the variance around that average is small; even bad teams with bad closers will win about 90% of the time.
Which means that if you have an average closer, replacing him with a great closer will get you about 2 more wins over the course of an entire season. Upgrade a starting pitcher from average to great and you'll win 5+ more games. Dump your two worst pitchers and replace them with good hitters you can platoon in the outfield and you'll win even more games.
"Closer" is a BS "position". Some of the pitchers used in that role are very good, and if they were used correctly rather than only in save situations, they'd help win a lot more games. They wouldn't be "closers" anymore, but they'd be much more valuable.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
you have to be kidding, right?
at this point you are flailing
¨Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters¨ you neglected to address this little beauty. pretty sure Smoltz was all world at both, no? Eck did alright as well.
they are ALL pitchers, just different roles. it sure seems though, that those who pitch many more innings can also step into the ¨closer¨ role, but it hardly ever seems to go the other way. that is a big reason no ¨closer¨ should be in the HOF.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Kidding about what?
Smoltz had a couple years as a closer. He was the exception not the standard though. Bad guy for announcing too being so boring. Hes not the GOAT that he pretends to be
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
do you know why Smoltz is the exception? because pitchers who pitch more are much more valuable. As soon as Smoltz was able to return to pitching more innings, the Braves switched him back.
can you imagine how dominating Randy Johnson, Clemens, Prime Pedro, Seaver, Gibson, Koufax would have been as "closers?" If they would have been able to just air it out for 3 outs and not have to conserve? There is a reason they were asked to throw as many innings as possible, they were more valuable in that role. they were better pitchers than those who are asked to "close"
even the greatest "closer," Mo, was a failed "starter" he had one pitch. the Yankees knew that he could not pitch through lineups 3 or 4 times with one pitch.
by bringing his announcing into the discussion, you are simply trying to deflect from the topic at hand. It is telling to the veracity of your argument.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Wagner himself was a 'failed' starter. He was a starter almost all of his minor league career. Although I do hesitate to call him failed as a starter. He did have a lifetime 3.10 ERA in the Minors in over 400 IP. Same for Rivera. He had a lifetime 2.35 ERA in the minors as mostly a starter.
I would hesitate calling them failed but rather put them more into the basket of teams utilizing their abilities to their highest potential. We will never know if they could have carried their Minor League starting ERA into MLB long term so that would all be guessing.
There is no question their value in the lower amount of innings is much less than the starters who threw X more innings.
As for them belonging in the HOF...its a good topic to discuss.
Same thing more recently with Hader. Most closers have 1 or 2 good pitches. 1 of those is usually dominant.
Much easier for a starter to go into the BP and be successful it seems. It’s a new routine and some can’t do it but we see it every year in the playoffs or in must win games or in the ASG.
It’s much more rare for a reliever to move to the starting lineup but that also happens.
We all know this but somehow it comes up for debate. I can add more off topic anecdotes on Smoltz. His tailoring has been much better. Remember when it looked like he was a hanger wearing the suit?
Smoltz was the exception because his role changed; He spent the off season working towards it
All those starters should be in the HOF., I Just dont believe that they should judged the same/ It really is a different aspect.
Theres countless starters that dont do well in relief roles. Johnson and Schilling basically put the Dbacks on their back for the WS win but more often than not starters fail as relievers
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I agree, it is a fun topic to discuss!
They used Mo as a starter in 1996 and it did not work out. He went to middle relief then finishing games.
can you imagine prime Pedro coming in for one inning bursts!!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I agree.
Failed starter is probably the right way to put it. I dont knock anyone for failing at it just like I wouldnt degrade a 2nd basemen over a SS.
I think the simplest way to put it is its just another position. If we arent going to allow revilers or closers in the HOF then we need to start eliminating a lot of position players too and the NFL needs to get rid of kickers. Catchers and 2nd basemen dont hold up compared to other players
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
What you are missing is WHY Smoltz role changed. it is because he had an elbow injury and missed a season. when he came back, the Braves were worried about reinjury. they still wanted him to pitch, but wanted to save wear and tear. So...they decided to reduce his innings. significantly. the safest way they could think of was to make him the "closer" most "closer" appearances are when the team is already ahead and the "closer" can take his time warming, unlike "middle relief" where those pitchers have to warm very quickly because a starter is being shelled.
The majority, dare I say, vast majority of "closer" appearances are forecast at least an inning ahead of time. they normally dont have to warm very quickly. That is why Smoltz was given that role until the Braves staff were confident of the elbow and that John could "start" again.
The very instant the Braves were confident in that elbow, they reinserted Smoltz into the rotation, because he was SO much more valuable in that role. The Braves clearly valued the role of starter much higher than "closer" I am surprised you cannot see that. That is why I cannot see "closers" having enough value to make the HOF.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@Basebal21
Smoltz, the exception, proved the rule.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And they traded for a closer too. Farnsworth. I’ve heard Smoltz talk about it. He said he was dying to be back in the rotation where he could help the team the most.
OK, it's been bothering me for a minute...There are many, many revilers in the HOF. We just don't know the extent of all their sins. If we exclude any new revilers, and disqualify and throw out the revilers that are already in, then who's left? Gary Carter?
It is not a different position. they are All pitchers. they may have different roles, but they all play the same position.
I agree, we should compare positions with like positions. ie, 2b get compared to 2b. ss to ss, pitcher to pitcher etc.
what you are trying to do is compare the starting 2b to a backup 2b. you know, like the player brought in during the 9th inning to replace frank thomas at 1b or cecil fielder in left field for defensive purposes. they are both 2b or LFers, but one is wildly more valuable than the other.
In the same vein, some pitchers are used to relieve starters because they either are tired or not effective that particular game. they are both pitchers, but one is a backup. just like the defensive replacement senario above.
you keep bringing up the NFL. not germane to this discussion.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The hall of justice. It’s in Orlando.
His role certainly changed bujt it didnt for long, he was a closer for 3 years and went back to being a starter. He was put there because it was the best use of him abd his role on the team at that time
Smoltz was the one that offered to change into a relief role. Smoltz had earned the right to do what he wanted and Cox and Leo didnt have the power to say no
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Position sure, but what they are expected to do, how they train,how hey warmup, how they prepare etc is all different.
Throwing a ball doesnt make you a starter. A FG kicker doesnt make you a punter or vice versa. A catcher doent make you a SS or a long snapper doesn't make you a center.
I only bring it up for a comparison. I wont ever argue that a closer is the best pitcher ever. I will however say that the best closers should be in the HOF
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
@Basebal21
Bobby Cox didn't have the power to say no????? you have got to be kidding.
Smoltz always wanted to start. the only reason he "closed" was because on injury concerns. Had they felt his elbow would have held together he never would have been in the bullpen.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Cox didnt at that point. He did for other players but not with Smoltz
Smoltz started for a decade. He closed to help the team for 3 years and make a bunch of money. He closed for 3 years, then started again and was trash after his first three years starting again
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
If a pitcher has the ability to pitch in the most valuable role, the inarguably most valuable role, dont you think an organization would have them "train, warmup and prepare" in such a way as to make that role available to them?
do you think it is possible that in the minors or early in an MLB career that coaching staffs/managers have already sifted out the best pitchers from the lesser ones? and when that determination has been made, then they are trained for their respective roles?
the best pitchers get the most valuable roles (starters) the rest of the pitchers get less valuable roles (relievers)
that is why I do not consider relievers as HOF pitchers.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Ok, if Smoltz was calling the shots (which he wasnt) why didnt he decide for himself to be a reliever earlier? Why not when he was at his peak, in 96-97?
He didnt close to "help the team" he closed because his arm was unable to hold up to the rigors of starting. the best way he could have "helped the team" would to have pitched as many innings as possible, not come in for one inning every third game
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The truth is that John Smoltz the Starting Pitcher and John Smoltz the Reliever are not the same John Smoltz. What you don't know is that in 2000 Earth was attacked. This was kept from all of us but for a select few heros sent to fight the alien horde. Commander Smoltz was one of them. What we found here on Earth was that the synthetic produced by General Electric was actually outsourced to a Chinese company - the arm just couldn't support the rigors of starting pitching and they had to use it from the BP in order to avoid too many questions. So they announced that Smoltz had torn a tendon in his elbow, he was sent off to join the Space Force and the rest is history. After the defeat, years later, of the Alien Menace he returned and obviously rejoined the starting lineup.
This is all there even though it was scrubbed and you can find it in 2 seconds unless you don't know anything about baseball. Some of us just like to talk about sports... and aliens... but other people punch the air like lunatics. Stay chatty!
The thing about relievers, for me, is that it is comprised of a few unique roles, which, it just so happens that some pitchers excel at. They might not be as valuable overall as a starting pitcher (however that's measured), but it's a necessary role that someone has to fill because the team is dead without it.
The comparison to position players isn't too far off I think. Is a SS more valuable than a 2B? a CF more valuable than a LF? Perhaps WAR says so, or salaries say so, etc. I think that First Basemen and Corner Infielders suffer in HOF voting today unless they produce offensively enough to offset the perceived (real or not) value (or lack thereof) of the position they played. I think there's an even better position to compare however. DH. That is pretty much the closer for position players. You have to be an amazing DH to get into the HOF. You have to be an amazing reliever to get into the HOF.
Oh, and no one can mention Harold Baines.
That is a good way of putting it.
If you BOTHER to actually look at how these guys pitched in the first inning, instead of assuming;
Koufax would have absolutely sucked as a closer, his initial inning was by far his worst.
Randy Johnson, not much better, his first inning was his second poorest.
Clemens walked and hit more batters per AB in the 1st inning than any other.
My favorite pitcher, Tom Seaver HORRIBLE in the opening frame.
Bob Gibson Terrible in 1st inning 4.00 ERA.
Pedro Martinez's ERA was higher in the first inning than in any other.
Care to guess what Nolan Ryan's worst inning was?
What got me to thinking about this, is something I remember hearing as a kid listening to the Twins playing against the Orioles when Jim Palmer (great pitcher) was pitching. "You have to get to Palmer early, he gets stronger as the game goes on".
Everyone realizes starters pitch more innings DUH.
What nobody seems to recognize is closers have to be great immediately, they don't have the luxury of giving up an early run or two and still pitching well.
>
>
>
>
I can't believe you said that, you do it ALL the time.
Starting Pitchers must need to pick more BadA$$ songs. That must be the difference!
Billy Wagner saved 422 games, won 47 and lost 40.
Pretty good success rate I would say.
Struck out 12 hitters per 9 innings, walked only 3.
Pretty dominant too!
I would say he deserves to be in HOF!
what in the world are you even talking about?
dont you think that it just may be possible that in the early innings those starting pitchers werent trying to blow batters away and were actually trying to conserve some "bullets" for later in the game?
Think about it, it doesnt make sense, that pitchers literally get "stronger" the longer they play. pitchers who are expected to throw 100+ pitches need to conserve. that is why they all seem to do more poorly in the early parts of games. toward the end, when they know they only have an inning or 2 left, they can let it all go and seem more dominating.
imagine if they knew they didnt have to conserve but only had to throw 15-20 pitches. That alone should illustrate how much better starting pitchers are than relievers.
I am surprised you didnt know this.
as far as the last part, you are full of it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Just like baseball21 you can only provide opinions on why guys sucked in their first inning. They sucked, the numbers are there.
The point you ignore (something you also ALWAYS DO), is that closers don't have the luxury of coming in, giving up a run or two, settling down and waiting for their teammates to score some runs.
As far as deflecting, yes, you do it a lot. In our last discussion on football, you bring in the Red Sox. I didn't know they played in the NFL.
Not sure why Im getting targeted here but yes it is a well known fact that you have to get to starters early before they settle in and that revilers and closers dont have any margin of error for their ERA.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
You could just admit when you're wrong. Maybe also stop spreading rumors as fact. Don't tell people you know something you can't. Any / All. Give it a try. It's painless.
It is not an "opinion," it is the actual reason why "starters" are not as good in the first inning. They are 1. conserving 2. they are not using their entire arsenal of pitches because they know they will be facing the same group of hitters multiple times in one game.
Closers have the luxury of normally knowing exactly when they will be pitching, and normally it is in a clean inning with no one on base. they also have the luxury of knowing they only will have to throw 15 or maybe 20 pitches and they can give those few pitches 100% effort.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@JoeBanzai
as far as bringing in the Sox in a football discussion, I was not comparing football PLAYERS and baseball PLAYERS, I was comparing the plight of fans. completely different.
good grief.
hows that for deflecting...
I am pretty sure that when i am asked a direct question I give a direct answer. any examples or was that opinion?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Again, opinions, guesses whatever you want to call it.
Starters know more than relievers when, and against who they are going to start, and last I looked the first inning was ALWAYS clean.
If you can't see it, I can't explain it any better.
Moving on.
"Targeted"?
I mention you because you are the absolute best example on these boards of someone who is an expert on everything, never admits to being wrong, and never (that I can remember) offers up any evidence to support your opinions.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to admit it.
Man who is never wrong, never learns anything. I don't envy anyone held hostage by their own ego.
hmmm, not answering a direct question. deflecting???
do you disagree about my analogy between FANS, not PLAYERS of different sports?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
nope, not an opinion. It is literally the reason starters often dont pitch as well during the first inning or 2.
I think you need to watch more baseball Joe.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The comment was on footb.all. You deflected to something completely different.> @craig44 said:
OPINION. You have no facts to support your statement.
Even if you are "right" you're still wrong. Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.
The FACTS are;
Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save.
Starters can, and often do, give up early runs and can still win the game.
To put Koufax in your original group of starters was ridiculous. For half his career he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. I didn't realize how poorly every other one of your examples pitched in the 1st inning.
But like others here, (don't want to "target" anyone) you will NEVER EVER admit to making a mistake and you will NEVER EVER stop arguing when you are wrong.
Please keep proving me right.
I have ZERO problem admitting to errors/mistakes. I have done a complete 180 when it comes to PED in baseball and the HOF for example.
another example: I remember arguing with Dallas a number of years ago that Jim rice was a great player. I listened to what he wrote and completely changed my view.
In this instance, I am not wrong. you are not making sense here man. look at what you just wrote:
¨Even if you are "right" you're still wrong.¨ I normally like what you write and agree with a very good portion of it, but in this circumstance you are out over your skiis. you are not even reading what I am writing. Any baseball guy will agree with what I am saying. Starters are better at pitching than relievers. that is why they are entrusted with pitching through a lineup multiple times.
¨Closers have no margin for error, if they pitch poorly for one inning, they lose or at least "blow" the save¨
wrong. a reliever can earn a ¨save¨ when they have a lead of up to 3 runs. that means that if your team is up by 3 and you give up 2, you still get a ¨save¨ that is a pretty healthy margin of error dont you think?? relievers often give up runs during their ¨save¨ opportunities and still get credit for a ¨save¨
I love this little beauty: ¨Starters jobs are so easy, they don't even have to try their hardest for the first inning.¨
it is not that the job of getting the first 3-6 outs is any easier than getting the final 3 outs, it is that most starters are so good at pitching that they dont have to bear down like a reliever that may only have one ¨out¨ pitch to get those outs. they have to conserve energy and not show too much of their stuff the first time around a lineup.
seriously Joe, this is like baseball 101 here.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If Im always wrong it should be very easy to state the case against what was posted instead of resorting to personal attacks
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
We don't have to prove the absence of proof. You said he was suspended for PEDs. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You're not always wrong, but when you are, you behave ridiculously.
This is not a personal attack. It's an honest observation.
Thanks for proving me right, I was never in doubt!
In fairness, even when I think I’m right, it’s safest to check with my wife first.
And that is what a response written by a man who is losing a debate looks like...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What exactly are you guys debating? Something specific about the difficulty of closer vs starter? Perhaps restating the disconnect would help.
I haven't looked at this stat for quite a while, but historically when a team enters the 9th inning with a lead, that team will win the game about 93% of the time. That's the average, and the variance around that average is small; even bad teams with bad closers will win about 90% of the time.
Which means that if you have an average closer, replacing him with a great closer will get you about 2 more wins over the course of an entire season. Upgrade a starting pitcher from average to great and you'll win 5+ more games. Dump your two worst pitchers and replace them with good hitters you can platoon in the outfield and you'll win even more games.
"Closer" is a BS "position". Some of the pitchers used in that role are very good, and if they were used correctly rather than only in save situations, they'd help win a lot more games. They wouldn't be "closers" anymore, but they'd be much more valuable.