The closer position is a BS position the way it is currently used.
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial. That is a judgement of teammates and not player value.
That dope DRJ never understood this, and when I brought up the bullpen he showed how much of a simpleton he was by laughing it off.
If it is true that Lidge did win the Phillies MVP, it just exemplifies what Dallas and I have been saying all along about Howard. Howard is at best the third most valuable on his own team. RBI total or not doesn't change that. >>
Hoopster,
You have already been certified a raving lunatic.
You still cannot get it through your thick skull that leading the majors in both HR and RBI is a major accomplishment and something "average" players do not accomplish.
Your anti Howard rhetoric (racism?) is really disturbing. >>
Does disagreeing with your opinion automatically make one racist? I'm a Howard fan, too, but I don't necessarily think that he should be given the MVP based strictly on RBI and HR totals. Pujols is a much more valuable player than Howard. Without him the Cardinals wouldn't have won 60 games this year.
Chris
Chris My small collection Want List: '61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7 Cardinal T206 cards Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
<< <i>Teams with a strong closer win those games. >>
Teams with strong pitchers win more games. Period. Nobody is saying that a great pitcher who is used to finish games is a BS pitcher; what is BS is assigning some random pitcher to that task, calling him a closer, and thinking he's good because he "saves" x number of games. The Mets lost because they didn't have enough pitching; that's happened to teams for 100 years, some of them with strong relief pitchers that closed games and some without.
The Mets team ERA+ was 101 - their pitching overall was almost exactly at the league average and teams with average pitching hardly ever make the postseason. Sure, if they had Rivera they might make it; but they'd have been more likely to make it with one more good starting pitcher. The Phillies had a great closer, but they also had a team ERA+ of 115. The three teams with the best ERA+ also were the three division winners - there is not an iota of coincidence in that. The Cubs used Wood as a closer, but he was hardly exceptional; the Dodgers used two different closers but they were the third and fourth best relief pitchers on the team - they could have used any of them and done just as well. The Brewers had five different pitchers finish games and blew tons of saves - but their overall pitching was so much better than the Mets (ERA+ of 112) it didn't matter. It never matters. Teams that score more runs than they allow by the largest margins win more games; that formula works so well it's almost spooky, and which innings the runs score never enters into it.
Closer is a BS position.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial.
Skip
My Lidge example was only to say the his team mates voted him there team MVP
I think you misunderstood.
And no, I don't think it makes it trivial if some writers choose to want a player on a winning team to win the award, at the same time I also have no problem if a player on the worst team wins it either (Dawson)
<< <i>but they'd have been more likely to make it with one more good starting pitcher.
There is where I disagree, A solid bullpen wins those games that the starter leaves in the 6th inning with a lead.
I would agree if that other starter was another Santana type pitcher, but an average number 4 or 5 guy? No
Steve >>
I agree. The Cardinals had decent starting pitching this year but had a crappy bullpen. They blew 31 saves this year. For this reason I would say that a solid bullpen would be better than 1 more good starter.
Chris
Chris My small collection Want List: '61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7 Cardinal T206 cards Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
Look, you guys can believe whatever you want to believe. I'm telling you that if you tell me how many runs a team scored and how many runs they allowed over the course of a 162 game season that I will be able to tell you how many games they won and lost.. I won't need to know how their starters did, how their bullpen did, how many saves they blew or anything else. I'll ususally be right on or off by one, but where I'm off by more than that it will have nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the closer.
If I tell you how good a team's closer is you will have no clue how many games that team won.
The teams that made the playoffs had the best overall ERA+. Period. One had a great closer, one had several quality relief pitchers who split the duties, one had a so-so closer, and one had a bullpen every bit as bad as the Mets but another average closer. There is no relationship whatsoever betweeen having a quality closer and winning games except to the degree that the closer's innings contributed to the team's overall ERA.
Team by team:
The Phillies won 1 more game than expected - best closer in the league Colorado won exactly as many games as expected - next best closer in the league Other teams with quality closers: Cincinatti, Pittsburgh and LA won 2 less, exactly the same, and 3 more than expected
If you see a pattern there, I want what you're smoking.
Teams with below average closers?
The Mets won exactly as many games as expected, so did the Cardinals, so did Arizona. The Giants won 4 fewer, but the Diamondbacks won 5 more.
Pattern?
Teams with average closers? Florida - plus 3, Washington - minus 3, Chicago +1, Milwaukee - minus 3, Houston - plus 9.
Again, no pattern.
If your point is that your team would be better if you could replace a bad pitcher with a great pitcher, the obvious answer is "duh". If your point is that having a great pitcher pitch 70 innnings a year finishing games will win you more games than a very good pitcher pitching 200 innings a year starting games, the obvious response, once you actually look into it, is "you're wrong".
Closer is a BS position.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Though it has become appearant that I am talking to one of Jerry's kids.
Winpitcher,
I think a stronger clarification of your stances are in order. Dallas asked you some questions early, and you didn't answer them satisfactorily enough(from what I remember). This sometimes leads to great confusion, especially when there is a mope like DrJ on board.
The Cardinals had 86 wins this year and 31 blown saves this year. Yes. You read that correctly: 31. Assuming the win 15 of those games and they win 101 games and have the best record in baseball. Instead they finish 4th in the NL Central and don't even sniff the playoffs. I may not speak for every Cardinal fan but if someone gave me the option of going back in time and either picking up another quality starter or a solid, reliable closer to me it is a no brainer.
Chris
Chris My small collection Want List: '61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7 Cardinal T206 cards Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
<< <i>I may not speak for every Cardinal fan but if someone gave me the option of going back in time and either picking up another quality starter or a solid, reliable closer to me it is a no brainer. >>
You don't; I pray that you do not speak for management either because I want the Cardinals to rack up wins not "saves".
And Steve, is a sigh all you've got? If what I posted isn't proof that closers are meaningless (at least in the NL in 2008) then I sure don't see why. The correlation between a team's ERA and their wins is so strong that only Dr. J could possibly not see it. The correlation between having a strong closer and winning games, if it exists at all, is too small to discern.
You and others keep posting stats about blown saves as if they have much to do with this discussion. The Mets lost 7 games that they led going into the ninth, the Cardinals lost 6. The vast majority of the blown saves on both teams didn't come in situations where the closer would have been pitching anyway. Both teams had weak pitching staffs that weren't very deep - OF COURSE they ran into trouble when the one or two good pitchers they had either got into trouble or weren't available. Lack of pitching depth explains everything; either team will improve next year in direct proportion to how many fewer runs they can give up next year compared to how many they gave up this year. Yes, getting 70 better innings out of a closer will help, but getting 200 better innings out of a starter will help much, much more.
If there is a hidden value in having a great closer that goes above and beyond simply his ERA then Mariano Rivera has it: in 14 seasons the Yankees have won 43 more games than expected, or about 3 per year. Trevor Hoffman - another great "closer" - has led the Padres, over 15 seasons, to a grand total of 4 more wins than expected. Actually, that's random noise, Hoffman has done nothing beyond contribute 72 innings per year of quality pitching. The Padres would have won many more games over that stretch with an average pitcher pitching those same 72 innings and another quality starter.
Closer is a BS position.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>A solid bullpen wins those games that the starter leaves in the 6th inning with a lead. >>
and a solid bullpen is a lot more than one reliever. The Phillies did a great job of showing how much a deep bullpen matters. Add the best reliever in baseball to the Mets, how many more games do they win? Replace Martinez, 20 starts, 109 innings, 19 homeruns, with the best starting pitcher in baseball (Lee or Sabathia) and how many more games do they win? Simply replacing their worst reliever with one merely solid pitcher wouldn't do as much as making the same change in the rotation either
<< <i>I would agree if that other starter was another Santana type pitcher, but an average number 4 or 5 guy? No >>
So really all you are saying is that a top level All-Star reliever is more valuable than the 120th best starter? On that I'm sure we all can agree. Why that is an argument for MVP consideration I haven't a clue
To answer your other question about second place votes, 1996 is a perfect example. Rodriguez was ahead of Gonzalez on the majority of ballots, the difference was Gonzalez ahead 11-10 on first place votes. The two Seattle writers both put Griffey first. (looking back I wonder if they had some vindictive reason to keep the new guy from overshadowing the established star)
Of course, solid starting pitching and scoring runs are essential to a team's overall success, but it is also a huge asset for an otherwise solid team to have an exceptional bullpen and a stellar closer. The importance of the bullpen is especially magnified these days in an era when 6 innings is a quality start. IMO, this is one of the fundamental differences when comparing the importance of a team's bullpen in 2008 as opposed to 1978, or even 1988.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>The importance of the bullpen is especially magnified these days in an era when 6 innings is a quality start. IMO, this is one of the fundamental differences when comparing the importance of a team's bullpen in 2008 as opposed to 1978, or even 1988 >>
How many times did a top level closer make a three inning appearance this year? No one has yet questioned the importance of a bullpen, the question is exactly how much of a difference can one bullpen pitcher make. As already pointed out, 80% of the blown saves from the Cardinals and Mets came before the ninth inning. Those two teams, had 12 and 11 pitchers make at least 10 relief appearances, the majority of those innings went to pitchers that were not very good. One closer does not change that
I think part of the problem is that a lot of the fans and people on this board believe that sportswriters are smart and know how to analyze baseball. I find that quite funny.
These same people also recognize that sportswriters have in the past done votes for vindictive reasons. Knowing this, how on earth can they take anything sportswriters say with any validity?
Dallas, great work on the closer information. People always remember the ninth inning blown saves, and it skews their memory...and that is why going by feel or memory is a mistake waiting to happen!
< The importance of the bullpen is especially magnified these days in an era when 6 innings is a quality start. IMO, this is one of the fundamental differences when comparing the importance of a team's bullpen in 2008 as opposed to 1978, or even 1988 >>
How many times did a top level closer make a three inning appearance this year? No one has yet questioned the importance of a bullpen, the question is exactly how much of a difference can one bullpen pitcher make. As already pointed out, 80% of the blown saves from the Cardinals and Mets came before the ninth inning. Those two teams, had 12 and 11 pitchers make at least 10 relief appearances, the majority of those innings went to pitchers that were not very good. One closer does not change that
TomG,
Not sure what you mean by your response--my statement and observation were in regard to the significance of the bullpen on a whole and in general in today's game, which of course includes, among other members, a closer. Sounds like you agree with me then that an effective bullpen is a key component to a team's overall success rate.
For example, the Mets were 6-16 this season when the score was TIED after six innings, a winning percentage far below thair regular season record, and an illustration of how the lack of an effective bullpen hurt their overall win total.
Hoopster,
Who said anything about sportswriters? I sure didn't..but your enduring admiration of Dallas is heartwarming, LOL.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Exactly the point. Everyone agrees relief pitching is important. How important one relief pitcher relative to another player is where we see disagreements
Exactly the point. Everyone agrees relief pitching is important. How important one relief pitcher relative to another player is where we see disagreements
Agreed. In 2006, when the Mets won the NL East and were one game away from the World Series, I thought Duaner Sanchez who was the set-up guy was the most effective member of a very competent bullpen.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Nobody is denying the importance of a deep pitching staff. In fact, that's my entire point - the team with the deepest pitching staff, the team with the lowest ERA, will ALWAYS win more games than a team with a worse pitching staff if the hitting is equal. The fewer runs a team allows, the more games it will win. Period. It makes no difference whether that team avoids giving up those runs in the first inning or the ninth inning - no difference - with the only exception I can find being Rivera.
Brad Lidge has been a closer for five years; his teams have won 2 fewer games than expected based on their total runs scored and allowed. In 2006 he was terrible (maybe he was hurt, I don't remember) and the Astros won only one game less than expected. In 2008 he was fantastic; and the Phillies won one game less than expected. Yes, the 2008 Phillies were better than the 2006 Astros, in part due to the difference in Lidge's pitching, but the difference in runs allowed explains everything and the fact that he gave those runs up in the ninth inning explains nothing.
In three seaons as one of the best closers in the majors, Papelbon and the Red Sox have won exactly the same number of games that their runs scored and allowed explains.
In his nine 20+ save seasons, how many "extra" games do you think Bruce Sutter's teams won to catapult Sutter to the HOF? 50? 40? 30? No, it was 12.
How about Lee Smith, a possible future HOFer and third on the all-time saves list? In thirteen seasons over 20 saves his teams won 2 FEWER games than any geek with a calculator could have told you they should have won.
Either closers have no impact on their teams, or in a coincidence of galactic proportion every time a team has a great closer they also have some other problem that almost exactly cancels out the positive impact of that closer.
If I go back through the years I know, beyond any reasonable doubt what I will find: on nearly every team there will be no discernible impact on that teams wins of the closer that is not 100% explainable by the total ERA of the entire team. But at any given time there will be one or two closers who are so good that there really is a "closer effect" - a team wins more games by pitching that pitcher in close/late innings beyond what can be explained by the team's ERA. Right now, and for the past several years, that's Rivera and nobody else. Maybe Gagne was that good, maybe Quiz, maybe Eck, maybe Worrell, maybe Goose. Maybe all of them, maybe none of them. But as a group, across years and across all teams, there will be no difference. Why? Because........
Closer is a BS position.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
While I wouldn't go as far as to say that closer is a "BS" position, I will say that the media and fans put more emphasis upon that role and often overlook the significant contributions from the other members of the bullpen. You yourself just stated that a there is no denying the importance of a deep pitching staff, and so a deep and effective bullpen is a significant factor to a team's overall success, and having said that, a closer is indeed a member of said bullpen and will be called upon to pitch on average about a quarter or 25% (sometimes more, sometimes less) of his club's innings in relief, then certainly you must also admit that an effective closer or whatever you want to call or label him, is a valuable member of the pitching staff and a factor in the overall success of his team when called upon to protect and preserve a slim lead in the final inning.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The correlation between a team's ERA and their wins is so strong that only Dr.
Really? The team with the BEST era this year is sitting home right now. The Blue Jays had a staff ERA of 3.77 Best in baseball. Yet they did not make the post season.
The Dodgers, had the best ERA in the NL and while they won the WEST they had the 8th best record in the NL!
the difference between what we're saying is small but important. You are still saying that "the closer" is important to his team as part of the pitching staff. I am saying that 100% of every pitcher's importance is entirely as part of the pitching staff and no "closer" is necessary. Specifically, given seven relief pitchers on a given team, the only thing that matters to the team's w/l record is that the best pitcher of the seven pitch the most innings, and so on. Obviously, wasting a seven inning relief performance in a 20-0 game on your best reliever would be stupid, and there needs to be some common sense applied in using your worst pitcher in the innings that don't matter, but beyond that it really doesn't matter.
Because closer is a BS position.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Why that is an argument for MVP consideration I haven't a clue
It wasn't and isn't. The closer role was brought into this conversation when i simply stated that Lidge won the team award voted on by his team mates and Hoop said how it proves it is trivial to only award the MVP of the league to teams making the playoffs.
Which by the way has nothing to do with the award that Lidge won.
the difference between what we're saying is small but important. You are still saying that "the closer" is important to his team as part of the pitching staff. I am saying that 100% of every pitcher's importance is entirely as part of the pitching staff and no "closer" is necessary. Specifically, given seven relief pitchers on a given team, the only thing that matters to the team's w/l record is that the best pitcher of the seven pitch the most innings, and so on. Obviously, wasting a seven inning relief performance in a 20-0 game on your best reliever would be stupid, and there needs to be some common sense applied in using your worst pitcher in the innings that don't matter, but beyond that it really doesn't matter.
Because closer is a BS position.
Dallas,
I see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your position on this in that in my mind the "closer" is indeed as valuable as any other member of the relief staff, and in my opinion, because he is generally called upon to pitch the final inning when preserving a slim lead, if I'm a manager, that guy must be very effective to fulfill that role. I realize your argument is that getting three outs in the seventh inning is the same as getting three outs in the ninth, and although those three outs in the seventh are very important, maybe even as important, getting those last three outs in the ninth inning (or the occasional last out in the eight and three outs in the ninth) are at least as important, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Really? The team with the BEST era this year is sitting home right now. The Blue Jays had a staff ERA of 3.77 Best in baseball. Yet they did not make the post season. >>
{shakes head in disbelief}
The Blue Jays CAN'T HIT!! I know I made this really clear because I linked to the formula and I repeated the phrase "based on their runs scored and runs allowed" about ten times, but it's the combination of both offense and defense during the entire season that matters, and the pitching in the ninth inning means no more and no less than the pitching in any other inning.
My point is that the quality of a team's closer means absolutely nothing above and beyond the quality of any other pitcher on the staff; you found another example that proves my point with the Blue Jays. Beyond that, what point are you making with your post?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The Blue jays can't hit, ok I'll buy that. Then maybe you can explain how the Angels won the most games in Baseball and they can't hit either? The Blue Jays came in 11th in hitting and 1st in Pitching the Angels 3rd and 10th.
That is right 10th in hitting just above the Blue Jays that can't hit.
The closer role, when manned by a lights out guy is an important and valuable one , and it goes beyond Rivera.
The entire bullpen manned by guys having career years is important. We get the obvious.
<< <i>I realize your argument is that getting three outs in the seventh inning is the same as getting three outs in the ninth, and although those three outs in the seventh are very important, maybe even as important, getting those last three outs in the ninth inning (or the occasional last out in the eight and three outs in the ninth) are at least as important, too. >>
Now we're saying the same thing. Yes, the three outs in the ninth are exactly as important as three outs in the seventh (or the sixth, fifth, fourth, etc.) Every inning is worth the same, every run allowed or not allowed is worth the same, and all that matters is that pitchers who give up fewer runs pitch more often than pitchers who give up more runs. No "closer" is necessary.
<< <i>The Mets win 3 of those games and they win the Division not the Phillies. >>
But why does it matter if the Mets win three of THOSE games. With one more good starter they would have won three OTHER games and they win the division not the Phillies. With one more decent relief pitcher who doesn't close, they win three more OTHER games and they win the division not the Phillies. Which is, and always has been, my point: it doesn't make any difference WHICH pitcher a team has that pitches well, all that matters is that the staff as a whole pitches well. A staff with an ERA of x is worth y wins to the team; it is that simple.
Closer is a BS position.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
But why does it matter if the Mets win three of THOSE games. With one more good starter they would have won three OTHER games and they win the division not the Phillies
This is where i shake my head in disbelief. The Mets even with one more starter still MAY have lost those 3 games late with the lack of a closer they had.
And if the lack of a closer didn't blow it for them the 4 other mop ups they had would have.
<< <i>The Blue jays can't hit, ok I'll buy that. Then maybe you can explain how the Angels won the most games in Baseball and they can't hit either? The Blue Jays came in 11th in hitting and 1st in Pitching the Angels 3rd and 10th.
That is right 10th in hitting just above the Blue Jays that can't hit. >>
Man, you complain when my posts get all wordy but then if I try to cut one corner for the sake of brevity you jump on me for that, too.
I oversimplified, I admit it, because it made my point stronger and clearer. What I did not say - and I'm not convinced it needed saying - is that teams don't compete against the entire league for playoff spots, they mostly compete against their own division. And the Angels had, by far, the best pitching in their division. Someone had to win that division and there being only one team that rose to the lofty status of "not sucky" they won it by a mile. I will concede that Rodriguez may fall into the Rivera category (I hadn't looked at any AL closer except Papelbon), but the Angels playoff spot is due to competing against terrible teams not any magic of Rodriguez. The Angels would have won that division with ANY major league pitcher closing for them.
<< <i>The closer role, when manned by a lights out guy is an important and valuable one , and it goes beyond Rivera. >>
Depending on how far you want to go with that, I agree - and I've already said so. It does go beyond Rivera to a handful of other closers, a handful that does NOT include Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, Jonathon Papelbon, Trevor Hoffman or Brad Lidge. It looks like it does include Rodriguez.
So, I'll restate my position without the glibness. IF you have a lights out pitcher whose arm is not capable of pitching 200+ innings a season then using that pitcher in nothing but late/close situations is the right thing to do. But if you don't have one of those rare pitchers, then it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations. In fact, it is always BS to use any pitcher in only save situations; late/close is the correct standard, not winning by three or less in the ninth.
edited for the distracting italics mistake
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>The Phillies lost not as many, the closer they had did not blow 1 save, THEY are in the Post Season the Mets are not.
What is so hard to discern? >>
It is not hard to discern. What is hard for some people to figure out is which is more valuable, a good starter or a good reliever
The Mets would have won the East if they had a good closer. They would have won the East if they could have replaced their worst starter with a good starter. Martinez could only give them 109 innings, having a starter that was effective enough to pitch more innings would have meant less innings for their bullpen
Again I ask, give them the best closer in baseball, or replace Martinez with the best starter (Lee or Sabathia). Which one would have helped them more?
then it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations
I'd love to know where I ever said that, as a matter of fact I said the opposite, at least 4 times.
The very day I created the thread "who thinks the closer role is BS" Was the day after the Mets lost a big game BECAUSE they did not have a bonafide closer.
I thought it was obvious that i was NOT saying that you could just put anyone there.
One of these days Dallas is going to wise up and realize he could make millions by opening his own website and putting up clips of him trying to explain statistical concepts to WinPitcher while WP is wearing earmuffs. I can see it now:
"This week Dallas tries to explain independent causal effects and the adjusted R^2 statistic to Steve Clark, while Steve dons a pair of North Face ear muffs and stares down at the floor. Don't miss a minute of it!"
On a more serious note, I do hope that everyone (or at least WP) can see the inconsistency in the following two statements:
Statement A: "That goes without saying, I'm glad you finally have agreed with my assessment." Statement B: "I'd love to know where I ever said that, as a matter of fact I said the opposite, at least 4 times."
Both of the above statements were offered by the same person in response to the argument that "...it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations."
In fairness, WP, I imagine you're a nice guy, and I don't think you go out of your way to be oppositional. But I would ask you to step back for a second and reread some of what you've posted (both here and in other threads), because some of it is honestly enough to make any rational man want to pull his hair out.
<< <i>One of these days Dallas is going to wise up and realize he could make millions by opening his own website and putting up clips of him trying to explain statistical concepts to WinPitcher while WP is wearing earmuffs. I can see it now:
"This week Dallas tries to explain independent causal effects and the adjusted R^2 statistic to Steve Clark, while Steve dons a pair of North Face ear muffs and stares down at the floor. Don't miss a minute of it!"
On a more serious note, I do hope that everyone (or at least WP) can see the inconsistency in the following two statements:
Statement A: "That goes without saying, I'm glad you finally have agreed with my assessment." Statement B: "I'd love to know where I ever said that, as a matter of fact I said the opposite, at least 4 times."
Both of the above statements were offered by the same person in response to the argument that "...it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations."
In fairness, WP, I imagine you're a nice guy, and I don't think you go out of your way to be oppositional. But I would ask you to step back for a second and reread some of what you've posted (both here and in other threads), because some of it is honestly enough to make any rational man want to pull his hair out. >>
But since when were sports fans rational when discussing sports?
Both of the above statements were offered by the same person in response to the argument that "...it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations."
Wrong ding dong it was maybe to you it wasn't to me.
Here we go, one of the gang of four is going to now throw the conversation off.
And to help you along Boo so there is no misunderstanding I said:
Of course it is BS if you assign one random pitcher to it. I agreed with him and thus since that was not my implication he must have finally agreed with my assessment.
And I said at least 4 times that I was not saying that you could just assign any random pitcher, that i wanted a bonafide closer.
I give you credit though nice try. Nice try at trying to discredit me. All you did was discredit yourself.
Next time make your statements within context, Boo you are better then that.
The argument appears to be, as far as I can tell, that closers are important because some good pitchers are closers and some of their teams win lots of games, and because some closers are bad pitchers and their teams don't win lots of games. That there are good closers on teams that do not win lots of games is disregarded; that there are mediocre closers on teams that win lots of games is disregarded; that there are teams with no true closers at all that win lots of games is disregarded.
But that is to be expected; this is, after all, a thread that started life as a Ryan Howard thread. The correlation between Ryan Howard and winning games is as mythically exaggerated as it is for closers.
I thought it was actually very interesting to look at how a team does vs. its expectation and see if there was any reasonable way to credit the closer. And there was - if the closer was Mariano Rivera or one of another handful of truly exceptional pitchers. I think - no, I'm quite certain - that if I had found a strong relationship between closers and wins that everyone here would have accepted it as God's own truth; it would have been expected by everyone that I would take back my "Closer is a BS position" comments - and I would have - and all would be well with the world.
But when I looked, I did not find that relationship. I found Lee Smith and Bruce Sutter and Brad Lidge and others pitching for teams that consistently won almost exactly the same number of games that can be explained solely by runs scored and runs allowed. I found no closer effect whatsoever for all but one - later two with K-Rod - who were making any measurable contribution to their team's wins above and beyond what their ERAs alone explained. In short, I found that closer was a BS position.
Like I said, I thought it was interesting; if anyone else had an actual argument to make in support of the proposition that closer is not a BS position, I'd be interested by that, too. But simply repeating that Lidge was the key for the Phillies does not make it so, any more than repeating that Ryan Howard was more valuable than Chase Utley makes that ridiculous proposition so.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Steve not for nothing but you made some statements in this thread that were false, how can I or anyone take what you say at face value? Just because you say something does not make it fact.
You said the Angels had 'far better' pitching then the entire division they played in. That was shown to be false.
You said they played most of there games within the division, that was false.
The team with the best ERA is sitting home, you said THEY CAN'T HIT! Yet the team with the best record in baseball hit about the same as they did.
Many folks here did try and give facts/opinions you just would not have any of it.
In closing I'll try again to explain (again) what I meant. I want Rivera as my closer, with him I don't have a BS closer.
I don't want guys randomly assigned, I don't want guys groomed from the minor leagues that wind up in the bigs blowing save after save.
I want guys like Lidge who this year went 40 for 40.
I want guys like K-Rod that saved 60 games.
hell I'd take a 1990's type Reds Bullpen.
I sure as hell don't want to have a guy that couldn't save a game for the Nationals as my closer.
But when I looked, I did not find that relationship. I found Lee Smith and Bruce Sutter and Brad Lidge and others pitching for teams that consistently won almost exactly the same number of games that can be explained solely by runs scored and runs allowed
maybe because they saved the game? maybe if they had some randomly assigned schmuck pitching, those teams would not have won almost exactly the same number of games.
One can not say for any certainty what would have happened. Only what did happen.
Edited to add, can you imagine all the poster in this thread in a bar? It would be quite fun, but I think all the other patrons would leave.
Edited to add again. I had a very bad day today, headache aggravation and all. For some reason your gang of four comment made me laugh, and I feel better now!
<< <i>You said the Angels had 'far better' pitching then the entire division they played in. That was shown to be false. >>
No, it wasn't. You stated that it was false, that's all. (Sound familiar?) The A's pitch in the best pitcher's park in the league - their ERA+ was barely average (101), while the Angels was 109. That's a significant difference, and I remain comfortable with my conclusion that the Angels pitching was FAR better than any other team in their division.
<< <i>You said they played most of there games within the division, that was false. >>
No, I didn't. I said they competed against the other teams in their division for a playoff spot - which is a definition and necessarily true. I wasn't trying to be deep with the comment, I just stated it to frame the rest of my comments.
<< <i>The team with the best ERA is sitting home, you said THEY CAN'T HIT! >>
Yes, that's true.
<< <i>Yet the team with the best record in baseball hit about the same as they did. >>
Mostly true - the Angels scored 51 more runs than the Blue Jays which is fairly substantial. And I said that part of the anomoly here is probably due to K-Rod. But the fact is that the Angels won so many more games than expected that I can't explain it; few teams in history have won that many more games than expected. I'm not inclined to give this one season by one team so much weight that I throw out formulas and theories that work for the other 99.9% of teams.
<< <i>Many folks here did try and give facts/opinions you just would not have any of it. >>
What facts?
<< <i>In closing I'll try again to explain (again) what I meant. I want Rivera as my closer, with him I don't have a BS closer. >>
Doesn't everybody? Rivera, I believe from the very beginning was recognized as the exception that proved the rule.
<< <i>I don't want guys randomly assigned, I don't want guys groomed from the minor leagues that wind up in the bigs blowing save after save. >>
We agree completely.
<< <i>I want guys like Lidge who this year went 40 for 40. >>
Well yeah, everybody wants Lidge, too. But, again, the point is not that great pitchers aren't great pitchers - Lidge is a great pitcher - the point is that using him as a "closer" has had no demonstrable impact on his teams. His team benefits from having a great pitcher pitch 70 innings or so, but if there has been a fact presented in support of the theory that pitching him in so many "save" situations that he gets 40 of them helped the Phillies I missed it. Lidge is not a BS pitcher, the closer role is a BS role; huge distinction but it keeps getting passed over.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Winpitcher,
The closer position is a BS position the way it is currently used.
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial. That is a judgement of teammates and not player value.
That dope DRJ never understood this, and when I brought up the bullpen he showed how much of a simpleton he was by laughing it off.
If it is true that Lidge did win the Phillies MVP, it just exemplifies what Dallas and I have been saying all along about Howard. Howard is at best the third most valuable on his own team. RBI total or not doesn't change that. >>
Hoopster,
You have already been certified a raving lunatic.
You still cannot get it through your thick skull that leading the majors in both HR and RBI is a major accomplishment and something "average" players do not accomplish.
Your anti Howard rhetoric (racism?) is really disturbing. >>
Does disagreeing with your opinion automatically make one racist? I'm a Howard fan, too, but I don't necessarily think that he should be given the MVP based strictly on RBI and HR totals. Pujols is a much more valuable player than Howard. Without him the Cardinals wouldn't have won 60 games this year.
Chris
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
<< <i>Teams with a strong closer win those games. >>
Teams with strong pitchers win more games. Period. Nobody is saying that a great pitcher who is used to finish games is a BS pitcher; what is BS is assigning some random pitcher to that task, calling him a closer, and thinking he's good because he "saves" x number of games. The Mets lost because they didn't have enough pitching; that's happened to teams for 100 years, some of them with strong relief pitchers that closed games and some without.
The Mets team ERA+ was 101 - their pitching overall was almost exactly at the league average and teams with average pitching hardly ever make the postseason. Sure, if they had Rivera they might make it; but they'd have been more likely to make it with one more good starting pitcher. The Phillies had a great closer, but they also had a team ERA+ of 115. The three teams with the best ERA+ also were the three division winners - there is not an iota of coincidence in that. The Cubs used Wood as a closer, but he was hardly exceptional; the Dodgers used two different closers but they were the third and fourth best relief pitchers on the team - they could have used any of them and done just as well. The Brewers had five different pitchers finish games and blew tons of saves - but their overall pitching was so much better than the Mets (ERA+ of 112) it didn't matter. It never matters. Teams that score more runs than they allow by the largest margins win more games; that formula works so well it's almost spooky, and which innings the runs score never enters into it.
Closer is a BS position.
Geeze No sh.. Assigning some random pitcher to play 3rd base is BS too.
Perhaps I should have been more clear.
When I say closer I am referring to a bonfide pitcher for the role.
Not just someone assigned to that role.
Steve
There is where I disagree, A solid bullpen wins those games that the starter leaves in the 6th inning with a lead.
I would agree if that other starter was another Santana type pitcher, but an average number 4 or 5 guy? No
Steve
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial.
Skip
My Lidge example was only to say the his team mates voted him there team MVP
I think you misunderstood.
And no, I don't think it makes it trivial if some writers choose to want a player on a winning team to win the award, at the
same time I also have no problem if a player on the worst team wins it either (Dawson)
Steve
<< <i>but they'd have been more likely to make it with one more good starting pitcher.
There is where I disagree, A solid bullpen wins those games that the starter leaves in the 6th inning with a lead.
I would agree if that other starter was another Santana type pitcher, but an average number 4 or 5 guy? No
Steve >>
I agree. The Cardinals had decent starting pitching this year but had a crappy bullpen. They blew 31 saves this year. For this reason I would say that a solid bullpen would be better than 1 more good starter.
Chris
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
If I tell you how good a team's closer is you will have no clue how many games that team won.
The teams that made the playoffs had the best overall ERA+. Period. One had a great closer, one had several quality relief pitchers who split the duties, one had a so-so closer, and one had a bullpen every bit as bad as the Mets but another average closer. There is no relationship whatsoever betweeen having a quality closer and winning games except to the degree that the closer's innings contributed to the team's overall ERA.
Team by team:
The Phillies won 1 more game than expected - best closer in the league
Colorado won exactly as many games as expected - next best closer in the league
Other teams with quality closers: Cincinatti, Pittsburgh and LA won 2 less, exactly the same, and 3 more than expected
If you see a pattern there, I want what you're smoking.
Teams with below average closers?
The Mets won exactly as many games as expected, so did the Cardinals, so did Arizona. The Giants won 4 fewer, but the Diamondbacks won 5 more.
Pattern?
Teams with average closers? Florida - plus 3, Washington - minus 3, Chicago +1, Milwaukee - minus 3, Houston - plus 9.
Again, no pattern.
If your point is that your team would be better if you could replace a bad pitcher with a great pitcher, the obvious answer is "duh". If your point is that having a great pitcher pitch 70 innnings a year finishing games will win you more games than a very good pitcher pitching 200 innings a year starting games, the obvious response, once you actually look into it, is "you're wrong".
Closer is a BS position.
Steve
No, I am not a racist.
Though it has become appearant that I am talking to one of Jerry's kids.
Winpitcher,
I think a stronger clarification of your stances are in order. Dallas asked you some questions early, and you didn't answer them satisfactorily enough(from what I remember). This sometimes leads to great confusion, especially when there is a mope like DrJ on board.
Chris
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
<< <i>I may not speak for every Cardinal fan but if someone gave me the option of going back in time and either picking up another quality starter or a solid, reliable closer to me it is a no brainer. >>
You don't; I pray that you do not speak for management either because I want the Cardinals to rack up wins not "saves".
And Steve, is a sigh all you've got? If what I posted isn't proof that closers are meaningless (at least in the NL in 2008) then I sure don't see why. The correlation between a team's ERA and their wins is so strong that only Dr. J could possibly not see it. The correlation between having a strong closer and winning games, if it exists at all, is too small to discern.
You and others keep posting stats about blown saves as if they have much to do with this discussion. The Mets lost 7 games that they led going into the ninth, the Cardinals lost 6. The vast majority of the blown saves on both teams didn't come in situations where the closer would have been pitching anyway. Both teams had weak pitching staffs that weren't very deep - OF COURSE they ran into trouble when the one or two good pitchers they had either got into trouble or weren't available. Lack of pitching depth explains everything; either team will improve next year in direct proportion to how many fewer runs they can give up next year compared to how many they gave up this year. Yes, getting 70 better innings out of a closer will help, but getting 200 better innings out of a starter will help much, much more.
If there is a hidden value in having a great closer that goes above and beyond simply his ERA then Mariano Rivera has it: in 14 seasons the Yankees have won 43 more games than expected, or about 3 per year. Trevor Hoffman - another great "closer" - has led the Padres, over 15 seasons, to a grand total of 4 more wins than expected. Actually, that's random noise, Hoffman has done nothing beyond contribute 72 innings per year of quality pitching. The Padres would have won many more games over that stretch with an average pitcher pitching those same 72 innings and another quality starter.
Closer is a BS position.
<< <i>A solid bullpen wins those games that the starter leaves in the 6th inning with a lead. >>
and a solid bullpen is a lot more than one reliever. The Phillies did a great job of showing how much a deep bullpen matters. Add the best reliever in baseball to the Mets, how many more games do they win? Replace Martinez, 20 starts, 109 innings, 19 homeruns, with the best starting pitcher in baseball (Lee or Sabathia) and how many more games do they win? Simply replacing their worst reliever with one merely solid pitcher wouldn't do as much as making the same change in the rotation either
<< <i>I would agree if that other starter was another Santana type pitcher, but an average number 4 or 5 guy? No >>
So really all you are saying is that a top level All-Star reliever is more valuable than the 120th best starter? On that I'm sure we all can agree. Why that is an argument for MVP consideration I haven't a clue
To answer your other question about second place votes, 1996 is a perfect example. Rodriguez was ahead of Gonzalez on the majority of ballots, the difference was Gonzalez ahead 11-10 on first place votes. The two Seattle writers both put Griffey first. (looking back I wonder if they had some vindictive reason to keep the new guy from overshadowing the established star)
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>The importance of the bullpen is especially magnified these days in an era when 6 innings is a quality start. IMO, this is one of the fundamental differences when comparing the importance of a team's bullpen in 2008 as opposed to 1978, or even 1988 >>
How many times did a top level closer make a three inning appearance this year? No one has yet questioned the importance of a bullpen, the question is exactly how much of a difference can one bullpen pitcher make. As already pointed out, 80% of the blown saves from the Cardinals and Mets came before the ninth inning. Those two teams, had 12 and 11 pitchers make at least 10 relief appearances, the majority of those innings went to pitchers that were not very good. One closer does not change that
I think part of the problem is that a lot of the fans and people on this board believe that sportswriters are smart and know how to analyze baseball. I find that quite funny.
These same people also recognize that sportswriters have in the past done votes for vindictive reasons. Knowing this, how on earth can they take anything sportswriters say with any validity?
Dallas, great work on the closer information. People always remember the ninth inning blown saves, and it skews their memory...and that is why going by feel or memory is a mistake waiting to happen!
How many times did a top level closer make a three inning appearance this year? No one has yet questioned the importance of a bullpen, the question is exactly how much of a difference can one bullpen pitcher make. As already pointed out, 80% of the blown saves from the Cardinals and Mets came before the ninth inning. Those two teams, had 12 and 11 pitchers make at least 10 relief appearances, the majority of those innings went to pitchers that were not very good. One closer does not change that
TomG,
Not sure what you mean by your response--my statement and observation were in regard to the significance of the bullpen on a whole and in general in today's game, which of course includes, among other members, a closer. Sounds like you agree with me then that an effective bullpen is a key component to a team's overall success rate.
For example, the Mets were 6-16 this season when the score was TIED after six innings, a winning percentage far below thair regular season record, and an illustration of how the lack of an effective bullpen hurt their overall win total.
Hoopster,
Who said anything about sportswriters? I sure didn't..but your enduring admiration of Dallas is heartwarming, LOL.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Agreed. In 2006, when the Mets won the NL East and were one game away from the World Series, I thought Duaner Sanchez who was the set-up guy was the most effective member of a very competent bullpen.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Nobody is denying the importance of a deep pitching staff. In fact, that's my entire point - the team with the deepest pitching staff, the team with the lowest ERA, will ALWAYS win more games than a team with a worse pitching staff if the hitting is equal. The fewer runs a team allows, the more games it will win. Period. It makes no difference whether that team avoids giving up those runs in the first inning or the ninth inning - no difference - with the only exception I can find being Rivera.
Brad Lidge has been a closer for five years; his teams have won 2 fewer games than expected based on their total runs scored and allowed. In 2006 he was terrible (maybe he was hurt, I don't remember) and the Astros won only one game less than expected. In 2008 he was fantastic; and the Phillies won one game less than expected. Yes, the 2008 Phillies were better than the 2006 Astros, in part due to the difference in Lidge's pitching, but the difference in runs allowed explains everything and the fact that he gave those runs up in the ninth inning explains nothing.
In three seaons as one of the best closers in the majors, Papelbon and the Red Sox have won exactly the same number of games that their runs scored and allowed explains.
In his nine 20+ save seasons, how many "extra" games do you think Bruce Sutter's teams won to catapult Sutter to the HOF? 50? 40? 30? No, it was 12.
How about Lee Smith, a possible future HOFer and third on the all-time saves list? In thirteen seasons over 20 saves his teams won 2 FEWER games than any geek with a calculator could have told you they should have won.
Either closers have no impact on their teams, or in a coincidence of galactic proportion every time a team has a great closer they also have some other problem that almost exactly cancels out the positive impact of that closer.
If I go back through the years I know, beyond any reasonable doubt what I will find: on nearly every team there will be no discernible impact on that teams wins of the closer that is not 100% explainable by the total ERA of the entire team. But at any given time there will be one or two closers who are so good that there really is a "closer effect" - a team wins more games by pitching that pitcher in close/late innings beyond what can be explained by the team's ERA. Right now, and for the past several years, that's Rivera and nobody else. Maybe Gagne was that good, maybe Quiz, maybe Eck, maybe Worrell, maybe Goose. Maybe all of them, maybe none of them. But as a group, across years and across all teams, there will be no difference. Why? Because........
Closer is a BS position.
While I wouldn't go as far as to say that closer is a "BS" position, I will say that the media and fans put more emphasis upon that role and often overlook the significant contributions from the other members of the bullpen. You yourself just stated that a there is no denying the importance of a deep pitching staff, and so a deep and effective bullpen is a significant factor to a team's overall success, and having said that, a closer is indeed a member of said bullpen and will be called upon to pitch on average about a quarter or 25% (sometimes more, sometimes less) of his club's innings in relief, then certainly you must also admit that an effective closer or whatever you want to call or label him, is a valuable member of the pitching staff and a factor in the overall success of his team when called upon to protect and preserve a slim lead in the final inning.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You don't; I pray that you do not speak for management either because I want the Cardinals to rack up wins not "saves".
You can't have a save without it being a win, so you make no sense there Dallas.
Grote you hit the nail on the head.
TomG Of course one guy does not make a bullpen great.
Teams with great closers play deep into October.
Maybe I should have said The bullpen guys are not BS or something like that?
Steve
Really? The team with the BEST era this year is sitting home right now. The Blue Jays had a staff ERA of 3.77
Best in baseball. Yet they did not make the post season.
The Dodgers, had the best ERA in the NL and while they won the WEST they had the 8th best record in the NL!
That is why I shook my head in disbelief.
Steve
the difference between what we're saying is small but important. You are still saying that "the closer" is important to his team as part of the pitching staff. I am saying that 100% of every pitcher's importance is entirely as part of the pitching staff and no "closer" is necessary. Specifically, given seven relief pitchers on a given team, the only thing that matters to the team's w/l record is that the best pitcher of the seven pitch the most innings, and so on. Obviously, wasting a seven inning relief performance in a 20-0 game on your best reliever would be stupid, and there needs to be some common sense applied in using your worst pitcher in the innings that don't matter, but beyond that it really doesn't matter.
Because closer is a BS position.
It wasn't and isn't. The closer role was brought into this conversation when i simply
stated that Lidge won the team award voted on by his team mates and Hoop said
how it proves it is trivial to only award the MVP of the league to teams making the playoffs.
Which by the way has nothing to do with the award that Lidge won.
Steve
The Phillies lost not as many, the closer they had did not blow 1 save, THEY are in the Post Season the Mets are not.
What is so hard to discern?
The Mets win 3 of those games and they win the Division not the Phillies.
That is right the Mets go 3 and 4 (under 500) and they are NL East champs.
The role is BS yet 30 Major league teams (professionals) all want a lights out guy.
Steve
the difference between what we're saying is small but important. You are still saying that "the closer" is important to his team as part of the pitching staff. I am saying that 100% of every pitcher's importance is entirely as part of the pitching staff and no "closer" is necessary. Specifically, given seven relief pitchers on a given team, the only thing that matters to the team's w/l record is that the best pitcher of the seven pitch the most innings, and so on. Obviously, wasting a seven inning relief performance in a 20-0 game on your best reliever would be stupid, and there needs to be some common sense applied in using your worst pitcher in the innings that don't matter, but beyond that it really doesn't matter.
Because closer is a BS position.
Dallas,
I see what you're trying to say, but I disagree with your position on this in that in my mind the "closer" is indeed as valuable as any other member of the relief staff, and in my opinion, because he is generally called upon to pitch the final inning when preserving a slim lead, if I'm a manager, that guy must be very effective to fulfill that role. I realize your argument is that getting three outs in the seventh inning is the same as getting three outs in the ninth, and although those three outs in the seventh are very important, maybe even as important, getting those last three outs in the ninth inning (or the occasional last out in the eight and three outs in the ninth) are at least as important, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Really? The team with the BEST era this year is sitting home right now. The Blue Jays had a staff ERA of 3.77
Best in baseball. Yet they did not make the post season. >>
{shakes head in disbelief}
The Blue Jays CAN'T HIT!! I know I made this really clear because I linked to the formula and I repeated the phrase "based on their runs scored and runs allowed" about ten times, but it's the combination of both offense and defense during the entire season that matters, and the pitching in the ninth inning means no more and no less than the pitching in any other inning.
My point is that the quality of a team's closer means absolutely nothing above and beyond the quality of any other pitcher on the staff; you found another example that proves my point with the Blue Jays. Beyond that, what point are you making with your post?
in Baseball and they can't hit either? The Blue Jays came in 11th in hitting and 1st in Pitching the Angels 3rd and 10th.
That is right 10th in hitting just above the Blue Jays that can't hit.
The closer role, when manned by a lights out guy is an important and valuable one , and it goes beyond Rivera.
The entire bullpen manned by guys
having career years is important. We get the obvious.
Steve
<< <i>I realize your argument is that getting three outs in the seventh inning is the same as getting three outs in the ninth, and although those three outs in the seventh are very important, maybe even as important, getting those last three outs in the ninth inning (or the occasional last out in the eight and three outs in the ninth) are at least as important, too. >>
Now we're saying the same thing. Yes, the three outs in the ninth are exactly as important as three outs in the seventh (or the sixth, fifth, fourth, etc.) Every inning is worth the same, every run allowed or not allowed is worth the same, and all that matters is that pitchers who give up fewer runs pitch more often than pitchers who give up more runs. No "closer" is necessary.
<< <i>The Mets win 3 of those games and they win the Division not the Phillies. >>
But why does it matter if the Mets win three of THOSE games. With one more good starter they would have won three OTHER games and they win the division not the Phillies. With one more decent relief pitcher who doesn't close, they win three more OTHER games and they win the division not the Phillies. Which is, and always has been, my point: it doesn't make any difference WHICH pitcher a team has that pitches well, all that matters is that the staff as a whole pitches well. A staff with an ERA of x is worth y wins to the team; it is that simple.
Closer is a BS position.
Steve
But why does it matter if the Mets win three of THOSE games. With one more good starter they would have won three OTHER games and they win the division not the Phillies
This is where i shake my head in disbelief. The Mets even with one more starter still MAY have lost those 3 games late with the lack of a closer they had.
And if the lack of a closer didn't blow it for them the 4 other mop ups they had would have.
Steve
<< <i>The Blue jays can't hit, ok I'll buy that. Then maybe you can explain how the Angels won the most games
in Baseball and they can't hit either? The Blue Jays came in 11th in hitting and 1st in Pitching the Angels 3rd and 10th.
That is right 10th in hitting just above the Blue Jays that can't hit. >>
Man, you complain when my posts get all wordy but then if I try to cut one corner for the sake of brevity you jump on me for that, too.
I oversimplified, I admit it, because it made my point stronger and clearer. What I did not say - and I'm not convinced it needed saying - is that teams don't compete against the entire league for playoff spots, they mostly compete against their own division. And the Angels had, by far, the best pitching in their division. Someone had to win that division and there being only one team that rose to the lofty status of "not sucky" they won it by a mile. I will concede that Rodriguez may fall into the Rivera category (I hadn't looked at any AL closer except Papelbon), but the Angels playoff spot is due to competing against terrible teams not any magic of Rodriguez. The Angels would have won that division with ANY major league pitcher closing for them.
<< <i>The closer role, when manned by a lights out guy is an important and valuable one , and it goes beyond Rivera. >>
Depending on how far you want to go with that, I agree - and I've already said so. It does go beyond Rivera to a handful of other closers, a handful that does NOT include Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, Jonathon Papelbon, Trevor Hoffman or Brad Lidge. It looks like it does include Rodriguez.
So, I'll restate my position without the glibness. IF you have a lights out pitcher whose arm is not capable of pitching 200+ innings a season then using that pitcher in nothing but late/close situations is the right thing to do. But if you don't have one of those rare pitchers, then it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations. In fact, it is always BS to use any pitcher in only save situations; late/close is the correct standard, not winning by three or less in the ninth.
edited for the distracting italics mistake
<< <i>The Phillies lost not as many, the closer they had did not blow 1 save, THEY are in the Post Season the Mets are not.
What is so hard to discern? >>
It is not hard to discern. What is hard for some people to figure out is which is more valuable, a good starter or a good reliever
The Mets would have won the East if they had a good closer. They would have won the East if they could have replaced their worst starter with a good starter. Martinez could only give them 109 innings, having a starter that was effective enough to pitch more innings would have meant less innings for their bullpen
Again I ask, give them the best closer in baseball, or replace Martinez with the best starter (Lee or Sabathia). Which one would have helped them more?
The Angels DO NOT they play in a 4 team division and play MOSTLY out of division games.
TomG I have never said anything about having a better starter, that was brought into the discussion by others.
The bottom line here is the Angels, with the 10th best hitting in the league won 100 games.
I wonder if K-Rod had anything to do with that?
Steve
That goes without saying, I am glad you finally have agreed with my assessment.
And it does include some from the list you mentioned.
Steve
Kevin
I'd love to know where I ever said that, as a matter of fact I said the opposite, at least 4 times.
The very day I created the thread "who thinks the closer role is BS" Was the day after the Mets lost a big game
BECAUSE they did not have a bonafide closer.
I thought it was obvious that i was NOT saying that you could just put anyone there.
Seems to me that only you took it that way.
Oh, and perhaps Hoops and TomG just out of spite.
Steve
You may want to amend that statement? The A's gave up 4.3 runs per game while the Angels gave up 4.28.
The Angels had the 3rd best pitching , the A's had the 5th in the American league. The team with the 4th was at 4.28
The A's did though have the worst hitting.
The Angles by the way played .614 ball within the division (35-22)
They actually played better out of division (65-40) by a few pct points. .620
Steve
"This week Dallas tries to explain independent causal effects and the adjusted R^2 statistic to Steve Clark, while Steve dons a pair of North Face ear muffs and stares down at the floor. Don't miss a minute of it!"
On a more serious note, I do hope that everyone (or at least WP) can see the inconsistency in the following two statements:
Statement A: "That goes without saying, I'm glad you finally have agreed with my assessment."
Statement B: "I'd love to know where I ever said that, as a matter of fact I said the opposite, at least 4 times."
Both of the above statements were offered by the same person in response to the argument that "...it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations."
In fairness, WP, I imagine you're a nice guy, and I don't think you go out of your way to be oppositional. But I would ask you to step back for a second and reread some of what you've posted (both here and in other threads), because some of it is honestly enough to make any rational man want to pull his hair out.
Geez did Grote call this or what?
Steve
<< <i>One of these days Dallas is going to wise up and realize he could make millions by opening his own website and putting up clips of him trying to explain statistical concepts to WinPitcher while WP is wearing earmuffs. I can see it now:
"This week Dallas tries to explain independent causal effects and the adjusted R^2 statistic to Steve Clark, while Steve dons a pair of North Face ear muffs and stares down at the floor. Don't miss a minute of it!"
On a more serious note, I do hope that everyone (or at least WP) can see the inconsistency in the following two statements:
Statement A: "That goes without saying, I'm glad you finally have agreed with my assessment."
Statement B: "I'd love to know where I ever said that, as a matter of fact I said the opposite, at least 4 times."
Both of the above statements were offered by the same person in response to the argument that "...it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations."
In fairness, WP, I imagine you're a nice guy, and I don't think you go out of your way to be oppositional. But I would ask you to step back for a second and reread some of what you've posted (both here and in other threads), because some of it is honestly enough to make any rational man want to pull his hair out. >>
But since when were sports fans rational when discussing sports?
Both of the above statements were offered by the same person in response to the argument that "...it is BS to designate any one pitcher your "closer" and only use that pitcher in "save" situations."
Wrong ding dong it was maybe to you it wasn't to me.
Here we go, one of the gang of four is going to now throw the conversation off.
It actually was to the statement
" Who thinks the closer role is BS"
Next time get your facts straight.
Steve
Of course it is BS if you assign one random pitcher to it. I agreed with him and thus since that was not my implication he must have finally agreed with my assessment.
And I said at least 4 times that I was not saying that you could just assign any random pitcher, that i wanted a bonafide closer.
I give you credit though nice try. Nice try at trying to discredit me. All you did was discredit yourself.
Next time make your statements within context, Boo you are better then that.
Steve
But that is to be expected; this is, after all, a thread that started life as a Ryan Howard thread. The correlation between Ryan Howard and winning games is as mythically exaggerated as it is for closers.
I thought it was actually very interesting to look at how a team does vs. its expectation and see if there was any reasonable way to credit the closer. And there was - if the closer was Mariano Rivera or one of another handful of truly exceptional pitchers. I think - no, I'm quite certain - that if I had found a strong relationship between closers and wins that everyone here would have accepted it as God's own truth; it would have been expected by everyone that I would take back my "Closer is a BS position" comments - and I would have - and all would be well with the world.
But when I looked, I did not find that relationship. I found Lee Smith and Bruce Sutter and Brad Lidge and others pitching for teams that consistently won almost exactly the same number of games that can be explained solely by runs scored and runs allowed. I found no closer effect whatsoever for all but one - later two with K-Rod - who were making any measurable contribution to their team's wins above and beyond what their ERAs alone explained. In short, I found that closer was a BS position.
Like I said, I thought it was interesting; if anyone else had an actual argument to make in support of the proposition that closer is not a BS position, I'd be interested by that, too. But simply repeating that Lidge was the key for the Phillies does not make it so, any more than repeating that Ryan Howard was more valuable than Chase Utley makes that ridiculous proposition so.
take what you say at face value? Just because you say something does not make it fact.
You said the Angels had 'far better' pitching then the entire division they played in. That was shown to be false.
You said they played most of there games within the division, that was false.
The team with the best ERA is sitting home, you said THEY CAN'T HIT! Yet the team with the best record in baseball
hit about the same as they did.
Many folks here did try and give facts/opinions you just would not have any of it.
In closing I'll try again to explain (again) what I meant. I want Rivera as my closer, with him I don't have a BS closer.
I don't want guys randomly assigned, I don't want guys groomed from the minor leagues that wind up in the bigs blowing save after save.
I want guys like Lidge who this year went 40 for 40.
I want guys like K-Rod that saved 60 games.
hell I'd take a 1990's type Reds Bullpen.
I sure as hell don't want to have a guy that couldn't save a game for the Nationals as my closer.
Steve
But when I looked, I did not find that relationship. I found Lee Smith and Bruce Sutter and Brad Lidge and others pitching for teams that consistently won almost exactly the same number of games that can be explained solely by runs scored and runs allowed
maybe because they saved the game? maybe if they had some randomly assigned schmuck pitching, those teams would not have won almost exactly the same number of games.
One can not say for any certainty what would have happened. Only what did happen.
Steve
<< <i>And would all posters here from now on please refer to Howard as Babe Howard. Thank you for your cooperation. >>
I call him "Clutch City" Howard.
Big win in the first game by the way....
Who is the gang of four?
Edited to add, can you imagine all the poster in this thread in a bar? It would be quite fun, but I think all the other patrons would leave.
Edited to add again. I had a very bad day today, headache aggravation and all. For some reason your gang of four comment made me laugh, and I feel better now!
<< <i>You said the Angels had 'far better' pitching then the entire division they played in. That was shown to be false. >>
No, it wasn't. You stated that it was false, that's all. (Sound familiar?) The A's pitch in the best pitcher's park in the league - their ERA+ was barely average (101), while the Angels was 109. That's a significant difference, and I remain comfortable with my conclusion that the Angels pitching was FAR better than any other team in their division.
<< <i>You said they played most of there games within the division, that was false. >>
No, I didn't. I said they competed against the other teams in their division for a playoff spot - which is a definition and necessarily true. I wasn't trying to be deep with the comment, I just stated it to frame the rest of my comments.
<< <i>The team with the best ERA is sitting home, you said THEY CAN'T HIT! >>
Yes, that's true.
<< <i>Yet the team with the best record in baseball hit about the same as they did. >>
Mostly true - the Angels scored 51 more runs than the Blue Jays which is fairly substantial. And I said that part of the anomoly here is probably due to K-Rod. But the fact is that the Angels won so many more games than expected that I can't explain it; few teams in history have won that many more games than expected. I'm not inclined to give this one season by one team so much weight that I throw out formulas and theories that work for the other 99.9% of teams.
<< <i>Many folks here did try and give facts/opinions you just would not have any of it. >>
What facts?
<< <i>In closing I'll try again to explain (again) what I meant. I want Rivera as my closer, with him I don't have a BS closer. >>
Doesn't everybody? Rivera, I believe from the very beginning was recognized as the exception that proved the rule.
<< <i>I don't want guys randomly assigned, I don't want guys groomed from the minor leagues that wind up in the bigs blowing save after save. >>
We agree completely.
<< <i>I want guys like Lidge who this year went 40 for 40. >>
Well yeah, everybody wants Lidge, too. But, again, the point is not that great pitchers aren't great pitchers - Lidge is a great pitcher - the point is that using him as a "closer" has had no demonstrable impact on his teams. His team benefits from having a great pitcher pitch 70 innings or so, but if there has been a fact presented in support of the theory that pitching him in so many "save" situations that he gets 40 of them helped the Phillies I missed it. Lidge is not a BS pitcher, the closer role is a BS role; huge distinction but it keeps getting passed over.