PDA

View Full Version : Other Sports ESPN Baseball writer discovers the obvious


alnorth
05-26-2010, 12:48 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&page=starting9/100526

Life without Joe

The conventional wisdom in March: Joe Nathan led the majors with 246 saves from 2004 through 2009, so it was a big deal when he blew out his elbow. Heath Bell trade rumors abounded for a week or two, and the Twins considered shifting Francisco Liriano to the role and doing the closer-by-committee thing before anointing journeyman Jon Rauch as Nathan's replacement. Some observers (like, uh, me) thought the loss of Nathan would open the door for the pitching-rich White Sox in the AL Central.

The reality in May: Opposing hitters swing and miss 21 percent of the time against Rauch. That puts him in the middle of the pack among relievers, in the same neighborhood with Oakland's Brad Ziegler, Arizona's Juan Gutierrez and Minnesota teammate Matt Guerrier. But Rauch has converted 10 of 12 save opportunities, and he has a strikeout-walk ratio of 13-3.

It has been pretty well known among baseball math nerds that we generally massively overestimate the value of a good closer, due to our flawed emotions. Seeing a few blown saves is deeply depressing, and you can easily forget the 8 or 9 converted saves.

A good team gives their closer about 45 chances. A top-flight closer converts about 90%. (maybe 95% if you are elite and having a career season) A bad closer converts about 75%. Of your 9th inning blown saves, you usually win the game anyway about 1/3 of the time or so. Do the math, and the difference between a top-flight closer and a bad closer is maybe 4.5 wins in a season of 162 games. Rauch isn't a "bad" closer at all. The difference between Joe Nathan and an average run-of-the-mill closer is maybe a couple wins.

That second paragraph is indisputable, but I still chuckle every time some sportswriter knucklehead is amazed that a team doesn't completely collapse as they predicted after they lose their closer. Good closers are probably more important in the post-season where you cant afford to give away any game, but in the regular season? Having a good closer is cool, but its more important to have a good bullpen top-to-bottom.

Buck
05-26-2010, 12:52 PM
The 2007 Padres disagree.

See: Game 163

Or see: 2009 Detroit Tigers Game 163

sedated
05-26-2010, 12:53 PM
Roberto Hernandez agrees

alnorth
05-26-2010, 12:56 PM
The 2007 Padres disagree.

See: Game 163

Or see: 2009 Detroit Tigers Game 163

Good closers are probably more important in the post-season where you cant afford to give away any game, but in the regular season? Having a good closer is cool, but its more important to have a good bullpen top-to-bottom.

Case in point: the Royals have Soria. He routinely rots on the bench because our bullpen gives up the lead long before the 9th. Of Soria's save attempts, at worst maybe we have 1 more loss at this point of the season with somebody else. (unless its Farnsworth, who transcends "bad closer" into something else deep within the pit of baseball hell)

sedated
05-26-2010, 12:59 PM
I'm not sure this article can be used as universal evidence, considering the Twins are the model small-market franchise, and have a knack for making chicken salad out of chicken sh!t. They frequently get pitchers off the trash pile and make them quality players.

Stewie
05-26-2010, 01:02 PM
Case in point: the Royals have Soria. He routinely rots on the bench because our bullpen gives up the lead long before the 9th. Of Soria's save attempts, at worst maybe we have 1 more loss at this point of the season with somebody else. (unless its Farnsworth, who transcends "bad closer" into something else deep within the pit of baseball hell)

If you ever hear Brian Bannister on Petro's show this is his pet peeve. He says it's because closers are paid based on the number of saves, not coming in in the 7th in a crucial situation. He had about a 10 minute spiel on it 3-4 weeks ago when Soria hadn't seen action in five games. BB was pissed, but understands that closers contracts are based on saves and not their value in tight (non-save) situations late in a game. He said that mindset needs to change.

sedated
05-26-2010, 01:03 PM
Case in point: the Royals have Soria. He routinely rots on the bench because our bullpen gives up the lead long before the 9th. Of Soria's save attempts, at worst maybe we have 1 more loss at this point of the season with somebody else. (unless its Farnsworth, who transcends "bad closer" into something else deep within the pit of baseball hell)

If this thread is in support of trading Soria, I will say the same things I always say. As soon as we trade him, our bullpen will go in the tank (even more than it is) and the team will likely spend the next 5 years looking for a replacement. Soria is locked up to a pretty friendly deal, and should hold his value for the next several years. As bad as the bullpen has been this year, we better hold onto ANY good arms we have there, and that goes double for our best one. And if the justification for trading Soria is "we aren't going to the playoffs in the next X years", then we should also support trading Grienke, Butler, and anyone else of value on the current team, since they will be too expensive to keep by the time we could contend.

alnorth
05-26-2010, 01:04 PM
I'm not sure this article can be used as universal evidence, considering the Twins are the model small-market franchise, and have a knack for making chicken salad out of chicken sh!t. They frequently get pitchers off the trash pile and make them quality players.

fair enough, but again go back to the numbers.

A good closer converts 90%, a bad closer converts 70%, you win about 1/3 of 9th inning blown saves, and a good team usually gives their closer about 35 save attempts.

I understand that we have emotionally invested this mythical quality into the heroic closer, but look at this with cold emotionless pure logic. Just how valuable is that guy in the regular season? What if he gets hurt? Sure, you might possibly lose game 7 of the world series later that year, but I'd be far more upset if one of my top 2 hitters or top 2 starting pitchers were hurt.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 01:04 PM
Closers matter in the playoffs.

Royals fans don't understand this because they don't get there. As such, they think things like "Soria doesn't get used as a closer, so he should start or pitch the 8th" while completely ignoring the fact that you'll absolutely need Soria as a closer in the playoffs if you hope to win anything.

Playoff games are close games and your closer is going to be called on to save somewhere from 6-8 ballgames if you hope to win the series. There a single loss can make the entire season.

Closers matter. They matter a lot. You can probably make the playoffs without a very good one, but you won't last long if you do.

It's a completely different ballgame in October.

RJ
05-26-2010, 01:06 PM
I've always thought closers were overrated and over-paid. But tell that to the Orioles right now. Between injuries and/or poor performance, they just can't fill the position. And you can't underestimate the importance of having a rock in that role. A solid closer allows the manager to create more clearly defined bullpen roles if he always knows who will be out there in the 9th inning. So I guess I think it's an overrated but very necessary position.

Rauch has been a closer before with mediocre results. I have no doubt that he will achieve mediocrity again this thime.

alnorth
05-26-2010, 01:07 PM
If this thread is in support of trading Soria, I will say the same things I always say. As soon as we trade him, our bullpen will go in the tank (even more than it is) and the team will likely spend the next 5 years looking for a replacement. Soria is locked up to a pretty friendly deal, and should hold his value for the next several years. As bad as the bullpen has been this year, we better hold onto ANY good arms we have there, and that goes double for our best one. And if the justification for trading Soria is "we aren't going to the playoffs in the next X years", then we should also support trading Grienke, Butler, and anyone else of value on the current team, since they will be too expensive to keep by the time we could contend.

no, this thread is in support of the opinion: "this sportswriter is a fool, and he wont be the last guy who makes the same stupid prediction". Nothing more, nothing less.

Now that you mention it, I dont believe Soria is untradable, but I'd do it only if we could really rip off a team eyeing a title. (Rivera gets hurt 2 weeks before the trading deadline and the Yankees are in a cold panic) Barring that, he is a strength in a position of dire need for us, he at least can nail down the 9th if we can only bridge the gap to him. I'm just saying that closers, in general, are not nearly as valuable as we think they are.

alnorth
05-26-2010, 01:10 PM
Closers matter in the playoffs.

Royals fans don't understand this because they don't get there. As such, they think things like "Soria doesn't get used as a closer, so he should start or pitch the 8th" while completely ignoring the fact that you'll absolutely need Soria as a closer in the playoffs if you hope to win anything.

Playoff games are close games and your closer is going to be called on to save somewhere from 6-8 ballgames if you hope to win the series. There a single loss can make the entire season.

Closers matter. They matter a lot. You can probably make the playoffs without a very good one, but you won't last long if you do.

It's a completely different ballgame in October.

Good closers are probably more important in the post-season where you cant afford to give away any game, but in the regular season? Having a good closer is cool, but its more important to have a good bullpen top-to-bottom.

This writer didn't predict that the Twinkies would slip in the playoffs. He predicted they would suffer in the regular season and that the loss of Nathan would, all by itself, possibly cost them the playoff spot. Predictably, he appears to be dead-ass wrong.

milkman
05-26-2010, 01:11 PM
If you ever hear Brian Bannister on Petro's show this is his pet peeve. He says it's because closers are paid based on the number of saves, not coming in in the 7th in a crucial situation. He had about a 10 minute spiel on it 3-4 weeks ago when Soria hadn't seen action in five games. BB was pissed, but understands that closers contracts are based on saves and not their value in tight (non-save) situations late in a game. He said that mindset needs to change.

Baseball is stupid.

A one game playoff to determine a division winner is a regular season game?

Stupid.

A pitcher that comes in and snuffs out a fire in the seventh with the lead in peril is not credited with a save, but a pitcher that comes in to start the ninth with a 3 run lead to hold is?

Stupid.

Demonpenz
05-26-2010, 01:12 PM
Remember the game final fight? I Would rather lose with Hagar...than win with cody

alnorth
05-26-2010, 01:16 PM
Remember the game final fight? I Would rather lose with Hagar...than win with cody

I usually played Cody :(

I think it was because every single one of my friends played Hagar and I didn't want to do the same thing.

RaiderH8r
05-26-2010, 01:20 PM
http://images.askmen.com/entertainment/movie/1243370990_rental-pick-glengarry-glen-ross_1.jpg

"Coffee is for closers."

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 01:20 PM
For the record - your entire premise is inaccurate.

13 guys got more than 40 Save opps last season. Then you have teams that swapped closers like Florida, Texas and Chicago, who had a combined 50(ish) save opps between their primary closers in 2009.

Your average MLB team is going to present its closer with somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-45 save opportunities in a given season, a high end is in the 50s.

A good closer saves 90% of his opps. A bad closer saves 75% of his opps and eventually gets yanked. Get below that and you're just an unemployed closer.

And you act as though 4 games in the standings is immaterial. 4 games will keep 2 teams out of the playoffs every single year, sometimes more.

So if you're the Angels and you play small ball, the difference between the good closer saving 49 of 55 opportunities and the bad closer saving 41 of 55 means the difference between making the post-season and not. Even if you're a team that mauls opponents like Colorado and you only have 35 save opps, the difference in good and bad is 5 games...the Rockies missed the division by 3 games, won the WC by 4; well within the 5 game margin for closer 'utility'.

Your premise is just awful. If your team sucks, fine - trade your closer. 65 wins isn't much different than 60. But if you ever hope to win anything in the playoffs or otherwise, you absolutely have to have a closer.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 01:23 PM
This writer didn't predict that the Twinkies would slip in the playoffs. He predicted they would suffer in the regular season and that the loss of Nathan would, all by itself, possibly cost them the playoff spot. Predictably, he appears to be dead-ass wrong.

If the AL Central wasn't awful and if the Twins didn't have another veteran reliever with closing experience on their roster, it could easily cost them a playoff spot.

Like I just said, the difference in a good closer and a bad one is going to be at least 5 games over the course of a season. Wanna bet that at least 2 teams will have their post-season fates determined by less than 5 wins?

Baseball is won and lost in the margins. Everyone wins 60. Everyone loses 60. It's what you do with the other 40 that means your season. That's where a nails closer is important.

alnorth
05-26-2010, 01:26 PM
If the AL Central wasn't awful and if the Twins didn't have another veteran reliever with closing experience on their roster, it could easily cost them a playoff spot.

Like I just said, the difference in a good closer and a bad one is going to be at least 5 games over the course of a season. Wanna bet that at least 2 teams will have their post-season fates determined by less than 5 wins?

Baseball is won and lost in the margins. Everyone wins 60. Everyone loses 60. It's what you do with the other 40 that means your season. That's where a nails closer is important.

Great, a good closer and a bad closer. I used extremes to make a point. Most team's fallback option (particularly a "good" team) is an average closer, not a bad closer.

I did NOT say the closer was irrelevant as you keep trying to argue against, I'm saying its not nearly as important as we think they are. You could lose a few more games without your closer, but you will lose a lot more games if you lose 1 of several other guys who are more important to the team.

alnorth
05-26-2010, 01:28 PM
Your premise is just awful. If your team sucks, fine - trade your closer. 65 wins isn't much different than 60. But if you ever hope to win anything in the playoffs or otherwise, you absolutely have to have a closer.

My premise isn't awful, your argument is awful because you keep harping on playoffs, when the article and my response wasn't focused on the playoffs *AT ALL*, it was all about the regular season, where, yes, the closer isn't as hugely important as we think they are.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 01:28 PM
Great, a good closer and a bad closer. I used extremes to make a point. Most team's fallback option (particularly a "good" team) is an average closer, not a bad closer.

I did NOT say the closer was irrelevant as you keep trying to argue against, I'm saying its not nearly as important as we think we are. You could lose a few more games without your closer, but you will lose a lot more games if you lose 1 of several other guys who are more important to the team.

Fair enough, but on a lot of teams, an average closer vs. a good closer is still 3 games and enough to keep them out of the playoffs. And when you make the playoffs, a great closer is as important as any position on the field (as the Yankees).

I think people tend to overstate how 'important' baseball guys think the closer is. Nobody is arguing that a closer is more important than a star position player. But in a league where 2 or 3 games often determines your season, the closer role is pretty damn critical. It may only matter a few times, but sometimes that's all it takes.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 01:32 PM
My premise isn't awful, your argument is awful because you keep harping on playoffs, when the article and my response wasn't focused on the playoffs *AT ALL*, it was all about the regular season, where, yes, the closer isn't as hugely important as we think they are.

It's still awful because your numbers are garbage.

A 'good team' doesn't give its closer 35 save opps. The Angels gave Fuentes 55 last season.

Your entire premise was flawed. The numbers you derived from it was flawed. Your conclusions were therefore flawed.

Closers are critically important for teams that hope to make the playoffs. For teams that don't - not so much.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 01:50 PM
this is why Soria should be a starter...

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 01:50 PM
this is why Soria should be a starter...

This is how I know I'm right.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 01:55 PM
Whatever...

A Kevin Gregg is good enough at closer...

You can find closers anywhere...

Soria could be a dominate starter...a dominate starter is WAY more valuable than a closer...

and it's not even CLOSE.

Hammock Parties
05-26-2010, 01:59 PM
I bet the statistics are a lot more damning for shitty closers in the playoffs.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 02:08 PM
Just because someone is a good closer does not mean they would be worth shit as a starter.

In fact, very few teams ever draft someone with the express intention of them being a closer. It happens occasionally (Daniel Bard, Chris Perez), but the vast majority of closers are failed starters.

The most dominant run any closer has had in our lifetime, Eric Gagne, was done by someone who couldn't hack it as a fifth starter.

Having a closer in the playoffs is important because of the small sample size, but it's not particularly difficult to find one, and they are vastly overpaid in relation to their performance.

If you want an effective closer in the playoffs, you need a guy who throws gas for strikes and can elevate his fastball.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 02:11 PM
Whatever...

A Kevin Gregg is good enough at closer...

You can find closers anywhere...

Soria could be a dominate starter...a dominate starter is WAY more valuable than a closer...

and it's not even CLOSE.

Kevin Gregg is not a good enough closer to win you a championship. He might be good enough to sneak you into the playoffs, but he's not a legitimate difference maker.

Ask the Cubs.

Meanwhile, Soria's about 140 lbs dripping wet and looks gassed by the end of his 6 out starts.

A dominant closer is far more valuable to a contender than its 3rd starter and that's all Soria is likely to amount to as a starter. He doesn't have the build to hold up over any appreciable innings load.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 02:14 PM
Just because someone is a good closer does not mean they would be worth shit as a starter.

In fact, very few teams ever draft someone with the express intention of them being a closer. It happens occasionally (Daniel Bard, Chris Perez), but the vast majority of closers are failed starters.

The most dominant run any closer has had in our lifetime, Eric Gagne, was done by someone who couldn't hack it as a fifth starter.

Having a closer in the playoffs is important because of the small sample size, but it's not particularly difficult to find one, and they are vastly overpaid in relation to their performance.

If you want an effective closer in the playoffs, you need a guy who throws gas for strikes and can elevate his fastball.

I don't disagree with this.

I think overpaying for a closer is assinine. Most systems have at least 2 guys in them that could probably close games.

But you'd better hope that's the case. The Cardinals lucked out big time after Motte imploded last season with Franklin. But/for Franklin putting on his big boy pants, last season's playoff run doesn't happen because the Cardinals don't get out of the blocks quickly enough to justify any 'win now' moves.

Ideally you can develop one as a setup man for a season or two and have him take over (meanwhile, you let your established closer walk for draft picks). The Bosox will do this with Bard, the Angels with Jeppsen, the Mariners with League, the Cardinals with Motte, the Indians with Perez, etc...

But you don't always have the luxery of that kind of foresight. Sometimes your closer drops without a ready replacement. That's when you run into the issues talked about in this thread.

milkman
05-26-2010, 02:18 PM
Whatever...

A Kevin Gregg is good enough at closer...

You can find closers anywhere...

Soria could be a dominate starter...a dominate starter is WAY more valuable than a closer...

and it's not even CLOSE.

You are about to be "dominanted".

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 02:18 PM
I don't disagree with this.

I think overpaying for a closer is assinine. Most systems have at least 2 guys in them that could probably close games.

But you'd better hope that's the case. The Cardinals lucked out big time after Motte imploded last season with Franklin. But/for Franklin putting on his big boy pants, last season's playoff run doesn't happen because the Cardinals don't get out of the blocks quickly enough to justify any 'win now' moves.

Ideally you can develop one as a setup man for a season or two and have him take over (meanwhile, you let your established closer walk for draft picks). The Bosox will do this with Bard, the Angels with Jeppsen, the Mariners with League, the Cardinals with Motte, the Indians with Perez, etc...

But you don't always have the luxery of that kind of foresight. Sometimes your closer drops without a ready replacement. That's when you run into the issues talked about in this thread.

Franklin lucked out big time last year when Motte imploded, not the Cardinals. He got a contract he didn't deserve, fueled largely by an aberrational BABIP (which also caused us to trade away two of our most valuable arms in order for a 35 year old rental).

alnorth
05-26-2010, 02:20 PM
It's still awful because your numbers are garbage.

A 'good team' doesn't give its closer 35 save opps. The Angels gave Fuentes 55 last season.

Your entire premise was flawed. The numbers you derived from it was flawed. Your conclusions were therefore flawed.

Closers are critically important for teams that hope to make the playoffs. For teams that don't - not so much.

It is possible that I underestimated a bit off the top of my head, but not by much. You act as if that throws off my estimation by much. It does not. Lets see:

Mariano Rivera save ops the last decade: 36, 50, 32, 46, 57, 47, 37, 34, 40, 46. A touch over 35 average that I used, for a closer who gets a lot of ops. K-Rod, a guy who gets an insane number of ops since his closer debut in 2005: 50, 51, 46, 69, 42. One crazy year between these two, but 45 might be a fair number. I was intending to look at the regular season anyway (so dont only focus on super-high save op teams), but why not, its better to overestimate than underestimate to make this point.

45 ops, 90%, 75%. A good closer is then 4.5 to 5 games better than a bad closer. Not exactly a gigantic difference from my rough estimation of 4.

Of course, there is little chance that a team with a bullpen good enough to deliver 45 ops has a bad closer as the 2nd option. At worst, we're talking an average closer at #2. So, for that hypothetical good team, we're talking more like 2 games.

If you lose your closer before the season, the thought is "oh, damn. Well, we still have a great chance at the playoffs, but might be in a little trouble in the divisional series." If the Rays lose Longoria, Garza, or Price right now the thought is "oh God, we're done! Game over man, game over!"

Yes, the playoffs are a bit different because close games are more likely, everyone is good so you have fewer blowouts. I never said it wasn't different in the playoffs, I said this writer was a fool for predicting the Twins downfall just on the broken arm of Nathan. You might lose the ALCS without him, but his loss alone will not likely stop you from getting there. At least not any more than if you had lost one of a whole bunch of other guys.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 02:31 PM
Franklin lucked out big time last year when Motte imploded, not the Cardinals. He got a contract he didn't deserve, fueled largely by an aberrational BABIP (which also caused us to trade away two of our most valuable arms in order for a 35 year old rental).

I know you think Franklin was a complete fluke, but he's doing it again this season.

How did his BABIP 'cause' us to trade Perez and Todd? David Freese getting drunk in the spring caused us to trade Perez. Troy Glaus forgetting to get shoulder surgery caused us to trade away Perez. John Mozeliak sitting on his hands after declining an offer of DeLaRosa for Perez straight up (right before his hot streak) caused us to trade away Todd.

Franklin's BABIP allowed us to trade away Perez and Todd to address a glaring need at 3b. It didn't work out, but it had to be done. Joe Thurston was going to cause me to have an epileptic fit.

Look - but for Franklin stablizing that bullpen in the early part of the season last year, the Cardinals were sunk before they started. Had he gone out there and collapsed like Motte, we were absolutely screwed. Perez can't throw strikes (the Indians are desperately trying to give him the closer job but he can't keep it) and Kyle Mac, who I really like, still has trouble with HRs because he hangs his curve too often. The Cards weren't going to give up on Boggs as a starter yet and Hawksworth was a complete unknown (and isn't a real potential closer anyway).

We were up shits creek if Franklin doesn't take the reigns last season. Now he has a 'closer' contract that's pretty much in line with what veteran setup men are making nowdays. It's not like he's getting Rivera money or anything. So who cares?

Franklin was huge for the Cardinals last year.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 02:35 PM
If you lose your closer before the season, the thought is "oh, damn. Well, we still have a great chance at the playoffs, but might be in a little trouble in the divisional series." If the Rays lose Longoria, Garza, or Price right now the thought is "oh God, we're done! Game over man, game over!"


That's why I think you're overestimating how people view the closer.

I place huge value in the closer, but even I don't think he's as valuable as a star caliber position player. He's not as valuable as your first or second starter.

But you can easily lose anywhere from 3-8 games in the standings if you don't have one and that matters a lot. There's a reason the Rays went out and picked up Soriano (13 of 13 in save Opps, BTW).

They aren't just spare parts. And while they can be developed fairly easily, God help you if you're wrong about what you have.

alnorth
05-26-2010, 02:39 PM
I'm beginning to think we don't disagree all that much, we're just a bit hung up on semantics.

CoMoChief
05-26-2010, 02:40 PM
LMAO ===> Look at Farnsworth SV/Opportunities ratio.

It's epic.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 02:46 PM
Yeah, but that's a pretty lousy stat for middle relievers.

They can come into a game in the 7th inning with a man on 3rd and no outs, give up a grounder to 2b that lets in an inherited run and take a blown save in a game that they were never truly given a 'save opportunity' in.

Don't get me wrong - Farnsworth sucks long and hard, but not on the basis of that particular stat.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 02:46 PM
I'm beginning to think we don't disagree all that much, we're just a bit hung up on semantics.

Hmmm...

FUCK YOU BITCH! YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!

So eat it.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 02:51 PM
how many of these guys were closers 5 years ago?

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=REcloserorgchart

All a closer needs is one dominant pitch and one average pitch...

Soria has too great of an arsenal to be used as a closer if you ask me...

Condition him in the offseason and build his arm strength up and Greinke/Soria would be an excellent 1-2 punch.

60 innings a year is a waste of talent if you ask me

RJ
05-26-2010, 02:55 PM
how many of these guys were closers 5 years ago?

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=REcloserorgchart

All a closer needs is one dominant pitch and one average pitch...

Soria has too great of an arsenal to be used as a closer if you ask me...Condition him in the offseason and build his arm strength up and Greinke/Soria would be an excellent 1-2 punch.

60 innings a year is a waste of talent if you ask me


I don't watch Royals games so maybe you're right. But a lot of times the reason a pitcher is a reliever isn't that he's a "failed starter" as hamas Said, but because he only has 2-3 pitches that he throws well.

What's in Soria's arsenal?

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:02 PM
He has a wicked curveball, a plus slider, a great changeup and a so-so fastball...

He, like every other pitcher, was a starter his whole life...

He threw a perfect game in Mexico right after the Royals took him in the Rule 5 draft if I remember correctly...

I think he's wasting his potential as a closer...

The guy could form an elite combo with Greinke at the top of the rotation...

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:08 PM
From JoPo some time ago:

Of course, there are also counter-arguments for all those. Soria might very well be BETTER with five days rest — shoot, the guy did throw a perfect game in Mexico — and his four-pitch repertoire seems perfect suited for a starter. Soria was only 23 years old that rookie season — there was every reason to believe that he had tremendous potential in whatever direction the Royals pushed him. The psychological benefits of having a closer may or may not be real, but the ACTUAL benefits of having a potentially dominant starter to join Zack Greinke are pretty obvious. And the Royals were not ready to be contenders, and you could argue that non-contenders need a dominant closer in the same way that a McDonald’s meal needs a white tablecloth.

The point is this: The Royals never tried to make Soria a starter. They talked about it … quite a lot, in fact. They hammered it back and forth. But they never tried to do it. Soria was one of the best closers in baseball in 2008. He saved 42 games with a 1.60 ERA. Soria was awfully good as a closer again in 2009. He had some injury issues — people talked about his frailty again — but he saved 30 games, posted a 2.21 ERA, and he actually made six 2-inning appearances (going 1-0 with five saves). No other closer in baseball made more than two 2-inning appearances. Now, he seems entrenched as a closer. The Royals do talk about making one of their relievers into a starter — but that reliever is Kyle Farnsworth.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:09 PM
He has a wicked curveball, a plus slider, a great changeup and a so-so fastball...

He, like every other pitcher, was a starter his whole life...

He threw a perfect game in Mexico right after the Royals took him in the Rule 5 draft if I remember correctly...

I think he's wasting his potential as a closer...

The guy could form an elite combo with Greinke at the top of the rotation...

He also throws about 70% fastballs, which he can get away with out of the 'pen but could never manage as a starter. His average fastball velocity is about 92, which would drop to about 89 as a starter. His 'great' changeup has a pitch type value of almost exactly league average, as does his 'plus' slider. His curve is his best pitch and the only truly excellent pitch he throws. Keep in mind that all these breaking pitch values will drop a bit as well because of the stamina issue (nobody throws better on their 80th pitch than they do on their 20th).

Soria would be a 3rd or 4th starter and that's only if he can stay healthy.

He has the stones to close and is unique in that he comes from the bullpen with 4 different weapons. Put him in the starting rotation and he's just another guy with okay breaking stuff and below average velocity.

He's far more valuable as a closer.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:12 PM
Sounds like a lot of projecting from a guy trying to make his case LMAO

Soria reminds me of Johan Santana when he was coming out of the pen back in the day for the Twins...

But the Royals are too dumb to ever make him a starter where he could dominate and become an Ace...

Having two aces >>>>>> having one ace and one closer who closes for a shitty ass team

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:15 PM
For perspective -- Adam Wainwright's curveball, which is truly a 'wicked' curveball had a pitch type value of 23.3 as a starter last season (Soria's was 5 coming out of the pen).

Wainwright also had a slider with a PTV of 19.7.

Those breaking pitches can be tagged 'wicked' or 'great'.

Soria's cannot. And Soria doesn't even have the build that WW has that would prevent his stuff from degrading upon a move to the starting rotation.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:16 PM
Sounds like a lot of projecting from a guy trying to make his case LMAO

Soria reminds me of Johan Santana when he was coming out of the pen back in the day for the Twins...

But the Royals are too dumb to ever make him a starter where he could dominate and become an Ace...

Having two aces >>>>>> having one ace and one closer who closes for a shitty ass team

If Soria reminds you at all of Johan Santana, you're a ****ing moron.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:17 PM
'The build'

haha

what a myth

neither does Tim Lincecum

neither did Pedro Martinez once upon a time

this is some hilarious ass projecting to try and make some sort of a point...

Soria has a perfect arsenal to be a starting pitcher...comparable to Johan Santana...he made a pretty seemless transition, I would say

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:18 PM
No, DJ is right.

One of the reasons why closers appear to have better stuff is because they can "blow it out". You played baseball, you should know this.

A starter can rear back and go 100% on his fastball a couple of times a game. Carpenter does it just to get out of jams. Relievers don't have to worry about stamina, and thus, can throw every pitch with max effort. That means more drop on your curve and more RPMs on your heat.

And Hootie, the reason why Santana was in the pen for the Twins was b/c he was a rule 5 pick, and if they sent him down, he would have gone back to Houston.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:20 PM
If Soria reminds you at all of Johan Santana, you're a ****ing moron.

Cool.

Good argument as usual...

You keep chiming in about how important closers are...the Cardinals found a pretty decent closer out of nowhere last year...

Closers are the easiest fucking thing to find in baseball...

One doesn't work?

Shit...plug in another one until one guy gets some momentum...

It happens every year...

A staff ace...or a really good starting pitcher...or even a solid starting pitcher is WAY more important than a fucking closer...

220 innings >>> 65 innings

especially when Soria has the pitches to be a starter...no doubt.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:22 PM
'The build'

haha

what a myth

neither does Tim Lincecum

neither did Pedro Martinez once upon a time

this is some hilarious ass projecting to try and make some sort of a point...

Soria has a perfect arsenal to be a starting pitcher...comparable to Johan Santana...he made a pretty seemless transition, I would say

FWIW, Pedro and Lincecum are the exception. Pedro was also hurt multiple times because he couldn't take the abuse of throwing 220+ innings.

He was his best from 25-31, but he wasn't the horse that most power pitchers are, and his career suffered because of it.

Pedro lost 8-9 MPH off his fastball in less than a decade.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:24 PM
'The build'

haha

what a myth

neither does Tim Lincecum

neither did Pedro Martinez once upon a time

this is some hilarious ass projecting to try and make some sort of a point...

Soria has a perfect arsenal to be a starting pitcher...comparable to Johan Santana...he made a pretty seemless transition, I would say

Tim Lincecum and Pedro Martinez could throw 100 mph from the 'pen with ease so they could dial down their velocity as starters and still cruise in the mid 90s. Oh yeah, Martinez did break down frequently and Lincecum has mechanics which are singularly unique in all of baseball.

Santana throws possibly the best changeup in the last quarter century of baseball. His PTV on the change from 2004 to 2008 (his prime seasons) -- 23, 20, 26, 15, 23. His fastball PTV was comparable as well.

And again - this was out of the rotation and his raw stuff absolutely dwarfed Soria's from the 'pen. No, Johan Santana is nothing like Joakim Soria, apart from being latin with the same initials.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about right now.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:24 PM
The argument isn't that a #3 starter is more important than a closer over the course of a season. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.

But when you compress it to the small sample size of the playoffs and factor in that 60% of your games will be thrown by your #1 and #2, and your closer will throw in probably 60-80% of the games (as opposed to 40%), then the closer takes precedence over the #3.

But that's not the regular season, and it's a skewed sample size.

DeezNutz
05-26-2010, 03:26 PM
Sounds like a lot of projecting from a guy trying to make his case LMAO

Soria reminds me of Johan Santana when he was coming out of the pen back in the day for the Twins...

But the Royals are too dumb to ever make him a starter where he could dominate and become an Ace...

Having two aces >>>>>> having one ace and one closer who closes for a shitty ass team

Santana used to be able to bring mid-90s from the left side, so this comparison is pretty weak.

I agree that Soria's cutter is ridiculous and I don't think he's a max-effort guy, so "build" likely doesn't come into play as much. Still, Soria has an injury history as a closer.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:27 PM
Cool.

Good argument as usual...

You keep chiming in about how important closers are...the Cardinals found a pretty decent closer out of nowhere last year...

Closers are the easiest ****ing thing to find in baseball...

One doesn't work?

Shit...plug in another one until one guy gets some momentum...

It happens every year...

A staff ace...or a really good starting pitcher...or even a solid starting pitcher is WAY more important than a ****ing closer...

220 innings >>> 65 innings

especially when Soria has the pitches to be a starter...no doubt.

You keep ignoring the good arguments, so I'll just stick with calling you a moron.

To repeat - yes, a 1 or 2 starter is far more valuable than a closer.

Joakim Soria is not going to be a 1 or 2 starter with a below average fastball and mediocre breaking pitches.

You can present absolutely no evidence that supports your statement that Soria has a 'wicked' curveball, a 'plus' slider or a 'great' changeup. He has none of these things. He has a solid curveball and an okay slider and changeup. He is a tough matchup in late innings because he's not a guy that hitters are able to see for an extended period of time.

Put Soria in the rotation and he'd be Jeff Suppan by August.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:27 PM
No, DJ is right.

One of the reasons why closers appear to have better stuff is because they can "blow it out". You played baseball, you should know this.

A starter can rear back and go 100% on his fastball a couple of times a game. Carpenter does it just to get out of jams. Relievers don't have to worry about stamina, and thus, can throw every pitch with max effort. That means more drop on your curve and more RPMs on your heat.

And Hootie, the reason why Santana was in the pen for the Twins was b/c he was a rule 5 pick, and if they sent him down, he would have gone back to Houston.
Santana was a spot starter/reliever for a few years in Minnesota...I remember, he was a fantasy god back then...

and Soria was a starter all of his life until the Royals put him in the pen...

So he excels in the pen...a pleasant surprise at the time, no doubt...

But that somehow means his success wouldn't translate to the starting rotation?

ROFL

You're projecting EVERY bit as much as I'm projecting...

I think he'd be filthy good as a starter...and there is no reason to suggest otherwise...

Santana excelled in the pen, and then he got even BETTER as a starter.

Shit...

C.J. Wilson wasn't even anything special as a closer and he seems to be loving his switch to the rotation...

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:28 PM
Mediocre breaking pitches?

Hahahahahaha

Ok buddy.

he has a wicked curveball and a good changeup...

he has starter stuff...and when you have starter stuff and you excel as a closer...

YOU SHOULD BE A FUCKING STARTER.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:29 PM
(especially when you close for a team that is fucking terrible...what's the point of having an elite closer on a 100 loss team?)

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:33 PM
so when the Cardinals were struggling in the pen last year before Franklin they should have just moved Wainright back to closer because he could be a shutdown closer and those are super important!!!

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:34 PM
Santana was a spot starter/reliever for a few years in Minnesota...I remember, he was a fantasy god back then...

and Soria was a starter all of his life until the Royals put him in the pen...

So he excels in the pen...a pleasant surprise at the time, no doubt...

But that somehow means his success wouldn't translate to the starting rotation?

ROFL

You're projecting EVERY bit as much as I'm projecting...

I think he'd be filthy good as a starter...and there is no reason to suggest otherwise...

Santana excelled in the pen, and then he got even BETTER as a starter.

Shit...

C.J. Wilson wasn't even anything special as a closer and he seems to be loving his switch to the rotation...

Santana was not "fantasy god" until the second half of the 2003 season, when he became a full time starter after the break.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:35 PM
so when the Cardinals were struggling in the pen last year before Franklin they should have just moved Wainright back to closer because he could be a shutdown closer and those are super important!!!

No one has made this argument.

alnorth
05-26-2010, 03:37 PM
He also throws about 70% fastballs, which he can get away with out of the 'pen but could never manage as a starter. His average fastball velocity is about 92, which would drop to about 89 as a starter. His 'great' changeup has a pitch type value of almost exactly league average, as does his 'plus' slider. His curve is his best pitch and the only truly excellent pitch he throws. Keep in mind that all these breaking pitch values will drop a bit as well because of the stamina issue (nobody throws better on their 80th pitch than they do on their 20th).

Soria would be a 3rd or 4th starter and that's only if he can stay healthy.

He has the stones to close and is unique in that he comes from the bullpen with 4 different weapons. Put him in the starting rotation and he's just another guy with okay breaking stuff and below average velocity.

He's far more valuable as a closer.

Yeah, I used to be a full-blown member of the "start Soria now!" bandwagon, but I've since heard enough from people whose opinions I respect to get off it.

It could work, and obviously if a pitcher can be either a good SP or great closer you start him, but between concerns about his fastball and his health, I'm fine with leaving him where he is and occasionally wondering "what if?".

You can easily make an argument that the Royals should have at least experimented with the idea first to really make sure he would be a failed starter and that I can agree with, but we are pretty much beyond that now.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:37 PM
Santana was not "fantasy god" until the second half of the 2003 season, when he became a full time starter after the break.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

well apparently you have no idea how to play fantasy baseball...

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:39 PM
Dennis Eckersley
Lee Smith
Eric Gagne
Mariano Rivera

The list of all-time great closers is filled with guys who couldn't hack it as a starter.

Yet, since TLR "invented" the closer, I don't see a lot of guys who have moved from stopper to starter and dominated the league.

In fact, I don't see any.

Most guys who move from the pen to the rotation are young guys, and it's done so that the teams can control their innings and the wear and tear on their arms.

You should know this.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:40 PM
so when the Cardinals were struggling in the pen last year before Franklin they should have just moved Wainright back to closer because he could be a shutdown closer and those are super important!!!

Jesus, you're an idiot.

Once again you fucking child rapist -- An ace starting pitcher is far FAR more valuable than a closer of any stripe.

Adam Wainwright is an ace starting pitcher with 2 absolute hammer breaking pitches.

Joakim Soria is NOT going to be an ace starting pitcher. The raw statistics show that, for all you would like to believe about his breaking stuff, it's really just very average. His curve is good and could be very good, but it's not Johan Santana good. The rest of his breaking stuff is passable at best and his fastball is just okay. And all of this is accumulated from the bullpen, no less.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:41 PM
he was every bit as valuable before the all-star break that year as he was after...

in the leagues I've played in for 13 years the truly competitive ones have always limited teams to 144 games started for pitchers...

so when a guy is getting 2, 3, and sometimes 4 innings out of the pen with great ERA/WHIP and K numbers and isn't eating up starts...

It's as valuable as a top tier starter and MORE valuable than the most valuable closer...

But Hamas is a genious he's never wrong.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:42 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=4280&year=2003

He used to get taken in the 4th-7th rounds...

as a...

RELIEVER

that's how valuable he was...EVERYONE wanted him...

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:43 PM
Of course he was always taken because everyone knew he'd be put in the rotation, too...which is why I won so many leagues in 2003...

He was one of my favorite fantasy players to follow ever...won me a ton of money.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:45 PM
And for people who play in leagues with Minimum Inning Requirements that track wins, losses, ratios, CGs, and saves, middle relievers aren't worth anything.

You're using an illogical premise (the thought that your fantasy league setup= all) to proceed logically to a perfectly illogical conclusion.

That's why no one takes you seriously.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:46 PM
Rivera had 10 starts as a rookie and has a one pitch arsenal...

Nice example...

Gagne was so roided out I have no idea what to think...he always had good stuff...but then he started fucking roiding out and for 3-5 outs he was unstoppable...not a very good example.

I don't know enough about Eckersley or Smith to really care...

I think it's ridiculous to think Soria couldn't excel as a starter based off of...his size...that's dumb.

Dude started his whole life...has only done one thing in the Majors...and now he's a top tier closer on a shitty team...

Woohoo!

That means he's about as valuable as Albert Callaspo...

that's the NFL equivalent to Dorsey at the 5 technique

wasting one of your better players at an overrated position...and that's what a closer is...

OVERRATED

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:48 PM
Santana was a spot starter/reliever for a few years in Minnesota...I remember, he was a fantasy god back then...



And this is how I know that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're a pretty standard 'fantasy baseball' manager with little clue about how this whole thing went down.

I'm guessing you probably didn't know that Santana was a converted position player and that the Astros knew he was a few years away still when they made him available in the Rule 5. When the Marlins drafted him and traded him to the Twins, the Twins had every intention of hiding him in the pen for a season then moving him to the minors to get a few mor innings under his belt.

Unfortunately, after his rule 5 season, he got injured and missed a lot of 2002, putting his development back a bit. In 2002, they started him in the minors, as was their plan all along.

I'm guessing you also probably didn't realize that the Twins had a policy regarding the development of starting pitchers back then. If they had the luxery, they tried to bring their starters in as relievers for about a half-season first before moving them to the rotation. That's exactly what happened in 2003 with Santana. I know you just went and read a stat log so you think he was a 'spot starter' that season, but in fact he was a reliever in the first half and an absolute nails starter in the 2nd half. I believe he was a permanent starter from the AS break on that season and won something like 8 consecutive starts to end the season. It was all according to script, he was never a 'spot starter'.

The Twins were grooming him to start from the moment they plucked him (via Florida) from the Astros system.

I'm telling you - you've brought a knife to this gun fight. You're a fantasy baseball manager that thinks you can just slide a closer into the starting rotation and all will be right as rain.

You're overmatched here and you couldn't be more wrong. Your lack of understanding of the Santana situation only further exposes that.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:49 PM
And for people who play in leagues with Minimum Inning Requirements that track wins, losses, ratios, CGs, and saves, middle relievers aren't worth anything.

You're using an illogical premise (the thought that your fantasy league setup= all) to proceed logically to a perfectly illogical conclusion.

That's why no one takes you seriously.

I'm talking about standard fucking rotisserie leagues on ESPN.com...

I guaranfuckingtee I've been playing fantasy baseball for much, much, much longer than you...

last I checked you were still playing in public yahoo leagues or some shit...

I was playing fantasy baseball/football/basketball on ESPN when I was 12 years old...spending all of my parents money on league after league after league...I didn't even like girls until I was 15 years old because I was too busy playing fantasy baseball and setting my alarm clock for 1:55 AM so I could beat the streamers at their own game...

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:50 PM
And this is how I know that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're a pretty standard 'fantasy baseball' manager with little clue about how this whole thing went down.

I'm guessing you probably didn't know that Santana was a converted position player and that the Astros knew he was a few years away still when they made him available in the Rule 5. When the Marlins drafted him and traded him to the Twins, the Twins had every intention of hiding him in the pen for a season then moving him to the minors.

Unfortunately, after his rule 5 season, he got injured and missed a lot of 2002, putting his development back a bit. In 2002, they started him in the minors, as was their plan all along.

I'm guessing you also probably didn't realize that the Twins had a policy regarding the development of starting pitchers back then. If they had the luxery, they tried to bring their starters in as relievers for about a half-season first before moving them to the rotation. That's exactly what happened in 2003 with Santana. I know you just went and read a stat log so you think he was a 'spot starter' that season, but in fact he was a reliever in the first half and an absolute nails starter in the 2nd half. I believe he was a permanent starter from the AS break on that season and won something like 8 consecutive starts to end the season. It was all according to script, he was never a 'spot starter'.

The Twins were grooming him to start from the moment they plucked him (via Florida) from the Astros system.

I'm telling you - you've brought a knife to this gun fight. You're a fantasy baseball manager that thinks you can just slide a closer into the starting rotation and all will be right as rain.

You're overmatched here and you couldn't be more wrong. Your lack of understanding of the Santana situation only further exposes that.

And when Santana was in the minors, he was often told to throw nothing but changeups for the entirety of some of his starts, just to get a feel for the pitch.

But that's Hootie's extent of knowledge about everything. Fantasy baseball, football, etc. That's the genesis of the whole Manning > Brady argument.

Their fantasy stats.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:52 PM
I'm talking about standard ****ing rotisserie leagues on ESPN.com...

I guaran****ingtee I've been playing fantasy baseball for much, much, much longer than you...

last I checked you were still playing in public yahoo leagues or some shit...

I was playing fantasy baseball/football/basketball on ESPN when I was 12 years old...spending all of my parents money on league after league after league...I didn't even like girls until I was 15 years old because I was too busy playing fantasy baseball and setting my alarm clock for 1:55 AM so I could beat the streamers at their own game...

Of course you are.

And you're using fantasy baseball experience to justify a real-world argument.

That's really all that needs to be noted here.

Just Passin' By
05-26-2010, 03:52 PM
I don't know enough about Eckersley or Smith to really care...=

Eckersley was a lousy example for Hamas to use, but his point is generally sound. Closers don't need as many pitches as starters, and they don't need to have the overall skill of starters. That's a by-product of not having to go through lineups 3-4 times in a game.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:52 PM
And this is how I know that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're a pretty standard 'fantasy baseball' manager with little clue about how this whole thing went down.

I'm guessing you probably didn't know that Santana was a converted position player and that the Astros knew he was a few years away still when they made him available in the Rule 5. When the Marlins drafted him and traded him to the Twins, the Twins had every intention of hiding him in the pen for a season then moving him to the minors.

Unfortunately, after his rule 5 season, he got injured and missed a lot of 2002, putting his development back a bit. In 2002, they started him in the minors, as was their plan all along.

I'm guessing you also probably didn't realize that the Twins had a policy regarding the development of starting pitchers back then. If they had the luxery, they tried to bring their starters in as relievers for about a half-season first before moving them to the rotation. That's exactly what happened in 2003 with Santana. I know you just went and read a stat log so you think he was a 'spot starter' that season, but in fact he was a reliever in the first half and an absolute nails starter in the 2nd half. I believe he was a permanent starter from the AS break on that season and won something like 8 consecutive starts to end the season. It was all according to script, he was never a 'spot starter'.

The Twins were grooming him to start from the moment they plucked him (via Florida) from the Astros system.

I'm telling you - you've brought a knife to this gun fight. You're a fantasy baseball manager that thinks you can just slide a closer into the starting rotation and all will be right as rain.

You're overmatched here and you couldn't be more wrong. Your lack of understanding of the Santana situation only further exposes that.

You're a fucking idiot...

Closers need ONE pitch...ONE good pitch to get guys out...

Closers are a dime a dozen...

DIME A DOZEN

Soria has a starter's arsenal and he's in the pen...

As soon as you explain that to me then I'll admit you're right...but you're a big fucking idiot if the only reason you think he can't be a starter is because you think he can't be a starter...because that's all I'm getting...

dude was a starter his whole life...

as soon as the Royals took him in the rule 5 draft he threw a perfect game...

he then, JUST LIKE SANTANA, had to stay on the 25 man roster for the Royals to keep him on the team...

so they put him in the pen

he excelled

and now suddenly he can't be a starter anymore?

ROFL

Yeah ok

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:53 PM
I'm talking about standard fucking rotisserie leagues on ESPN.com...

I guaranfuckingtee I've been playing fantasy baseball for much, much, much longer than you...

last I checked you were still playing in public yahoo leagues or some shit...

I was playing fantasy baseball/football/basketball on ESPN when I was 12 years old...spending all of my parents money on league after league after league...I didn't even like girls until I was 15 years old because I was too busy playing fantasy baseball and setting my alarm clock for 1:55 AM so I could beat the streamers at their own game...

Actually, I play in a highly competitive 14 team league with a $100 entry fee.

Of course, I won it last year, and I'm in first this year, so I must have no idea what I'm talking about then, either.

And of course, you again expose the fact that you don't know anything, because you again think that standard ESPN Roto = All.

It doesn't. Not even close, actually.

5x5 is the n00b game, which makes your vapid argument even more hilarious.

But keep moving those goalposts. I don't think any of your blood is on the 40 yard line, yet, but you've damn sure left a trail of it up to there, because your ass has been handed to you by the truckload.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:55 PM
the n00b game...

hahahahah

ok buddy

sorry we don't get points for cycles and no-hitters

the n00b game

hahahaha

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:56 PM
Eckersley was a lousy example for Hamas to use, but his point is generally sound. Closers don't need as many pitches as starters, and they don't need to have the overall skill of starters. That's a by-product of not having to go through lineups 3-4 times in a game.

It wasn't about pitches, it was about effectiveness:

Eckersley's ERA as a reliever was a run better, he struck out 3 more batters per 9, and his WHIP was .30 better, which is a huge jump.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:57 PM
yeah hamas...you and dj sure handed my ass to me...

hahaha, you guys are so gay with that shit...

dude's a starter his whole career...

they put him in the pen (just like the Twins did with Santana) after the Rule 5 draft...

He excels...

and suddenly...because DJ says so...

he can't be a starter anymore...

LMAO

ok...

you guys win

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 03:57 PM
You're a ****ing idiot...

Closers need ONE pitch...ONE good pitch to get guys out...

Closers are a dime a dozen...

DIME A DOZEN

Soria has a starter's arsenal and he's in the pen...

As soon as you explain that to me then I'll admit you're right...but you're a big ****ing idiot if the only reason you think he can't be a starter is because you think he can't be a starter...because that's all I'm getting...

dude was a starter his whole life...

as soon as the Royals took him in the rule 5 draft he threw a perfect game...

he then, JUST LIKE SANTANA, had to stay on the 25 man roster for the Royals to keep him on the team...

so they put him in the pen

he excelled

and now suddenly he can't be a starter anymore?

ROFL

Yeah ok

Damn, I guess I missed all those great games he started for the Royals.

So the Mexican leagues translate directly to MLB now? If you can start in Mexico and relieve in MLB, that means you can start in MLB? That's one fucked up transitive property right there.

Just gonna keep ignoring the PTV figures huh? The fact that his breaking pitches are relatively pedestrian even out of the 'pen?

And that his fastball simply isn't a plus fastball even as a reliever?

He has a starter's pitch selection. He has a 3rd or 4th starters stuff.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:57 PM
the n00b game...

hahahahah

ok buddy

sorry we don't get points for cycles and no-hitters

the n00b game

hahahaha

That isn't an effective rebuttal.

You're really making an ass of yourself.

FWIW, R, HR, SB, TB, AVG, OBP, Steals, RBI, W, L, CG, SV, K/9, ERA, WHIP are not cycles or no hitters

Hootie
05-26-2010, 03:57 PM
yeah hamas and I'm willing to bet a starters ERA is better in the first three innings than it is in the 4th-6th innings...

does that make sense to you...or no?

DeezNutz
05-26-2010, 03:57 PM
Closers are a dime a dozen...

DIME A DOZEN


By extension, so are "starters."

If we're talking about "elite-level" closers, fuck, no, they're not a dime a dozen. Neither are elite-level starters. We know Soria can be in the former category, not sure about the viability of his move into the latter.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-26-2010, 03:59 PM
yeah hamas and I'm willing to bet a starters ERA is better in the first three innings than it is in the 4th-6th innings...

does that make sense to you...or no?

Do you know why that is? (I bet you don't).

Hootie
05-26-2010, 04:01 PM
That isn't an effective rebuttal.

You're really making an ass of yourself.

FWIW, R, HR, SB, TB, AVG, OBP, Steals, RBI, W, L, CG, SV, K/9, ERA, WHIP are not cycles or no hitters

omg...

that's just an extension of 5X5

seriously...

who are you drafting differently and where because of these useless additional categories?

maybe you draft pitchers on better teams than the Yankees because of the L category...obviously you want to stack up on power arms and power relievers...

as for the offensive side...you added .OBP and Total Bases...

That isn't some sort of guru-esque, super complex fantasy baseball league...that is as standard as a standard baseball league can be...just with extra useless categories that...if you're winning HR's, chances are you're doing pretty fucking good in .OBP and Total Bases, too

Hootie
05-26-2010, 04:03 PM
Do you know why that is? (I bet you don't).

If you think it's because they are wearing down, it's not...

It's because hitters have a scouting report on all of these pitchers and generally it takes an at-bat or two before you are really comfortable against that pitcher...

that's baseball fucking 101

that's why a guy with 4 pitches like Soria would easily translate into a starter...

EASILY

He would be a solid #2 starter from the get go...with the mentality and ability to be an ace.

Yet he's wasting away as a closer...Instead of 220 innings, he's getting 60

Brilliant.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 04:05 PM
It wasn't about pitches, it was about effectiveness:

Eckersley's ERA as a reliever was a run better, he struck out 3 more batters per 9, and his WHIP was .30 better, which is a huge jump.

Hey now, I moved Eric Gagne to the starting rotation in MLB '04 and he was a god.

If it worked there, why couldn't it work in real life? Think of how good a 15 K/9 and 1.2 ERA would look over 225 innings!

And for the record, Gagne's changeup and fastball PTV's obliterate anything Soria ever put up with his fastball or curve. His splitter was more effective than Soria's change and his curveball was better than Soria's slider. Gagne has a far better 'starter's arsenal' than Soria and yet he failed as a starter.

Hootie
05-26-2010, 04:15 PM
Barry Bonds had an .OPS of like 1.500 one year and he was probably as roided out as Eric Gagne...excuse me if I don't give a shit about Eric Gagne

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 04:16 PM
If you think it's because they are wearing down, it's not...

It's because hitters have a scouting report on all of these pitchers and generally it takes an at-bat or two before you are really comfortable against that pitcher...

that's baseball ****ing 101

that's why a guy with 4 pitches like Soria would easily translate into a starter...

EASILY

He would be a solid #2 starter from the get go...with the mentality and ability to be an ace.

Yet he's wasting away as a closer...Instead of 220 innings, he's getting 60

Brilliant.

Why again do we believe a closer with a barking wing (that put him on the DL last season in limited duty) would hold up as a starter again?

Let's just set aside the fact that his stuff would degrade as a starter, because it's not really an argument (it will - period).

Let's just focus on the chance that this kid actually holds up for that many innings. He broke down being used sparingly for 1 inning at a time. His shoulder has hurt on and off for a couple of seasons now.

Oh yeah, and there were 9 guys that threw 220 innings last season of 150 starting pitchers.

But that's all irrelevant because you can do it on a PS3, so why can't you do it in real life....

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 04:22 PM
Barry Bonds had an .OPS of like 1.500 one year and he was probably as roided out as Eric Gagne...excuse me if I don't give a shit about Eric Gagne

I'd probably ignore him if I were you as well. And Eckersley. And Gossage. And Rivera. and Fingers. and Smith. And Franco. and Myers....

If I were making the claims you're making right about now, I'd probably make sure not to give a shit about pretty much any reliever in baseball history.

I'd have a lot stronger ground to stand on that way.

Just Passin' By
05-26-2010, 04:30 PM
It wasn't about pitches, it was about effectiveness:

Eckersley's ERA as a reliever was a run better, he struck out 3 more batters per 9, and his WHIP was .30 better, which is a huge jump.

But your claim was that he was on the list of pitchers who couldn't hack it as starters. He was a starter in the majors for 12 years before becoming a reliever. As I said, I agree with your general premise. Eckersley was just a bad example, that's all.

DJ's left nut
05-26-2010, 04:32 PM
But your claim was that he was on the list of pitchers who couldn't hack it as starters. He was a starter in the majors for 12 years before becoming a reliever. As I said, I agree with your general premise. Eckersley was just a bad example, that's all.

He was hurt and inneffective toward the end of his starter run. He had some serious shoulder issues in 1986, IIRC.

When he was made a reliever, Eck couldn't hack it as a starter anymore.

It's still a good example.

Just Passin' By
05-26-2010, 04:43 PM
He was hurt and inneffective toward the end of his starter run. He had some serious shoulder issues in 1986, IIRC.

When he was made a reliever, Eck couldn't hack it as a starter anymore.

It's still a good example.

In 1985, he went 11-7 with a 3.08 E.R.A.. In 2004, he went 10-8 with a 3.03 E.R.A. after moving from Boston to Chicago (he was 14-12 with a 3.60 E.R.A. overall). He struggled in 1986 (6-11, 4.57), but but that's a far cry from "couldn't hack it as a starter anymore".

Eckersley is a great example of a starter being extremely successful after transitioning to a closer. He just doesn't belong on the list of players who couldn't hack it as starters. It's a lousy example.

tk13
05-26-2010, 07:10 PM
I think this is one of those things that has probably swung way too far the other way. I don't think a good closer is more important than a good starter... but it's not an either/or thing. I do think you have to have a good closer, and it is very important. It's not just about saves... way too much assigning value to someone based on a statistic.

But the beauty of baseball is there isn't one way to build a team. But having a guy like Rivera, Papelbon, K-Rod, Lidge when he's on... have made a huge difference. Shortens the game, it's a mental edge. Not just about racking up saves, it's about dominating and putting pressure on your opponent.

RippedmyFlesh
05-26-2010, 07:57 PM
In 1985, he went 11-7 with a 3.08 E.R.A.. In 2004, he went 10-8 with a 3.03 E.R.A. after moving from Boston to Chicago (he was 14-12 with a 3.60 E.R.A. overall). He struggled in 1986 (6-11, 4.57), but but that's a far cry from "couldn't hack it as a starter anymore".

Eckersley is a great example of a starter being extremely successful after transitioning to a closer. He just doesn't belong on the list of players who couldn't hack it as starters. It's a lousy example.
Eck wasn't extremely successful as a starter.
Forget #'s he was twice the quality as a RP as compared to his starting.
As a RP he had a 5 year run as the best in the business. He wasn't near as dominant as a starter.

RippedmyFlesh
05-26-2010, 08:26 PM
I'd probably ignore him if I were you as well. And Eckersley. And Gossage. And Rivera. and Fingers. and Smith. And Franco. and Myers....

If I were making the claims you're making right about now, I'd probably make sure not to give a shit about pretty much any reliever in baseball history.

I'd have a lot stronger ground to stand on that way.
Trying to win a ring in baseball without a dominant closer is like
trying to win a ring in fb without a franchise qb.