Why is baseball discussion revolve around acronyms?

[Jntg4]

So because they did stellar in their roles means that we should just keep them there, even if it isn't beneficial to the team? Marmol would have been the best set-up pitcher in the league last year.

Why shouldn't Wood be the closer?

He didn't do that well as closer in Cleveland, but really settled in as the set-up man for the Yankees.

And Marmol is more dominating than Marshall, and is the better closer IMO. Sure money is a concern, but I'll stick with the on-field performance over that.

 

[Captain Obvious]

He didn't do that well as closer in Cleveland, but really settled in as the set-up man for the Yankees.

And Marmol is more dominating than Marshall, and is the better closer IMO. Sure money is a concern, but I'll stick with the on-field performance over that.

So because he was good in 26 IP, he should be our set-up guy. Right.

You're right, Marms is more dominating than Marshall. Which is exactly why he should be a set-up guy. Your closer shouldn't be your best reliever, because closers have it easy. They come in with no one on and no on out about 90% of the time. Plus, he isn't even guaranteed to face the other teams best hitters. You should have your best reliever as a set-up guy, so that he can come in when you're in trouble. If you save him till the end of the game, you more than likely won't get his fullest potential.

What makes you think that the closer is sooo important anyway?

 

[Jntg4]

So because he was good in 26 IP, he should be our set-up guy. Right.

You're right, Marms is more dominating than Marshall. Which is exactly why he should be a set-up guy. Your closer shouldn't be your best reliever, because closers have it easy. They come in with no one on and no on out about 90% of the time. Plus, he isn't even guaranteed to face the other teams best hitters. You should have your best reliever as a set-up guy, so that he can come in when you're in trouble. If you save him till the end of the game, you more than likely won't get his fullest potential.

What makes you think that the closer is sooo important anyway?

Because if you have a shit closer you will have a lot of blown saves.

 

[Jntg4]

Wait, so Marian Rivera should be a setup guy then too? ???

 

[Captain Obvious]

Because if you have a shit closer you will have a lot of blown saves.

Where am I saying that we should have a shit closer? I'm not. I'm not at all. I'm saying our best reliever should be a set-up guy.

Wait, so Marian Rivera should be a setup guy then too? ???

I could go either way on him. He is the ONE closer that actually earns his paycheck year in and year out. But really, he could go either way. Not saying he should, not saying he shouldn't.

 

[Jntg4]

Where am I saying that we should have a shit closer? I'm not. I'm not at all. I'm saying our best reliever should be a set-up guy.


I could go either way on him. He is the ONE closer that actually earns his paycheck year in and year out. But really, he could go either way. Not saying he should, not saying he shouldn't.

Every team has their best reliever as their closer (except for maybe a few). You had some good points, but it's just not the way any team does it, so I don't see why one would need their head evaluated for thinking Marmol should be closer.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Every team has their best reliever as their closer (except for maybe a few). You had some good points, but it's just not the way any team does it, so I don't see why one would need their head evaluated for thinking Marmol should be closer.

Just because other teams do it, that means we should do it? If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, I guess I should too.

 

[waldo7239117]

Wow, this thread got off topic.

1st post in this thread out of 12 pages, lol. I just stayed out of it.

 

[Jntg4]

Just because other teams do it, that means we should do it? If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, I guess I should too.

Name 1 team in MLB history that you can prove intentionally chose to have their best reliever be SU instead of CL.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Name 1 team in MLB history that you can prove intentionally chose to have their best reliever be SU instead of CL.

You are missing the point. Just because everyone does it, does not mean that it is right. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

 

[Jntg4]

You are missing the point. Just because everyone does it, does not mean that it is right. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

It won't hurt us at all if every other team does it too. And maybe it will catch on someday.

 

[Captain Obvious]

It won't hurt us at all if every other team does it too. And maybe it will catch on someday.

How can you say that it won't hurt us? You don't know that at all. You are totally reaching in your ass and pulling out assumptions. But it may not hurt us, you could be right. But why waste an opportunity to be better than another team?

 

[Jntg4]

How can you say that it won't hurt us? You don't know that at all. You are totally reaching in your ass and pulling out assumptions. But it may not hurt us, you could be right. But why waste an opportunity to be better than another team?

Just saying that it has never struck the mind of a manager, if you think it is a good idea, send it to Muskt to tell the Cubs or FanGraphs to have them analyze it, IDK.

And I meant that if every team does it, we aren't hurt because everyone would be hurt at the same time.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Just saying that it has never struck the mind of a manager, if you think it is a good idea, send it to Muskt to tell the Cubs or FanGraphs to have them analyze it, IDK.

And I meant that if every team does it, we aren't hurt because everyone would be hurt at the same time.

You don't know that it has never struck the mind of a manager. Stop assuming random shit. I know it is a good "idea" because studies have been done. Plus, it doesn't take a whole lot of brainz to figure out that the closer is just another reliever.

If every team does it, that doesn't mean that each team is affected the same. Not every team has an identical bullpen, do they? Then they aren't affected the same. Still, if we have an opportunity to be better, we should take it. Should we not? Unless you want to lose, in which case, I heard the Pirates need a fan.

 

[Jntg4]

You don't know that it has never struck the mind of a manager. Stop assuming random shit. I know it is a good "idea" because studies have been done. Plus, it doesn't take a whole lot of brainz to figure out that the closer is just another reliever.

If every team does it, that doesn't mean that each team is affected the same. Not every team has an identical bullpen, do they? Then they aren't affected the same. Still, if we have an opportunity to be better, we should take it. Should we not? Unless you want to lose, in which case, I heard the Pirates need a fan.

Why the hell are we debating something that isn't even a factor in the offseason, you know Marmol is guaranteed the closer, right?

This is becoming another Randy Wells thread.

I'm done with this argument, if the Cubs actually consider it, I'll debate it again.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Why the hell are we debating something that isn't even a factor in the offseason, you know Marmol is guaranteed the closer, right?

This is becoming another Randy Wells thread.

I'm done with this argument, if the Cubs actually consider it, I'll debate it again.

You're right. We should just debate the same things over and over again. Yes, I know Marms is the guaranteed closer. Doesn't mean that he should be.

So you'll only talk about things if the Cubs are actually considering it? I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Jntg4]

You're right. We should just debate the same things over and over again. Yes, I know Marms is the guaranteed closer. Doesn't mean that he should be.

So you'll only talk about things if the Cubs are actually considering it? I'll keep that in mind.

Right now, I'd just rather debate about something that actually has a chance of happening, rather than theoretical ways to make the team better by reorganizing the bullpen.

 

[DewsSox79]

wait. what did i miss all day??

did I just hear that marmol shouldnt be the closer?

wow. this thread rocks!

marmol shouldnt be the closer. what a joke. im as well done with this thread. Let CO talk to himself about pointless things. There isnt even a rumor he wouldnt be the closer, but leave it up to CO to debate something irrelevant.

talk about pulling things from asses.

 

[Captain Obvious]

wait. what did i miss all day??

did I just hear that marmol shouldnt be the closer?

wow. this thread rocks!

marmol shouldnt be the closer. what a joke. im as well done with this thread. Let CO talk to himself about pointless things. There isnt even a rumor he wouldnt be the closer, but leave it up to CO to debate something irrelevant.

talk about pulling things from asses.

I'm just saying that in a perfect world, Marmol isn't our closer. Marshall or Wood is.

Since you seem to think the closer is so important, what makes the closer so special then?

 

[DewsSox79]

I'm just saying that in a perfect world, Marmol isn't our closer. Marshall or Wood is.

Since you seem to think the closer is so important, what makes the closer so special then?

not all RP pitchers can just be a closer. some of them simply cannot close games but can be effective in the 7th or 8th. steve stone says it best on 670 the score, "it takes a special individual who can close, and who can close well" but what does steve stone know

wood or marshall, get real.

well just since 2005 alone, WS winners all had a solid closer, i can go back more if you want.