Why is baseball discussion revolve around acronyms?

[Captain Obvious]

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.

You're right, it's not like Woody can close... it's not like he's done it for this team before or anything.

I agree, a team needs a good closer. However, that does not mean that you have to have your best reliever there, because that is a waste of your best reliever. Your best reliever should be a SU guy, who can come in and strand runners. Marmol is that guy.

A special individual? What makes a pitcher a special individual?

The fact of the matter is that you will get more value out of Marms in a SU role.

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

You're right, it's not like Woody can close... it's not like he's done it for this team before or anything.

I agree, a team needs a good closer. However, that does not mean that you have to have your best reliever there, because that is a waste of your best reliever. Your best reliever should be a SU guy, who can come in and strand runners. Marmol is that guy.

A special individual? What makes a pitcher a special individual?

The fact of the matter is that you will get more value out of Marms in a SU role.

 

[DewsSox79]

x2.

 

[Captain Obvious]

How do you guys not get this?

CLOSERS ARE OVERRATED.

There is nothing so special about the ninth inning that you need to have one specific guy to pitch that inning. While the game may be "on the line" in a close game in the 9th, the game can also be "on the line" in the sixth inning of a 2-2 game if the bases are loaded with nobody out. It's easy to remember the closer's strike out that ends the game, but the other 26 outs recorded that game were important too.

 

[DewsSox79]

How do you guys not get this?

CLOSERS ARE OVERRATED.

There is nothing so special about the ninth inning that you need to have one specific guy to pitch that inning. While the game may be "on the line" in a close game in the 9th, the game can also be "on the line" in the sixth inning of a 2-2 game if the bases are loaded with nobody out. It's easy to remember the closer's strike out that ends the game, but the other 26 outs recorded that game were important too.

If you want to debate things, that is fine. but try to debate things that are reasonable, have sustance, and arent baiting for reaction. you posts time and time again have been shown in your post patterns to create these fictious debates over things that have no relevancy. none, zero, nadda, get it?

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

How do you guys not get this?

CLOSERS ARE OVERRATED.

There is nothing so special about the ninth inning that you need to have one specific guy to pitch that inning. While the game may be "on the line" in a close game in the 9th, the game can also be "on the line" in the sixth inning of a 2-2 game if the bases are loaded with nobody out. It's easy to remember the closer's strike out that ends the game, but the other 26 outs recorded that game were important too.

Closers are overrated but you're arguing the total wrong point as to why.

 

[Captain Obvious]

If you want to debate things, that is fine. but try to debate things that are reasonable, have sustance, and arent baiting for reaction. you posts time and time again have been shown in your post patterns to create these fictious debates over things that have no relevancy. none, zero, nadda, get it?

This is reasonable. This has sustance... whatever the hell that is. And it's not baiting. I'm simply saying that the closer is overrated and Marmol should be our set up guy. What is so wrong about that? Instead of bitching about it, why don't you just talk sports? That's what we're trying to do here.

There are sooooo many studies that have been done that say the closer is useless, yet you still refuse to believe this?

 

[Captain Obvious]

Closers are overrated but you're arguing the total wrong point as to why.

What is the right way then?

Here is another great excerpt from an article on why closers are overrated

Sometimes using a closer in "save situations" can even be a detriment to your team. The closer is normally the best reliever on the team but the ninth inning is rarely the spot when you need to use your best reliever. Let's take my New York Mets as an example.

Let's say some other team is playing the New York Mets. It's the eighth inning, it's a one run lead and David Wright is up to bat. Why hold onto your closer until the ninth inning? Wouldn't you rather use your best reliever against David Wright, Carlos Delgado and Carlos Beltran and let one of your weaker pitchers face Fernando Tatis, Damien Easley, Nick Evans, Ramon Castro, Brian Schneider, Endy Chavez, Argenis Reyes or whoever else the Mets come up with to bat sixth through ninth? If the "closer" gives up a few hits in the 8th and the weaker reliever does get around to Jose Reyes in the ninth then oh well, at least you put the game in the hands of your best pitcher.

Now let's reverse the roles. Let's say the Mets are the pitching team this time. It's the eighth inning and the other team has their three best hitters up to bat. Billy Wagner has had some rocky times this season, but I'd still rather put him in that position in the eighth inning than anybody else in the bullpen and then let the weaker relievers face weaker hitters. Again, maybe Billy Wagner has one of his bad nights and he loses the game, or maybe they get just enough hits against Wagner to get to the meat of the order in the next inning against the weaker pitcher. But at least in that scenario the Mets put the game in the hands of Billy Wagner and not Scott Schoeneweis, Joe Smith, Pedro Feliciano, Aaron Heilman or Duaner Sanchez.

Closers - the Most Overrated and Useless Position in Baseball, Page 2 of 3 - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

 

[DewsSox79]

ok.

 

[Captain Obvious]

ok.

I love how you put me in your sig and you have posted absolutely nothing of substance(or is it sustance? ) to refute that idea LOL!
:classic:

 

[DewsSox79]

I love how you put me in your sig and you have posted absolutely nothing of substance(or is it sustance? ) to refute that idea LOL!
:classic:

Cool.

 

[AddisonStation]

I thought Marmol was much more valuable as a set up man. Even though I knew it wouldn't happen I wanted him to stay in that role. He's one of the few guys I felt good about coming in with inherited runners.

This doesn't mean I don't think he is valuable as a closer but saving Marmol for a save situation seems counter productive to me if the biggest spot in the game is on the line and he never gets that chance.

 

[Captain Obvious]

I thought Marmol was much more valuable as a set up man. Even though I knew it wouldn't happen I wanted him to stay in that role. He's one of the few guys I felt good about coming in with inherited runners.

This doesn't mean I don't think he is valuable as a closer but saving Marmol for a save situation seems counter productive to me if the biggest spot in the game is on the line and he never gets that chance.

:win:

 

[AddisonStation]

I would love to see a manager ignore a players stats and put in his best reliever in the games most important moment.

 

[DewsSox79]

I would love to see a manager ignore a players stats and put in his best reliever in the games most important moment.

but but but....CO wants a computer or robot or whatever instead of a coach, and that computer will go by stats. funny shit that he thanked ya.

 

[Captain Obvious]

but but but....CO wants a computer or robot or whatever instead of a coach, and that computer will go by stats. funny shit that he thanked ya.

Right, because we can reasonably expect to see computers as managers within the next decade or so.

 

[AddisonStation]

Wait.... La Russa isn't a robot? I swear he and coach K have looked the same for decades. They have to be robots.

 

[tbo41fan]

Cool. Good for you. What if a kids opinion is the same as yours? Going with the MLB managers still?

All I am saying is that managers have little to no positive effect on a team. I would rather have a computer be the manager than a human, because the computer doesn't have bias.

I don't see how you can defend some of these manager's moves. Just because I am a kid, doesn't mean I am wrong. Unless you think that Koyie Hill is better than Geovany Soto, or that Marmol should be the closer, or that batting DeWitt in the top half of the line-up makes sense, in which case, you need to get your head evaluated.

Yes, even if the opinion is the same, I will trust the person who knows the game better than me, and watches this team more than I do day in and day out

Seriously? A computer over human? What bias would this eliminate?

Being a kid doesn't make you wrong, but it makes your argument have no weight to it because the MANAGER is smarter at understanding the game than you are, and knows more about the game than you do

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?

How do you know it will hurt us?

This is reasonable. This has sustance... whatever the hell that is. And it's not baiting. I'm simply saying that the closer is overrated and Marmol should be our set up guy. What is so wrong about that? Instead of bitching about it, why don't you just talk sports? That's what we're trying to do here.

There are sooooo many studies that have been done that say the closer is useless, yet you still refuse to believe this?

There have also been people who say the holocaust didnt happen, and you still say it happened?

Just because people are saying it's not important doesn't make it automatically wrong

 

[Lefty]

How do you guys not get this?

CLOSERS ARE OVERRATED.

There is nothing so special about the ninth inning that you need to have one specific guy to pitch that inning. While the game may be "on the line" in a close game in the 9th, the game can also be "on the line" in the sixth inning of a 2-2 game if the bases are loaded with nobody out. It's easy to remember the closer's strike out that ends the game, but the other 26 outs recorded that game were important too.

Well, if you keep Marmol in the set-up role, as you have stated should be the case, he won't get to pitch in those situations just the same as if he was the closer. If you can provide data that illustrates an inordinate number of "close situations" occur in one inning over another, then arguing that using Marmol to strictly pitch in the late-8th/9th inning is a bad idea would be a valid concern. However, seeing as how we the choice has to be one one-inning (more than likely) role over another, then your argument against Marmol being the closer and in favor of remaining the set-up man is superfluous: he will miss situations that would be best-addressed by a "relief ace" in both spots, probably the same amount, or close to it.

If you are arguing that Marmol should be the one called upon when the situation is dire, regardless of inning, then you have a point (which I agree with). But again, arguing for that is different than saying explicitly that Marmol shouldn't be the closer in favor of remaining in his current role.

 

[Jntg4]

Well, if you keep Marmol in the set-up role, as you have stated should be the case, he won't get to pitch in those situations just the same as if he was the closer. If you can provide data that illustrates an inordinate number of "close situations" occur in one inning over another, then arguing that using Marmol to strictly pitch in the late-8th/9th inning is a bad idea would be a valid concern. However, seeing as how we the choice has to be one one-inning (more than likely) role over another, then your argument against Marmol being the closer and in favor of remaining the set-up man is superfluous: he will miss situations that would be best-addressed by a "relief ace" in both spots, probably the same amount, or close to it.

If you are arguing that Marmol should be the one called upon when the situation is dire, regardless of inning, then you have a point (which I agree with). But again, arguing for that is different than saying explicitly that Marmol shouldn't be the closer in favor of remaining in his current role.

But there's been "studies". CO, if the studies you were referring to were al like the one you quoted, that is a rant, not a study.