PDA

View Full Version : Sox Army: Vote Jenks "Delivery Man of the Year"


chisoxfanatic
10-09-2008, 10:35 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/fan_forum/dhl/2008/award.jsp

We here at WSI are great at voting early and often, so why not do it another time! Let's make sure Bobby Jenks wins "Delivery Man of the Year." I've already filled out the form a few times and will continue doing so.

nasox
10-09-2008, 11:50 PM
Too bad he doesn't deserve it.

DaveFeelsRight
10-10-2008, 12:10 AM
its no use cause k-rod is going to win it anyway

Eddo144
10-10-2008, 08:36 AM
its no use cause k-rod is going to win it anyway
Gag me.

While I don't deny that your prediction is probably right, Rodriguez is so undeserving it's not even funny. Any of the other nominees could have saved 62 games if they had the number of chances he did. And most all of them have better peripheral numbers that Rodriguez.

Soria had a much better year: a 1.60 ERA, .861 WHIP (!), 42/45 in save opportunities (which translates to over 64 saves if he had as many chances (69) as Rodriguez).

Rivera also had his best season to date: a 1.40 ERA, .665 WHIP (!!), 39/40 in save opportunities (translates to >67/69).

Rodriguez, on the other hand: a 2.24 ERA, 1.288 WHIP, 62/69 in save opportunities.

I'd probably vote for Soria, to give him some recognition, but Rivera probably had the best year.

pythons007
10-10-2008, 08:55 AM
Gag me.

While I don't deny that your prediction is probably right, Rodriguez is so undeserving it's not even funny. Any of the other nominees could have saved 62 games if they had the number of chances he did. And most all of them have better peripheral numbers that Rodriguez.

Soria had a much better year: a 1.60 ERA, .861 WHIP (!), 42/45 in save opportunities (which translates to over 64 saves if he had as many chances (69) as Rodriguez).

Rivera also had his best season to date: a 1.40 ERA, .665 WHIP (!!), 39/40 in save opportunities (translates to >67/69).

Rodriguez, on the other hand: a 2.24 ERA, 1.288 WHIP, 62/69 in save opportunities.

I'd probably vote for Soria, to give him some recognition, but Rivera probably had the best year.

Saves are so over rated as a category in baseball. I mean give me a break with some of the opportunities he had this year. Never pitched more than an inning and some of the saves were a 1/3 or 2/3 of an inning. This guy deserves this award like he needs to add to his artard "point to the sky, scream like a monkey, show up the opposing team" dance he does after saves.

He had a decent ERA whip is god awful for a closer and again with nearly 70 save opportunities there are plenty of closers out there that would record 60+ saves. I hate this guy with a passion!

btrain929
10-10-2008, 09:00 AM
Too bad he doesn't deserve it.

+1, if we're being honest.

soxfan43
10-10-2008, 09:19 AM
Should goto Brad LIdge. Didn't blow a save all year.

Rohan
10-10-2008, 10:04 AM
saves are so over rated as a category in baseball. I mean give me a break with some of the opportunities he had this year. Never pitched more than an inning and some of the saves were a 1/3 or 2/3 of an inning. This guy deserves this award like he needs to add to his artard "point to the sky, scream like a monkey, show up the opposing team" dance he does after saves.

He had a decent era whip is god awful for a closer and again with nearly 70 save opportunities there are plenty of closers out there that would record 60+ saves. I hate this guy with a passion!

ahaha

ChiSoxGirl
10-10-2008, 10:53 PM
Should goto Brad LIdge. Didn't blow a save all year.

No taste in his mouth this year, I guess.... :wink:

sullythered
10-11-2008, 02:47 AM
Gag me.

While I don't deny that your prediction is probably right, Rodriguez is so undeserving it's not even funny. Any of the other nominees could have saved 62 games if they had the number of chances he did. And most all of them have better peripheral numbers that Rodriguez.

Soria had a much better year: a 1.60 ERA, .861 WHIP (!), 42/45 in save opportunities (which translates to over 64 saves if he had as many chances (69) as Rodriguez).

Rivera also had his best season to date: a 1.40 ERA, .665 WHIP (!!), 39/40 in save opportunities (translates to >67/69).

Rodriguez, on the other hand: a 2.24 ERA, 1.288 WHIP, 62/69 in save opportunities.

I'd probably vote for Soria, to give him some recognition, but Rivera probably had the best year.
Holy crap, I didn't realize that! That has got to be some kinda record.

twentywontowin
10-11-2008, 08:02 AM
Holy crap, I didn't realize that! That has got to be some kinda record.

I don't know if they keep the record for relievers, but Pedro Martinez had a WHIP of 0.737, which is the single season record for starters.

128 hits and 32 walks in 217 innings in 2000. Probably one of the most dominant pitching seasons in history.

soxinem1
10-11-2008, 08:36 AM
Saves are so over rated as a category in baseball. I mean give me a break with some of the opportunities he had this year. Never pitched more than an inning and some of the saves were a 1/3 or 2/3 of an inning. This guy deserves this award like he needs to add to his artard "point to the sky, scream like a monkey, show up the opposing team" dance he does after saves.

He had a decent ERA whip is god awful for a closer and again with nearly 70 save opportunities there are plenty of closers out there that would record 60+ saves. I hate this guy with a passion!

I agree with you about his personality and hot-dog-ness, but other than Mariano Rivera, how many closers been better for such a long stretch?

He's one of the few that makes the fans leave in the 9th when LAAAAAA is on the road.

Besides, 62 out of 70 is nearly a 90% sucess rate.

Closers in general have short shelf life, and his best may well be in the past, but some team will over pay for him and get at least another two or three years out of him.

Billy Ashley
10-12-2008, 01:26 AM
K-Rod's gonna win this even though he's not even in the top five as far as closers go.

My ballot:

1: Soria
2: Nathan
3:Rivera
4: Papelbon
5: Jenks

Saves are so useless in viewing a pitchers wealth. As is save percentage. More so, the role of a closer is so overblown over the regular season. It does help to have a shut down closer in the play offs but over 162 games, I doubt Boston or Chicago would have had significantly worse records with a lesser closer like K-Rod this season. Additionally, while Soria was lights out this year... his contributions were essentially meaningless to a team that was never in contention anyway.

The class of closers in the AL the last couple of seasons has been Rivera, Papelbon, Nathan. Rivera, despite his greatness is grossly overpaid and a waste of resources for any one other than a perennial play off contributer. Nathan, and Papelbon will soon also be too expensive to be worth having for their respective clubs.

In short- Closers are really stupid unless you need a shut down inning in a high lev. spot in October. Other than that, trade me a solid number 3 starter for the best closer in baseball any day.

Eddo144
10-12-2008, 08:46 AM
Besides, 62 out of 70 is nearly a 90% sucess rate.
Which isn't that impressive. Teams win something like 95% of games they lead after 9 innings, and it has been pointed out that other closers on this list have a much greater than 90% success rate.

Billy Ashley
10-12-2008, 11:41 AM
Which isn't that impressive. Teams win something like 95% of games they lead after 9 innings, and it has been pointed out that other closers on this list have a much greater than 90% success rate.


And save percentage is also useless. A 3 run save is a lot different than a 2 run save. If Jenks is forced to come in on the 8th inning of a game for a 2 inning save with a man on third and no one out, he shouldn't be punished for the runner scoring on a sac fly. A runner on 3rd with no outs is going to score more times than not.

Conversely, Jenks shouldn't get credit for coming in with a three run lead in the 9th and allowing 2 runs over the inning. It's a stupid superficial statistic.

The best way to judge a closer is by looking at K per 9, Walks per 9, HR per 9, WHIP and ERA. Given the relatively small sample that we're looking at- the ERA and WHIP are going to be highly volatile, however it's still more useful than saves and save chances.

Closers are really overrated. A 70 win team with an elite closer is still likely a 70 win team. They have extra value in the post season (given that managers actually use them correctly in the post season) but they're still not worth paying a ton of money for unless you're a team like the Yankees who can afford to do just about anything.

turners56
10-12-2008, 04:40 PM
Too bad he doesn't deserve it.

Ditto.

Sox4ever77
10-12-2008, 04:49 PM
K-Rod's gonna win this even though he's not even in the top five as far as closers go.

My ballot:

1: Soria
2: Nathan
3:Rivera
4: Papelbon
5: Jenks

Saves are so useless in viewing a pitchers wealth. As is save percentage. More so, the role of a closer is so overblown over the regular season. It does help to have a shut down closer in the play offs but over 162 games, I doubt Boston or Chicago would have had significantly worse records with a lesser closer like K-Rod this season. Additionally, while Soria was lights out this year... his contributions were essentially meaningless to a team that was never in contention anyway.

The class of closers in the AL the last couple of seasons has been Rivera, Papelbon, Nathan. Rivera, despite his greatness is grossly overpaid and a waste of resources for any one other than a perennial play off contributer. Nathan, and Papelbon will soon also be too expensive to be worth having for their respective clubs.

In short- Closers are really stupid unless you need a shut down inning in a high lev. spot in October. Other than that, trade me a solid number 3 starter for the best closer in baseball any day.


This is such BS. While there should be some changes to the save rule, ask the Mets what it's like to not have their closer.

turners56
10-12-2008, 04:52 PM
This is such BS. While there should be some changes to the save rule, ask the Mets what it's like to not have their closer.

I agree. Look what happened to us when Bobby was out. Linebrink sucked ass.

Billy Ashley
10-12-2008, 06:05 PM
This is such BS. While there should be some changes to the save rule, ask the Mets what it's like to not have their closer.


The mets had a shallow bullpen, losing Wagner sucked because it made it even thinner. If they had adequate personnel the loss of Wagner would not have hurt that much. Additionally they Mets played exactly to their pythag record despite an awful pen. I'm unconvinced that the Mets lost because of a shoddy bullpen.

They lost because they're not a great team.

Billy Ashley
10-12-2008, 06:11 PM
I agree. Look what happened to us when Bobby was out. Linebrink sucked ass.


And how many more games would the White Sox have won had Jenks not been hurt? For the season the White Sox also matched their expected win total as far as run differential. The White Sox and the Mets are very good examples of how closers don't really add or subtract many wins for a team.

The white sox had a boarder line elite closer for most the year and didn't exceed their expected win total. The mets had bullpen issues all year and won as many as we should expect.

A great closer provides tremendous run prevention for 70 innings. How many wins is that worth? Not many.

pythons007
10-12-2008, 07:52 PM
The mets had a shallow bullpen, losing Wagner sucked because it made it even thinner. If they had adequate personnel the loss of Wagner would not have hurt that much. Additionally they Mets played exactly to their pythag record despite an awful pen. I'm unconvinced that the Mets lost because of a shoddy bullpen.

They lost because they're not a great team.

I beg to differ. The Mets bullpen cost them the Division and the Wild Card. Down the stretch they were neck and neck with Philly, and then just blew it for the Wild Card. If the Mets could have had some kind of bullpen they would have at minimum won the Wild Card.

I think if you take a look at how many games their pen blew late in the season (after Wagner went down), you will probably see their pen blew it for them.

turners56
10-12-2008, 08:00 PM
And how many more games would the White Sox have won had Jenks not been hurt? For the season the White Sox also matched their expected win total as far as run differential. The White Sox and the Mets are very good examples of how closers don't really add or subtract many wins for a team.

The white sox had a boarder line elite closer for most the year and didn't exceed their expected win total. The mets had bullpen issues all year and won as many as we should expect.

A great closer provides tremendous run prevention for 70 innings. How many wins is that worth? Not many.

In the case of K-Rod, that can be 62 games. Linebrink was 1/4 in saves. Although the Sox did win all three of the games he blew, that's extra work other guys in the bullpen had to do as well as the position players.

And I really don't know how expected win total comes into this. That's just an equation that includes runs allowed and runs scored. I don't know how that relates to a team's closer.

turners56
10-12-2008, 08:05 PM
I beg to differ. The Mets bullpen cost them the Division and the Wild Card. Down the stretch they were neck and neck with Philly, and then just blew it for the Wild Card. If the Mets could have had some kind of bullpen they would have at minimum won the Wild Card.

I think if you take a look at how many games their pen blew late in the season (after Wagner went down), you will probably see their pen blew it for them.

And on the other hand, the Phillies had a closer who was perfect in save situations.

If you look at all the playoff teams this season, with the exception of the Rays and Brewers, every team had a good/great closer.

Red Sox - Papelbon
White Sox - Jenks
Rays - Closer by committee
Angels - Rodriguez

Cubs - Wood
Dodgers - Broxton
Phillies - Lidge
Brewers - Torres

Eddo144
10-12-2008, 10:13 PM
In the case of K-Rod, that can be 62 games. Linebrink was 1/4 in saves. Although the Sox did win all three of the games he blew, that's extra work other guys in the bullpen had to do as well as the position players.

And I really don't know how expected win total comes into this. That's just an equation that includes runs allowed and runs scored. I don't know how that relates to a team's closer.
So you're saying that the Angels would have lost all 62 games that Rodriguez saved? I beg to differ.

He had 69 save opportunities, as the Angels were a good team. If they had a league-average closer, I'd guess he'd save ~55 games (~80%). So K-Rod (:rolleyes:) was worth about 7 wins on the year. So if he has a $7 million dollar contract, he was worth $1 million per win. That seems rather high.

Eddo144
10-12-2008, 10:27 PM
And on the other hand, the Phillies had a closer who was perfect in save situations.

If you look at all the playoff teams this season, with the exception of the Rays and Brewers, every team had a good/great closer.

Red Sox - Papelbon
White Sox - Jenks
Rays - Closer by committee
Angels - Rodriguez

Cubs - Wood
Dodgers - Broxton
Phillies - Lidge
Brewers - Torres
So, 75% of the playoff teams had a good/great closer. Let's look at all 30 teams:

TAM: Wheeler/Percival
BOS: Papelbon***
NYY: Rivera***
TOR: Ryan***
BAL: Sherril***
CHW:Jenks***
MIN: Nathan***
CLE: Borowski/others
KCR: Soria***
LAA: Rodriguez***
TEX: Wilson
OAK: Street/Ziegler***
SEA: Putz***

PHI: Lidge***
NYM: Wagner***/others
FLA: Gregg
ATL: Gonzalez
WAS: Rauch/Hanrahan
CHC: Wood***
MIL: Torres
HOU: Valverde***
STL: Franklin/Isringhausen***
CIN: Cordero***
PIT: Capps
LAD: Broxton***
ARI: Lyon
COL: Fuentes***
SFG: Wilson
SDP: Hoffman***

I get 19 out of 30 teams with a good/great closer (signified by "***"). That's just over 63% of all teams, so I doubt getting 6/8 playoff teams with good/great closers is a very odd outcome.

Sox4ever77
10-12-2008, 11:56 PM
The mets had a shallow bullpen, losing Wagner sucked because it made it even thinner. If they had adequate personnel the loss of Wagner would not have hurt that much. Additionally they Mets played exactly to their pythag record despite an awful pen. I'm unconvinced that the Mets lost because of a shoddy bullpen.

They lost because they're not a great team.


This is BS too. No matter who stat nerds think or say, there is more pressure for closers. Some guys are great setup men but can't handle the pressures of closing games. If Wagner is healthy, he saves at least 3-4 of those games the Mets bullpen blew. That wins the division.

Billy Ashley
10-13-2008, 07:31 AM
So you're saying that the Angels would have lost all 62 games that Rodriguez saved? I beg to differ.

He had 69 save opportunities, as the Angels were a good team. If they had a league-average closer, I'd guess he'd save ~55 games (~80%). So K-Rod (:rolleyes:) was worth about 7 wins on the year. So if he has a $7 million dollar contract, he was worth $1 million per win. That seems rather high.

Now way he was worth 7 wins this year. As someone already pointed out, teams win 90% of save opps regardless of who they have as their closer. Dare I say, K-Rod may have been worth maybe 1 win over the average closer this year.

The only closer this season to really have a massive impact was Lidge. Lidge had a super freaky kinda a year, it was like Gange, vintage Rivera, Nathan and Papelbon and Jenks of last season.

Billy Ashley
10-13-2008, 07:40 AM
This is BS too. No matter who stat nerds think or say, there is more pressure for closers. Some guys are great setup men but can't handle the pressures of closing games. If Wagner is healthy, he saves at least 3-4 of those games the Mets bullpen blew. That wins the division.

This is a strawman. When did I say that anyone could be a closer? I never did. However, I challenge you to give me ten examples of excellent non situational relievers with sustained success who have been given ample opportunity to close and blown it. I bet you can't.

Furthermore, why is the mythical closer role so important. Many of those games the Mets blew were in the 7th, and 8th innings along with the 9th. If Wagner was healthy would they have used him in a less traditional role, that of a relief ace? I doubt it.

This is where we get into the red meat of this debate. The game can just as easily be lost in the 7th inning as 9th. In fact, in many cases depending on the opposing teams line up, relievers will be in higher leverage situations prior to the ninth. However, due to the closer label, we rarely see guys like Rivera, Hoffman, Jenks, Papelbon, Nathan and so on used in these spots... as they're not save situations. However, they are at times much more important.

It's not a bid deal if you're the Dodgers and Saito is healthy. Atleast you can use Broxton who's already comparable to their closer. However if the White Sox have a game on the line in the seventh inning, I'm sure most of you would rather see Jenks instead of Dotel or Linebrink.

Finally, I already mentioned that losing Wagner hurt (just no where near the impact you believe) due to the fact that they had to replace a good reliever with a bad one, thus hurting the run prevention. Replacing 40 innings of good with 40 innings of crap will have an impact.

Eddo144
10-13-2008, 09:05 AM
Now way he was worth 7 wins this year. As someone already pointed out, teams win 90% of save opps regardless of who they have as their closer. Dare I say, K-Rod may have been worth maybe 1 win over the average closer this year.

The only closer this season to really have a massive impact was Lidge. Lidge had a super freaky kinda a year, it was like Gange, vintage Rivera, Nathan and Papelbon and Jenks of last season.
I actually agree with you Billy. I gave the generous 7-win estimate to at least get the other side to listen to my argument.

Why do you say Lidge had a massive impact? His WHIP was 1.226, hardly exceptional. I'd say Rivera and Soria both had better years.

Billy Ashley
10-13-2008, 09:17 AM
I actually agree with you Billy. I gave the generous 7-win estimate to at least get the other side to listen to my argument.

Why do you say Lidge had a massive impact? His WHIP was 1.226, hardly exceptional. I'd say Rivera and Soria both had better years.

I actually didn't realize it was that high. Noted, and the Lidge comment is taken back. I've just heard about how hittable he's been this season, serves me right for not checking the facts.

I guess that 40/40 was a product of good fortune more than anything else.