PDA

View Full Version : ....and the Twins' new closer is....


DumpJerry
04-02-2010, 04:38 PM
Jon Rauch. (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/04/twins-name-rauch-to-replace-nathan-as-closer.html)

This should be interesting.

thedudeabides
04-02-2010, 04:51 PM
I just got a little more excited about this season.

Boondock Saint
04-02-2010, 05:18 PM
:bandance: :moonwalk::bandance:

HomeFish
04-02-2010, 05:19 PM
Careful with the gloating. Our own closer position is perilous.

DumpJerry
04-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Careful with the gloating. Our own closer position is perilous.
Coming from you, I'll sleep easy tonight.

Boondock Saint
04-02-2010, 05:25 PM
Careful with the gloating. Our own closer position is perilous.

Yeah, I can see how the two are at all comparable, seeing as how Jenks has more saves in any season than Rauch has in his entire career.

oeo
04-02-2010, 05:27 PM
Rauch was great for them when they acquired him but in his career has been pretty mediocre for the most part. I don't think this will last long.

Corlose 15
04-02-2010, 05:32 PM
Yeah, I can see how the two are at all comparable, seeing as how Jenks has more saves in any season than Rauch has in his entire career.

As well as the fact that they have a guy who was one of the most dominant closers in the league 2 seasons ago setting him up.

Corlose 15
04-02-2010, 05:35 PM
Rauch was great for them when they acquired him but in his career has been pretty mediocre for the most part. I don't think this will last long.

He's 26/44 in career save opportunities.

This is big if for no other reason than Rauch isn't Nathan. Even if Rauch does well, which I don't think he will, Nathan was as close to automatic as it gets. The Twins don't have that luxury anymore.

asindc
04-02-2010, 05:44 PM
He's 26/44 in career save opportunities.

This is big if for no other reason than Rauch isn't Nathan. Even if Rauch does well, which I don't think he will, Nathan was as close to automatic as it gets. The Twins don't have that luxury anymore.

This. There are only 1 or 2 other guys who could replace Nathan with the same production at this point, and they don't play for Minny.

mzh
04-02-2010, 07:44 PM
:supernana:

Over/Under until this explodes: 15 Save opps.
I'm not totally writing him off, but when was the last time a decent/mediocre middle reliever turned into a good closer at age 32?

munchman33
04-02-2010, 08:31 PM
Careful with the gloating. Our own closer position is perilous.

For once HomeFish, I completely agree with you.

munchman33
04-02-2010, 08:32 PM
Yeah, I can see how the two are at all comparable, seeing as how Jenks has more saves in any season than Rauch has in his entire career.

That's one of of looking at it. The other would be to look at the trends in Bobby's numbers are realize he's not that guy anymore.

dickallen15
04-02-2010, 09:02 PM
He's 26/44 in career save opportunities.

This is big if for no other reason than Rauch isn't Nathan. Even if Rauch does well, which I don't think he will, Nathan was as close to automatic as it gets. The Twins don't have that luxury anymore.

He's a pretty mediocre pitcher, and he's certainly not Nathan, but guys who have been middle relievers just about all have horrendous save opportunity percentages because they get very little chance to actually get a save. Matt Thornton is 9/28 for example. Its a little misleading.

munchman33
04-02-2010, 09:18 PM
He's a pretty mediocre pitcher, and he's certainly not Nathan, but guys who have been middle relievers just about all have horrendous save opportunity percentages because they get very little chance to actually get a save. Matt Thornton is 9/28 for example. Its a little misleading.

That's a really good point that's easy to overlook. Not that I think Rauch is a good option as a closer, save percentage for a middle reliever is not something to look at.

doublem23
04-02-2010, 09:24 PM
:supernana:

Over/Under until this explodes: 15 Save opps.
I'm not totally writing him off, but when was the last time a decent/mediocre middle reliever turned into a good closer at age 32?

Joe Nathan didn't become a dominant closer until he was 29.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/nathajo01.shtml

We'll see what happens with Rauch. That intangible it takes to be a dynamic closer really is something that cannot be measured until you put a guy in the pressure cooker. Some guys have it, some guys don't. That said, I would have preferred they stuck with a closer by committee instead of naming someone "the Guy." The less definition you have in your bullpen, usually, the worse off you are.

Craig Grebeck
04-02-2010, 09:28 PM
He might do well. Really.

mzh
04-02-2010, 09:43 PM
Joe Nathan didn't become a dominant closer until he was 29.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/nathajo01.shtml

We'll see what happens with Rauch. That intangible it takes to be a dynamic closer really is something that cannot be measured until you put a guy in the pressure cooker. Some guys have it, some guys don't. That said, I would have preferred they stuck with a closer by committee instead of naming someone "the Guy." The less definition you have in your bullpen, usually, the worse off you are.
Name another.

29 is very different from 32. 29 should be right at the heart of a guy's prime, whereas a 32 year old is the end of that, starting to climb over the hill. also, Nathan always had the stuff to be excellent. his first full season as a reliever he was pretty damn good for SF, he just happened to be a slightly better closer than setup guy.

doublem23
04-02-2010, 10:09 PM
Name another.

29 is very different from 32. 29 should be right at the heart of a guy's prime, whereas a 32 year old is the end of that, starting to climb over the hill. also, Nathan always had the stuff to be excellent. his first full season as a reliever he was pretty damn good for SF, he just happened to be a slightly better closer than setup guy.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eckerde01.shtml

Dennis Eckersley didn't reinvent himself as a closer until he was 32, and didn't become dominant until he was 33.

Look, I'm not saying Rauch is the next Nathan or Eckersley or that he'll even do a good job, but discounting the guy just because he's never closed before is crazy. Closing is unlike anything else in baseball, some guys just have it and some guys don't, and often that's not known until a guy reaches the Majors because guys talented enough to make it to the Show don't pitch in the bullpen in high school, college, and even minors quite often.

gobears1987
04-02-2010, 10:15 PM
In other news, thousands of people rushed to Vegas to place bets on the White Sox winning the Central.

mzh
04-02-2010, 10:17 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eckerde01.shtml

Dennis Eckersley didn't reinvent himself as a closer until he was 32, and didn't become dominant until he was 33.
Again, totally different. From 1975 through 1986, Eck won 152 games as a starter. He was pretty damn good as a starter, and theres a good chance he would have won 300 games if he hadn't made the switch and gone into the hall anyway. He's on par with John Smoltz, dominant all-around pitcher who happened to be a closer for quite a while.

SOXSINCE'70
04-02-2010, 10:23 PM
Can't wait to see him face TCQ with the bases loaded.:bandance::bandance:

munchman33
04-02-2010, 10:30 PM
Can't wait to see him face TCQ with the bases loaded.:bandance::bandance:

We'll need three guys in our lineup with decent OBP other than TCQ for that to happen.

doublem23
04-02-2010, 10:40 PM
Again, totally different. From 1975 through 1986, Eck won 152 games as a starter. He was pretty damn good as a starter, and theres a good chance he would have won 300 games if he hadn't made the switch and gone into the hall anyway. He's on par with John Smoltz, dominant all-around pitcher who happened to be a closer for quite a while.

Whatever, dude, you're only point was that Rauch is destined to fail because he's 32; plenty of closers bloom late. Keith Foulke didn't start closing regularly for the Sox until midway in 2000, when he was 27. Brian Fuentes lead the American League last year in saves and didn't start closing until he was 29. Eddie Guardado had a great 2-year run for these very same Twins as a closer in 2002 and 2003, and he didn't start doing it full-time until he was 30. It happens.

I have no idea what will become of Jon Rauch the Closer, I know there's enough evidence to suggest he might be able to pull it off, though. And quite frankly, if there was an organization that could turn Rauch into a good closer, the Twins would probably be it.

mzh
04-02-2010, 11:34 PM
Whatever, dude, you're only point was that Rauch is destined to fail because he's 32; plenty of closers bloom late. Keith Foulke didn't start closing regularly for the Sox until midway in 2000, when he was 27. Brian Fuentes lead the American League last year in saves and didn't start closing until he was 29. Eddie Guardado had a great 2-year run for these very same Twins as a closer in 2002 and 2003, and he didn't start doing it full-time until he was 30. It happens.

I have no idea what will become of Jon Rauch the Closer, I know there's enough evidence to suggest he might be able to pull it off, though. And quite frankly, if there was an organization that could turn Rauch into a good closer, the Twins would probably be it.
I wouldn't put it past them, but not only is Rauch 32, he's never been as good period as some of those guys, therefore I think he's likely to fail. Only point I'm trying to make, I didn't mean to state opinion as fact.

cws05champ
04-03-2010, 09:15 AM
I remember when I was excited about him being Minor League pitcher of the year for the White Sox....

Frater Perdurabo
04-03-2010, 09:21 AM
I am sure the Twins will maximize his abilities. They are a team that has not had a bad year in a long time because they do many things right. But Rauch is no Nathan, and anyone who thinks he's anywhere close is delusional. That said, their offense may cover up some of their pitching woes.

doublem23
04-03-2010, 09:28 AM
I am sure the Twins will maximize his abilities. They are a team that has not had a bad year in a long time because they do many things right. But Rauch is no Nathan, and anyone who thinks he's anywhere close is delusional. That said, their offense may cover up some of their pitching woes.

I don't think anyone has said Rauch will be the next Nathan... Hell, I don't think anyone has even come out and said Rauch will be a successful closer. The most anyone has said about Jon is that if he were to succeed in the role, he wouldn't be the first pitcher in MLB history to start closing later in his career and succeed.

Brian26
04-03-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm not totally writing him off, but when was the last time a decent/mediocre middle reliever turned into a good closer at age 32?

I bet there are more than you think (or more than you are remembering). Often times, pitchers aren't groomed to be closers....it just happens out of necessity or odd circumstances.

Most recently: Bob Wickman, Joe Borowski, Dustin Hermanson, ....we could name many if we sat down and thought about it.

Brian26
04-03-2010, 09:35 AM
Actually, the best example just popped into my head, and coincidentally he was also on the Twins:

Eddie Guardado.

doublem23
04-03-2010, 09:36 AM
Actually, the best example just popped into my head, and coincidentally he was also on the Twins:

Eddie Guardado.

Someone's only 6 posts behind in this thread. :cool:

Brian26
04-03-2010, 09:39 AM
Someone's only 6 posts behind in this thread. :cool:

I'm trying to catch up :tongue:

oeo
04-03-2010, 04:26 PM
JJ Putz is another example. Mariano Rivera didn't become a full-time closer until he was 27.

Closers usually come on around 30 and they have a short lifespan. The Bobby Jenks and Jonathan Papelbons of the world are less likely to happen. Probably has a lot to do with teams not wanting to push a talented pitcher into a closers role while they're still young.

I really don't think Rauch is that good, though.

goon
04-03-2010, 05:04 PM
I'm not happy it's Rauch closing games, I'm just happy it isn't Nathan.

delben91
04-03-2010, 06:50 PM
We'll need three guys in our lineup with decent OBP other than TCQ for that to happen.

You're probably right, the Sox will never load the bases the whole season... :whiner: