PDA

View Full Version : Down with the closer!


kermittheefrog
01-09-2003, 02:47 AM
weeee!

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1489225.html

voodoochile
01-09-2003, 09:46 AM
Well, that will help reduce salaries across the board. No more big star in the bullpen = no more big salaries in the bullpen...

duke of dorwood
01-09-2003, 09:59 AM
This plan fails if your starters are not going well into the game regularly.

Foulke You
01-09-2003, 11:47 AM
Curious how World Series Champion Troy Percival was left off the list of elite closers in the game.

RKMeibalane
01-09-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Curious how World Series Champion Troy Percival was left off the list of elite closers in the game.

Perhaps Mo Vaughn was involved in the writing of the article.

hold2dibber
01-09-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
This plan fails if your starters are not going well into the game regularly.

Why?

hold2dibber
01-09-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, that will help reduce salaries across the board. No more big star in the bullpen = no more big salaries in the bullpen...

If this kind of thinking does take over and closers become a thing of the past, I'm guessing that further reduces the chances of guys like Gossage, Sutter and Lee Smith from getting into the HOF.

MarkEdward
01-09-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, that will help reduce salaries across the board. No more big star in the bullpen = no more big salaries in the bullpen...

Teams will still overpay for relievers. See Remlinger, Mike.

idseer
01-09-2003, 04:34 PM
it never made sense to me that one pitcher gets brought in to get the last 1 or 2 outs. it's over-managing idiots like manual that brought things to this point. and one result is that before long, that pitcher CAN'T pitch more than 1 inning (see k. foulke)!

if you have someone in the pen who is better than all the rest there (a rarity), by all means keep him for the later innings and use others as setups, but let the guy pitch a couple innings too! PLUS there's no reason he HAS to be the only one used to close out a game.

maybe the sox could make use of some MANAGING-by-committee too!

gogosoxgogo
01-09-2003, 05:54 PM
I second idseer's post.

I've thought this way ever since I knew about the game of baseball. I hate the closer role. It seems so stupid to me that you reserve someone to only use during certain, pre-determined situations. Why wouldn't you bring your best damn reliever in when the game is on the line! My example for this is in Game 6 (I think) of the World Series this year. Sosia would not bring Percival in before the 9th! The game was on the line! Why don't you bring in your best pitcher to get out of it! It just doesn't make sense to me.

Foulke You
01-09-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I second idseer's post.

I've thought this way ever since I knew about the game of baseball. I hate the closer role. It seems so stupid to me that you reserve someone to only use during certain, pre-determined situations. Why wouldn't you bring your best damn reliever in when the game is on the line! My example for this is in Game 6 (I think) of the World Series this year. Sosia would not bring Percival in before the 9th! The game was on the line! Why don't you bring in your best pitcher to get out of it! It just doesn't make sense to me.

He also did the same thing in Game 1 of the ALDS versus the Yankees. Waited too long to bring in Percival and by then it was too late. I don't despise the closer role but I hate when managers are afraid the closer's arm might fall off if he pitched more than 1 inning per outing. For example, the Sox will most likely use Koch for 1 inning per outing much as they used Foulke. If you had a guy who can throw 100mph why not bring him in to get a free swinger like a Sosa who might be leading off the top of the 8th? Too many times managers make this mistake. They get into that "Acme Book of Managing" philosophy that Manuel so often uses. The best managers go with their gut. That's why guys like Larussa and (as much as I hate the guy) Pinella are good managers. They don't always follow the book.

WinningUgly!
01-09-2003, 06:31 PM
Instead of Urbina being designated for ninth-inning duty, the Sox will this season be able to call upon any number of options: Ramiro Mendoza, Alan Embree, Bobby Howry, Mike Timlin and Chad Fox.


They say closer-by-committee now, but I have a feeling that once they get into the season a bit, one of these guys will evolve into the everyday closer. Most good bullpens seem to work better once each player knows his role.

Tragg
01-10-2003, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
If this kind of thinking does take over and closers become a thing of the past, I'm guessing that further reduces the chances of guys like Gossage, Sutter and Lee Smith from getting into the HOF.

Those 3 had little chance anyway. They've been trying to get Jeff Reardon in for a while (was all time saves leader for a while), but no soap. And legitimately so - he wasn't a great pitcher.
The only closer I see worthy is Eckersley - and it's not because of his closing - it's because of a solid career as a starter PLUS a stellar career as a closer.
The next I'd pick is Sutter; when he was on, he was unhittable. Wasn't on for a sufficient period of time and got injured too early. But I can call him great, if only for an instant.
Smith and Gossage weren't great.
Of course, neither was Gary Carter, so my standards don't comport anyway.

maurice
01-14-2003, 03:20 PM
I never understood the need for "closers" or "lefty specialists." If the so-called "middle reliever" is pitching effectively, leave him in the game. I don't care which hand he pitches with or how hard he throws.