PDA

View Full Version : So, if you have a good fastball then you're a good closer?


Iguana775
08-13-2001, 09:27 AM
if that is the case, embree should be a great closer!!!!! he throws it pretty damn hard.

:embree

"Hey, I'll get them out!!!"

Kilroy
08-13-2001, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Iguana775
if that is the case, embree should be a great closer!!!!! he throws it pretty damn hard.


That whole conversation was laughable. Without naming any names, the person who stated that concept completely ingnored the fact that Keith Foulke has converted 62 of 70 save ops this season and last for 89% success. He must be doing something right.

Looking at some other closers:

BS SVOP %
Rivera 10 83 88
Hernandez 14 68 79
Hawkins 5 32 84 (2001 only)
Isringhausen 14 70 80
Todd Jones 13 35 63
Billy Koch 9 68 87
John Rocker 10 33 70
Sasaki 9 82 89

Looks like Foulke stacks up pretty well against some of the other closers. I'd be interested to see how he stacks against the entire league.

Kilroy
08-13-2001, 11:10 AM
Here's a few more closers that we can look at Foulke's numbers against:

Benitez 7 BS out of 75 ops for 91%
Gordon 5 of 39 for 87% (I can't believe that ESPN lists this jag as "FLASH" Gordon What a crock!)
Hoffman 9 of 80 for 89%
Mesa 4 of 35 for 89%
Nenn 11 of 86 for 87%
Wagner 11 of 43 for 74%

Foulke would seem to be in the top 5 closers, unless I missed a lot of the bigger names, which I don't think I did. And YES, I am bored at work today.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 11:18 AM
Kilroy stop being a ***** and use my name. If you knew a damn thing about baseball, you would never say keith foulke is a good closer. Hes a very good pitcher. He is NOT a good closer. Those numbers were accumulated in situations with no pressure, and no runners on base. Know something, before you open your mouth.

Soxboyrob
08-13-2001, 11:28 AM
My biggest problem w/ Foulke is that 2 of his blown saves this season were arguably the 2 biggest games of the season. He didn't ball up when needed. The guy also has 7 losses. Why do we lose sight of this? In all fairness, he lost a lot of those games when pitching in more than one inning of a tie game and most people know(except for Jerry) that Foulke is a one inning pitcher and nothing more. Only in emergencies should the guy be brought in for more than one inning.

Lest we not forget how he pitched in last year's postseason, when he was needed most.

The guy is not a big game, big situation closer. He's still very good and he's really our only option for now, so it's all a moot point, I guess.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 11:33 AM
Im having a hard time figuring out why guys cant see the difference between a good closer and a good pitcher. Noone ever said keith foulke isnt a good pitcher. Hes always been a very good pitcher. AS long as hes not put in a pressure situation, hes good. THe problem is, he doenst have the 97 mph to rely on, in tough situations. That causes problems. I also cant understand why these guys, over and over, put false words in peoples mouths to make themselves and their view seem better. I NEVER SAID KEITH FOULKE IS NOT A GOOD PITCHER AND I NEVER SAID IF YOU HAVE A GOOD FASTBALL, YOURE A GREAT CLOSER. I said having a great fastball, is needed, in GENERAL, to be a top closer. Keith foulke is the perfect set up man. PERIOD. He is not a good closer and NEVER will be a good closer.

voodoochile
08-13-2001, 11:34 AM
Hes a very good pitcher. He is NOT a good closer. Those numbers were accumulated in situations with no pressure, and no runners on base.

Uh, isn't that what most closers do? Come in to start the ninth and pitch with the bases empty? Personally I think that most of Foulke's recent problems are caused by the lack of a consistent setup man. Howrey has flat out stunk since signing his extension. If Keith were regularly pitching just the ninth, I think we would see more or the "good" Foulke. There is always pressure on closers, which is why they rarely last for more than a few years. the guys who can do it year after year (Rivera, Eckersley, Gossage, Sutter, Aguilara (sp?)) are few and far between. Well Foulke sometimes struggles, he has been for the most part a good closer for the Sox these last few years. His numbers stack up favorably with the other closers in the league and I believe he won some awards these past few years for his work, though I could be wrong.

Everyone wants an Eckersley as their closer, but he is a HOF guy who was uncanny good for several years. When the guy the team has doesn't live up to Eck's standard, he automatically is a bad closer. That is like saying Boomer was a crappy starter because he wasn't Maddux. It's just an unfair comparison...

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Uh, isn't that what most closers do? Come in to start the ninth and pitch with the bases empty? Personally I think that most of Foulke's recent problems are caused by the lack of a consistent setup man. Howrey has flat out stunk since signing his extension. If Keith were regularly pitching just the ninth, I think we would see more or the "good" Foulke. There is always pressure on closers, which is why they rarely last for more than a few years. the guys who can do it year after year (Rivera, Eckersley, Gossage, Sutter, Aguilara (sp?)) are few and far between. Well Foulke sometimes struggles, he has been for the most part a good closer for the Sox these last few years. His numbers stack up favorably with the other closers in the league and I believe he won some awards these past few years for his work, though I could be wrong.

Everyone wants an Eckersley as their closer, but he is a HOF guy who was uncanny good for several years. When the guy the team has doesn't live up to Eck's standard, he automatically is a bad closer. That is like saying Boomer was a crappy starter because he wasn't Maddux. It's just an unfair comparison...

I simply said that to explain his good numbers. UHHHH, most good closers GET BETTER, not worse, in pressure situations. UHHHH common sense?

Paulwny
08-13-2001, 11:41 AM
BMR, I think you're looking for the Ryne Duran, Goose Gossage type of reliever who comes into a bases loaded no out situation and throws 100mph fast balls. That type of closer comes along every 15-20 yrs.

Torre tries his hardest to keep Rivera out of any pressure situations, saving him to start the 9th with no one on base. Foulke in this role is in the top 5.

Kilroy
08-13-2001, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Kilroy stop being a ***** and use my name. If you knew a damn thing about baseball, you would never say keith foulke is a good closer. Hes a very good pitcher. He is NOT a good closer. Those numbers were accumulated in situations with no pressure, and no runners on base. Know something, before you open your mouth.

I didn't use your name so that things could stay on a civilized level. But I should have known that with you, there's no point to that.

As far as whether Keith Foulke is a good closer or not, there's plenty of us around here willing to discuss the topic with you. But you seem to be too much of a ***** to try and post anything at all that would support your assertion that he's not.

Considering that Foulke's success rate as a closer stands up pretty damned well against quite a few of the other closers in the league, I'd like to see you point out where he falters and maybe back it up with a verifiable fact or two. Otherwise its just more blather from BMR about how he knows everything about baseball and the rest of us are just morons lucky to be near his omnipotence. (I can't even say that with a straight face.)

And as far as those numbers that I posted, those are plain and simple save opportunities vs blown saves. It would seem reasonable that the best measure of a good closer is his success rate. But there's know way to know if any of those guys came in during the 8th or midway thru the 9th or if it was always to start the 9th. The only thing that you can be sure of is that it was a save situation. I think that you need to know something before you open your mouth.

Iguana775
08-13-2001, 11:54 AM
i dont think that he is just a 1 inning pitcher. in 99 he was the setup guy and pitched 123 innings with close to that many K's. for a guy that doesnt have the dominating fastball, he has a pretty good K numbers.

lately, i have thought that maybe keith should start. someone said that he has about 4 good/above average pitches but only uses the 2 as a closer. if he can get all his pitches going again, why not let him play with a starting role in string training or maybe in winter ball? since JR doesnt want to pay him the 8 mill he wants, if he was able to be a starter, and excell at it, he might be more inclined to. i think that if he could use all 4 of his pitches and spot them, he could be a very good starter. but that is a big if since he really hasnt used them in 2 years.

and if this aforementioned situation happens, who closes?? could wright be ready for it?? he has a pretty damn good fastball and once he can cut down on the walks on a consistent basis(his last start he did really good at not allowing the walks. only 2), he could be a pretty good one. also, there is lorenzo the great but he just had surgery....again. he also has a good fastball.....or did a few years ago. if he could get his FB back to what it was(close to 100 mph) then he could be an option.

all in all, i think out pitching is going to be pretty damn good next year if everyone can stay healthy and if a deal can be reached with foulke. until we can find a closer to succeed him, foulke needs to stay as our closer. i dont want howry there until he can get the guy out consistently. the only thing i ask next year for the rotation, is a vet. maybe wells can come back for a cheaper price. i'm not really sure how is out there for FA pitchers this winter. anyone know???

btw, bmr, i was just give you ***** with the sarcasm. hope i didnt offend you. :) i see your point but it is hard to argue his stats over the last 2 years. just imagine if he did have that dominating FB.........he would have no blown saves. lol.

Tragg
08-13-2001, 12:11 PM
Foulke is one of the best closer's in the league. I agree.

I just don't think closers are that hard to find. Flash Gordon and Mesa are on that list - enough said. And, yes, throwing hard, all things being equal, is a better trait for a closer.

I'd like to see him start.

he's not worth 8 mill a year. If that's what he wants, trade him and trade him for a lot.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 12:17 PM
Kilroy, ive given my "reasons" over and over and over. You choose to ignore them, thats you choice. I know for a fact i know and understand the game of baseball much better than you. It obvious because you cant even understand the difference between a good pitcher and a good closer.

voodoochile
08-13-2001, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


I simply said that to explain his good numbers. UHHHH, most good closers GET BETTER, not worse, in pressure situations. UHHHH common sense?

Evidence? With 8 BS in hos last 70 trys, there is just nothing to back this statement up, other than the two big blown games against Minnesota and Seattle... Does that make Sasaki a bad closer because he blew two big leads in the last week?

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
BMR, I think you're looking for the Ryne Duran, Goose Gossage type of reliever who comes into a bases loaded no out situation and throws 100mph fast balls. That type of closer comes along every 15-20 yrs.

Torre tries his hardest to keep Rivera out of any pressure situations, saving him to start the 9th with no one on base. Foulke in this role is in the top 5.


do you guys watch a baseball game outside the chicago area? i wish you would, so you could see what a good closer looks like.....

Kilroy
08-13-2001, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Kilroy, ive given my "reasons" over and over and over. You choose to ignore them, thats you choice. I know for a fact i know and understand the game of baseball much better than you. It obvious because you cant even understand the difference between a good pitcher and a good closer.

Your "reasons" were that he doesnt have a dominating fastball, and that according to you he doesn't perform under pressure. But since his numbers show that you don't need the 95-97 mph heater, and the fact that his blown opps came against the better teams in the league, something you have to expect every so often, I find that your reasons are not the strongest arguments.

Bottom line is this a good pitcher gets hitters out, and a cood closer gets them out at the end of the game. If you have more than that, then you are over complicating a very simple concept to make it seem like you know something.

Randar68
08-13-2001, 12:34 PM
Kilroy, ive given my "reasons" over and over and over. You choose to ignore them, thats you choice. I know for a fact i know and understand the game of baseball much better than you. It obvious because you cant even understand the difference between a good pitcher and a good closer.

I've read this and the other threads it is based upon, and this is simply ludicrous.

For fear of starting a flame war, I have stayed out of it, but come on now....

bmr, what 'proof' and 'support' of your arguement do you have??? So far, the only proof is casual observation and generalized opinions that are not backed by fact or anything but your own personal opinion. If you have any 'evidence' that supports your arguement other than, "I know for a fact i know and understand the game of baseball much better than you." and other self-serving, yet completely unfounded remarks, please, bring them forth.

Once again, the facts support that Kieth is one of the very best closers in the game over the past 2 seasons. However you want to rationalize that as being a "bad closer" or simply ineffective, there is absolutely no proof of such.

Now, who are "good" closers, in your mind. Sasaki blew the hell outta the first game in the series, so he's bad???

This is rediculous bmr, I think you will have a very difficult time finding anyone on this board that is going to support the following claim coming from your keyboard:

I know for a fact i know and understand the game of baseball much better than you.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


I've read this and the other threads it is based upon, and this is simply ludicrous.

For fear of starting a flame war, I have stayed out of it, but come on now....

bmr, what 'proof' and 'support' of your arguement do you have??? So far, the only proof is casual observation and generalized opinions that are not backed by fact or anything but your own personal opinion. If you have any 'evidence' that supports your arguement other than, "I know for a fact i know and understand the game of baseball much better than you." and other self-serving, yet completely unfounded remarks, please, bring them forth.

Once again, the facts support that Kieth is one of the very best closers in the game over the past 2 seasons. However you want to rationalize that as being a "bad closer" or simply ineffective, there is absolutely no proof of such.

Now, who are "good" closers, in your mind. Sasaki blew the hell outta the first game in the series, so he's bad???

This is rediculous bmr, I think you will have a very difficult time finding anyone on this board that is going to support the following claim coming from your keyboard:

I know for a fact i know and understand the game of baseball much better than you.


ahhhhhh i knew it wouldnt take long. Randar loves it when its 10 on 1. LOL!! Anyway, ive stated my reasons over and over and yes i do believe i know the game of baseball as well as anyone. Keith foulke is not a good closer and ive given my reasons.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Your "reasons" were that he doesnt have a dominating fastball, and that according to you he doesn't perform under pressure. But since his numbers show that you don't need the 95-97 mph heater, and the fact that his blown opps came against the better teams in the league, something you have to expect every so often, I find that your reasons are not the strongest arguments.

Bottom line is this a good pitcher gets hitters out, and a cood closer gets them out at the end of the game. If you have more than that, then you are over complicating a very simple concept to make it seem like you know something.


im very curious. why must i keep repeating myself???? WHen did i say keith wasnt a good pitcher? Are you dense or do you just refuse to read what i write, because it doesnt support your opinion??

Soxboyrob
08-13-2001, 12:51 PM
The fact remains that Foulke hasn't been a big game closer. He's been hittable when his talent was needed most. He's lost SEVEN games this year. Why doesn't that matter. He's a good(not great or even very good) closer and has been only fair to decent in non-closing situations.

Iwritecode
08-13-2001, 12:53 PM
I just want to add one thing that nobody has mentioned yet. Keith doesn't have an overpowering fastball but he does have a great changeup that makes his fastball look all that much better. I have seen him make many a hitter look stupid when they swing at one pitch because they were looking for the other one.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
The fact remains that Foulke hasn't been a big game closer. He's been hittable when his talent was needed most. He's lost SEVEN games this year. Why doesn't that matter. He's a good(not great or even very good) closer and has been only fair to decent in non-closing situations.


wow, so you must actually watch baseball games? :)

Paulwny
08-13-2001, 12:58 PM
This may start or already has become a problem. Not often using a 3rd pitch batters are starting to look for only one of the pitches to hit until there's 2 strikes.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
This may start or already has become a problem. Not often using a 3rd pitch batters are starting to look for only one of the pitches to hit until there's 2 strikes.

and THUS, he needs the 97 mph fastball! :)

Paulwny
08-13-2001, 01:05 PM
Or use a third pitch more often.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Or use a third pitch more often.


voodoo, just look at the title of this thread. when the hell did i ever say this?

Iwritecode
08-13-2001, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
This may start or already has become a problem. Not often using a 3rd pitch batters are starting to look for only one of the pitches to hit until there's 2 strikes.

Originally posted by Bmr31
and THUS, he needs the 97 mph fastball! :)

So what happens when they start sitting on his fastball? No matter what speed it is?

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode




So what happens when they start sitting on his fastball? No matter what speed it is?


when did i say use just his fastball?

Iwritecode
08-13-2001, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



voodoo, just look at the title of this thread. when the hell did i ever say this?

its written everywhere. You can name exceptions in anything. The fact is, you need a 95 plus fastball, to be a good closer.

Right there...

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode




Right there...

OH MY GOD!!! lol!!!!!!! The title of this thread is the EXACT OPPOSITE. I said you need a good fastball to be a good closer. i NEVER said if you have a good fastball you are a good closer. You need MUCH MORE than a good fastball to be a good closer. THis isnt rocket science guys....

Iwritecode
08-13-2001, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



when did i say use just his fastball?

You didn't. But if a hitter is looking for a fastball, it doesn't really matter what the speed of it is...

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


You didn't. But if a hitter is looking for a fastball, it doesn't really matter what the speed of it is...

uhhh i think that is totally incorrect. I watch pitchers blow hitters away, who are sitting on fastballs, every single day.

Iwritecode
08-13-2001, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


uhhh i think that is totally incorrect. I watch pitchers blow hitters away, who are sitting on fastballs, every single day.

You know exactly what a hitter is sitting on when he swings and misses?

Also, even if Keith had a great fastball, he still needs to get his change over. It didn't look like he could throw his change for a strike at all on Sat. night. Hence the 2 walks...

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


You know exactly what a hitter is sitting on when he swings and misses?

Also, even if Keith had a great fastball, he still needs to get his change over. It didn't look like he could throw his change for a strike at all on Sat. night. Hence the 2 walks...



ummm yeah dont you?

Iwritecode
08-13-2001, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
ummm yeah dont you?

OK, in Saturday's game, what was Canseco sitting on when he swung at a pitch in the dirt when the pitcher had just thrown 9 or 10 straight balls? I wouldn't have been sitting on anything. Just make him throw a strike first.

Joel Perez
08-13-2001, 02:00 PM
I just posted this in the "Closers are overrated" thread...I think this applies here as well....

Yes, 3 outs is just 3 outs.

But can we truly say that the closer role is overrated? Tell that to Lee Smith
Dan Quisenberry
Bruce Sutter
Dennis Eckersley
Tom Henke
Troy Percival
Billy Wagner
Goose Gossage
and the teams that they played for. Especially the A's when they had Eck all those years.

To make the final 3 outs, you must have a thick skin and a "kill-them-all" "they-ain't-touchin'-this" mentality that few possess. Yes, it is easy for just 3 outs, but these guys are the elite ballplayers in the world to get out. No easy task. They make it look easy to do--that's why they get the big bucks.

Sorry, just don't agree with that assessment at all. The closer is a prominent position in the bigs now. Not all can go the full 9 innings, plus just because a player may have a lower ERA than the closer doesn't mean he's your best overall bullpen pitcher. You have to take a look at his IP, Hits allowed, BB; everything to consider, as well as "stuff" and composure/mound presence.

Keith Foulke has that "Bulldog" mentality--save for his performance Saturday night when he imploded.

Bobby Howry is learning that--he has the stuff, now he needs to learn to bust it out on the mound and trust his stuff.

Question for you guys and gals--which White Sox would you want to close out games and WHY? And no, "just because he sucks" shouldn't count. At this point, the WS should stick with Foulke IMO--he's been there before now, and the Sox should reward him for a job well done. He, besides Mark Buehrle, have been the only constants in the pitching department this year. Foulke is a hell of a lot more than an overrated closer or to even be considered a pitcher who was just thrown into the closing chores. Give the guy some credit where it's due.

Besides....Alan Embree? I wouldn't trust him to close out ANY games until he shows us consistency. That "body language" he showed on WGN Saturday night when Nardi went out to talk to him spoke volumes--it looked as if he didn't want to hear any of it---that's a red flag in my book.

voodoochile
08-13-2001, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



voodoo, just look at the title of this thread. when the hell did i ever say this?

UHHHHH.... that was PaulWNY, not me...

Paulwny
08-13-2001, 02:49 PM
Uhhhhhh...... not me

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


UHHHHH.... that was PaulWNY, not me...

I realize it was not you, i was merely point out that over and over people put words in my mouth, that i did not say. I assume because they dont know what else to say. And to respond to your comments in the other thread.........in case you havent noticed, i HAVE been "attacked" the last 2 days because i pointed out teh obvious. The sox are an average team and foulke isnt a great closer. Ive been called everything from laughable to negative, to a sox hater. when attacked , i will defend myself. I do not back off anything i said. WITH the current injuries the sox are an average team. IF we were healthly id say we could win it all. tHIS ALL STArted because i pointed out we are an average team with a bunch of AA guys on our current team. The minute i said that i was "attacked" by literally 10 guys. The funny thing is, i never look at stats, but since they insist, i pointed out we are .500.

oldcomiskey
08-13-2001, 06:05 PM
BMR--give it up--you lost--i gave you an oppurtninty to save yourself yesterday when you couldnt name 5 closers youd rather have.. Give it up--Ive got numbers--youve got common sense --or so you say---the common sense tells me that Howry has a better fastball---I suppose you want big Bob out there instead

PaleHoseGeorge
08-13-2001, 06:11 PM
Question for you guys and gals--which White Sox would you want to close out games and WHY? And no, "just because he sucks" shouldn't count. At this point, the WS should stick with Foulke IMO--he's been there before now, and the Sox should reward him for a job well done.

I think the Sox had it right when Howry was the closer and Foulke the set-up guy. It's easier to steal bases in a do-or-die ninth situation against Foulke's off-speed pitch than Howry's heat. Unfortunately, Howry proved he wasn't up to the job and Foulke has had the closer's spot ever since.

I heard Dan Wright was projected as a future closer. The team doesn't seem to think he has the make up to be a starter for some reason. Anybody know?

Either way, Foulke is only eligible for salary arbitration, not free agency. He'll be back next year regardless because the Sox hold his rights and won't let him go without a big name in trade.

There is still plenty of time for the Sox and Foulke's agent to work up a salary both can live with before the 2003 season begins. Otherwise I suspect Dan Wright or some other phenom will be our next closer.

voodoochile
08-13-2001, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


I realize it was not you, i was merely point out that over and over people put words in my mouth, that i did not say. I assume because they dont know what else to say. And to respond to your comments in the other thread.........in case you havent noticed, i HAVE been "attacked" the last 2 days because i pointed out teh obvious. The sox are an average team and foulke isnt a great closer. Ive been called everything from laughable to negative, to a sox hater. when attacked , i will defend myself. I do not back off anything i said. WITH the current injuries the sox are an average team. IF we were healthly id say we could win it all. tHIS ALL STArted because i pointed out we are an average team with a bunch of AA guys on our current team. The minute i said that i was "attacked" by literally 10 guys. The funny thing is, i never look at stats, but since they insist, i pointed out we are .500.

BMR, people often disagree with you because of the way you say things. I have pointed out the mediocrity of the Sox many times, and never gotten attacked for it (maybe that was on the troll board). From what I've read not many of the regulars here hold out much hope of winning the division, but there is still a chance, not because the Sox are great, but because neither Cleveland or Minnesota is and they both have major problems at the moment (Minnesota is without Radke and Guzman and Cleveland's schedule is just brutal the next 4 weeks). I know I've flipflopped back and forth myself recently, but something I was saying earlier this year is back and I believe it whole heartedly. 87 wins could win this division. Now if the Sox are a .500 club, then one lucky streak, one 8 game win streak could get them there. That doesn't mean the Sox are great, it means the other teams aren't. You say you understand baseball, why is this point so hard for you to see? Do you think Cleveland is going to win 90+ games easily this year? What about Minnesota? Do their recent struggles change your opinion?

You say somethings (I think) for effect ("The Sox are a AA ball club") when you know they aren't true. there isn't a AA club in the world that could play with the Sox right now for a whole series, and you know it, so when you say something like that, you are going to get ripped. If you say that the ball club is banged up, inexperienced and playing .500 ball, no one is going to argue with you. Everyone knows it. When you make halfcocked wild exageration statements like that to prove a point you should expect to get ripped. Again, this isn't a discussion about what we belive and don't believe. Maybe you think there is no way the Sox can win the division. based on the competition, I think you are wrong. I don't expect it, but it is still possible and when I look at the competition and realize the ALC is definitely the weakest division in baseball (no matter what the flubbie bashers want to believe) I think hey, it still could be us. Instead this is a discussion about how it was said.

As you know, you can look a person right in the face and say, "Hello" and the next thing you know you are fighting (depends on how you say it... HELLLLOOOOOO!) Or you can call someone the meanest thing you can think of with a smile and they will laugh... Tone down the rhetoric and you will find a lot less BMR bashing and a lot more rational discussion of the Sox, their chances and the possibilities, IMO...

Randar68
08-13-2001, 06:51 PM
bmr and change is like ice cream and pickles.....

Iguana775
08-13-2001, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
bmr and change is like ice cream and pickles.....


:XL

"That sounds good!!!! I want a big bowl of it!!!!"

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
bmr and change is like ice cream and pickles.....


You got that right. Im not gonna tone down ANYTHING for anyone. WHat i say is what i mean. I dont need your sympathy and i could care less if anyone attacks me. The only reason i even mentioned it was voodoo asked me why i feel im being attacked. Do i say some things for effect? of course i do. When i said AA team i simply meant we have a bunch of AA guys on our team that would not be playing, if it were not for injuries. WHen its 10 against 1 and im the 1, i feel challenged and i love it. tone it down? hell NO, never.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
bmr and change is like ice cream and pickles.....


AS far as the topics go, i know im right. If you think im going to "change" to please the masses, maybe you dont know me very well. :)

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
BMR--give it up--you lost--i gave you an oppurtninty to save yourself yesterday when you couldnt name 5 closers youd rather have.. Give it up--Ive got numbers--youve got common sense --or so you say---the common sense tells me that Howry has a better fastball---I suppose you want big Bob out there instead

LOL dude your funny. I could name 10 closers better than foulke, if we are talking about closing games. Why respond when you dont even understand what im talking about?

Kilroy
08-14-2001, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I could name 10 closers better than foulke, if we are talking about closing games.

Stop yappin about what you COULD do and just do it. Name 10 closers in the league right now that you think are better than Foulke. Since you know more about baseball than everyone, you should have no trouble.

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Stop yappin about what you COULD do and just do it. Name 10 closers in the league right now that you think are better than Foulke. Since you know more about baseball than everyone, you should have no trouble.


i dont think there are 10 closers who are better than foulke. i think there are 10 closers who are better at closing games than foulke.
1 rivera
2 hoffman
3 nen
4 sasaki
5 percival
6 wagner
7 benitez
8 koch

To be fair, ill stop at 8. I think keith ranks around 9th in baseball. Keith just isnt made to be a closer. period.

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31



i dont think there are 10 closers who are better than foulke. i think there are 10 closers who are better at closing games than foulke.
1 rivera
2 hoffman
3 nen
4 sasaki
5 percival
6 wagner
7 benitez
8 koch

To be fair, ill stop at 8. I think keith ranks around 9th in baseball. Keith just isnt made to be a closer. period.

Keep in mind, that i gave the benefit of the doubt, and took keiths #s into account. There are still guys out there that id rather close out games.....

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Stop yappin about what you COULD do and just do it. Name 10 closers in the league right now that you think are better than Foulke. Since you know more about baseball than everyone, you should have no trouble.


I never said i know baseball more than everyone. Once again, im misquoted.....there are many knowledgable baseball fans on this site, and most are not contributing to this thread.

Jerry_Manuel
08-14-2001, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I never said i know baseball more than everyone. Once again, im misquoted.....there are many knowledgable baseball fans on this site, and most are not contributing to this thread.


I don't know anything so I don't open my mouth.

Kilroy
08-14-2001, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I never said i know baseball more than everyone. Once again, im misquoted.....there are many knowledgable baseball fans on this site, and most are not contributing to this thread.

No one attributed that statement to you. I said it, dripping with sarcasm of course.

Back to the matter at hand;

I thought you could name 10 closers that were better than Foulke? You said that. Wait, I'm gonna scroll back..... yep, that's what you said. Post #47 in this thread. Then you said "to be fair, I'll stop at 8. Be fair to who? If there's 10 better, then there's 10 better.

How are you measuring "better than"??

voodoochile
08-14-2001, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31



i dont think there are 10 closers who are better than foulke. i think there are 10 closers who are better at closing games than foulke.

Whoa... Since a closer (by definition) is a player who closes games, wouldn't that make them better closers? Either this is a major attempt to wiggle out, or your logic needs work, because this statement makes no sense to me...

BMR says:
A & B do the same job.
B does the job better than A.
B is better at the job than A.
B is NOT better than A.

Am I missing something? If you are actually making a point here, please explain it to me in English, because from my perspective this is makes no sense.

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Whoa... Since a closer (by definition) is a player who closes games, wouldn't that make them better closers? Either this is a major attempt to wiggle out, or your logic needs work, because this statement makes no sense to me...

BMR says:
A & B do the same job.
B does the job better than A.
B is better at the job than A.
B is NOT better than A.

Am I missing something? If you are actually making a point here, please explain it to me in English, because from my perspective this is makes no sense.

yes, yes you are. youre missing a lot. IF you dont understand, you dont understand. Im not going to bother trying to explain this any longer.

Kilroy
08-14-2001, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


yes, yes you are. youre missing a lot. IF you dont understand, you dont understand. Im not going to bother trying to explain this any longer.

That right there is classic BMR. I don't make any sense to anyone but me. You don't understand and it would be beneath me to try and explain it to you.

Randar68
08-14-2001, 09:44 AM
That right there is classic BMR. I don't make any sense to anyone but me. You don't understand and it would be beneath me to try and explain it to you


*****!!!!!!!!







bla!

voodoochile
08-14-2001, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


yes, yes you are. youre missing a lot. IF you dont understand, you dont understand. Im not going to bother trying to explain this any longer.

no, please... I want to know what you think... How does that statement make sense? Take your tiime and tell me. I'm not ragging on you, and I don't get in the screaming fests with you. Tell ME what the logic is behind the statement. What do you SEE that makes this true? You claim that you don't base your evaluations on stats, but instead on what you see. Tell us what that is.

Is it a style of pitching?
Is it pitch selection?
Is it a look on the face?
Is it an arm angle?
Is it the way they walk to the mound?

Fill me in. I'm not cracking on you, and you and I think you have some good points. I prefer to get my information via watching the games too and only go looking for stats to defend or refute my point of view. You skip the stat part, so tell me what do you see that makes you say

i dont think there are 10 closers who are better than foulke. i think there are 10 closers who are better at closing games than foulke.

And what do you mean by it? If you can't explain what you see that makes you feel this way (it is just a feeling and hard to put into words) then tell me what you mean?

Are you talking about pitch selection?
Attitude?
Stuff?
Big game effectiveness?
Something else?

Inquiring Jim's want to know...

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


That right there is classic BMR. I don't make any sense to anyone but me. You don't understand and it would be beneath me to try and explain it to you.


Have i not been trying to explain this for 3 days? im just tired of it, i have better things to do.

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


no, please... I want to know what you think... How does that statement make sense? Take your tiime and tell me. I'm not ragging on you, and I don't get in the screaming fests with you. Tell ME what the logic is behind the statement. What do you SEE that makes this true? You claim that you don't base your evaluations on stats, but instead on what you see. Tell us what that is.

Is it a style of pitching?
Is it pitch selection?
Is it a look on the face?
Is it an arm angle?
Is it the way they walk to the mound?

Fill me in. I'm not cracking on you, and you and I think you have some good points. I prefer to get my information via watching the games too and only go looking for stats to defend or refute my point of view. You skip the stat part, so tell me what do you see that makes you say



And what do you mean by it? If you can't explain what you see that makes you feel this way (it is just a feeling and hard to put into words) then tell me what you mean?

Are you talking about pitch selection?
Attitude?
Stuff?
Big game effectiveness?
Something else?

Inquiring Jim's want to know...

Correct me if im wrong, but i believe ive explained this over and over. Maybe you missed it. Anyway, i think keith is a very good pitcher. But i also believe he is only a very good pitcher when guys arent on base. I think hes a perfect set up guy. Yes, if he starts the 9th and allows no baserunners, hes gonna get saves. My point is, when you are in big games, and playing big teams, you need overpowering stuff to get out of jams. Jams will occur in big games because you are playing better teams and nerves are involved. when you have a 97 mph fastball, nervous or not, you can blow hitters away. therefore, i think keith is not a great guy to close games out, especially big ones. DO i think hes a good pitcher? i think hes an excellent pitcher. JUST NOT A CLOSER. Ive said this all before.....

voodoochile
08-14-2001, 04:07 PM
Yes, that you have said before, but my question was about the comment on the closers...

How can some be a better closer but not be better at closing games? To me the two statements make no sense. To me the concept of being a better closer means the guy is better all around at the role of closing games. That means:

1)Not allowing baserunners in the first place.
2)getting out of jams when men either are on base or the "closer" puts men on base.
3)Holding the lead (duh).
4)Having a "You can't touch this" attitude
5)Ability to shake off blown saves and go out there and do it again tomorrow.
6)Treating every game the same (like it is game 7 of the series)
7)Wants the ball everytime there is a "save oppoprtunity" in the ninth
8)Has a high K/IP ratio (generally>1:1)
9)Can still be effective without his best stuff
10)Can work up to 3 days in a row
11)Rarely throws more than 1 IP/G
12)Starts the 9th inning before trouble is brewing

There is probably more, but to me, none of those can be seperated from the concept of closer. If one closer is better at one or two of them, but not better at the rest, than he is not a "better" closer.

BTW, I read what you said about being a better pitcher, but not being a better closer, and I can understand that (points 4,5,6,7,9,10), but for me I cannot unbundle these characteristics, so if a person is a better closer, than by definition they would be better at closing games...

Maybe this is just more semantics...

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 04:10 PM
okay now you got me confused. I think i said that hes the 9th best closer when you consider everything, including stats, but if the game were on the line, there are additional guys id rather have out there. i hope that clears it up?

voodoochile
08-14-2001, 04:16 PM
Okay, that makes more sense:

You think he is ninth best when starting the ninth, but if he doesn't start the ninth and a jam occurs requiring a closer he drops further down the list, correct? Okay, I can accept that as you opinion.

I personally think it depends on his changeup. If that pitch is on, he is one of the top closers in the league, regardless of the situation. There have been times he has struggled with the pitch and that is when he gets into trouble...

IN either case, as we both have said, there is no one the Sox have currently who is better, so regardless of what we say, keith will be hanging around for a while (unles he asks for $8 million and gets it)

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Okay, that makes more sense:

You think he is ninth best when starting the ninth, but if he doesn't start the ninth and a jam occurs requiring a closer he drops further down the list, correct? Okay, I can accept that as you opinion.

I personally think it depends on his changeup. If that pitch is on, he is one of the top closers in the league, regardless of the situation. There have been times he has struggled with the pitch and that is when he gets into trouble...

IN either case, as we both have said, there is no one the Sox have currently who is better, so regardless of what we say, keith will be hanging around for a while (unles he asks for $8 million and gets it)

Let me say this. And i think i know baseball fairly well. When keith is "on", like he was 2 years ago in the setup role, i think he is the 2nd best pitcher in baseball. Back then, i thought he was the most dominating pitcher outside of pedro. But, in the closer role, i think the pressure gets to him, and causes his control to be lacking. THis is my viewpoint.

Randar68
08-14-2001, 04:24 PM
bmr, I think that was the clarification everyone was asking for before.


The arguement and opinion makes a ton of sense and is very presentable in that manner...


good show!

FarWestChicago
08-14-2001, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
bmr, I think that was the clarification everyone was asking for before.


The arguement and opinion makes a ton of sense and is very presentable in that manner...


good show!

OMG, peace has broken out! WoooHooo!!

voodoochile
08-14-2001, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


OMG, peace has broken out! WoooHooo!!

How boring is that? Besides, now this thread will die and I think it is the longest one we have... We want a PhredMojo length thread, but one that actually says something...

oldcomiskey
08-14-2001, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Keep in mind, that i gave the benefit of the doubt, and took keiths #s into account. There are still guys out there that id rather close out games.....

OH PLEASE--I dont believe that one for a second or you wouldve named them--

oldcomiskey
08-14-2001, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



i dont think there are 10 closers who are better than foulke. i think there are 10 closers who are better at closing games than foulke.
1 rivera
2 hoffman
3 nen
4 sasaki
5 percival
6 wagner
7 benitez
8 koch

To be fair, ill stop at 8. I think keith ranks around 9th in baseball. Keith just isnt made to be a closer. period.

I have aproblrm with some of these as well

1. percival---Foulke has 13 more innings and is trailing by 1 lone save
2 kochs ERA is 4.65!!!!!

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
bmr, I think that was the clarification everyone was asking for before.


The arguement and opinion makes a ton of sense and is very presentable in that manner...


good show!

sorry dude, i said all that stuff already. It was just in different posts and people were putting false words in my mouth, as usual.

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


OH PLEASE--I dont believe that one for a second or you wouldve named them--


i dont need to name them

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


I have aproblrm with some of these as well

1. percival---Foulke has 13 more innings and is trailing by 1 lone save
2 kochs ERA is 4.65!!!!!


dude watch a baseball game or two.......if all you do is look at stats, you cant think on your own. I can.

Kilroy
08-14-2001, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



dude watch a baseball game or two.......if all you do is look at stats, you cant think on your own. I can. Yeah, you think on your own, but your a frickin crackpot. When the performance bears out the premise, most people concede that there's something to it. You just continue on with whatever half-assed thought that you've decided is fact even tho theres nothing to support it. Stating something as your opinion is one thing. Stating it as fact is another.

FarWestChicago
08-14-2001, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Yeah, you think on your own, but your a frickin crackpot. When the performance bears out the premise, most people concede that there's something to it. You just continue on with whatever half-assed thought that you've decided is fact even tho theres nothing to support it. Stating something as your opinion is one thing. Stating it as fact is another.

Please tone it down a little or take it to The Parking Lot. Thank you.

CLR01
08-14-2001, 09:36 PM
So much for peace breaking out.

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Yeah, you think on your own, but your a frickin crackpot. When the performance bears out the premise, most people concede that there's something to it. You just continue on with whatever half-assed thought that you've decided is fact even tho theres nothing to support it. Stating something as your opinion is one thing. Stating it as fact is another.


was this supposed to make sense?

Bmr31
08-14-2001, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by CLR01
So much for peace breaking out.


oh im at peace. guys like him cant get to me... :)