PDA

View Full Version : gagne


fquaye149
11-15-2003, 09:56 PM
can someone explain to me why closers like gagne are considered better or more important than middle relievers like donnely or mota...who actually come into games with runners on base and have to pitch in difficult situations rather than come into games to pitch the ninth with the bases empty and a lead?

ChiWhiteSox1337
11-15-2003, 10:04 PM
IMO it's because of things like fantasy baseball. saves are a big stat in it so now a lot of casual fans care about

Dadawg_77
11-16-2003, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
IMO it's because of things like fantasy baseball. saves are a big stat in it so now a lot of casual fans care about

Because the media hyped up the save stat. The Rolaids Relief award was out a before fanatsy baseball started.

fquaye149
11-16-2003, 08:46 AM
but even so-called sabrmetricians like rob neyer are all about gagne for essentially coming in with the bases empty and getting 3 outs without giving up up to 3 runs. am i missing something here?

hose
11-16-2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by fquaye149
can someone explain to me why closers like gagne are considered better or more important than middle relievers like donnely or mota...who actually come into games with runners on base and have to pitch in difficult situations rather than come into games to pitch the ninth with the bases empty and a lead?


Middle relief and closing are both difficult roles. The set up role is getting more and more recognition but will have a hard time ever surpassing the closer in salary or prestige in todays market. Now value to one's team can be measured in more than one way. As Donnelly gets closer to making closer money he may very well end up in that role. Dotel is a example of moving the high price closer(Wagner) out and the set up man "progressing" up the ladder.

Gagne was about as close to automatic as a closer could possibly be.......I was at one game he blew.

hose
11-16-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by fquaye149
but even so-called sabrmetricians like rob neyer are all about gagne for essentially coming in with the bases empty and getting 3 outs without giving up up to 3 runs. am i missing something here?


It was Gagne's success rate that was so impressive.

fquaye149
11-16-2003, 10:44 AM
i follow both those ideas, hose, the problem is, it doesn't answer me.

my question is:

is there an actual reason why closers are more highly regarded? or is it just an incorrect perception that's widespread?

that is: are closers actually more important/ deserving of money and accolades than middle relievers? don't middle relievers in fact have a more difficult role?

CubKilla
11-16-2003, 11:12 AM
I think they're all equally important. But the reason why the closer may get the majority of the BP recognition is because the closer is all that stands between a loss and a win..... usually. Bringing in your closer usually means you are winning and the opposition is facing their last chance so more scrutiny is placed upon the closer rather than the guy that came in in the 6th or 7th inning.

hose
11-16-2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by fquaye149
i follow both those ideas, hose, the problem is, it doesn't answer me.

my question is:

is there an actual reason why closers are more highly regarded? or is it just an incorrect perception that's widespread?

that is: are closers actually more important/ deserving of money and accolades than middle relievers? don't middle relievers in fact have a more difficult role?

The closer is the alpha male of the bull pen and the rest of the bull pen staff recognizes this.

Brian26
11-16-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
that is: are closers actually more important/ deserving of money and accolades than middle relievers? don't middle relievers in fact have a more difficult role?

You're hung up on the possibility of Gagne pitching a 1-2-3 9th with no runners on base. However, all of his saves weren't like this. There were situations when he came into the game with runners on base. And to be honest, pitching a 1-2-3 9th inning with no runners on but only a 1-run lead...that's a hell of an accomplishment by itself. How many times have we had that situation happen and then Koch or Foulke gives up a walk, a single, a passed ball and then a 3-run homer? Give Gagne his due, as the guy was phenomenal this year except for the All-Star game meltdown.

fquaye149
11-16-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You're hung up on the possibility of Gagne pitching a 1-2-3 9th with no runners on base. However, all of his saves weren't like this. There were situations when he came into the game with runners on base. And to be honest, pitching a 1-2-3 9th inning with no runners on but only a 1-run lead...that's a hell of an accomplishment by itself. How many times have we had that situation happen and then Koch or Foulke gives up a walk, a single, a passed ball and then a 3-run homer? Give Gagne his due, as the guy was phenomenal this year except for the All-Star game meltdown.


right but realize that most of the time they come in with no runners on base. I'm not saying that's easy in and of itself. Rather I mean to compare it to middle relievers who REGULARLY come in in pressure situations. While it would be irregular for a closer not to pitch with the bases empty initially, it is irregular for middle relievers to come in to empty bases.

Think about the 1st half of our season. When Koch came in to close out the game, was it usually a tougher or an easier sistuation than what wusch or marte or gordon had to deal with? Personally I think for wunsch or marte or gordon to come bail a pitcher out is tougher and more demanding...factor into that the irregularity and necessity to pick it up and pitch at the drop of a hat for a middle reliever, and I think it adds up to middle relief being tougher than closing. However I am in the minority in this opinion, and i'm interested in maybe something i'm overlooking that might help me realize why there is this attitude about closers.

Brian26
11-16-2003, 01:01 PM
Well, you bring up a great question. They've started using the hold stat more often now, but as has been previously stated...the save is really the money stat people look at.

guillen4life13
11-16-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
right but realize that most of the time they come in with no runners on base. I'm not saying that's easy in and of itself. Rather I mean to compare it to middle relievers who REGULARLY come in in pressure situations. While it would be irregular for a closer not to pitch with the bases empty initially, it is irregular for middle relievers to come in to empty bases.

Think about the 1st half of our season. When Koch came in to close out the game, was it usually a tougher or an easier sistuation than what wusch or marte or gordon had to deal with? Personally I think for wunsch or marte or gordon to come bail a pitcher out is tougher and more demanding...factor into that the irregularity and necessity to pick it up and pitch at the drop of a hat for a middle reliever, and I think it adds up to middle relief being tougher than closing. However I am in the minority in this opinion, and i'm interested in maybe something i'm overlooking that might help me realize why there is this attitude about closers.

I am with you in the minority. I think that other relief pitchers have more difficult jobs than closers, though closers are criticized much more when they blow a game, as compared to setup men, etc. In that sense, closers have it tougher. But, in the actual game, other relief pitchers have tougher jobs.

RichH55
11-16-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Well, you bring up a great question. They've started using the hold stat more often now, but as has been previously stated...the save is really the money stat people look at.

They enforce the hold stat so hapharzardly though