How do YOU value a closer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You need to have a lot of bulk and quality. Mariano Rivera is so far ahead of anybody else that he is a definite HoFer for me. Eckersley's combination of starting and relieving get him in for me. Hoyt Wilhelm, another obvious guy. Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage much less so but combined effectiveness with innings to make them over the borderline and in.

Bruce Sutter is a mistake for me. Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon aren't close. Trevor Hoffman, I lean towards no. What separates him from Smith, Sutter, Dan Quisenberry, Roberto Hernandez, and the like? Saves, that's it, and I ignore those because it should be about quality not managerial usage.

---

HoustonGM, how can you not say Lee Smith is Hall of Fame worthy? He's an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

Smith is famous for having a full career that is based on one stat....saves...and although he has longevity...he became famous because he got saves....one inning saves....he didn't really do anything else...and although he was a good pitcher, he wasn't exactly an elite pitcher throughout his life...he was just consistenly good.

but if Hoffman is a hall of famer, then Smith certainly is as well...

hell if you look at it....henke had a better career than smith....shorter, but numbers wise he was better.

getting in the hall of fame as a closer seems a little watered down...which is why i am happy smith isn't looking like he will get in....because if you allow him in...then you have a long string of other closers that you will have a hard time justifying they shouldn't be allowed in.

Lee Smith was closing full time at the age of 24....and did so for a solid 20 years...if he gets in just because he consistenly got saves...then who is to save players like Fuentes, or Papelbon etc shouldn't get in one day?

just because you get 400 saves, you're a hall of famer?

It need to be the elite of the elite closers only...Mariano, Eck, Maybe Hoffman....

500 saves min maybe...or something to the effect of a totally dominant pitcher who was a closer for his career....

just because you were awesome for a few years and racked up 350 saves does not make you hall of famer.

now were you elite for the decade in which you played? who was better than you during your peak years? what did you create while you were in the majors? were you so dominant that your team would have been poor without you? things like that....being a journey man reliever who got saves because his manager used him in those situations does not make you a hall of famer...it just means you did a good job when asked to.

Mariano is a hall of famer....he would have been great as a starter probably as well...but he made a huge difference in Yankee history for a very long time, WS, and was a legitimate fear (still is) during the last decade and a half....he is differen than Henke, Perc, Nen etc.

those guys were good, but that would be like letting in any jack ass with 300 homers and a 260 lifetime average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by actionjackson

This will take a lot of courage from a manager. Not only are you going against the grain that currently exists in baseball, but you're also costing your closer the opportunity for those all-important saves and this puts you square up against him and his agent.

---

Well, you can avoid the second part simply by not designating one of your relievers as the "closer", the Anoited One, the only guy in the bullpen who can pitch with the game on the line. The first one's tougher, IMO.

Career WAR numbers:

Rivera: 46.8
Gossage: 40.0
Wilhelm: 41.3
Eckersley: 58.7
Fingers: 24.4
Smith: 30.3
Hoffman: 29.0
Sutter: 25.0
Nen: 17.0
Percival: 18.3
Henke: 23.1

well WAR doesn't say it all....but it's a great indicator of a player's true value....

if we rank each of them.
1. Eckersley
2. Mariano
3. Willhelm
4. Gossage
5. Smith
6. Hoffman
7. Sutter
8. Fingers
9. Henke
10. Perc
11. Nen

and eck gets that because he was a starter and obviously has more chances to improve that.

i would say a 35-40 WAR for a closer could be good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Career WAR numbers:

Rivera: 46.8
Gossage: 40.0
Wilhelm: 41.3
Eckersley: 58.7
Fingers: 24.4
Smith: 30.3
Hoffman: 29.0
Sutter: 25.0
Nen: 17.0
Percival: 18.3
Henke: 23.1

---

Have you seen their PEACE (Projected Empirical Atrophied Cylindrical Ease) numbers?

You're not funny. Shut up if you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

He's an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

---

:eek:

;) :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

a is jsut making it so that those guys that come in with the bases loaded and 1 out do not get the save
b. is just changing the rule for 3 to 2 runs
c. is unchanged
d.and e. are added and are a part of each other. it really could be d only because tehy wouyld have to give up a run to blow it so its really a-d
:D

---

A: whats wrong with coming in with the bases loaded with one out? That's one of the toughest situations, to come in with the bases loaded.
D: He can't get a save if he gives up a run? But what if he comes in with the score 3-1 and gives up a run but they still win? So they win 3-2 instead of 3-1, but its still a win and the closer still "saved" the game.
E: You can't change the win rule. If the closer is the last pitcher who pitched in the game, he wins, regardless of whether he blew the save or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5dodgers5

E: You can't change the win rule. If the closer is the last pitcher who pitched in the game, he wins, regardless of whether he blew the save or not.

---

First, the rule on which pitcher is credited with the win certainly could be changed, just like any other rule.

Second, the closer most certainly doesn't get the win if he doesn't blow the save, and if he does blow the save, he still won't get the win unless his team comes back to win while he's still the pitcher of record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

First, the rule on which pitcher is credited with the win certainly could be changed, just like any other rule.

---

Great point. I wonder why people think the "save" rule can be changed, but not the "win" rule. It would be good if baseball would modify the rule on which pitchers get wins and losses. I've thought a lot about that, and it can be done, and it could be a real positive change. I dont expect it to happen, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

First, the rule on which pitcher is credited with the win certainly could be changed, just like any other rule.

Second, the closer most certainly doesn't get the win if he doesn't blow the save, and if he does blow the save, he still won't get the win unless his team comes back to win while he's still the pitcher of record.

---

As for part two, I phrased it incorrectly. I meant what you said, I just wrote it out wrong.

I know the win rule can be changed, but I don't see why it has to be. The pitcher on record gets the win, that's how it works. Don't fix it if it's not broke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5dodgers5

Don't fix it if it's not broke.

---

So, a guy comes in with 2 outs, no body on in the top of the 9th, his team up 3-0. He proceeds to give up 8 runs before getting that last out, but his team scores 6 in the bottom half to win. That pitcher who gave up 8 runs BEFORE GETTING ONE OUT gets the win.

That's not broken to you?

I think the win stat and the earned run stat need major changes. I don't like that a pitcher can get a loss when his team scores more runs than he gives up. An example is a pitcher going 7 and giving up 2, and leaves losing 2-0. He is replaced in the 8th by a pitcher who gives up 3, making the score 5-0, but in the bottom of the 8th his team scores 3, but wind up losing 5-3. No way, IMO, that the first pitcher should get the loss when the guy who relieved him is the one who gave up runs 4 and 5, which caused the team to lose (and yeah, I get that if he hadn't given up runs 1 and 2, they would be tied and might not have lost, but I deal with what DID happen, not what COULD HAVE happened).

I also hate that relievers who give up inherited runs don't get any "punishment" so to speak by giving those runs up. I personally would like to see the rule changed to give half a run to the pitcher who put the runner on and half to the pitcher who let him score. It shouldn't be that big of a deal, as we deal in fractions all the time (a guy gives up 3.15 runs per 9 IP...).