Dempster playing hurt?

[abuck1220]

99% of all relievers failed as starters in the minors. There's no point in listing those guys.

 

I believe that is exactly the point.

 

Then I don't understand what it is. There are many pitchers who fail at starting and then go on to be relievers. Some of them become good relievers, some bad. What makes Dempster more likely to be among the good relievers?

 

If you'll note the quote I was responding to...

 

abuck wrote that "i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters." My response refuted that, while also making the larger point that OF COURSE there are many failed starters that become relievers, because most relievers were starters. Whether or not that means they will be good or bad had nothing to do with my post-I simply was addressing the quote that there have "not been many successful closers that were failed starters."

 

But thanks for the condescention from whomever piled on after TT's response.

 

now list all the failed starters who also failed as reliever. that task may take a while b/c that list is 8 billion people long.

 

That's fine. But its also correct that many failed starters have become effective relievers. It was an accurate statement.

 

fine. compared to the number of failed starters that have become, say, astronauts, there are "many" failed starters who have become effective relievers. but compared to the number of failed starters who have not become effective relievers, i wouldn't say that "many" failed starters have become effective relievers.

[Caryatid]

99% of all relievers failed as starters in the minors. There's no point in listing those guys.

 

I believe that is exactly the point.

 

Then I don't understand what it is. There are many pitchers who fail at starting and then go on to be relievers. Some of them become good relievers, some bad. What makes Dempster more likely to be among the good relievers?

 

If you'll note the quote I was responding to...

 

abuck wrote that "i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters." My response refuted that, while also making the larger point that OF COURSE there are many failed starters that become relievers, because most relievers were starters. Whether or not that means they will be good or bad had nothing to do with my post-I simply was addressing the quote that there have "not been many successful closers that were failed starters."

 

But thanks for the condescention from whomever piled on after TT's response.

 

now list all the failed starters who also failed as reliever. that task may take a while b/c that list is 8 billion people long.

 

That's fine. But its also correct that many failed starters have become effective relievers. It was an accurate statement.

 

fine. compared to the number of failed starters that have become, say, astronauts, there are "many" failed starters who have become effective relievers. but compared to the number of failed starters who have not become effective relievers, i wouldn't say that "many" failed starters have become effective relievers.

 

You just switched the syntax of your original statement in an attempt to change its meaning. You originally stated "not many effective relievers were failed starters." Now, you say "not many failed starters have become effective relievers." Those are two different things. Your first statement was wrong, and your second one is not.

[abuck1220]

i'm confused beyond the point of caring right now. but anyway...

 

The following were failed starters at the MLB level before moving to closer:

Eric Gagne

Joe Nathan

Brad Lidge -- boy, was that ONE major league start a failure. come on.

Jason Isringhausen

Tom Gordon -- he won nearly 100 games as a starter...his #'s as a reliever are better, but i wouldn't say he was a failure as a starter

Ryan Dempster -- and he sucks as a closer too

Bob Wickman -- he had all of 19 big league starts...he was very good as a starter in the minors

Mariano Rivera -- 10 major league starts. he was amazing as a starter in the minors

 

These players were failed starters in the minors (minimum 2 seasons as starter) who were moved to closer:

Bobby Jenks -- disagree; he was more of a mental issue than a role swap issue...he was amazing in 2003 as a minor league starter

Derrick Turnbow -- wrong

Billy Wagner -- wrong. if his minor league starting career was a failure, i wish cub starters would fail like that

Chris Ray -- wrong

Eddie Guardado -- wrong

Brian Fuentes -- he also failed pretty bad as a reliever at first...seems to be more of a matter of figuring things out as opposed to a role change

Francisco Rodriguez -- 300+ k's in 230ish innings as a starter

[Caryatid]

i'm confused beyond the point of caring right now. but anyway...

 

The following were failed starters at the MLB level before moving to closer:

Eric Gagne

Joe Nathan

Brad Lidge -- boy, was that ONE major league start a failure. come on.

Jason Isringhausen

Tom Gordon -- he won nearly 100 games as a starter...his #'s as a reliever are better, but i wouldn't say he was a failure as a starter

Ryan Dempster -- and he sucks as a closer too

Bob Wickman -- he had all of 19 big league starts...he was very good as a starter in the minors

Mariano Rivera -- 10 major league starts. he was amazing as a starter in the minors

 

These players were failed starters in the minors (minimum 2 seasons as starter) who were moved to closer:

Bobby Jenks -- disagree; he was more of a mental issue than a role swap issue...he was amazing in 2003 as a minor league starter

Derrick Turnbow -- wrong

Billy Wagner -- wrong. if his minor league starting career was a failure, i wish cub starters would fail like that

Chris Ray -- wrong

Eddie Guardado -- wrong

Brian Fuentes -- he also failed pretty bad as a reliever at first...seems to be more of a matter of figuring things out as opposed to a role change

Francisco Rodriguez -- 300+ k's in 230ish innings as a starter

 

Wow...for many of them, you just wrote "wrong." Nothing like backing it with evidence. You sure told me...

 

Guardado was a full-time starter in both the minors and majors through 95.

Chris Ray was a full-time starter through 2004.

Billy Wagner had an ERA of 7.54 at AAA in 1996, which caused him to be moved to...you guessed it! The bullpen.

Derrick Turnbow started over 40 games in the minors.

F-Rod had an ERA of 5.38 in 20 starts in 2001 right before he was switched to reliever. I'd call that a failure.

 

 

ALL were starters who, for whatever reason, were determined by their team to be failures as starters and became relievers.

[Cubzfan64]

The fact is that it's NOT common to be able to find a pitcher who's had a major injury problem, pick him up and let him work his way back to the big leagues and have him become a better than average player (especially a closer).

 

The Cubs should have done what they are NEVER willing to do - move him in a trade when his value was highest and keep building a better and better team. They did the same thing when Rusch was doing well in 2004.

 

They never learn and their evaluation of talent is really lacking. They're always looking to strike it rich with every "has been" or "wanna be" they sign up - whether it's an injury plagued player or a "flash in the pan" guy.

[Caryatid]

The fact is that it's NOT common to be able to find a pitcher who's had a major injury problem, pick him up and let him work his way back to the big leagues and have him become a better than average player (especially a closer).

 

The Cubs should have done what they are NEVER willing to do - move him in a trade when his value was highest and keep building a better and better team. They did the same thing when Rusch was doing well in 2004.

 

They never learn and their evaluation of talent is really lacking. They're always looking to strike it rich with every "has been" or "wanna be" they sign up - whether it's an injury plagued player or a "flash in the pan" guy.

 

Yep-they need a complete overhaul of their entire talent evaluation structure. They're giving Dempster 5 mil per, so its not being cheap-its just being stupid.

[abuck1220]

Wow...for many of them, you just wrote "wrong." Nothing like backing it with evidence. You sure told me...

 

sorry...didn't know i had to show my work.

 

Guardado was a full-time starter in both the minors and majors through 95.

Chris Ray was a full-time starter through 2004.

 

exactly. and they were both very good at it. thus, not a failure.

 

Billy Wagner had an ERA of 7.54 at AAA in 1996, which caused him to be moved to...you guessed it! The bullpen.

 

um...no.

 

1996 Tucson PCL 25 Hou AAA 6 2 3.28 12 12 1   0 74.0 62 32 27  33 86    7.54 --- 4.01 10.46 1.28 

 

1996 AAA-Tucson 6 2 3.28 12 12 1 1 0 74.0 62 32 27 2 6 33 86 

 

the 7.54 was his h/9, which, you guessed it...is very good!

 

Derrick Turnbow started over 40 games in the minors.

right. and he was good at it. thus, not a failure. last season as a starter...

 

1999 A-Piedmont 12 8 3.35 26 26 4 1 0 161.0 130 67 60 10 7 53 149 

 

F-Rod had an ERA of 5.38 in 20 starts in 2001 right before he was switched to reliever. I'd call that a failure.

he still had great numbers (other than era) and two good seasons as a starter.

[Caryatid]

Wow...for many of them, you just wrote "wrong." Nothing like backing it with evidence. You sure told me...

 

sorry...didn't know i had to show my work.

 

Guardado was a full-time starter in both the minors and majors through 95.

Chris Ray was a full-time starter through 2004.

 

exactly. and they were both very good at it. thus, not a failure.

 

Billy Wagner had an ERA of 7.54 at AAA in 1996, which caused him to be moved to...you guessed it! The bullpen.

 

um...no.

 

1996 Tucson PCL 25 Hou AAA 6 2 3.28 12 12 1   0 74.0 62 32 27  33 86    7.54 --- 4.01 10.46 1.28 

 

1996 AAA-Tucson 6 2 3.28 12 12 1 1 0 74.0 62 32 27 2 6 33 86 

 

the 7.54 was his h/9, which, you guessed it...is very good!

 

Derrick Turnbow started over 40 games in the minors.

right. and he was good at it. thus, not a failure. last season as a starter...

 

1999 A-Piedmont 12 8 3.35 26 26 4 1 0 161.0 130 67 60 10 7 53 149 

 

F-Rod had an ERA of 5.38 in 20 starts in 2001 right before he was switched to reliever. I'd call that a failure.

he still had great numbers (other than era) and two good seasons as a starter.

 

You're right about Wagner-Imisread it. my bad.

 

As far as Guardado goes, he had a 6.18, 8.47, and 5.12 ERA in his starts at the big league level, was sent back down as a starter and had a 4.83 ERA at AAA. That's good?

 

Turnbow had a 5 ERA at Rookie ball, and 3.35 at A ball, which, taken together, is mediocre at best.

 

Look, you made an incorrect statement: "not many effective relievers were failed starters." I pointed out that, of the 31 closers in baseball right now, at LEAST 11 were failed starters at some level. I didn't realize daring to prove the statement wrong with make you go to such lengths to defend what seems to be an indefensible and minor point.

 

Unless you want to debate the definition of the word "many" (sounds a little like discussing the definition of the word "is"), I'm happy with the points I made, and you can feel free to have the last word. I'm guessing that's what this is all about anyway...

[hawkeyecub]

and i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters.

 

You wouldn't?

You would be wrong then.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It comes down to semantics. If you're talking about closers that failed as major league starters and became successful relievers, then no, there aren't many that have done that, compared to those who wash out completely. Now if you're talking about people who failed as minor league starters, then you're talking about almost everybody. At that point I don't understand the point in bringing it up since it applies to everyone, and the topic of the discussion(Dempster) falls into the first category.

[abuck1220]

It comes down to semantics. If you're talking about closers that failed as major league starters and became successful relievers, then no, there aren't many that have done that, compared to those who wash out completely. Now if you're talking about people who failed as minor league starters, then you're talking about almost everybody. At that point I don't understand the point in bringing it up since it applies to everyone, and the topic of the discussion(Dempster) falls into the first category.

 

agreed.

 

most relievers were starters at one point. however, most of the dominant relievers weren't "failed" starters. they may have been starters at one point, and relievers now, but that doesn't mean they failed as starters.

 

additionally, a lot of guys (like guardado) failed for a considerable amount of time as relievers (he was mediocre-bad from 1996-2000) before turning it around. with those guys, it seems like it's more of an issue of figuring it out pitching-wise (as opposed to going from a starter to a reliever) that turns them around.

[abuck1220]

and i would not say that there have been "many" successful closers/set up men that were failed starters.

 

You wouldn't?

You would be wrong then.

 

no i'm not.

 

as i said, most relievers were starters at one point, but that doesn't mean they failed at it.

 

about the only closers that i can see that failed as starters but were successful as closers are gagne, nathan, and izzy. that hardly qualifies as a lot. and those guys did have success as starters in the high minors.