Boston looking for a closer

[cheapseats]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003.

 

Also an incredible year.

 

I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season.

 

Wetteland was pretty amazing in 1993. He threw 21 more innings, had a much higher K/9 and K/BB, and slightly lower WHIP. They gave up the same number of HR, 3.

 

And then, like Mesa, was still good in subsequent years but didn't come close to repeating that performance. As you said in another thread, fans (and GMs) get all hot and bothered for a "proven closer," but one can't look at a bullpen performance from the previous year and expect the same thing in the current year. Bullpen performance fluctuates too much.

 

Another interesting thing about Wetteland's 1993: In about one out of every five appearances, he pitched for more than one inning. That doesn't happen much now.

[jdelaney5150]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003.

 

Also an incredible year.

 

I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season.

 

Yes, but that's not what you originally said. You said you'd take Mesa over Smith and that is just an utterly ridiculous statement. Certain stats can be argued; others can't. Pick any stat you want; Smith beats Mesa in all of them and flat out dominates in most of them.

 

K/IP

Mesa: .67

Smith: .97

 

BB/IP

Mesa: .42

Smith: .38

 

ERA:

Mesa: 4.27

Smith: 3.03

 

And of course the all important one of Saves

Mesa: 320

Smith: 478

 

Smith has 1.5 times the saves Mesa has in over 200 LESS innings.

 

That is why Smith is being considered for the Hall of Fame and Mesa will never come anywhere close.

 

One great year does not make someone a great player. Otherwise by your argument we need to include Brady Anderson as one of the great sluggers of the last 10 years.

[cheapseats]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003.

 

Also an incredible year.

 

I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season.

 

Yes, but that's not what you originally said. You said you'd take Mesa over Smith and that is just an utterly ridiculous statement. Certain stats can be argued; others can't. Pick any stat you want; Smith beats Mesa in all of them and flat out dominates in most of them.

 

K/IP

Mesa: .67

Smith: .97

 

BB/IP

Mesa: .42

Smith: .38

 

ERA:

Mesa: 4.27

Smith: 3.03

 

And of course the all important one of Saves

Mesa: 320

Smith: 478

 

Smith has 1.5 times the saves Mesa has in over 200 LESS innings.

 

That is why Smith is being considered for the Hall of Fame and Mesa will never come anywhere close.

 

One great year does not make someone a great player. Otherwise by your argument we need to include Brady Anderson as one of the great sluggers of the last 10 years.

 

I was kidding. But thanks for making the case for Lee Smith.

 

As for saves being "all important," I probably care about all the other stats you posted more than I care about saves.

 

The worst pitcher in baseball stands a great chance of pitching the ninth inning without giving up three runs. With no outs, a team with an average offense against an average pitcher can expect to score half a run. The best offense in baseball last year, the Red Sox, averaged about .65 runs/half inning over the course of the season. The worst reliever in the major leagues last year was Jaret Wright, who gave up 46 runs in just over 56 innings of work--.82 runs an inning. Given a three-run lead in the ninth, pitching against the Red Sox, Wright could reasonably be expected to give up an average of a run each appearance, and if he did it all season, he'd rack up 20 saves, be anointed a proven closer, and sign with the Mets for $4 million a year...

 

It's obvious then that having a team's best pitcher in with a three-run lead doesn't make much sense, because almost anyone could do that job. Why do teams insist on doing this?

 

Blame the save. It's a counting statistic that was intended to measure an event--whether that's an event worth counting we can debate another time. But the measurement of that event led to the development of a role: the closer, who pitches only when his team has a lead of one to three runs, and in so doing becomes eligible to pick up a save.

[fromthestretch]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

 

I think 2003 Eric Gagne, 2003 John Smoltz, 1981 Rollie Fingers, 1990 Dennis Eckersley, 2006 Jonathan Papelbon - to name a few - might disagree.

[jdelaney5150]

Either you are a politician or you used to be on a high school debate team. When confronted with opposition, rather than support or retract your position, you just change the argument. I also liked that you have quoted two separate articles in this thread; 1 that says that the 9th inning man is an entirely different breed and 1 that says you can throw just anyone out there. Yet you have not stated that you support either one as your personal opinion, which pretty much still gives you the option to argue from any angle. That is skillful, but I will not be baited.

 

As for saves being all important, you are right that they are not. I was using poetic license; meaning that is the first stat the layperson throws out when comparing closers.

 

See; a direct response to what you challenged me on. That's not so hard is it?

[cheapseats]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

 

I think 2003 Eric Gagne, 2003 John Smoltz, 1981 Rollie Fingers, 1990 Dennis Eckersley, 2006 Jonathan Papelbon - to name a few - might disagree.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5428

 

The Eckersley, Gagne, and Fingers seasons are 2-3-4 in that list behind Mesa.

 

Mike Jackson (!) is 5th on the list.

 

The whole article is interesting. One point that jumped out at me: since 1985, one in four great seasons by closers was by a pitcher who had never recorded 20 or more saves in a prior season. In other words, about 25% of great seasons by a closer since 1985 have been enjoyed by guys who weren't "proven closers."

[Soul]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

 

I think 2003 Eric Gagne, 2003 John Smoltz, 1981 Rollie Fingers, 1990 Dennis Eckersley, 2006 Jonathan Papelbon - to name a few - might disagree.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5428

 

The Eckersley, Gagne, and Fingers seasons are 2-3-4 in that list behind Mesa.

 

Mike Jackson (!) is 5th on the list.

 

The whole article is interesting. One point that jumped out at me: since 1985, one in four great seasons by closers was by a pitcher who had never recorded 20 or more saves in a prior season. In other words, about 25% of great seasons by a closer since 1985 have been enjoyed by guys who weren't "proven closers."

 

It's interesting in the sense that the author essentially makes up a stat and then goes on to try to use it to prove something. Trouble is, he winds up with names like John Rocker, Dustin Hermanson, Derrick Turnbow and Byung-Hyun Kim on his "best" lists.

 

Before we proceed, let’s concoct a quick-and-dirty way to evaluate a closer’s effectiveness.

 

Indeed.

[weitliz]

Ptomley (X or XI, take your pick) would have been a great closer if baseball had existed in ancient Egypt.

 

Hah! I initially read this as "Ptolomy" and thought :?

[cheapseats]

It's interesting in the sense that the author essentially makes up a stat and then goes on to try to use it to prove something. Trouble is, he winds up with names like John Rocker, Dustin Hermanson, Derrick Turnbow and Byung-Hyun Kim on his "best" lists.

 

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful.

 

John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005.

[Soul]

It's interesting in the sense that the author essentially makes up a stat and then goes on to try to use it to prove something. Trouble is, he winds up with names like John Rocker, Dustin Hermanson, Derrick Turnbow and Byung-Hyun Kim on his "best" lists.

 

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful.

 

John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005.

 

Not saying they didn't have good seasons, but I watched seasons like Turnbow's in '05 and Kim's in '02. Good, but I wouldn't call them special.

 

This stat concoction thing has gotten a bit out of hand. People are making stuff up, posting it on the internet, and then everyone's thinking it actually means something.

 

I rebel against you, stat-maker-uppers!

[cheapseats]

It's interesting in the sense that the author essentially makes up a stat and then goes on to try to use it to prove something. Trouble is, he winds up with names like John Rocker, Dustin Hermanson, Derrick Turnbow and Byung-Hyun Kim on his "best" lists.

 

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful.

 

John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005.

 

Not saying they didn't have good seasons, but I watched seasons like Turnbow's in '05 and Kim's in '02. Good, but I wouldn't call them special.

 

This stat concoction thing has gotten a bit out of hand. People are making stuff up, posting it on the internet, and then everyone's thinking it actually means something.

 

I rebel against you, stat-maker-uppers!

 

Personally, I'd be ecstatic if someone in the 2007 Cubs pen has a season like Turnbow's or Kim's.

 

Is there a better way to judge "closer" performance? I rebel against your rebellion. :twisted:

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Boston has a guy named Craig Hansen who could fill that void. He has a nasty slider that could be even more devastating if he locates his fastball consistently. However, he still needs some experience before he could step into that role.

 

His FB location is a concern but the bigger concern is that his slider is nowhere near as good these days. The two problems are related, imo.

[Rob]

Boston has a guy named Craig Hansen who could fill that void. He has a nasty slider that could be even more devastating if he locates his fastball consistently. However, he still needs some experience before he could step into that role.

 

Hansen's gonna have a hard time being lights out if he doesn't bring his arm slot back up. Lefties are seeing his stuff too well and absolutely pasting him.

[Jehrico]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003.

 

Also an incredible year.

 

I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season.

 

Yes, but that's not what you originally said. You said you'd take Mesa over Smith and that is just an utterly ridiculous statement. Certain stats can be argued; others can't. Pick any stat you want; Smith beats Mesa in all of them and flat out dominates in most of them.

 

K/IP

Mesa: .67

Smith: .97

 

BB/IP

Mesa: .42

Smith: .38

 

ERA:

Mesa: 4.27

Smith: 3.03

 

And of course the all important one of Saves

Mesa: 320

Smith: 478

 

Smith has 1.5 times the saves Mesa has in over 200 LESS innings.

 

That is why Smith is being considered for the Hall of Fame and Mesa will never come anywhere close.

 

One great year does not make someone a great player. Otherwise by your argument we need to include Brady Anderson as one of the great sluggers of the last 10 years.

Yeah, but isn't Lee Smith like 50 now? :wink:

[Rob]

In all seriousness, Jose Mesa's 1995 might be the best year by a closer in the history of baseball.

 

I dunno, I'm a big fan of Gagne in 2003.

 

Also an incredible year.

 

I just think sometimes people forget how good Mesa was for that one season.

 

Yes, but that's not what you originally said. You said you'd take Mesa over Smith and that is just an utterly ridiculous statement. Certain stats can be argued; others can't. Pick any stat you want; Smith beats Mesa in all of them and flat out dominates in most of them.

 

K/IP

Mesa: .67

Smith: .97

 

BB/IP

Mesa: .42

Smith: .38

 

ERA:

Mesa: 4.27

Smith: 3.03

 

And of course the all important one of Saves

Mesa: 320

Smith: 478

 

Smith has 1.5 times the saves Mesa has in over 200 LESS innings.

 

That is why Smith is being considered for the Hall of Fame and Mesa will never come anywhere close.

 

One great year does not make someone a great player. Otherwise by your argument we need to include Brady Anderson as one of the great sluggers of the last 10 years.

 

Uh, just so everybody here feels really old.

 

There have been 10 full seasons since Brady Anderson knocked his fifty dingers. He actually did that 11 seasons ago.

[CoolHandLuke]

Shouldn't Joe Borowski be in that little closer study?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Either you are a politician or you used to be on a high school debate team. When confronted with opposition, rather than support or retract your position, you just change the argument. I also liked that you have quoted two separate articles in this thread; 1 that says that the 9th inning man is an entirely different breed and 1 that says you can throw just anyone out there. Yet you have not stated that you support either one as your personal opinion, which pretty much still gives you the option to argue from any angle. That is skillful, but I will not be baited.

 

As for saves being all important, you are right that they are not. I was using poetic license; meaning that is the first stat the layperson throws out when comparing closers.

 

See; a direct response to what you challenged me on. That's not so hard is it?

 

When someone posts an article from Joe Morgan, it's safe to assume that their actual view point is the EXACT OPPOSITE...at least here at NorthSideBaseball.

[Soul]

It's interesting in the sense that the author essentially makes up a stat and then goes on to try to use it to prove something. Trouble is, he winds up with names like John Rocker, Dustin Hermanson, Derrick Turnbow and Byung-Hyun Kim on his "best" lists.

 

Well, it would certainly be fair to question the use of the stat to rank individual seasons, but as far as simply identifying them, I think it's quite useful.

 

John Rocker really did have a very good season in 1999. Dustin Hermanson was fantastic in 2005. Kim was dominating in 2002. Turnbow had an ERA under 2.00 in 2005.

 

Not saying they didn't have good seasons, but I watched seasons like Turnbow's in '05 and Kim's in '02. Good, but I wouldn't call them special.

 

This stat concoction thing has gotten a bit out of hand. People are making stuff up, posting it on the internet, and then everyone's thinking it actually means something.

 

I rebel against you, stat-maker-uppers!

 

Personally, I'd be ecstatic if someone in the 2007 Cubs pen has a season like Turnbow's or Kim's.

 

Is there a better way to judge "closer" performance? I rebel against your rebellion. :twisted:

 

I don't know of one. I trust my eyes, and watch out for one-year wonders ;)

 

BTW, I'd take Turnbow's '05 too. But it doesn't make him a great closer. Makes him a guy who had a good year.

[cheapseats]

 

BTW, I'd take Turnbow's '05 too. But it doesn't make him a great closer. Makes him a guy who had a good year.

 

Actually, I think that's partly the point of the article. There are very few who are great from year to year. IIRC, it's been a couple of years since Mariano Rivera converted 75% or more of his chances.

 

That being the case, spending $$$ on a closer is not something that I'd normally want my team's GM to do.

[Cubzfan64]

 

BTW, I'd take Turnbow's '05 too. But it doesn't make him a great closer. Makes him a guy who had a good year.

 

Actually, I think that's partly the point of the article. There are very few who are great from year to year. IIRC, it's been a couple of years since Mariano Rivera converted 75% or more of his chances.

 

That being the case, spending $$$ on a closer is not something that I'd normally want my team's GM to do.

 

I'm not sure about that either, but I definitely put Rivera into the "great" category.

 

We're really flying off the initial subject of the post though - I'd love to know what Boston plans to do with all their starting pitchers. Perhaps Lester will start back in AAA due to his cancer - although it's in remission, he may need extra time to get his strength back up. I would be very surprised if they actually tried to get Clemens now - I mean, who would they put in the bullpen?? Wakefield could go there, but when you bring him in, you almost have to pull Veritek out because he's shown he has alot of trouble catching the knuckleball.

 

I'm guessing Boston makes a deal sometime before the start of the season for an average to above average closer - names that might be involved could be Crisp, Pena or perhaps they could still swing something with Manny if they can get a closer and a serviceable OF in return (or play Pena there).

 

I doubt they would have much interest in Dempster - I think he'd get killed in Fenway Park far too often.

[cheapseats]

 

I'm guessing Boston makes a deal sometime before the start of the season for an average to above average closer - names that might be involved could be Crisp, Pena or perhaps they could still swing something with Manny if they can get a closer and a serviceable OF in return (or play Pena there).

 

I doubt they would have much interest in Dempster - I think he'd get killed in Fenway Park far too often.

 

My guess is that they trade for a reliever who hasn't closed before or use someone currently on the roster.

[Cubzfan64]

There was some talk on the radio this morning about Mike Gonzalez of Pittsburgh being pursued with combinations of Youkalis, Crisp or some minor leaguers in a deal - then they would pick up Huff to play 1B.

 

Boston doesn't want to go into the season with Craig Hansen slated as their closer cause they just don't think he's ready. Del Carmen is more of a set-up guy, and although Timlin has closed before, he's really near the end of his career and hasn't had alot of success lately.

 

I think the last part of Boston's puzzle is a closer and with the amount of cash they've spent this year, I don't see any reason not to put all your eggs in the 2007 season and just go for it.

[Magnetic Curses]

BenMaller.com is reporting:

 

Possible Red Sox trade targets include Chad Cordero of the Nationals, Akinori Otsuka of the Rangers, and Mike Gonzalez of the Pirates.

 

I would think Crisp or Pena would be available with Dempster, Eyre, or Ohman as trade bait. Neither Crisp or Pena is exactly what all of us want, but either one would continue to fill some of the holes left on the roster.

 

i imagine a room full of GMs sitting around listening to theo declare that he's interested in acquiring a closer and is open to possible trade scenarios. hendry puts his hand up, theo ignores him. hendry begins waving his hands like a madman, theo continues ignoring him. hendry finally stands up.

 

"jim, sit down."

[Backtobanks]

BenMaller.com is reporting:

 

Possible Red Sox trade targets include Chad Cordero of the Nationals, Akinori Otsuka of the Rangers, and Mike Gonzalez of the Pirates.

 

I would think Crisp or Pena would be available with Dempster, Eyre, or Ohman as trade bait. Neither Crisp or Pena is exactly what all of us want, but either one would continue to fill some of the holes left on the roster.

 

i imagine a room full of GMs sitting around listening to theo declare that he's interested in acquiring a closer and is open to possible trade scenarios. hendry puts his hand up, theo ignores him. hendry begins waving his hands like a madman, theo continues ignoring him. hendry finally stands up.

 

"jim, sit down."

 

 

Today, BenMaller.com is reporting:

 

The Red Sox are still looking to bolster their bullpen and rotation depth, which could lead to offers for free agents such as Chris Reitsma and Runelvys Hernandez.

 

So, even though the players I mentioned aren't closers, they certainly would bolster the Red Sox' bullpen and Dempster might be able to step into the closer's role in an emergency.

[Magnetic Curses]

BenMaller.com is reporting:

 

Possible Red Sox trade targets include Chad Cordero of the Nationals, Akinori Otsuka of the Rangers, and Mike Gonzalez of the Pirates.

 

I would think Crisp or Pena would be available with Dempster, Eyre, or Ohman as trade bait. Neither Crisp or Pena is exactly what all of us want, but either one would continue to fill some of the holes left on the roster.

 

i imagine a room full of GMs sitting around listening to theo declare that he's interested in acquiring a closer and is open to possible trade scenarios. hendry puts his hand up, theo ignores him. hendry begins waving his hands like a madman, theo continues ignoring him. hendry finally stands up.

 

"jim, sit down."

 

 

Today, BenMaller.com is reporting:

 

The Red Sox are still looking to bolster their bullpen and rotation depth, which could lead to offers for free agents such as Chris Reitsma and Runelvys Hernandez.

 

So, even though the players I mentioned aren't closers, they certainly would bolster the Red Sox' bullpen and Dempster might be able to step into the closer's role in an emergency.

 

dempster is expensive and bad. no way hendry is able to get rid of him without absorbing most of his contract. as for eyre and howry, i'd rather not get rid of them, and hendry probably won't.