I have questions for the "Marmol for closer" peopl

[badnews]

1. Do you think if Marmol were closer there would be fewer leads that made it to the 9th?

 

2. Do you acknowledge that the biggest threats often don't come in the 9th inning?

 

3. Do you think the Tigers would've been more successful last year if Joel Zumaya had been the closer instead of Todd Jones?

 

4. Do you think the Indians this year would be more successful if Rafael Betancourt were the closer instead of Joe Borowski?

 

5. Marmol is the best reliever in the NL at stranding inherited runners. Isn't this skill somewhat wasted in the closer's role?

[anabiono]

i don't so very much mind dempster in the closers role...every closer will have this stuff happen to them...

 

and i really don't totally pin this one on dempster...

 

i mean seriously

 

line drive up the first base line...

 

good ground ball that found a weakness

 

ball taken by wind and barely landing in basket

 

crap happens

 

it just so happens we were crapped on today...i know we all took showers right afterwards...so...we are now clean and ready to keep on truckin

[chuckywang]

Cubs and Brewers have the same record, Cards are 1 game back.

 

This is what September is all about. People are just getting riled up over a painful loss still fresh in their memories.

[David]

Finally, someone that shares my exact view on this subject. Nice!

[NewUserName]

The "closer" is the most over-rated postition in all of sports. I agree the innings Marmol pitch are equalling as important as the innings Dempster pitches. Just like there is no clutch hitting, "The last 3 outs of the game are the toughest" is just some made up cliche.

[chuckywang]

The "closer" is the most over-rated postition in all of sports. I agree the innings Marmol pitch are equalling as important as the innings Dempster pitches. Just like there is no clutch hitting, "The last 3 outs of the game are the toughest" is just some made up cliche.

 

Strangely, I agree. Sometimes the closer might not even be the best pitcher to face the last three hitters, from a statistical point of view. And yet, teams trot them out there every time just because they are labeled "closer."

[NewUserName]

The "closer" is the most over-rated postition in all of sports. I agree the innings Marmol pitch are equalling as important as the innings Dempster pitches. Just like there is no clutch hitting, "The last 3 outs of the game are the toughest" is just some made up cliche.

 

Strangely, I agree. Sometimes the closer might not even be the best pitcher to face the last three hitters, from a statistical point of view. And yet, teams trot them out there every time just because they are labeled "closer."

 

I do agree with some sort of continuity though. In the Cubs case Marmol is the 7th inning guy, Howry the 8th and Dempster the 9th. I think having this kind of continuity adds comfort and builds confidence. Which is another reason in my book it would not be a good idea to change Marmol to closer just because of some silly label.

[CuseCubFan69]

If I remember correctly, the Yanks had someone else close while a certain closer of theirs pitched the 8th. I think Marmol will make a very good closer and in time he'll be handed the ball in the 9th.

 

As for saves, I don't know why they don't give the pitcher that gets a save more points for a 1 run lead save and less for a 3 run or 3 good innings save. I'm more impressed with a guy that saves a 1 run game then I am when a guy comes in with a 3 run lead and gives up 2 runs and still gets a save. So, 3 points for a 1 run save, 2 for a 2 run save and 1 for a 3 run or 3 inning save.

[MPrior]

It seems that the only reason bullpens have to be constructed in the way they are is because people (managers, players, pitching coaches, etc.) expect them to.

 

I know the "closer by committee" thing has been tried before, but I think calling it that is a problem. We should get rid of the "closer" moniker altogether. Instead, call your elite reliever your "relief ace" or something like that, and play them when they're needed.

 

Even under this system, I probably still would have put Marmol in to close last night, if only because it was a one-run lead against a decent team with a couple of lefties coming up, which is not good for Dempster.

[Abe Frohman]

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. That's what I say.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

[Keener98]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

 

Which means absolutely nothing

[Rob]

I think the general idea is that Marmol has helped us win a lot more games due to the way he's been leveraged than Dempster has cost us in the 9th. And since switching the roles would mean shoving Demp in those based juiced, one out situations in the 7th, and pitching Marmol when we're up by 3 in the 9th... Yeah, it's just not a good idea.

 

I know it's painful to watch a game be blown in the 9th. But that's no reason to throw more games away by using Dempster in a situation he can't handle in the 7th.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

 

Which means absolutely nothing

 

It doesnt mean it wont happen again. It does however suggest that there are guys ho can shut em down in the 7th and 8th inning, but they cant take the pressure of closing. Similarly, there are guys who can dominate in a save situation, but for some reason when you bring them i with a 5 run lead, they cant get the job done.

[Shilzzz]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

 

Which means absolutely nothing

 

It doesnt mean it wont happen again. It does however suggest that there are guys ho can shut em down in the 7th and 8th inning, but they cant take the pressure of closing. Similarly, there are guys who can dominate in a save situation, but for some reason when you bring them i with a 5 run lead, they cant get the job done.

 

it doesn't mean it won't happen again, but it still means absolutely nothing.

[radarluv1]

the media makes a big deal about any sort of switching the 9th inning guy. it would be a circus if this were to happen. then lou and demp have to anwer a bunch of questions every day about it, demp may lose confidence (may/may not be important). guys with the "closer" label tend to get more money than other lights out bp guys. i dont know when marmol is arby eligible but being a closer may get him more cash.

so in short, it aint broke so dont fix it.

[NCCubFan]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

I also remember players (Rivera, K-Rod, etc.) who started out as setup men, then became dominant closers when the former closers they were stuck behind (Wetteland, Percival) left. The fact is that some dominant setup men can continue that dominance as closers, others can't. There's no way of knowing which Marmol would be without giving him a chance.

 

Having said that, I'm one of the proponants of using your best reliever as a stopper (in the most critical situation regardless of inning) rather than closer. I'd eliminate both the save and hold statistics as they currently exist and replace them with one statistic for relievers wh do their jobs, regardless of whether they finish the game, and allowing such statistic to be awarded to more than one pitcher in a game if they all do their jobs.

[biittner77]

Let's say the Cubs could trade Dempster during the offseason- proven closer tag making him valuable to someone- for a better RF? Would you want Wuertz as closer or Marmol?

[Drew Doughty]

Let's say the Cubs could trade Dempster during the offseason- proven closer tag making him valuable to someone- for a better RF? Would you want Wuertz as closer or Marmol?

 

howry

[Sammy Sofa]

Let's say the Cubs could trade Dempster during the offseason- proven closer tag making him valuable to someone- for a better RF? Would you want Wuertz as closer or Marmol?

 

howry

 

Co-signed.

[kente777]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

 

I don't ever remember Hawkins being lights out.

[imb]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

 

I don't ever remember Hawkins being lights out.

 

Hawkins was pretty untouchable as a setup guy

[NCCubFan]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

 

I don't ever remember Hawkins being lights out.

 

Hawkins was pretty untouchable as a setup guy

Both with the Twins (after they moved him to setup after his failure as a closer) and with the Cubs before they decided he was a closer.

[badnews]

I think Francisco Rodriguez was a better set-up man than a closer. Percival 2001-2003 was plenty good.

[Guest]

Does anyone else remember the last time the Cubs had a lights out set up man, and then moved him to closer? It didnt turn out so well. In fact he was never the same and was ultimately bood out of town.

I also remember players (Rivera, K-Rod, etc.) who started out as setup men, then became dominant closers when the former closers they were stuck behind (Wetteland, Percival) left. The fact is that some dominant setup men can continue that dominance as closers, others can't. There's no way of knowing which Marmol would be without giving him a chance.

 

Heck, I remember when Percival was a lights-out set-up man for Lee Smith with California before moving to closer.

 

And I'm cool with Howry closing next year if Dempster is gone.