Revisiting Joe Nathan

[Derwood]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

 

because pitchers have egos and think saves mean something and you're going to piss off mariano rivera or trevor hoffman or whomever by bringing them into the game in the 7th while letting Kyle Farnsworth mop up in the 9th

[David]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

 

because pitchers have egos and think saves mean something and you're going to piss off mariano rivera or trevor hoffman or whomever by bringing them into the game in the 7th while letting Kyle Farnsworth mop up in the 9th

 

Luckily, we don't have any established closers on this team, so we shouldn't need to worry about that. If it were me, I'd leave Dempster in that role (and I know that's not happening), and that's more of a reflection of my indifference toward the closer role than any faith I have in Dempster. Let the big guns come in when it matters. Dempster is perfectly mediocre enough to get those final 3 outs.

 

More realistically, I'd let Wood have the spot, assuming he can handle the inning load, (more for emotional reasons than anything else) so that he can have the glory of the saves and sort of bring his name back into the spotlight. Let Marmol and Howry come in in the actual tight spots. Again, no real logic behind it, because I'd rather have all three of them interchangeably used when available and rested for real tight situations. But the situation (both specifically to the Cubs and in the landscape of baseball and bullpen use) is what it is.

[Hosak8]

So we're looking at a second baseman and now a righty power bullpen arm. I predict our next move is to find a starting corner infielder.

Nah, starting first baseman.

 

You just pulled a "Joe Morgan".

[Hosak8]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

 

I'll likely be ridiculed for this, but here goes anyway...

 

So, a message board poster has it right, and ALL of baseball has it wrong? Come on, it's really not too difficult to figure out. The reason that the 9th is a much more important role, and *usually* the best place for a closer is due to the fact that you are down to your final 3 outs, if any, by that time in the game. You give up the lead in the 7th, you still have 6 or 9 outs offensively. In the 9th, the game is over, or you have 3 outs to play with. That is INCREDIBLY different, and it's why great closers are hard to come by. Pressure is much different in that situation, and it's why guys like Farnsworth can be very good middle relievers and subpar closers.

 

Okay, NSB groupthinkers, flame away.

[CubColtPacer]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

 

I'll likely be ridiculed for this, but here goes anyway...

 

So, a message board poster has it right, and ALL of baseball has it wrong? Come on, it's really not too difficult to figure out. The reason that the 9th is a much more important role, and *usually* the best place for a closer is due to the fact that you are down to your final 3 outs, if any, by that time in the game. You give up the lead in the 7th, you still have 6 or 9 outs offensively. In the 9th, the game is over, or you have 3 outs to play with. That is INCREDIBLY different, and it's why great closers are hard to come by. Pressure is much different in that situation, and it's why guys like Farnsworth can be very good middle relievers and subpar closers.

 

Okay, NSB groupthinkers, flame away.

 

I just think you can split it into 2 different roles.

 

To be a closer the biggest thing you need is someone who is mentally tough, who can handle being the one to blow the game and have all that media pressure on you and still go out and perform the next night. Typically, it happens to be one of your better relief pitchers.

 

However, if you have multiple relief pitchers who can handle the role of being the closer, then you can stick the worse one in the 9th and save the best pitchers for other key parts of the game. That's something the Cubs did very well last year. They put Dempster in the 9th, who had the mental makeup to be a closer. He did well protecting leads with nobody on in the 9th, and they saved their most dominant pitcher Marmol to come in with runners on and get key strikeouts to end innings. The Cubs wouldn't have had nearly as good of a bullpen if they had switched Dempster and Marmol's roles, even though Marmol was the much better pitcher.

 

This year the Cubs are blessed with closer candidates. Howry, Dempster, Marmol, and Wood all seem to have the makeup to take on the role. Out of all of those, the only one I hope they don't pick to be the closer is Marmol because I believe his high strikeout totals are best utilized in getting other pitchers out of jams. He is the one guy who doesn't need the security of a little room for error that starting an inning gives you, and that's why I don't think he should be the closer.

 

You certainly can't just stick anybody at closer. It's an important role that has a unique skill set attached to it for a relief pitcher. If your best reliever is the only one with the makeup to be a closer, then it's much better for him to be the closer then to see somebody else implode at that spot. At the same time, that skill set does not have to mean that your closer is your best reliever, and IMO it's typically better if you have multiple closer options and you can save the better one to use at the biggest point of a game.

[Rob]

Getting Joe Nathan would be great... if we didn't have much more pressing holes. Unfortunately, we do. A real SS and some SP would help out a lot more than Nathan would.

[RammyFanny]

Might as well shoot for Street if you're looking down the closer avenue (if he's available).

[cbbryan]

Getting Joe Nathan would be great... if we didn't have much more pressing holes. Unfortunately, we do. A real SS and some SP would help out a lot more than Nathan would.

 

 

I don't think Hendry is looking for a SS unfortunately. There have been rumblings of an additional SP which would be nice. He apparently called on Santana which is a bit surprising to me. Maybe the A.J. Burnett rumors have some legs. While he's an injury risk I certainly would like him more then Bedard if only because of what the Cubs may have to give up in order to get Bedard.

 

I also agree that Nathan isn't really a necessity, but I bring it up because it's said that the Cubs where interested in Nathan. If this is true, I would think they would try to move Dempster and one of the primary rumors that Dempster has been involved in was to Toronto for Burnett.

 

It will certainly be interesting to see if the Cubs make a move for either.

[wrigley23]

I put the priority on: 1) leadoff hitter 2) top 3 pitcher 3) closer 4) upgrade at SS 5) upgrade at CF

[Danny82]

Balsa Wood, who has never had one save in his career(notice the Cubs have so little faith in him last year he never entered one game with the team ahead), can't be expected to do anything beyond the 7th inning.

 

Never pitched in one game with the team ahead?

 

You might want to check the box scores from August 9th, August 13th, September 21st, and September 23rd.

 

Surely you shouldn't have to misstate facts to make your point.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Minnesota will be asking for the world for Nathan. He's not worth the world.

 

considering what they got for santana, I wouldnt be so sure

[RynoHawk23]

Minnesota has very little experience in their rotation and only 4 starters right now. They have Pat Neshek in the wings. They aren't going to resign Nathan, so I would think a trade that actually helps them this year would be realistic for them. I could see Dempster, Wuertz (?) and a average prospect for Nathan. Helps both teams and offsets the money issues.

 

Of course after the Santana debacle, they might be wiser to keep Nathan until the deadline. But I think our surplus matches their needs.

[imb]

guys i know for a fact that pitching in the ninth up 4-1 is much more difficult than coming in during a tie game in the seventh with the lead run in scoring position.

 

ninth inning guys that always pitch with leads have more intensity than some puss that just comes in and gets a couple outs with the bases loaded in the seventh.

 

edit

 

wow, the weirdest thing just happened. i dont even remember posting this. I remember reading this thread and then a vision of meph appeared in my mind and said "do as I command" over and over. I guess I blacked out or something, because i just woke up and i was busy typing the equation for eqa over and over in wordpad.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Bunts Lick Butts

[WilcoFan]

I put the priority on: 1) leadoff hitter

 

 

I would put as a priority the position of #7 hitter. We absolutely need someone to build a bridge from the #6 to the #8 hitter. Its an exceptionally important position, and we need someone who can fit this position. If we don't, we're in trouble.

[David]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

 

I'll likely be ridiculed for this, but here goes anyway...

 

So, a message board poster has it right, and ALL of baseball has it wrong? Come on, it's really not too difficult to figure out. The reason that the 9th is a much more important role, and *usually* the best place for a closer is due to the fact that you are down to your final 3 outs, if any, by that time in the game. You give up the lead in the 7th, you still have 6 or 9 outs offensively. In the 9th, the game is over, or you have 3 outs to play with. That is INCREDIBLY different, and it's why great closers are hard to come by. Pressure is much different in that situation, and it's why guys like Farnsworth can be very good middle relievers and subpar closers.

 

Okay, NSB groupthinkers, flame away.

 

At what point do you think a victory is more in jeopardy and a run is more likely to score.. in the 9th, with a 1 run lead (basically the most difficult situation a closer will face), nobody on, and nobody out... or, say, in the 7th with a 1 run lead with runners on first and third and one out?

[WilcoFan]

At what point do you think a victory is more in jeopardy and a run is more likely to score.. in the 9th, with a 1 run lead (basically the most difficult situation a closer will face), nobody on, and nobody out... or, say, in the 7th with a 1 run lead with runners on first and third and one out?

 

LaTroy Hawkins picks the first option.

[Rob]

I put the priority on: 1) leadoff hitter 2) top 3 pitcher 3) closer 4) upgrade at SS 5) upgrade at CF

 

Meanwhile, over in reality...

 

1.) SS

2.) SP

 

 

 

---cutoff point for what is actually necessary---

3.) CF

 

 

 

4.) Closer

 

Not on list: Leadoff hitter

[USSoccer]

I put the priority on: 1) leadoff hitter 2) top 3 pitcher 3) closer 4) upgrade at SS 5) upgrade at CF

 

Leadoff hitter is not a position.

[wrigley23]

leadoff hitter is not a position but neither is closer...what's your point? Rob...that is your opinion & I've given mine. We'll see who ends up being right.

[Rob]

leadoff hitter is not a position but neither is closer...what's your point? Rob...that is your opinion & I've given mine. We'll see who ends up being right.

 

There's no debate to the matter. There's a right answer, and a wrong answer. Just because Hendry may agree with you doesn't mean that it was the logical course of action. It would just mean Hendry is every bit as confused as you are as to what actually makes baseball players valuable.

[wrigley23]

Rob, you are either very young or young & anal. You'll eventually grow out of it. Good luck.

[Mephistopheles]

its okay wrigley23 just does not understand the magnitude of the ryan theriot disease.

[wrigley23]

I've never said I was a big Theriot fan. Actually, i'm not a big fan of Soriano...especially leading off. There are reports that the quad injury he had last year is still bothering him so that gives further credence to the reports that they want him out of the leadoff spot. Roberts had 50 steals last year & gets on base at a clip of at least 80 pts more than Soriano. To most, it is a no brainer.

[Mephistopheles]

actually to those most they don't have a brain so it is a no brainer. steals are worthless. get them out of your head.

[JimSorgi]

Roberts had 50 steals last year & gets on base at a clip of at least 80 pts more than Soriano.

 

not true