How good is Marmol?

[dew1679666265]

I'm staying in the camp that says 70 high-leverage innings, with the boost a pitcher usually gets from moving to relief, is about the same value as 200 starters' innings.

 

Are the innings only high leverage because they're in the ninth inning? Otherwise, there are a decent amount of three-run lead (or even two-run), one inning saves with the bases clear.

 

It does depend on the difference between the pitcher as a starter and reliever. If a pitcher is average in the rotation, but his stuff will allow him to be dominant in the pen, I'd be much more open to him going to the bullpen.

[dew1679666265]

I totally agree with most of what you're saying. If you have the stuff to be a solid starter (#1-#3), you should remain a starter, but if your potential is to be a #4 or #5 starter maybe you ought to try being groomed as a closer. Samardzija is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't think he's ever going to be a great starter, but he might develop into a good closer. As others have pointed out, the top 12 starters are a small percentage of all starters while the top 12 closers are a significant percentage.

 

I see what you're saying, but would you turn Gorzelanny into a closer? Or Randy Wells? Those guys are much more valuable as starters because, even though neither is a top of the line type starter, both will put up quality numbers for their team. I'd probably only look at guys who can't cut it in a major league rotation (Gagne, potentially Shark, etc.) to move to a closer's role rather than significantly decrease the number of innings a quality starter will throw.

 

I don't see either guy as having the sort of stuff to be all that much better in short outings. I don't see the point of having either in the pen.

 

That was my point. Both are more back-end of the rotation guys, but shouldn't be turned into relievers because of that. They're more valuable as starters than as relievers.

[jersey cubs fan]

I totally agree with most of what you're saying. If you have the stuff to be a solid starter (#1-#3), you should remain a starter, but if your potential is to be a #4 or #5 starter maybe you ought to try being groomed as a closer. Samardzija is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't think he's ever going to be a great starter, but he might develop into a good closer. As others have pointed out, the top 12 starters are a small percentage of all starters while the top 12 closers are a significant percentage.

 

I see what you're saying, but would you turn Gorzelanny into a closer? Or Randy Wells? Those guys are much more valuable as starters because, even though neither is a top of the line type starter, both will put up quality numbers for their team. I'd probably only look at guys who can't cut it in a major league rotation (Gagne, potentially Shark, etc.) to move to a closer's role rather than significantly decrease the number of innings a quality starter will throw.

 

I don't see either guy as having the sort of stuff to be all that much better in short outings. I don't see the point of having either in the pen.

 

That was my point. Both are more back-end of the rotation guys, but shouldn't be turned into relievers because of that. They're more valuable as starters than as relievers.

I'm not even sure they are back of the rotation guys. They will probably never be an ace. But if they pitch as well as they have, there's no reason you can't succeed with them as your 3rd starters.

 

Then again, they might not be as good as they've looked.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not even sure they are back of the rotation guys. They will probably never be an ace. But if they pitch as well as they have, there's no reason you can't succeed with them as your 3rd starters.

 

Then again, they might not be as good as they've looked.

 

Much as I like Gorzo and Wells, I still fall on the conservative side with them. I still consider them over the long run as 3-4 starters more than top of the line type guys. I think they're pitching a bit over their heads right now, but that they still can be valuable members of the rotation.

 

That said, they probably weren't the best of examples. A better example is a guy like Jason Marquis. A very average pitcher who can fluctuate to above average and below average. He's a back end of the rotation type of guy, but I wouldn't consider moving him to the bullpen. Partly because I don't think his stuff would be magnified that much and partly because getting as many innings as he can eat at an average level of production is pretty valuable.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm staying in the camp that says 70 high-leverage innings, with the boost a pitcher usually gets from moving to relief, is about the same value as 200 starters' innings.

 

Are the innings only high leverage because they're in the ninth inning? Otherwise, there are a decent amount of three-run lead (or even two-run), one inning saves with the bases clear.

 

A true stopper, high-leverage only role would be ideal, but usually ninth-inning only is high-leverage enough to be worth it.

[Backtobanks]

I totally agree with most of what you're saying. If you have the stuff to be a solid starter (#1-#3), you should remain a starter, but if your potential is to be a #4 or #5 starter maybe you ought to try being groomed as a closer. Samardzija is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't think he's ever going to be a great starter, but he might develop into a good closer. As others have pointed out, the top 12 starters are a small percentage of all starters while the top 12 closers are a significant percentage.

 

I see what you're saying, but would you turn Gorzelanny into a closer? Or Randy Wells? Those guys are much more valuable as starters because, even though neither is a top of the line type starter, both will put up quality numbers for their team. I'd probably only look at guys who can't cut it in a major league rotation (Gagne, potentially Shark, etc.) to move to a closer's role rather than significantly decrease the number of innings a quality starter will throw.

 

I think the original point was a hard throwing pitcher, which is why I mentioned Shark. Most closers usually have one overwhelming pitch(often a fastball) and one other pitch. Gorzelanny and Wells don't have that dominant fastball, but they do have 3-4 decent pitches.

[UK1679666180]

Samardzija even with the velo does not have the stuff to be an effective closer. The fact he can throw 95+ doesn't make his fastball a plus pitch considering it lacks movement, deception, and command. Then, you combine it with an inconsistent slider and splitter and I don't see how he would become an option to be groomed at closer.

 

Grooming him for the pen because he can't cut it as a starter doesn't equate to him being groomed as a closer.

[UK1679666180]

To be a high end closer you need 2 plus pitches or in Rivera's case, the best single pitch in MLB history (until that Nats pitcher throws his slider).

 

To be a #1 starter, you also generally need need two plus pitches with a ML avg. 3rd pitch with some having a ML avg. 4th pitch.

 

A starter will require better command/control to be an elite starter given pitch counts and larger samples to where loss of control can hurt.

[dew1679666265]

I think the original point was a hard throwing pitcher, which is why I mentioned Shark. Most closers usually have one overwhelming pitch(often a fastball) and one other pitch. Gorzelanny and Wells don't have that dominant fastball, but they do have 3-4 decent pitches.

 

You disagreed with the idea of a hard throwing starter being able to make the transition, though, didn't you?

 

I wish he could put up those numbers for 7 innings every 5 days.

 

I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats.

 

That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that.

 

I think there aren't as many hard throwing starting pitchers that could make that transition as you think. Many starting pitchers struggle in their first inning. Obviously, in All Star games and the playoffs it happens, but I doubt if very many of them could do it consistently.

 

My view is that pitchers with the stuff to be a closer could make that transition well because their stuff would be magnified by not having to pitch as much per outing. I wouldn't move most of those pitchers to the pen, however, because most (especially top of the line starters) are more valuable throwing 7+ innings per outing. However, with a strong enough rotation, I'd be open to the idea of a somewhat average starter shifting to the pen (like when the Cubs tried Dempster in the pen, for instance).

[TruffleShuffle]

he's now struck out 49 of the 102 batters he's faced (48.04%) and has 17.88 K per 9 IP. jeez.

[Ski]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/turning-the-dial-to-ridiculous/

[Guest]

The Wall Street Journal[/url]"]Through Monday, Carlos Marmol had struck out 45.8% of the batters he faced, which would be the highest rate in history over a full season.

[MrCub14]

He is easily the best player on the roster. He has the potential to become one of the best closers in the league. Let's hope he doesn't pull an Eric Gagne!

[weis21]

or, we can also hope the cubs actually give him an opportunity to save a game again...!