Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, May 07, 2012
~WARNING!~ Plesacian thought patterns detected in this area.
Valverde blew his second save of this season Saturday, when he surrendered a colossal Adam Dunn home run that physicists say will land in Canada sometime this week. He displayed curious pitch selection during the outing: eight consecutive fastballs, followed by six consecutive splitters.
“He’ll be fine,” Tigers manager Jim Leyland insisted Sunday, after Valverde allowed the tying run to reach base before closing out a 3-1 win over the White Sox. “It’s a combination: He’s struggling a little bit, and expectations are so high on him because we’re spoiled after last year. We knew going into the season he wasn’t going to be 49-for-49.
“(Closers) are so important. That’s why they get paid a lot. People don’t realize what a value it is when you’ve got a guy who can get outs 25, 26 and 27. A lot of good pitchers — in both leagues — can’t get 25, 26 and 27. They might get you up to the point and make it look easy. But there are a lot of good pitchers who can’t get those last three.”
Repoz
Posted: May 07, 2012 at 06:26 AM | 29 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
history
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Leroy Kincaid Posted: May 07, 2012 at 07:06 AM (#4125176)Wouldn't the amount of velocity needed for the ball to reach Canada necessarily mean it would have to get there much sooner?
all yall callin the astros bout brett myers? he's real cheap, only 5/6 of 11 mill - line forms on the right
It's going to orbit a few times first.
Shouldn't these sorts of comments be a sign that closing is not all that special? The guys who were great last year suck this year, the top two teams in the AL East feature Jim Johnson and Fernando Rodney and the Yankees "should be fine" even losing the greatest closer ever. Isn't there a point where someone notices this stuff and thinks "hey, the trick is to find good relief pitchers"?
And to expand, with very few exceptions, there are no "good relief pitchers", just relief pitchers who are pitching good right now.
The species is so unreliable, that outside of 20-30 truly elite guys, you might as well just assemble a collection of live arms and mix and match.
I believe that's the reason for the fellating given to Rivera--he's been at that level for 15 years. THAT'S what's rare.
Hah. Perhaps I'm being generous thinking that each team had one elite guy.
At any given time, there's hardly any relief pitchers whom we would be shocked to see go from an ERA of 2 to an ERA of 6. I know, because when it happened to Brad Lidge, I was shocked that the Phillies actually had a reliever who I had expected to be excellent.
That's the part that gets me. They'll happily bring in their 3rd or 4th or 5th guy with the score tied and men on with no outs in the 9th inning. Yet that same reliever Doesn't Have What It Takes to pitch with a lead in the 9th in an open frame. The whole closer thing is mind-boggling. I have no problem with the idea that people like set roles in their workplace. I like set roles. But the idea that the closer is some special breed is insane, especially given the way teams shuffle through these guys all year every year.
With Rivera out, this is about 5 guys for me. Papelbon, Axford (Is he the second best closer around?), Adams and Uehara in Texas, and Venters (although I wouldn't be that surprised).
Gossage had '75-'85. I wouldn't hold the year as an SP against him.
It also probably makes sense to look at IP of excellence, rather than seasons. Today's guys pitch a lot less.
Willy Wags!
Hoffman?
Depends on your definition of "excellence." I ran some BBRefPI searches based on a minimum of 50 IP and 95% of appearances as a reliever;
ERA+ >130 - 78 pitchers with at least 5 seasons, 15 with 8 or more (Rivera 15, Hofmann/Wilhelm 12, Wagner/Franco 11, Tekulve 10 only ones with at least 10)
ERA+ >140 - 49 with 5 seasons, 8 with 8 or more (Rivera 15, Wagner/Wilhelm 11)
ERA+ >150 - 20 with 5 seasons, 4 with 8 or more (Rivera 14, Wagner/Wilhelm 10)
ERA+ >120 - 8 with 5 or more seasons (Tekulve/Wilhelm lead with 7 each)
ERA+ >130 - 4 with 5 or more seasons (Wilhelm 7, Tekulve 6, Quiz/Lyle 5)
ERA+ >140 - 2 with 5 or more seasons (Wilhelm 6, Lyle 5)
ERA+ >150 - Only 2 with 5 seasons (Lyle/Wilhelm)
Especially how teams will be reluctant to give a guy a shot in the closer spot, because he isn't tested. And the only way to get that tested of course, is when you get a shot.
As a twentysomething college graduate of the liberal arts (lulz), I'd say you can find this mentality applied to more than just closing out baseball games.
From 1982 to 1991, Smith had an ERA+ better than 130 except for '84 (107) and '89 (116). He had three seasons of 150 or better (plus a 148), I'm not sure if Pi is right in 21 -- I come up with 10 seasons for Lee Smith of ERA+ of 130 or better.
EDIT: Never mind - I see Smith just missed the 50 IP cutoff in two of those seasons (strike shortened '94 and then in '95 when he had 49 1/3)
'95 was also strike shortened; 144 games.
EDIT: I mean, it's a distinction without a difference, really. But if managers start getting smart about using the good ones, maybe there would be a difference.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main