What's more valuable: a dominant starting pitcher or closer?

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: nycxandy
Not to mention there are more dominant closers out there than starters. Thus, a dominant starter is rarer and more valuable.

a) I don't know that that's true

b) How many of those dominant closers were groomed as closers because their teams placed a premium on having a good closer?

Of couse it's true. The only dominant AL starter I can think of is Johan Santana. And NL starters? Let's not even go there...

However, with closers, there are more than a handful in each league.

Santana, Chien-Ming Wang, Halladay, Carpenter (earlier in the season), Webb, Zambrano, Smoltz, Lowe, Oswalt, Mussina, Rogers, and Verlander were all damn good this year.

Dominant does not mean power pitcher when it comes to starters. Dominant means consistantly winning as a starter and putting your team into situations where you can win games.

The real stud closers are Papelbon, Ryan, Nathan, Rodriguez, Rivera, Hoffman, and Wagner. Their stuff was straight up nasty.

I wasn't referring dominant to power.

And yes, the pitchers you listed were good, but not dominant.

There's a difference between good and dominant. No one on that list except for Santana will blow you away. I'm talking about Johnson, Schilling, Maddux, Martinez, in their primes dominant.

And by the way, Randy Johnson went 17-11 (Yankees went 21-12 with him starting). Was he dominant or good? No. But according to your definition, I guess he was "dominant."

So your definition of dominant is the equivalent of some of the best pitchers EVER in their primes? 3 of the 4 pitchers you listed are power pitchers. Maddux was an artist, but once the umpires tightened up the zone, he struggled a bit with the Braves.

Also, you're quoting the exception with Johnson. His ERA was a 5. The only reason he had that many wins was because the Yankess offense bailed him out numerous times.

Wang almost single-handedly kept the Yankees in it at a time when the offense wasn't performing, they were struck with injuries, and the rest of the rotation was struggling.

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Of couse it's true. The only dominant AL starter I can think of is Johan Santana.

Oh. OK. That's really convincing.

Anthony Reyes, Kenny Rogers, and Chris Carpenter all looked pretty "dominating" to me this week. But I guess it all depends on your definition of dominating.

And that still doesn't address point b). How many closers would have been starters if their teams didn't place high value on closing ballgames. Like in previous eras that didn't value this specialization like they do now? The answer is most of them.

Yes, a bullpen is important. There is a need for a pitcher in every role. However, the way a pitcher is groomed for a role will most likely depend on the status of the current pitching staff.

Also, it's easier to move from a starting pitcher to a closer. Look at Eckersley, Smoltz, Rivera, Gagne, and Nathan. More specifically, Rivera and Gagne went from mediocre starters to dominant closers.

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: nycxandy
Not to mention there are more dominant closers out there than starters. Thus, a dominant starter is rarer and more valuable.

a) I don't know that that's true

b) How many of those dominant closers were groomed as closers because their teams placed a premium on having a good closer?

Of couse it's true. The only dominant AL starter I can think of is Johan Santana. And NL starters? Let's not even go there...

However, with closers, there are more than a handful in each league.

Santana, Chien-Ming Wang, Halladay, Carpenter (earlier in the season), Webb, Zambrano, Smoltz, Lowe, Oswalt, Mussina, Rogers, and Verlander were all damn good this year.

Dominant does not mean power pitcher when it comes to starters. Dominant means consistantly winning as a starter and putting your team into situations where you can win games.

The real stud closers are Papelbon, Ryan, Nathan, Rodriguez, Rivera, Hoffman, and Wagner. Their stuff was straight up nasty.

I wasn't referring dominant to power.

And yes, the pitchers you listed were good, but not dominant.

There's a difference between good and dominant. No one on that list except for Santana will blow you away. I'm talking about Johnson, Schilling, Maddux, Martinez, in their primes dominant.

And by the way, Randy Johnson went 17-11 (Yankees went 21-12 with him starting). Was he dominant or good? No. But according to your definition, I guess he was "dominant."

So your definition of dominant is the equivalent of some of the best pitchers EVER in their primes? 3 of the 4 pitchers you listed are power pitchers. Maddux was an artist, but once the umpires tightened up the zone, he struggled a bit with the Braves.

Also, you're quoting the exception with Johnson. His ERA was a 5. The only reason he had that many wins was because the Yankess offense bailed him out numerous times.

Wang almost single-handedly kept the Yankees in it at a time when the offense wasn't performing, they were struck with injuries, and the rest of the rotation was struggling.

Yes, the term dominant shouldn't be used loosely.

Edit: Also, the Astros went 9-10 with Clemens pitching. Are you going to tell me he wasn't dominant?

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: nycxandy
Also, it's easier to move from a starting pitcher to a closer. Look at Eckersley, Smoltz, Rivera, Gagne, and Nathan. More specifically, Rivera and Gagne went from mediocre starters to dominant closers.

I wouldn't say it's easier, that's just the way it happened for those examples. Except for Smoltz (who probably was the team's best starter at the time, and the Braves valued a closer so highly and were so desperate for one that they converted him) those guys all suffered injuries that threatened to end their careers, hence their transition to a job requiring fewer IP. They probably would have been out of baseball like a hundred other guys with gimpy arms, except they showed a knack for closing when the organization was trying to figure out what to do with them.

Yeah I think the definition of dominant is a problem here. I don't expect a dominant starter to have the same rate stats and performance as a dominant reliever. That's not realistic for a lot of reasons.

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Originally posted by: nycxandy
Also, it's easier to move from a starting pitcher to a closer. Look at Eckersley, Smoltz, Rivera, Gagne, and Nathan. More specifically, Rivera and Gagne went from mediocre starters to dominant closers.

I wouldn't say it's easier, that's just the way it happened for those examples. Except for Smoltz (who probably was the team's best starter at the time, and the Braves valued a closer so highly and were so desperate for one that they converted him) those guys all suffered injuries that threatened to end their careers, hence their transition to a job requiring fewer IP.

Actually...Smoltz's elbow is the reason they originally switched him to be a closer.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Edit: Also, the Astros went 9-10 with Clemens pitching. Are you going to tell me he wasn't dominant?

Again, another exception. Clemens had no run support. Save 2 games he pitched, he didn't allow more than 2 runs in a game, and didn't allow more than 2 ER except for those 2 games.

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Edit: Also, the Astros went 9-10 with Clemens pitching. Are you going to tell me he wasn't dominant?

Again, another exception. Clemens had no run support. Save 2 games he pitched, he didn't allow more than 2 runs in a game, and didn't allow more than 2 ER except for those 2 games.

I know... I was just teasing. But seriously, starting pitching is more important than relief.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Edit: Also, the Astros went 9-10 with Clemens pitching. Are you going to tell me he wasn't dominant?

Again, another exception. Clemens had no run support. Save 2 games he pitched, he didn't allow more than 2 runs in a game, and didn't allow more than 2 ER except for those 2 games.

I know... I was just teasing. But seriously, starting pitching is more important than relief.

Overall starting pitching yes. A single starting pitcher, IMHO, no. A combination of the two is what you need for championships.

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Edit: Also, the Astros went 9-10 with Clemens pitching. Are you going to tell me he wasn't dominant?

Again, another exception. Clemens had no run support. Save 2 games he pitched, he didn't allow more than 2 runs in a game, and didn't allow more than 2 ER except for those 2 games.

I know... I was just teasing. But seriously, starting pitching is more important than relief.

Overall starting pitching yes. A single starting pitcher, IMHO, no. A combination of the two is what you need for championships.

Seriously, even Baseball Prospectus lists starters as being the most valuable to a team.

Baseball Prospectus - Top VORP's

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Edit: Also, the Astros went 9-10 with Clemens pitching. Are you going to tell me he wasn't dominant?

Again, another exception. Clemens had no run support. Save 2 games he pitched, he didn't allow more than 2 runs in a game, and didn't allow more than 2 ER except for those 2 games.

I know... I was just teasing. But seriously, starting pitching is more important than relief.

Overall starting pitching yes. A single starting pitcher, IMHO, no. A combination of the two is what you need for championships.

Seriously, even Baseball Prospectus lists starters as being the most valuable to a team.

Baseball Prospectus - Top VORP's

VORP is great for comparing a single player, but we're asking what's the best for the team. You can have the best pitcher in the majors and scrub other starters and not even come close to the WS.

I'd rather have good rotation with a dominant closer, or a great rotation with a decent closer, than have a star and sh!t for everything else.

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Edit: Also, the Astros went 9-10 with Clemens pitching. Are you going to tell me he wasn't dominant?

Again, another exception. Clemens had no run support. Save 2 games he pitched, he didn't allow more than 2 runs in a game, and didn't allow more than 2 ER except for those 2 games.

I know... I was just teasing. But seriously, starting pitching is more important than relief.

Overall starting pitching yes. A single starting pitcher, IMHO, no. A combination of the two is what you need for championships.

Seriously, even Baseball Prospectus lists starters as being the most valuable to a team.

Baseball Prospectus - Top VORP's

VORP is great for comparing a single player, but we're asking what's the best for the team. You can have the best pitcher in the majors and scrub other starters and not even come close to the WS.

I'd rather have good rotation with a dominant closer, or a great rotation with a decent closer, than have a star and sh!t for everything else.

Right, it's all situational. However, for the sake of arguing starter vs. closer, it's best that we leave everything else out of it and straight up compare values.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

VORP is great for comparing a single player, but we're asking what's the best for the team. You can have the best pitcher in the majors and scrub other starters and not even come close to the WS.

I'd rather have good rotation with a dominant closer, or a great rotation with a decent closer, than have a star and sh!t for everything else.

Right, it's all situational. However, for the sake of arguing starter vs. closer, it's best that we leave everything else out of it and straight up compare values.

We can't leave everything out of it because the players impact on the team relies on everything else.

 

[nycxandy]

Or let's put it this way...

Which teams would like to add Johan Santana as a starting pitcher? ALL.

Which teams would like to add Mariano Rivera as a closer? 80% of them.

Every team needs a dominant starter. They are more valuable than closers.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy
Or let's put it this way...

Which teams would like to add Johan Santana as a starting pitcher? ALL.

Which teams would like to add Mariano Rivera as a closer? 80% of them.

Every team NEEDS a dominant starter. They are more valuable than closers.

Like and needing are two different things. For instance, sure the Braves of the 90s would've liked to add Johan Santana to their rotation. There's a possibility they may have even won more WS because of it.

They NEEDED someone like Mariano Rivera in their bullpen. Without a doubt, they would've won multiple championships had they had Rivera.

Also, it makes more sense that more people would like Santana because a rotation is 5 pitchers. The disparities between even the 1 and 3 slots can be huge, let alone the 1 and 5 slots.

You only need a single closer.

 

[nycxandy]

BigJ, you can dispute it all you want, but the consensus is that a starter is more valuable than a closer everywhere you go.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy
BigJ, you can dispute it all you want, but the consensus is that a starter is more valuable than a closer everywhere you go.

Well that's nice. Fact is, none of the arguments you've presented have convinced me that a single starting pitcher is more important than a closer. However, I wholeheartedly agree that the starting rotation as a whole is more important than a closer.

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy
BigJ, you can dispute it all you want, but the consensus is that a starter is more valuable than a closer everywhere you go.

Well that's nice. Fact is, none of the arguments you've presented have convinced me that a single starting pitcher is more important than a closer. However, I wholeheartedly agree that the starting rotation as a whole is more important than a closer.

And I guess nothing ever will. And the only argument you've provided is the Braves situation in the 90's. Looking at their 4 World Series losses in the 90's, I don't think you can blame their bullpen for it. They mainly got outpitched, as most of the losses were attributed to the starting pitchers, or relief pitchers in extra innings. A top closer wouldn't have help them then.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: nycxandy

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: nycxandy
BigJ, you can dispute it all you want, but the consensus is that a starter is more valuable than a closer everywhere you go.

Well that's nice. Fact is, none of the arguments you've presented have convinced me that a single starting pitcher is more important than a closer. However, I wholeheartedly agree that the starting rotation as a whole is more important than a closer.

And I guess nothing ever will. And the only argument you've provided is the Braves situation in the 90's. Looking at their 4 World Series losses in the 90's, I don't think you can blame their bullpen for it. They mainly got outpitched, as most of the losses were attributed to the starting pitchers, or relief pitchers in extra innings. A top closer wouldn't have help them then.

In 91,92, and 96, the Braves would've either won the series or at least stretched it out had they a lights-out closer. Especially in the '92 series. You can look up the box scores yourself.

As for the other arguments, they've already been stated in this thread so I felt no need to rehash stuff from other peoples' posts.

Originally posted by: tamik
A Closer is more dominate if the team lacks a powerful offense. Thus with a weak offense there could be closer games and the starting pitcher is going to be removed for the bullpen to keep the game close. I'd much rather have a stronger Closer on a 1 run difference game that a stronger Starter.

Besides, ONE dominate starting pitcher cannot help you every day. ONE dominate Closer can help you every day. Example: Minnesota Twins. Santana couldn't carry the team every day. But, Nathan and the bullpen could.

Originally posted by: brikis98
i added a poll to this...

i'm of the opinion that a lights out closer is more valuable, based on the fact that they can save - that is, assure a win - around 50 games a year. A starting pitcher is unlikely to assure even 20 wins, despite eating up more innings than a closer. Granted, in order to have a save, the game must be handed to the closer with his team in the lead, which is usually the work of a starter. However, each team has ~5 starters, but only one closer, so the closer could (potentitally) have an impact almost every game, rather than every 5th game. But, it's definitely a toss up, as it's tough to win with a hole in either role.

I actually started thinking about this since the Red Sox are thinking of making Papelbon a starter. I think he'd be very dominant in that position, but the Red Sox have been absolutely disastrous without a quality closer. The past attempts with Timlin, Embree, Schilling, etc. and closer by commitee had failed miserably, while Papelbon did extremely well last year. One of the main reasons the red sox won the world series a few years back was because Foulke was such a solid force as a closer (especially during the playoff run).

 

[torpid]

What are the stats on injuries to starters vs closers I wonder? I suspect starters get injurd a lot more often, and therefore to be a dominant starter, one must be not only good at pitching but robust and willing / able to play through pain.

 

[isasir]

Assuming a team were to make it to the playoffs, a dominant starting pitcher can come into a playoff game on his "off" day and pitch and inning or two to close out the game, if need be. A dominant closer can't start a game.

 

[Al Neri]

there is no such thing as a dominant closer except for :gulp: mariano rivera.

 

[j00fek]

starting pitching

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: Sukhoi
A good starter doesn't need a closer. There's a reason starters get paid big bucks compared to closers.

there's a couple closers out there that make more money than a lot of starters though...

but really, instead of saying a good starter doesn't need a closer, which is kinda dumb cause yeah even a good starter might need a closer every now and then... its better to think about it like this...

a mediocre starter probably won't need a closer even more than a good starter won't... know what i mean? if he gives up enough runs there won't be any lead to protect in the first place...

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
there is no such thing as a dominant closer except for :gulp: mariano rivera.

Pretty true. And where was he during the ALDS? The Yankees were getting their butts handed to them, and all the cameras could do is show him sitting in the bullpen with nothing to do.

The 2001 Diamondbacks proved you could win it all with just 2 dominant starting pitchers. They had just an okay offense, and we all know what Kim did in the WS.

The difference between a dominant and an okay closer is maybe 5 wins per year. The difference between a dominant starting pitcher and an okay starting pitcher is 10-15 wins per year.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
there is no such thing as a dominant closer except for :gulp: mariano rivera.

The 2001 Diamondbacks proved you could win it all with just 2 dominant starting pitchers. They had just an okay offense, and we all know what Kim did in the WS.

They also proved that mariano rivera did not make the yankees invicible in the late innings.