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

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: 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.

I like to think that victory was due to Mark Grace more than anyone else.

 

[tamik]

You guys still aren't getting it. ONE dominant starter cannot win everyday for the team. ONE dominant closer can.

Look at the Twins this year.....Santana couldn't win it for them. But, a dominant closer or two can come in and shut down the opposition for your offense to wake up.

In baseball, you have to get runs in the early to mid innings because towards the end with a halfway decent closer, your chances are near nil to score runs.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: 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.

i hate the yanks dont get me wrong... but hes the only guy who consistently is dominant

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: tamik
You guys still aren't getting it. ONE dominant starter cannot win everyday for the team. ONE dominant closer can.

Look at the Twins this year.....Santana couldn't win it for them. But, a dominant closer or two can come in and shut down the opposition for your offense to wake up.

In baseball, you have to get runs in the early to mid innings because towards the end with a halfway decent closer, your chances are near nil to score runs.

Maybe I just don't "get it" either. So tell me, exactly how did Mariano Rivera help the Yankees win games in the ALDS this year?

 

[ThePresence]

A starting pitcher OF COURSE.
A closer's job is only there if the starter pitched well.
A bad start = no save opportunity.

 

[cubby1223]

The starting pitcher has a greater impact on whether the team wins or loses.

It's kind of a squirly question. I guess if you ask if a dominant closer is more important than a dominant 5th starter, then yes, a closer is. But there is absolutely no way I would ever say a dominant closer is more important that a dominant 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd starter.

 

[tamik]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: tamik
You guys still aren't getting it. ONE dominant starter cannot win everyday for the team. ONE dominant closer can.

Look at the Twins this year.....Santana couldn't win it for them. But, a dominant closer or two can come in and shut down the opposition for your offense to wake up.

In baseball, you have to get runs in the early to mid innings because towards the end with a halfway decent closer, your chances are near nil to score runs.

Maybe I just don't "get it" either. So tell me, exactly how did Mariano Rivera help the Yankees win games in the ALDS this year?

How did he lose the games for the Yankees? How did Santana, the likely Cy Young Awardee win it for the Twins?...........HE DIDN'T! How did the Tigers choke at the end and lose the Division and settle for a wild card? Crappy bullpen!

Here: Joe Nathan, argueably the most dominate closer in MLB today, had 36 of 38 saves this year and won 7 games.....lost 0 games. He basically was responsible for 43 wins for the Twins. His record wins was 36% of Santana's wins this year. He appeared in twice as many games as Santana and pitched 1/3 of the innings Santana pitched. We knew it was lights out and all was well when Nathan took the mound. We couldn't predict what our starting staff was going to do or how far they'd get us thru the game. Santana was dominate, but was there for only 20% of the games. If you add up the win/loss records of the starting pitchers and closers for the Twins, you'll see that the combined records of the starters vs the closers is about the same with the closers having a better winning percentage.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: tamik
How did he lose the games for the Yankees? How did Santana, the likely Cy Young Awardee win it for the Twins?...........HE DIDN'T! How did the Tigers choke at the end and lose the Division and settle for a wild card? Crappy bullpen!

Here: Joe Nathan, argueably the most dominate closer in MLB today, had 36 of 38 saves this year and won 7 games.....lost 0 games. He basically was responsible for 43 wins for the Twins. His record wins was 36% of Santana's wins this year. He appeared in twice as many games as Santana and pitched 1/3 of the innings Santana pitched. We knew it was lights out and all was well when Nathan took the mound. We couldn't predict what our starting staff was going to do or how far they'd get us thru the game. Santana was dominate, but was there for only 20% of the games. If you add up the win/loss records of the starting pitchers and closers for the Twins, you'll see that the combined records of the starters vs the closers is about the same with the closers having a better winning percentage.

:laugh:

There are far too many statistics in baseball, and too many ways to draw incorrect conclusions from them.

So, in other words, what you're saying is that a dominant closer is worthless to the team unless you have the solid starting pitching staff to hand a lead over to the closer.

I've just got to laugh some more at your logic. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Vilica]

In a 162 game season, at 9 innings apiece (setting aside for the moment extra inning games or games where the pitchers only go 8), is 1458 innings. A dominant starter can be expected to pitch about 200-225 of those innings. A dominant closer can be expected to pitch about 80 of those innings. If these players were exactly equal statistically, which would you prefer? The one who goes 200 innings, or the one that goes 80? It follows quite logically that the more valuable pitcher in this case is the one that performs the best over the maximum amount of innings, because that gives the team the best possible chance of winning. Anyone who possibly thinks that closers are more valuable than good starting pitching needs to do further reading.

 

[tamik]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: tamik
How did he lose the games for the Yankees? How did Santana, the likely Cy Young Awardee win it for the Twins?...........HE DIDN'T! How did the Tigers choke at the end and lose the Division and settle for a wild card? Crappy bullpen!

Here: Joe Nathan, argueably the most dominate closer in MLB today, had 36 of 38 saves this year and won 7 games.....lost 0 games. He basically was responsible for 43 wins for the Twins. His record wins was 36% of Santana's wins this year. He appeared in twice as many games as Santana and pitched 1/3 of the innings Santana pitched. We knew it was lights out and all was well when Nathan took the mound. We couldn't predict what our starting staff was going to do or how far they'd get us thru the game. Santana was dominate, but was there for only 20% of the games. If you add up the win/loss records of the starting pitchers and closers for the Twins, you'll see that the combined records of the starters vs the closers is about the same with the closers having a better winning percentage.

:laugh:

There are far too many statistics in baseball, and too many ways to draw incorrect conclusions from them.

So, in other words, what you're saying is that a dominant closer is worthless to the team unless you have the solid starting pitching staff to hand a lead over to the closer.

I've just got to laugh some more at your logic. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

No, Nathan, a closer, won SEVEN GAMES in those 64 innings. He took a game the starter screwed up and turned a loss into a win in a matter or 1-2 innings. He saved numerous 3 runs or less lead games by shutting down a teams when the starting pitcher was tired and likely would continue to bleed runs.


Once again, Nathan can come in everyday of the week and be dominant. A (meaning one) dominant starting pitcher will come in once every 5 days. You don't need dominant starting pitchers to win ball games. The Twins won this year by a committee of the bull pen.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: tamik
No, Nathan, a closer, won SEVEN GAMES in those 64 innings. He took a game the starter screwed up and turned a loss into a win in a matter or 1-2 innings. He saved numerous 3 runs or less lead games by shutting down a teams when the starting pitcher was tired and likely would continue to bleed runs.

Once again, Nathan can come in everyday of the week and be dominant. A (meaning one) dominant starting pitcher will come in once every 5 days. You don't need dominant starting pitchers to win ball games. The Twins won this year by a committee of the bull pen.

And where was Nathan in the post season to help the Twins win? He pitched a whopping 2/3 of an inning. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Who's about to win the World Series? A team without a closer! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Is there anything that could possibly make you see the light?

 

[drum]

too bad i got in this thread so late...
obviously a starting pitcher. if your starting pitchers suck... you're never going to have a save situation!

if your starting pitching sucks you need good long relief more than a closer!