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

[brikis98]

Hypothetically, say a team picked up a pitcher with lights out "stuff" (great fastball, curve, slider, whatever). Further, assume he had no problem pitching multiple innings (good stamina) or just one inning (can warm up quickly).

where would he be more valuable to a team: as a closer or as a starter?

 

[Sukhoi]

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

 

[ZetaEpyon]

Depends on the other pitchers in the rotation, but I'd usually say starter.
What good does a sure-fire closer do if he's not in a position to make saves? None.

 

[b0mbrman]

I would say a starter.

Good closers get disproportionately big press because they are brought in during high stakes situations, but as far as I know, runs in the 9th inning count as much as runs in the 1st inning

 

[MrDingleDangle]

starter is def. more important

 

[Sphexi]

I'd say it's probably good to have a strong starter, but having weak closers is just asking for trouble. You can go through 5 or 6 guys in the last few innings, and give up a lot of runs since the rest of your crew will be tired. At the beginning of the game the burden can be shared by the whole field, while at the end of the game most of it is carried by the pitchers.

 

[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.

 

[jimbob200521]

Personally I'd say a dominant closing pitcher is more important that a dominant starting pitcher. When the other team is getting tired, you can throw in your awesome starting pitcher, and keep them from scoring. I'd def rather have a dominant closer than starter.

 

[yosuke188]

Starting pitcher. A dominant starter pitches over 200 innings a year, while a dominant closer pitches less than 100 innings.

 

[torpid]

Starter. A good closer is a luxury compared to a good starter. You can use multiple substitutions to overcome a lack of a money closer. But can't really do it to overcome a lack of a good starter.

 

[FoBoT]

poll?
i'll take the starter also

 

[HardcoreRobot]

starter

 

[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).

 

[SludgeFactory]

I tend to agree, as that '03 Boston closer by committee situation is now infamous and suggests maybe there's more to the closer position than meets the eye. I guess it's popular to give Bill James the blame for that, but I don't know how much he actually had to do with it.

Anecdotally, I'd say this -- there seems to be a big psychological impact on the team that comes with knowing your top reliever can absolutely shut down the other team, or conversely having a history of losing a bunch of games in the late innings. Plus, finding *the man* isn't that easy. Not just anybody with good stuff has the mindset it takes to close.

 

[krotchy]

Considering Gagne had like 60 straight saves in a row or something (I forget what the number was exactly, but it was a record breaking streak if I remember) and it didn't get the Dodgers much of anything, im gonna go with Starting pitching.

Course baseball sucks, so it doesn't matter anyways.

 

[Captante]

If your talking about Mariano Rivera in his prime (especially in a short seris) then the closer is worth just as much as a great starter... aside from that extreme example though, I'd say the starting pictcher all the way.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: krotchy
Considering Gagne had like 60 straight saves in a row or something (I forget what the number was exactly, but it was a record breaking streak if I remember) and it didn't get the Dodgers much of anything, im gonna go with Starting pitching.

The '03 Dodgers sucked offensively (dead last in runs scored) and the '04 Dodgers were below average in that department and still won their division.

 

[BigJ]

To answer this quesiton, look at the Braves in the 90s. Arguably, the best starting rotation ever. Yet they only won a single world series. Take a look at their closers/bullpen, and that's all the evidence you need to say without a doubt a lights-out closer is far more valuable than a dominant ace.

 

[nycxandy]

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

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[IAteYourMother]

I picked closer, but it really depends on the rest of the ptiching staff

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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."