September 1st waiver/playoff roster deadline

[MC Hammer]

That suggests having someone else do it in place of Ortiz, ie replacing him. Nobody has suggested replacing Papelbon outright. This is about maximizing his value to the team. An Ortiz analogy would be considering using him at 1B. If we didn't know about his defensive ability or potential for injury (knees), it would be something worth trying. We don't know what Papelbon can do as a starter, but we do know that a good SP is more valuable than a good RP -- well, most of us know that, but you're coming along.

I'm not coming anywhere. The Braves won 1 World Series in a decade of dominate starting pitching.

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

Your reply had absolutely nothing to do with my post ... at all.

 

Call the Braves and ask them how many WS they won with dominating starting pitching and no closer. They had a decade worth of chances and won 1 World Series.

Just ask the Yankees how many WS they would have without Mariano Rivera.

[RedSoxRooter]

Living in Atlanta, trust me, it was the offense that let the Braves down in the playoffs. What won them 15 straight divisions has been the starting pitching until this year.

[jsinger121]

Just ask the Yankees how many WS they would have without Mariano Rivera.

 

They would have won titles but likely not the 4 they had won. The yanks also had very good starting pitching which got them to 7th and 8th innings consistently.

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

They would have won titles but likely not the 4 they had won. The yanks also had very good starting pitching which got them to 7th and 8th innings consistently.

True, its hard to complain about guys like Cone, Pettitte, Wells, El Duque. All very good to amazing post season pitchers. I'm actually agree with you. If you want to get the most out of Paplebon it would be in the roation however depending on the team you might need a dominate closer.

[MC Hammer]

True, its hard to complain about guys like Cone, Pettitte, Wells, El Duque. All very good to amazing post season pitchers. I'm actually agree with you. If you want to get the most out of Paplebon it would be in the roation however depending on the team you might need a dominate closer.

I would rather have a DOMINATE closer over a GOOD starting pitcher. Looks like I'm the only one here though.

[a700hitter]

They would have won titles but likely not the 4 they had won. The yanks also had very good starting pitching which got them to 7th and 8th innings consistently.

Exactly, the yankees had both a strong rotation and the lights out closer. If the Yankees had a bunch of 5 inning pitchers they would not have been able to get to MO with the lead enough. Teams have been able to win without a Mo-type closer if they have strong starters, but I don't know of many teams to win with a lights-out closer and a weak rotation.

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

Exactly, the yankees had both a strong rotation and the lights out closer. If the Yankees had a bunch of 5 inning pitchers they would not have been able to get to MO with the lead enough. Teams have been able to win without a Mo-type closer if they have strong starters, but I don't know of many teams to win with a lights-out closer and a weak rotation.

I was thinking back and I could only come up with the 2002 Angels being that only exception to the rule. Their starting pitching wasnt that good but because of that dominate bullpen with Percival leading the way the other team couldnt match up with the Angels late inning magic.

[MC Hammer]

Exactly, the yankees had both a strong rotation and the lights out closer. If the Yankees had a bunch of 5 inning pitchers they would not have been able to get to MO with the lead enough. Teams have been able to win without a Mo-type closer if they have strong starters, but I don't know of many teams to win with a lights-out closer and a weak rotation.

So instead of having an average to below average rotation and a lights out closer ... you'd rather have an above average rotation, and a makeshift closer?

[ORS]

Thats true, over the long run you would figure that the guy who has a lower ERA and WHIP would be more successful. However in this particular case dont you think you are more likely to win more games with the guy who is 27/28 or the guy who is 34/40?

Sure, if those are the only numbers you look at. But, given more relevant information, I can tell that in the next game I want the guy that allows less base runners, less total bases per AB, and gives up runs less frequently. I can't believe this is actually being argued. By this logic, Hoffman (470 SV, 55 BSV) is the better career closer than Rivera (410 SV, 55 BSV) -- do you agree with this?

[a700hitter]

I was thinking back and I could only come up with the 2002 Angels being that only exception to the rule. Their starting pitching wasnt that good but because of that dominate bullpen with Percival leading the way the other team couldnt match up with the Angels late inning magic.

The 2002 Angels bullpen did not just have a dominant closer. Their bullpen was 4 or 5 deep with shut down stuff.

[RedSoxRooter]

So instead of having an average to below average rotation and a lights out closer ... you'd rather have an above average rotation, and a makeshift closer?

 

I would. See, by makeshift, you make it sound so bad. A decent closer is a lot less hard to find than a quality starter. Anyone remember Brandon Lyon? I think he had TWO good years. If a starter has two good years he demands 10 million a year.

[a700hitter]

So instead of having an average to below average rotation and a lights out closer ... you'd rather have an above average rotation, and a makeshift closer?

I think it is easier to find a single closer than to find two or three top starters.

[ORS]

I'm not coming anywhere. The Braves won 1 World Series in a decade of dominate starting pitching.

Yet they made the playoffs every year, and made it to the show 5 times. The Padres went once and lost with a decade of having a great closer.

 

Swing and a miss.

[MC Hammer]

I think it is easier to find a single closer than to find two or three top starters.

That doesn't make any sense. By moving Paps back to the rotation you're only getting 1 starter. It's not like Paps is going to pitch twice.

[MC Hammer]

Yet they made the playoffs every year, and made it to the show 5 times. The Padres went once and lost with a decade of having a great closer.

 

Swing and a miss.

Since when did just going to the World Series mean anything?

[RedSoxRooter]

Since when did just going to the World Series mean anything?

 

It means a lot to me.

[MC Hammer]

It means a lot to me.

Well I hope you're the only one, or I guess I'm on a board full of losers.

 

Are you happy after getting your ass beat ... just because you showed up for the fight?

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

Sure, if those are the only numbers you look at. But, given more relevant information, I can tell that in the next game I want the guy that allows less base runners, less total bases per AB, and gives up runs less frequently. I can't believe this is actually being argued. By this logic, Hoffman (470 SV, 55 BSV) is the better career closer than Rivera (410 SV, 55 BSV) -- do you agree with this?

Well of course I dont but I dont need the stats to tell me that either. Rivera's legend is buit on not only his dominance in the regular season but IMO mostly on his post season dominance. When Hoffman was given that 1 chance he pretty much ended the Padres chances at making that 98 WS a series. Again I said in my last post that over time(3 year period or so) I think Paplebon would be the better closer however if you look at it today(just today) Nathan IMO has been both dominate and more efficient.

[ORS]

Since when did just going to the World Series mean anything?

Anything can happen in a 7 game series. The only guarantee is that you won't win if you aren't there.

 

Nice dodge of the fact that your trite Braves example crashed and burned pretty badly, though.

[MC Hammer]

Anything can happen in a 7 game series. The only guarantee is that you won't win if you aren't there.

 

Nice dodge of the fact that your trite Braves example crashed and burned pretty badly, though.

How was my response a dodge? Going to the World Series doesn't mean a god damn thing. Would everyone here have been happy with the 04 season if we lost in the World Series? Would anyone have considered it a success?

 

"Wow I'm happy I got that job interview ... I didn't get the job ... but man am I happy I was there"

[ORS]

Well of course I dont but I dont need the stats to tell me that either. Rivera's legend is buit on not only his dominance in the regular season but IMO mostly on his post season dominance. When Hoffman was given that 1 chance he pretty much ended the Padres chances at making that 98 WS a series. Again I said in my last post that over time(3 year period or so) I think Paplebon would be the better closer however if you look at it today(just today) Nathan IMO has been both dominate and more efficient.

Sorry, the "legend" doesn't do it for me. Either that efficiency is the be all end all of closer discussion, and Hoffman and Nathan are the winner. Or the actual better closers, Rivera and Papelbon, are. Parsing it so your guy wins and our guy loses is pretty transparent. I don't think you can back-pedal fast enough out of this one.

[a700hitter]

That doesn't make any sense. By moving Paps back to the rotation you're only getting 1 starter. It's not like Paps is going to pitch twice.

He can only pitch once, but that's not my point. That's your point. My point is that a strong rotation of 5 is more important than a single closer. If you only have one good pitcher, you are going to stink whether he is a starter or reliever.

[ORS]

How was my response a dodge? Going to the World Series doesn't mean a god damn thing. Would everyone here have been happy with the 04 season if we lost in the World Series? Would anyone have considered it a success?

 

"Wow I'm happy I got that job interview ... I didn't get the job ... but man am I happy I was there"

Of course I'd rather we win it, but I'd like a chance to be there 5 times in 9 years, because anything can happen in a 7 game series. Name one team with 5 moderately good SP and a dominant closer that ever did anything like that.

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

Sorry, the "legend" doesn't do it for me. Either that efficiency is the be all end all of closer discussion, and Hoffman and Nathan are the winner. Or the actual better closers, Rivera and Papelbon, are. Parsing it so your guy wins and our guy loses is pretty transparent. I don't think you can back-pedal fast enough out of this one.

If I was back pedaling I wouldnt post anymore. Again I dont think bringing Rivera into this is fair because if you look at both Hoffman and Rivera's career numbers they are rather similar. What sets them apart in the minds of many fans is Rivera's 0.81 post season ERA. Regualar season wise you could make the argument Hoffman has been just as good but when you factor in the post season its not even close. Its apples and oranges IMO.

[ORS]

If I was back pedaling I wouldnt post anymore. Again I dont think bringing Rivera into this is fair because if you look at both Hoffman and Rivera's career numbers they are rather similar. What sets them apart in the minds of many fans is Rivera's 0.81 post season ERA. Regualar season wise you could make the argument Hoffman has been just as good but when you factor in the post season its not even close. Its apples and oranges IMO.

How is it apples and oranges? Rivera has the better WHIP, ERA, etc. Hoffman has the better SV/SVO ratio. This is just like your argument for why Nathan is the better closer this year.

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

How is it apples and oranges? Rivera has the better WHIP, ERA, etc. Hoffman has the better SV/SVO ratio. This is just like your argument for why Nathan is the better closer this year.

Rivera has a .01 lead in WHIP. I think my argument has run out of steam .

[ORS]

Rivera has a .01 lead in WHIP. I think my argument has run out of steam .

It's OK. We both win. Your guy is the best of all time. Our's is the best this season.

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

It's OK. We both win. Your guy is the best of all time. Our's is the best this season.

I'll admit the SV/SVO ratio is a hard argument to sell however when you threw the Rivera vs Hoffman thing at me you had me scrambling. There is a 0% chance that I will ever admit Hoffman is better then Rivera thus killing my argument.

[ORS]

I'll admit the SV/SVO ratio is a hard argument to sell however when you threw the Rivera vs Hoffman thing at me you had me scrambling. There is a 0% chance that I will ever admit Hoffman is better then Rivera thus killing my argument.

Me either.