SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Closer for the rest of 2013 (and 2014?)
|
Post by jchang on Jun 21, 2013 15:17:29 GMT -5
There is one closer I would trade for, but lets wait till the deadline
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Jun 21, 2013 15:34:58 GMT -5
Wow.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 21, 2013 15:39:44 GMT -5
Koji is closer
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 21, 2013 15:47:00 GMT -5
I agree with that. No ruleset stating a closer has to throw 95+ to be a closer. Tom Burgmeir didn't throw as hard as Koji and was decent as a closer for Boston, even Bill Campbell until Zimmer blew his arm out from over work. Just let Tazawa be the 8thIP guy, Miller in the 7th and keep Wilson on the roster as 6th and long man with Morales as the swing man/long guy also. Thinking Mortenson has worn out his welcome and Bailey can get his act together at Pawtucket, along with Middlebrooks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 21, 2013 15:58:38 GMT -5
The Red Sox have three relievers with sub-3.00 xFIPs and good track records-- why the hell would they throw someone like De La Rosa (who is recovering from TJ and has never pitched in the bullpen), Wilson (who has never gotten sustained MLB playing time), or Ranaudo or any other minor leaguer into the mix?
It's Tazawa for me. Uehara may be too fragile and Miller's track record is spottier (plus he's death on lefties, which plays up best in a setup role).
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jun 21, 2013 16:23:15 GMT -5
The Red Sox have three relievers with sub-3.00 xFIPs and good track records-- why the hell would they throw someone like De La Rosa (who is recovering from TJ and has never pitched in the bullpen), Wilson (who has never gotten sustained MLB playing time), or Ranaudo or any other minor leaguer into the mix? It's Tazawa for me. Uehara may be too fragile and Miller's track record is spottier (plus he's death on lefties, which plays up best in a setup role). I agree but wouldn't they need to backfill middle relief? Workman seems like a good option.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 21, 2013 16:23:59 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 54m Koji Uehara new Red Sox closer for now.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jun 21, 2013 16:28:03 GMT -5
The Red Sox have three relievers with sub-3.00 xFIPs and good track records-- why the hell would they throw someone like De La Rosa (who is recovering from TJ and has never pitched in the bullpen), Wilson (who has never gotten sustained MLB playing time), or Ranaudo or any other minor leaguer into the mix? It's Tazawa for me. Uehara may be too fragile and Miller's track record is spottier (plus he's death on lefties, which plays up best in a setup role). I agree but wouldn't they need to backfill middle relief? Workman seems like a good option. They still have it is the thing. Wilson and Morales can both go more than 1IP, even stick Aceves on the roster. The team needs to make some kind of a decision regarding Mortenson and Bailey's status and then the closer role can be better defined from within. Jmei's vote for Tazawa could even work. FB in mid 90's and his splitter is a good option. Edit: So much for the suspense.. Koji it is. Sweet :-)
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jun 21, 2013 16:38:58 GMT -5
All of the Papelbon pining seems to have people only remembering the good. This guy was a high wire act the last two years in Boston wasn't he? Letting inherited runners score? Maybe I am just remembering the bad...
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jun 21, 2013 16:49:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jun 21, 2013 17:09:41 GMT -5
I was trying to leave this part out of the conversation but I've been all set with his "zany closer" personality for some time. It's entertaining to have characters on the team but I'd rather have players that have character on the team.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jun 21, 2013 17:52:04 GMT -5
I was trying to leave this part out of the conversation but I've been all set with his "zany closer" personality for some time. It's entertaining to have characters on the team but I'd rather have players that have character on the team. Yeah trashing teammates is not good for any clubhouse. That act gets even more tired after you blew a couple of saves in a week. Workman might help with solidifying the middle relief which could allow a mix of Uehera and Tazaawa for the back end of the bullpen until Bailey regains his velocity.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 21, 2013 22:13:42 GMT -5
I did enjoy Speier's article. I hope they do get someone internally to do the job. As far as Closer being overvalued I guess it is until you do not have one. Getting outs in the 9th is not the same as in the 7th.No, it's not - sometimes you come into the 7th with guys in scoring position and have to get out of a jam; in the 9th you get to come in to pitch a clean inning with no one on and no jam to have to get out of. Uehara should be the closer. His K/BB ratio is amazing. Because he's around the plate so much he gives up more HR/9 than we'd probably like, but he does not beat himself, and you can't say that about Bailey, Miller, and Wilson. See above. I'd much rather use Uehara in situations where there are guys in scoring position and you need someone to come in and get you out of the jam; if he's closing it means he's, more often than not, coming in to clean innings and his extreme propensity to keeping runners from reaching base would all but be wasted. I get what you're saying - it's the old argument that the biggest out that can be gotten in a game can be in the 7th inning with runners on as opposed to these closers coming in with the cushy 3 run leads. I look at it a bit differently. To me you really don't know what the key out of the game is until after the game is over. To me blowing a 9th inning lead is far worse than blowing a 7th inning lead which is why I want my best pitcher to be the closer, which in this case is Uehara. It's easy to say that anybody can save a 3 run lead 9th inning lead and that's true enough, but what manager wants to put some mediocre reliever in to do his best to jeopardize the 3 run lead and give everybody watching a maalox moment? We already get enough of these with guys who are supposed to be the closer.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 21, 2013 22:47:37 GMT -5
It's easy to say that anybody can save a 3 run lead 9th inning lead and that's true enough, but what manager wants to put some mediocre reliever in to do his best to jeopardize the 3 run lead and give everybody watching a maalox moment? We already get enough of these with guys who are supposed to be the closer. Yeah, this is the kind of thinking that lets Jonathan Papelbon sit on his extremely well paid ass while Jeremy Horst (whoever that is) throws a win away.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jun 22, 2013 8:35:07 GMT -5
It's easy to say that anybody can save a 3 run lead 9th inning lead and that's true enough, but what manager wants to put some mediocre reliever in to do his best to jeopardize the 3 run lead and give everybody watching a maalox moment? We already get enough of these with guys who are supposed to be the closer. Yeah, this is the kind of thinking that lets Jonathan Papelbon sit on his extremely well paid ass while Jeremy Horst (whoever that is) throws a win away. I've said it before, but will repeat that I sincerely doubt anyone on this current staff is the closer come trade deadline. I don't think that any of the internal options are ideal. The 2 best currently are Tazawa and Uehara but Uehara is not overpowering (altho he has great control & deception) and Tazawa strikes me as not having quite the mindset. I don't want Paps because of baggage and the cost at the farm level. For once I'd rather see us stand pat and allow our youngsters to grow even if it compromises the current season. But that is not Sox management or fandom style. I would preach patience for the longer haul and greater good. RDLR is certainly not ready. Maybe its his body type that causes me to feel this way, but I see him more in relief, a Hanrahan type...hard thrower with marginal control....I just don't envision him as a starter....5 innings-100 plus pitches. Besides, we have enough of those guys already.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 22, 2013 8:53:48 GMT -5
It's easy to say that anybody can save a 3 run lead 9th inning lead and that's true enough, but what manager wants to put some mediocre reliever in to do his best to jeopardize the 3 run lead and give everybody watching a maalox moment? We already get enough of these with guys who are supposed to be the closer. Yeah, this is the kind of thinking that lets Jonathan Papelbon sit on his extremely well paid ass while Jeremy Horst (whoever that is) throws a win away. So fine. When you manage your team, have Papelbon secure that all important out in the 7th (or maybe the out that's really needed is in the 6th) and then when the score is 5-2 and you're stuck with Jeremy Horst screwing up the 9th inning making everybody nervous (because Paps isn't going 2.1 innings) as suddenly it's 5-4 game and there's no sign he's going to get anybody out, you won't have Papelbon to around to save the day. Then what? We all get nervous watching who's supposed to be our best reliever close out a game even when they're up 3. I sure don't want to watch a lesser quantity pitch the 9th inning in a game where it doesn't take much for the other team to come back. I hate to say it, but with this point it's a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. The old-time relievers used to snuff out fires in the 7th or 8th and finish off the game. That doesn't happen now. And I'm tired of hearing about the key outs after the fact. You don't really know when the out is key in the game until after the fact. You might think your ace reliever saved your butt in the 7th, but then suddenly it's the 9th and there's a new fire to snuff out, and if this fire doesn't get snuffed out, you're walking off the field in defeat in devastating fashion. The only thing I'd change from what they're doing now is I'd like to see closers come into the game if there is two outs in the 8th and runners on because at that point I don't see any reason why they can't finish the game. I wouldn't want to see too many 4 out saves but if necessary they should and that's something we rarely see at all these days. Usually I agree with Bill James on his theories, but this one - while it makes sense in a vacuum - doesn't work too well in reality.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 22, 2013 9:12:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 22, 2013 9:41:09 GMT -5
It totally makes more sense to have Horst come in in the 7th and blow the lead making Papelbon unnecessary all together, right?
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Jun 22, 2013 9:41:58 GMT -5
Interesting thread, guys.
First of all, Farrell has referenced the velocity issue that Chris documented above. Given Baileys injury history, he has every reason to try to conceal a physical issue and pitch through it. He might be the best option if healthy, but I don't know that we, or the FO, should count on that.
Hondo and 0407 are right, the 9th inning is different. Stating the obvious, if you blow a lead in the 7th inning you can still win the game; if you blow it in the bottom of the ninth, you lose. The closer has to want that risk, has to be an adrenaline junkie who thrives on not wasting a stellar effort by a starter, or a comeback from an offense that may be over matched that night, or both in the case of Thursday's game.
The point about Uehara's talents being most valuable in the Bard style fireman role is a good, and likely means Uehara is not regarded as the long term solution. But I like him as closer for now. He's either going to entertain us with some high fives, or he's going to give up a home run. Either way it will be quick.
Internal options: De La Rosa and a few others have been mentioned, but not Webster. Isn't he a candidate for the Texas method - put him in the bullpen to start his career, then move on to the rotation? Unless of course he falls in love with closing.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 22, 2013 10:18:33 GMT -5
It totally makes more sense to have Horst come in in the 7th and blow the lead making Papelbon unnecessary all together, right? Does it make you feel better if it's the other way around? Paps isn't pitching the 9th if he's busy getting the last out of the 7th, so you're stuck with an inferior pitcher trying to protect what very well might be a slim lead when there is very little outs left to work with to come back if you're inferior reliever blows the game which he'd be more likely to do that your relief ace. Guys, I get that I'm espousing an "old fashioned" highly unpopular LaRussa-ized point of view here, but it's easy to sit here on the computer and say this is what I would do. I really doubt you'd do that if you actually managed the team and had to explain to the media and the fanbase why you're best reliever wasn't available because you used him too soon and you were stuck with an inferior pitcher during the 9th inning when the other team scoring absolutely kills you. As is if you didn't know the 9th inning was coming and that games are usually completed after 9 innings and not 7.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 22, 2013 10:22:02 GMT -5
Hondo and 0407 are right, the 9th inning is different. Stating the obvious, if you blow a lead in the 7th inning you can still win the game; if you blow it in the bottom of the ninth, you lose. The closer has to want that risk, has to be an adrenaline junkie who thrives on not wasting a stellar effort by a starter, or a comeback from an offense that may be over matched that night, or both in the case of Thursday's game. Yeah, you're totally right. It takes a real adrenaline junky to face a team's 6-7-8 hitters with a three-run lead. Innings are such an important factor. Men on base, matchups, the score of the game... who cares about that crap?
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,824
|
Post by wcp3 on Jun 22, 2013 10:40:28 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to the day a manager comes along who doesn't pay any attention to the made-up closer title.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to have a go-to go for the 9th, but I wish managers didn't revolve their decision-making process on an arbitrary statistic. Say, for instance, your starter is at 92 pitches through 8 innings and has retired the last 17, he should probably get the nod for the 9th. Or, if you bring in your set-up man to face one batter in the 8th (i.e. Tazawa), and he's painting 96 mph fastballs, you let him pitch the 9th.
It's amazing how long it takes people in baseball to adjust to things, but I'm confident we'll get there.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jun 22, 2013 10:47:00 GMT -5
It totally makes more sense to have Horst come in in the 7th and blow the lead making Papelbon unnecessary all together, right? Does it make you feel better if it's the other way around? Paps isn't pitching the 9th if he's busy getting the last out of the 7th, so you're stuck with an inferior pitcher trying to protect what very well might be a slim lead when there is very little outs left to work with to come back if you're inferior reliever blows the game which he'd be more likely to do that your relief ace. Guys, I get that I'm espousing an "old fashioned" highly unpopular LaRussa-ized point of view here, but it's easy to sit here on the computer and say this is what I would do. I really doubt you'd do that if you actually managed the team and had to explain to the media and the fanbase why you're best reliever wasn't available because you used him too soon and you were stuck with an inferior pitcher during the 9th inning when the other team scoring absolutely kills you. As is if you didn't know the 9th inning was coming and that games are usually completed after 9 innings and not 7. A 'mediocre' reliever is way more likely to blow the lead in the 7th inning with men on second and third with only one out than he is coming into a clean 9th inning to get three low leverage outs.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 22, 2013 11:04:49 GMT -5
But blown leads in the seventh inning never lead to losses, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 22, 2013 11:05:32 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to have a go-to go for the 9th, but I wish managers didn't revolve their decision-making process on an arbitrary statistic. Say, for instance, your starter is at 92 pitches through 8 innings and has retired the last 17, he should probably get the nod for the 9th. Or, if you bring in your set-up man to face one batter in the 8th (i.e. Tazawa), and he's painting 96 mph fastballs, you let him pitch the 9th. Exactly. You can talk all you want about the importance of the ninth, but you can't get around the fact that teams manage to a stat* exclusively. How often to do you see a team lose a string close games in which they had plenty of late-inning pressure situations, but because none of those games presented what was technically a "save" situation, they end up using their closer in a 10-2 game to get him work because he hasn't pitched in a week? It's an absurd waste use of resources. *which by the way, make it all the more hilarious when you get the "you statheads need to stop obsessing over the numbers so much" complaints. We're not the ones who think every decision should be made based on the arbitrary definition of pitcher wins, RBIs and saves.
|
|
|