Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1746
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: Closers in the Hall of Fame?
An article written (back in October) by Bob Cook at msnbc.com on Trevor Hoffman becoming the all-time leader in saves raises an interesting question about closers in general, as he reflects on Hoffman's chances of one day being recognized in the Hall of Fame. Here's an excerpt:
Quote:
After all, for eight innings every player, including the presumably substandard (compared to the closer) middle relievers, sweats to give his team a slim lead. Then the closer comes la-di-da-ing in from the bullpen to start the ninth and get the glory, like the goal-line-specialist fullback who gets to fall in the end zone for the touchdown even though he watched while his teammates did all the work the rest of the drive. ...
It’s also how the job of closer has evolved — from a reliever who comes in during a pressure situation, to a specialist who pitches, at most, one inning, with as little pressure as possible.
It's the last part of the quote that caught my attention; and which describes the transition from the relievers of the Bruce Suter/Rollie Fingers/Goose Gossage role to those such as Hoffman and others today.
For myself, I would tend to place a greater value on the relief pitcher who can enter the game with runners on base and the game on the line and shut down the opposing team; and less emphasis on the guy who can, Gagne- or Hoffman-style, come into the ninth with a lead and get a 1-2-3 inning. Ideally, of course, you want both -- but if the choice is between what used to be called a "fireman" and a closer, I think I'd prefer the fireman. (Yeah, I'm an old guy...)
Opinions?
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1653
Location: Researching my theory that a lime hat is more effective than tinfoil
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:34 am Post subject:
I agree. Everyone knows it but it still doesn't change things. Its worse than the PV cliche because GMs and managers are too afraid of the consequences to do anything about it.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1554
Location: clawing my eyes out, praying for sleep. booyah.
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:58 am Post subject:
i agree 100% -- i'd take the best pitcher, use him in the highest leverage inning, no doubt. BUT (there's always a but), i think this phase of the HOF not digging closers is a temporary one. the HOF election process is made up of crotchety writers and crotchety ex players. combine that with the relative new-ness of the closer role, and i can see why closers in general fall short to them. but as the voters slowly change to reflect those who are more accustomed to seeing the closer role, i think closers will become more and more common.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.
I totally agree with Matt and EJ. I only partly agree with McCray (even though he says he agrees with Matt and EJ), because he assumes that the 9th inning closer is something that's here to stay.
At some point managers are finally going to wise up and figure out that the best way to maximize production out of the best relief pitchers is to throw them in the critical situations AND to frequently pitch them more than one inning at a time. Why? Besides enabling you to throw your best pitcher in the crucial situations, this enables him to throw more innings during the year without risking an arm injury. The latter point assumes, of course that you rest the guy at least a day if he goes more than one inning.
It's FREQUENCY OF APPEARANCES that cause the vast majority of arm injuries, not pitch counts (unless they reach ridiculous levels). You can throw a lot of pitches, IF you get sufficient rest afterwards.
I totally agree with Matt and EJ. I only partly agree with McCray (even though he says he agrees with Matt and EJ), because he assumes that the 9th inning closer is something that's here to stay.
I think I partially agree with some of what you say
It's not uncommon "theory" to bring in the closer/best reliever in for that game changing at bat in the 7th, 8th, or 9th innings... but this is more commonly found in the really crucial games. Not so much a routine thing over the long haul of the 162 game schedule.
_________________
Old School Reviews
We obviously all KNOW what the current practice is - and has been since LaRussa & Eck.
The point I'm at least trying to make is that the current practice is wasteful - using an excellent pitcher for only one inning at a time (for maybe 60-70 innings/year), when you can use this same excellent pitcher for a lot more innings if you only have the discipline and intelligence to rest him for a day after he's pitched 2 innings or more.
If that were done, not only would those types of pitchers help their teams more, but - by the way - HOF voters would be more likely to think they merit HOF admission.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
