was Hinkster saying he disagreed w/ my statement about TLR? I never mentioned Tony at all.

sometimes those hitters come up in the 7th or 8th…high leverage after the 7th should be the focus of when a closer comes in…since TLR is known for doing some things “against the grain”, why not bring in your closer in the 7th or 8th and someone else to face the bottom of the order in the 9th? C’mon, Tony…turn the world upside down!

go through a lot of strength and conditioning just like any other pitcher. Pretty much the only time they’re not doing anything when other’s are is during the game. They still have injuries to prevent, arm strength to build up, and pitches to perfect.

goal is to normalize stats and eliminate variables. If pitchers actual performance can be isolated than comparing a to b becomes quite easy. here’s a great article on tra without any numbers.

is a stat to describe how well a pitcher pitched regardless of his fielders. It has little to do w/ them being in position or not. It’s a stat where fielders’ performance is controlled for so that a pitcher is held responsible for the things he should be held responsible for. It considers BB, K, and HR and doesn’t factor in whether your 2B can field or not.

I’m in total agreement with you, chuckb, that both statistical analysis and unsubstantiated opinions are worthy of inclusion in VEB and elsewhere. And I’m in total agreement that statistical analyses that are based on sample sizes too small to be statistically significant are also worthy of inclusion. They are interesting and entertaining, like your analysis, even if they don’t have the power to support or disconfirm the hypothesis at hand. I’m not the one who objects to any of that. As I said, I enjoyed your post and found it very interesting.

I don’t agree that statistics don’t prove anything, though. A scientific statistical analysis can proved that there are real differences between two real populations. Statistics show, for example, that a batter’s prime years are in his late 20’s. That’s just a descriptive statistic, of course. But it does demonstrate (“prove”, some would say) that age is a very significant factor in determining the peformance. There are many other such examples.

The important point is that empirical research can lead to conclusions about the probability of a result coming from chance or not, but that is not a “proof”, I agree. If proof were that easy, VEB would not be nearly so entertaining. It would end the friendly debating much too soon.

Thanks again for your very interesting and entertaining post.

Sports Illustrated did an interesting analysis in 2006 that found very little difference over the course of a season between the number of wins contributed by the elite closers and the number of wins contributed by closers with less glowing reputations:

“1,034 times that any pitcher was brought into this situation, their team ended up losing the game 3% of the time. But, when you have the above studs pitching, their teams also lose 3% of the time? Rivera? Yup, lost once out of 32 times. 3. Wetteland, Sasaki, Wagner? Yup, yup, yup. Each lost once in 21, 36, and 34 tries, respectively. Hoffman and Nen? 2 for 41 and 2 for 46, respectively, which is worse than 3. Percival was perfect in 29 tries, and Smoltz in 15 tries. Put all these studs together, and you get 3%. Just like all other pitchers.”

This analysis gives strong support to the premise that paying $10 to Fuentes is very foolish, when Perez and Motte or perhaps Kinney (or Springer, if he were to be re-signed) could fill the role.

There’s a whole lotta confounding in that. Most of those closers will pitch in the 8th inning only if they are needed to put out a fire with the game on the line. That’s not too good of a way to control for situational difficulty.

I really feel like this is a personal issue and can’t be proven statistically because each person is different. It depends on each individual. It’s not an issue of “proven” or “not proven,” but it’s an issue of who pitches better with a chance to end the game and who pitches better just getting it through another inning. That’s why I think that list is split 50/50. Some have the mentality where if their usual repertoire or mindset is thrown off, they can’t handle pitching at the same strength; some aren’t bothered at all by when they’re pitching or the pressure situation of the game. I think it’s impossible to make broad conclusions about this, which yes, sucks, but in terms of psychology, it’s never easy to figure these things out.

of the league-wide statistic, no? To get as close to an unbiased truth as possible. There is no method for that in politics. There is only spin.

Wouldn’t they be better served trying to retain Sheets? I am really interested to see the money and years Looper gets when he signs. I still believe offering him arb was the way to go.

2 Year/$15 M contract with a 3rd year option of $10M with a $2 Buyout

you never know, but you have to be optimistic and think we’d b e giving up rasmus or wallace plus the money for fuentes. just doesn’t seem a good gamble for a 33 year old.

About a 2/16. If Perez or Motte emerged to the point Fuentes was redundant, I think you could move him out – with that contract – for good value.

he didn’t exactly stink it up last season. Why put one of your best RP back in the minors, to the detriment of the bullpen, just to work on his slider ?

is this some obscure reference I’m not getting?

I think that he might be able to give us closer to a full season of playing time in that capacity, rather than a handful of starts.

my colleagues are less then enthused, however. We’ll be hashing that out later, perhaps in a creative way…

with the old addy…c’mon.

my bad. And to think I was trying to be clever!

But, he was in just his second year…a grizzled vet he was not.

2005: The White Sox closer role was a merry-go-round until they settled on Bobby Jenks
2006: The Cards went into the season with Izzy and then Looper…Izzy got hurt and stunk up the joint and Looper was ineffective, so even though they started the season w/ a vet closer (two really) they didn’t really play a part in helping them win the WS.
2004: Brad Lidge had one save before emerging on the scene in 04 after Dotel went down. He’s turned out okay.

K-Rod was used in high leverage situations with the Angels during their ‘02 WS run even though he’d only thrown 18 innings or something before that. He ended up doing brilliantly in those situations and became a full-time closer in 2005. Not exactly the same situation, but it seems that a pressure situation is a pressure situation.

The 2004-5 Red Sox got to the playoffs with a closer amalgamation of Timlin and mother-fletching Keith Foulke. I’ll take Perez over either.

He of a 22/13 BB/K in the majors and a 5.8 K/9 at AAA. I feel fairly confident in saying Randy Wolf > Boggs by way, way more than Fuentes > the best of Motte, Perez, McClellan or Kinney.

As for moving non-closers to the closer slot…..not everybody can handle being a closer.

That’s half right…bad pitchers can’t handle being a closer, and that’s because they’re bad. Good pitchers can. I encourage you to re-read chuckb’s post.

He has managed to brainwash you into thinking only gritty vets can close. I find the closers role sort of unnecessary to be honest. If you move a guy to the 9th, i really don’t care if he’s ready, it’s not going to be that much leverage than the average pitching role IMO. Very few major leaguers will wet their pants because the game is almost over.

LAST YEAR was the bullpen. Now we will have full seasons of Perez, Motte, Kinney, and Miller. There will be no more Villone or Flores or Isringhausen. I don’t see how the bullpen is a bigger problem than the rotation going forward.

do you mean “better” or do you mean “more experienced?” You started out talking about experience and now you seem to be talking about who is better. Those are not necessarily the same thing. In fact, they’re not the same thing at all. Again, the point remains, if Perez can get hitters out in the 8th, or 7th or 6th, he can get them out in the 9th. If he can’t, he can’t. But if he can’t, then I’d suspect that we can’t count on Motte or McClellan either since Perez has better stuff than either of them. And if they can’t get hitters out in the 6th, 7th, and 8th, Fuentes won’t have any leads to save in the 9th.

BTW, I see your signature line every time but I can’t help now but as the question — now that OU has won the Big XII championship and is playing for the national title, what do you think Will Muschamp thinks about stats now? If it weren’t for stats, UT would have won the Big XII championship and would be playing Florida b/c it was OU’s prolific offense down the stretch that pushed them past UT in the BCS. You wear that quote (ironically) like a badge of honor — flipping the bird at stats b/c they’re for losers. Yet stats are exactly the reason that OU won the Big XII. Considering your contempt for stats, I suppose OU ought to give back that championship and allow UT — the rightful winner of the OU-UT game — to play Florida for the national championship.

springer could be the bridge?