My MVP Ballot

the truest 'mvp' value of closers is in the postseason, when most games are close and these days almost every victory is 'closed' by the ace reliever. as for closers winning the 'cy', it happens almost never. and when it does, it's always when not a single starter has had a cy-worthy season.

 

Most of the top closers have stipulations that they only enter in a save situation. So their apperaances are seldom in decided games.

 

The most baffling one was Willie Hernandez in 1984. They won the division by 15 games -- how much difference could he have made?

 

I can't imagine that anyone actually has that in a contract. Agents have a lot of power, I understand. But this seems beyond the pale. I'm not buying it.

 

Starters affect one game in every five. Lights-out closers affect at least one in every three.
[/quote]
There is nobody who would take an elite closer over an elite starter. Would you take a good middle reliever over a good starter since they pitch in more games?

 

No idea if it's down in a contract, but you can be darn sure that it's an understanding between manager and closer.

The proof is in the action. Haven't you seen myriad occasions where a closer is warming up in the bottom of the eighth, and when his team pushes across a couple of runs and gets outside the save situation, he sits?

You look at Rivera, Wilson, Hanrahan, Storens, Papelbon. They never, or almost never, make an appearance if the game is even tied.

No. But it's closer than you think.

And a middle reliever is not a closer for a reason.

 

there is no way this is accurate as some teams are fianally coming around that you should use your best reliever in different situations. Tie games, down by one etc. these sitauations are a hell of a lot more important than entering the game with a 3 run lead and facing the bottom of the lineup.

 

That's called being smart and not wasting your best reliever in a situation you don't need them.

 

JC, I'm sorry, but that's not accurate at all. There ARE many closers who appear ONLY in save situations. Doesn't matter in the least if it's being smart or not. The fact is the fact.

 

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing for or against the point they are trying to make. I'm saying the specific way they attempt to make the argument is inane at best.

"The Hall of Fame should only be for great players" is a legitimate argument.

"It's not the Hall of Very Good" is a silly attempt to play a semantic game, which would be bad enough, but it also fails utterly because it's not the "Hall of Great" either.

 

OK, Rick. I see what you're saying there.

 

There is nobody who would take an elite closer over an elite starter. Would you take a good middle reliever over a good starter since they pitch in more games?
[/quote]

If you promised me I could get something like 2003 Eric Gagne's performance (82.1 IP, 337 ERA+), and I could use it on whatever innings I wanted (not strictly limited to save situations), I'd probably take that over an elite starter.

Not all innings are created equal. Late, tied innings have an extremely outsized effect on who wins baseball games. Having a magic out button like vintage Gagne for those situations can edge out a great starter in terms of value.