Jump to content

POLL: Who Do You Want As Your Closer in 2009?


Old#5fan

Who Should the Orioles 2009 Closer Be?  

169 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Should the Orioles 2009 Closer Be?



Recommended Posts

Since you seem to love to point out problems I will point out one with you and that is you cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you unless they use some sort of statistical norm or measurement. You allow no tolerance for any kind of opinion or interpretation of something other than your own method. In essence, you are as intolerant as you accuse me of being.

As an example, I don't give a hoot if statistically Chris Ray walked less batters per inning in 2007 than Sherrill in 2008. I personally do not like Chris Ray as a closer. I think he is scared of the top hitters in the game and nibbles too much. Do I have stats or empirical evidence to suppor this no, nor do I care to.

I think Sherrill goes after hitters and doesn't fear anyone. Ergo, I fail to see how anyone would prefer Ray. Now this entire reasoning makes no sense to you, because it cannot be measured. However, it doesn't necessarily make my viewpoint invalid. This is a problem I have with posters like yourself, and to top it off you love to throw out the negative rep., merely because you don't like my "method" of looking at something.

It is fine if you prefer Sherrill...That is your opinion, etc...

However, when you say that Ray walks more batters and Sherrill throws more strikes and that is proven wrong, then you should acknowledge it.

Instead, you go off on some tangent about things that don't mean much and then complain about someone giving you 2 stars...And really, who the hell cares what your thread is rated anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It is fine if you prefer Sherrill...That is your opinion, etc...

However, when you say that Ray walks more batters and Sherrill throws more strikes and that is proven wrong, then you should acknowledge it.

Instead, you go off on some tangent about things that don't mean much and then complain about someone giving you 2 stars...And really, who the hell cares what your thread is rated anyway?

Seriously... this was my initial thought.

Don't be so sensitive, Old Fan!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fine if you prefer Sherrill...That is your opinion, etc...

However, when you say that Ray walks more batters and Sherrill throws more strikes and that is proven wrong, then you should acknowledge it.

Instead, you go off on some tangent about things that don't mean much and then complain about someone giving you 2 stars...And really, who the hell cares what your thread is rated anyway?

Why do I need to acknowledge it? So what if Ray walks fewer hitters slightly per inning than Sherrill? I still think he lacks command moreso than Sherrill. Some of you seem to totally lack the grasp of the possibility that a veteran pitcher like Sherrill may be intentionally pitching around a hitter. Ray on the other hand is not only wild in walking people but wild while in the strike zone which is why he has a propensity of giving up monster shot home runs. I truly think Ray and his herky-jerky windup has little to no clue most of the time where the ball is going to wind up when he throws it.

As far as my being sensitive to the thread rating, I can understand it if the thread was something off the wall but anyone who rated this thread a one star is simply being a vindictive sort. I also got a one star on the Ravens topic merely for asking if Tom Matte was still on the air. If someone doesn't like me fine, but I find it very spineless and juvenille to rate a thread low for that reason solely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you seem to love to point out problems I will point out one with you and that is you cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you unless they use some sort of statistical norm or measurement. You allow no tolerance for any kind of opinion or interpretation of something other than your own method. In essence, you are as intolerant as you accuse me of being.

As an example, I don't give a hoot if statistically Chris Ray walked less batters per inning in 2007 than Sherrill in 2008. I personally do not like Chris Ray as a closer. I think he is scared of the top hitters in the game and nibbles too much. Do I have stats or empirical evidence to support this no, nor does it matter to me. However, I see it first hand with my own two eyes. I also think he is wild in the strike zone by throwing HR balls down the heart of the plate, which is not going to show as lack of control in the almighty and glorified statistics that some of you seem to live and die by. Sherrill doesn't have this as much of an issue.

I think Sherrill goes after hitters and doesn't fear anyone. Ergo, I fail to see how anyone would prefer Ray. Now this entire reasoning makes no sense to you, because it cannot be measured. However, it doesn't necessarily make my viewpoint invalid. This is a problem I have with posters like yourself, and to top it off you love to throw out the negative rep., merely because you don't like my "method" of looking at something.

It's fine if you don't see the value in having measurements and metrics define your arguments. Lots of casual fans weigh player values in very subjective terms.

But don't expect your subjective arguments to hold as much weight as a carefully researched opinion backed by solid metrics. Most fans here rightfully demand more than pure opinion when forming their own ideas about baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fine if you don't see the value in having measurements and metrics define your arguments. Lots of casual fans weigh player values in very subjective terms.

But don't expect your subjective arguments to hold as much weight as a carefully researched opinion backed by solid metrics. Most fans here rightfully demand more than pure opinion when forming their own ideas about baseball.

Indeed, I am a casual fan. However, does sabermetrics account for being "wild" in the strike zone by pitching fastballs right down the heard of the plate? I know it is accounted for as the result of the pitch but the fact the pitcher had no command, which caused the pitch to occur, I doubt is accounted. Yet it is easily seen when watching the game as in "oops" that one was right down the heart of the plate, and he sure didn't mean to throw it there, or the proverbial hanging slider! Again, in observation these are command issues and go hand in hand with walks, yet aren't reflected as such other than gleaned by observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fine if you don't see the value in having measurements and metrics define your arguments. Lots of casual fans weigh player values in very subjective terms.

But don't expect your subjective arguments to hold as much weight as a carefully researched opinion backed by solid metrics. Most fans here rightfully demand more than pure opinion when forming their own ideas about baseball.

Dude...I want us to get Felipe Lopez because his wife is hot! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I need to acknowledge it? So what if Ray walks fewer hitters slightly per inning than Sherrill? I still think he lacks command moreso than Sherrill. Some of you seem to totally lack the grasp of the possibility that a veteran pitcher like Sherrill may be intentionally pitching around a hitter. Ray on the other hand is not only wild in walking people but wild while in the strike zone which is why he has a propensity of giving up monster shot home runs. I truly think Ray and his herky-jerky windup has little to no clue most of the time where the ball is going to wind up when he throws it.

As far as my being sensitive to the thread rating, I can understand it if the thread was something off the wall but anyone who rated this thread a one star is simply being a vindictive sort. I also got a one star on the Ravens topic merely for asking if Tom Matte was still on the air. If someone doesn't like me fine, but I find it very spineless and juvenille to rate a thread low for that reason solely.

I think the sentiment that you need to acknowledge things comes from the point (which has been made several times in this thread alone) that you won't waiver from your oppinion even when you're proved wrong by statistics. Like it or not, statistics are data, which separates truth from opinion. You can't blurt something out without doing ANY research whatsoever, then say it doesn't matter when you're proven incorrect. First of all, it really diminishes your reputation and legitimacy as a poster (which is why so many people are so abrasive with you in the first place, not to mention your overall sour demeanor towards anyone who decides to do 10 seconds of "research" to look up a BB/9 stat), which you can bet is reflected in your thread ratings.

I'm just saying: I've agreed with you wholeheartedly before, and I will continue to do so when you make responsible, solid statements. It's only once you singlehandedly derail a perfectly normal conversation/debate in a thread that people start having a problem with you, for the most part. For those who choose to pick on you from the get go, my suggestion is that you heed your own advice and move on.

By the way, I bumped your thread rating back up... it's only 40% terrible now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how some people try to reason with Old Fan when clearly he is going to keep on saying what he always does. That said, I think he does have a point about being wild in the strike zone, but I have no proof to back this up.

I would rather see Ray as the closer b/c he has more potential to be a dominating reliever. To me, Sherrill is best suited in the LOOGY-setup role. It would be a nice back-end of the bullpen to have Ray as the closer and Sherrill and Johnson as the setup men. If Johnson and Ray are both the setup men then it becomes a little redundant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how some people try to reason with Old Fan when clearly he is going to keep on saying what he always does. That said, I think he does have a point about being wild in the strike zone, but I have no proof to back this up.

I would rather see Ray as the closer b/c he has more potential to be a dominating reliever. To me, Sherrill is best suited in the LOOGY-setup role. It would be a nice back-end of the bullpen to have Ray as the closer and Sherrill and Johnson as the setup men. If Johnson and Ray are both the setup men then it becomes a little redundant.

I like your idea.

LOOGY - Sherrill

SU - JJ

Closer - Ray

That has the potential to be a devastating backend of the bullpen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how some people try to reason with Old Fan when clearly he is going to keep on saying what he always does. That said, I think he does have a point about being wild in the strike zone, but I have no proof to back this up.

I would rather see Ray as the closer b/c he has more potential to be a dominating reliever. To me, Sherrill is best suited in the LOOGY-setup role. It would be a nice back-end of the bullpen to have Ray as the closer and Sherrill and Johnson as the setup men. If Johnson and Ray are both the setup men then it becomes a little redundant.

I still think Ray has more command issues than Sherrill and by a wide margin. Sherrill may walk slightly more hitters but I rarely saw him throwing fast balls right down broadway like Ray seemed to have a propensity of doing. Again, this doesn't show up as wildness in stats but it does in the wins and losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your idea.

LOOGY - Sherrill

SU - JJ

Closer - Ray

That has the potential to be a devastating backend of the bullpen.

I agree with this assessment. Sherrill has historically shown that he is better when kept fresh and pitches less innings. He would be a great lefty to bring in for the 7th and 8th in tough specialist situations. Johnson is a great 8th inning guy. And Liz could be a 6th and 7th inning guy who can pitch multiple innings. Ray isn't a great closer buut for our situation, he makes more sense. He's a league average closer, and thats fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think Ray has more command issues than Sherrill and by a wide margin. Sherrill may walk slightly more hitters but I rarely saw him throwing fast balls right down broadway like Ray seemed to have a propensity of doing. Again, this doesn't show up as wildness in stats but it does in the wins and losses.

But it has to show up somewhere doesn't it? You can't just keep throwing balls right down the middle and get away with it can you? The areas where you would think the wildness factor does show up all favor Ray.

Ray's WHIP as a closer is 1.15; Sherrill's is 1.50

Ray's Save Percentage is 84.4%; Sherrill's is 83.7%. This is close but it doesn't demonstrate that Ray has more command issues

Ray's BB/9 as a closer 3.72; Sherrill's is 5.57.

I'll accept your position that stats don't tell everything, but your position that Ray is more wild surely must show up somewhere in some stats. So where does it show up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this assessment. Sherrill has historically shown that he is better when kept fresh and pitches less innings. He would be a great lefty to bring in for the 7th and 8th in tough specialist situations. Johnson is a great 8th inning guy. And Liz could be a 6th and 7th inning guy who can pitch multiple innings. Ray isn't a great closer buut for our situation, he makes more sense. He's a league average closer, and thats fine.

Right, also don't forget about Sarfate. I think he'll start out in the position you have Liz in. If we can stay relatively healthy the bullpen should be a strength this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...