| "Many people in baseball, including members of the Yankees..."
People in the sports themselves, especially in baseball, have historically been shown to have no idea about their own sport. There's a quiz on here right now about Max Carey (hall of famer)'s list of the best players of all time - Ruth is like 20th. Or just check the revolution in baseball due to the infusion of new statistics. Managers routinely played guys who later generations used statistical analysis to show should never have made the big leagues at all. Baseball people go with their "gut" a lot, and - it's wrong, a lot.
@Murf, that's a great stat line (is it anyone's actual stat line, or are you just throwing out a hypothetical?), but it's still less than half the innings of a good starter. And here's the thing - context is really important. Proponents of the closer actually use the context argument (ie, the 9th is so much harder and such nonsense), but I think it favors the starter. A guy who goes out and pitches 7 good innings every five days is infinitely more valuable, IMO, than a guy who is dominant in the 9th a few times a week. Here's the question - could they do each other's jobs? No, in most cases they couldn't. Few people could reproduce what the starter is doing, while many could reproduce what even the dominant closer is doing. And I know you're skeptical of that assertion, but consider this - closers are only taken from among all the pitchers LEFT OVER after starters are set. Even to this day, this is generally the way it's done. Look at the Cubs right now. Their final three in the bullpen, considered very good, and even dominant, is Kerry Wood, Sean Marshall, and Carlos Marmol. Wood's arm troubles sent him to the pen. Marshall, who was a dominant minor league starter, could never translate it to the big leagues, and the club finally gave up on the idea and stuck him in middle relief. Marmol, a one or two pitch pitcher with control problems, had one really bad year as a starter, and has been in relief ever since.
So when talkin |