SpecialFNK wrote:something ive always wondered. when it comes to closers how much does it matter for their ERA/WHIP? if a pitcher has an ERA in the high 3's and a WHIP in the high 1.3's but 40+ saves would he be considered one of the better closers? how much of an effect does a relievers ERA/WHIP have on your overall ERA/WHIP?
someone like Brian Wilson for example. last season had 4.62 ERA/1.44 WHIP but 41 saves, along with 67 K in 62 IP. i do think he improves on his ERA/WHIP, but how should one rank someone like Wilson, or other closers with the type of stats i mentioned? ofcorse one would rather have a closer with lower ERA/WHIP but i assume its better to take a closer with high ERA/WHIP and 40 saves over a closer with lower ERA/WHIP and say only 25-30 saves.. maybe someone like Matt Capps for example.
Job security and injury history matter more than pure saves numbers, which vary year to year for no particular reason for closers outside the top tier. Take Jenks for example. 40 saves for two years pitching 65 and 69 innings, then 30 saves in '08 pitching 61 innings.
With Capps you have to worry about last year's "internal rotation deficit" (sounds like something the Rangers have. Eh? Eh?
) that sidelined him for a couple months. If he stays healthy it's more or less a crapshoot who will get more save ops, since they both have good job security. But then there's Wilson's ratios being much better in save ops than in non-save ops. In the end, it comes down to Capps' injury history vs. how Wilson will be handled out of the pen in '09. Capps probably won't get significantly injured, and Wilson will probably be handled much the same, and that's what it ultimately comes down to.