Deciding which closers to start?

[ha_jai]

I don't have any statistics to support this but what I like to do is start closers who will be pitching on the road. That way you are guarantee the closer will only be brought in when there is a save opportunity. When a closer is pitching at home, they usually bring him to start the 9th inning in a tie game. You might forego a W but if you are hunting for SV, this will give you more chances.

[NZ Eff]

That away 9th inning thing is a factor.

Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.

[Zhangman1]

That away 9th inning thing is a factor.

Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.

I actually like doing this. I have more closer than most teams in my league so i start opposing closers in hopes that one pulls it out.

[bigh0rt]

That away 9th inning thing is a factor.

Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.

Two things.

1) The Cubs play the Cards 15 times this season, or roughly 9.3% of their games.

Of the 3 match ups the clubs have already had, one went to extras on a BS by Izzy (Op), one had no Save Op, and Izzy recorded a Save in the 3rd. I'm not sure how the Cardinals playing the Cubs as opposed to any other team affects Wood's Save Ops, and vice versa. I mean, I understand the argument; I just disagree.

2) Your argument would conclude that Wood and Izzy's Save Ops are dependent on one another even if they aren't both owned by you then, correct? The argument is being made not to own both, as it may affect their Save Ops, but then it would stand to reason that their Save Ops are affected whether you own them or not. Is this what you are saying?

[NZ Eff]

That away 9th inning thing is a factor.

Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.

Two things.

1) The Cubs play the Cards 15 times this season, or roughly 9.3% of their games.

Of the 3 match ups the clubs have already had, one went to extras on a BS by Izzy (Op), one had no Save Op, and Izzy recorded a Save in the 3rd. I'm not sure how the Cardinals playing the Cubs as opposed to any other team affects Wood's Save Ops, and vice versa. I mean, I understand the argument; I just disagree.

2) Your argument would conclude that Wood and Izzy's Save Ops are dependent on one another even if they aren't both owned by you then, correct? The argument is being made not to own both, as it may affect their Save Ops, but then it would stand to reason that their Save Ops are affected whether you own them or not. Is this what you are saying?

Mod Edit: The insults are definitely not needed. Cool it.

You can't get two saves in one game. 15 games a year you cannot get more than 1 save out of your two closers. If you had 2 closers from different leagues this is not an issue. A very small factor but a factor all the same.

[Ender]

You don't want to look at a single player or at saves when you look at this though. You want to look at team based save opportunities. Good teams generally have less turnover at closer than bad teams.

No flat out incorrect, that's exactly what you don't want to do. By looking at team based ops. it totally skews the stats. For example Walker from Baltimore and Benoit from Texas have both blown 3 saves this year but have never been close to the closers role. You only want to count save ops. for a team by the teams closer but by all means add those together if there has been more than 1 used.

100% wrong, you are just adding sample bias to your argument with this. Good teams with established closers are always going to have more saves than bad teams with fluid closer situations. Good teams are more likely to have established closers and you already give more value to established closers irregardless of save opportunities. Ignoring this just makes your data useless.

[bigh0rt]

That away 9th inning thing is a factor.

Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.

Two things.

1) The Cubs play the Cards 15 times this season, or roughly 9.3% of their games.

Of the 3 match ups the clubs have already had, one went to extras on a BS by Izzy (Op), one had no Save Op, and Izzy recorded a Save in the 3rd. I'm not sure how the Cardinals playing the Cubs as opposed to any other team affects Wood's Save Ops, and vice versa. I mean, I understand the argument; I just disagree.

2) Your argument would conclude that Wood and Izzy's Save Ops are dependent on one another even if they aren't both owned by you then, correct? The argument is being made not to own both, as it may affect their Save Ops, but then it would stand to reason that their Save Ops are affected whether you own them or not. Is this what you are saying?

You can't get two saves in one game. 15 games a year you cannot get more than 1 save out of your two closers. If you had 2 closers from different leagues this is not an issue. A very small factor but a factor all the same.

Yes, as I said, I understand the argument. It's just rubbish. Papelbon/Rivera, Jenks/Nathan, K-Rod/Putz, Hoffman/Saito. None of these closers have had issues racking up saves due to another closer in their division. This is over-thinking at it's finest.

[NZ Eff]

You don't want to look at a single player or at saves when you look at this though. You want to look at team based save opportunities. Good teams generally have less turnover at closer than bad teams.

No flat out incorrect, that's exactly what you don't want to do. By looking at team based ops. it totally skews the stats. For example Walker from Baltimore and Benoit from Texas have both blown 3 saves this year but have never been close to the closers role. You only want to count save ops. for a team by the teams closer but by all means add those together if there has been more than 1 used.

100% wrong, you are just adding sample bias to your argument with this. Good teams with established closers are always going to have more saves than bad teams with fluid closer situations. Good teams are more likely to have established closers and you already give more value to established closers irregardless of save opportunities. Ignoring this just makes your data useless.

What? Ignoring the fact that Walker has 3 blown saves and not counting them as save ops. for Baltimore. Are you freakin serious. Of course they should not be counted as save ops. for the purpose of showing a correlation between team winning % and save ops. for closers when deciding which closers to start. The official stats do include them but they slant what I'm trying to show. Ignoring this makes my data valid and totally useful. Get a clue and argue about something that actually makes some sense. What you have said is total nonsense.

[NZ Eff]

Yes, as I said, I understand the argument. It's just rubbish. Papelbon/Rivera, Jenks/Nathan, K-Rod/Putz, Hoffman/Saito. None of these closers have had issues racking up saves due to another closer in their division. This is over-thinking at it's finest.

It's not an argument it's an observation and as usual a very intelligent one at that.

If your two closers are from the same division you get 15 games where you cannot get more than 1 save from your two closers. Fact. It just can't happen.

If your two closers are from different leagues (besides them playing each other for 3 games in Interleague play which is reasonably unlikely) you do not have this issue. That is potentially 15 saves you are missing out on all things being equal. It's not a major factor but it is a factor all the same.

[Ender]

[quote="NZ Eff]
What? Ignoring the fact that Walker has 3 blown saves and not counting them as save ops. for Baltimore. Are you freakin serious. Of course they should not be counted as save ops. for the purpose of showing a correlation between team winning % and save ops. for closers when deciding which closers to start. The official stats do include them but they slant what I'm trying to show. Ignoring this makes my data valid and totally useful. Get a clue and argue about something that actually makes some sense. What you have said is total nonsense.[/quote]

I misread what you said so you are correct, I thought you were only looking at the teams primary closer and ignoring other guys who got valid save ops like say Riske pitching when Gagne is not available for some reason. The way I read your post the first time made it sound like you were just looking at the teams #1 closer and ignoring all other save ops which is foolish. I missed the but by all means add those together if there has been more than 1 used line.

Bit of advice though, your posts come off extremely defensive and just plain nasty. Tone it down some if you want people to take you seriously.