Then his "mechanical" flaws fucked with him for about 2 1/2 years. Although, why was it mechanical after Albert Pujols launched the game winner into outer space, which still hasn't come down yet? He got rattled, and couldn't finish in the World Series either, costing his team two games in the most important series of his life (at the time). Yeah, mechanical flaws will do that for two and a half years.
Umm, YES. He was accused of tipping his pitches, A MECHANICAL FLAW, so he had to re-work his delivery.
So because he was rattled by Pujols, wouldn't the 2 years (as opposed to two or so days you suggest) have fixed him?
******.
Who said they were only thrown in close games? I know I certainly didn't. See this is the most hypocritical part of your argument. You seem to think that most closers need to come in and be near perfect to get a save. The Brain brings this up, what about the times where it is a three run lead, with bases empty? Is that a point where they need to be near perfect to not blow the game? No, they can let up some hits and a run or two before recording the final out.
You directly implied it. I certainly know you did.
I never said they have to be perfect. If you possessed at least a 4th grade reading ability you'd distinguish "near perfect" and "perfect" as separate categories. They have to be NEAR perfect, yes. You give the weakest possible scenario. Of course they can allow a run. Then they go out the next night, called on in the bottom of the 9th, with a 1 run lead, a guy on 2nd, and 0 outs, with the 2-3-4 hitters scheduled to hit, and must be near perfect.
No, you are just a fucking idiot. The AL West was such a weak division in 2008, the 2nd place team finished 21 games behind the Angels. No team was over .500. You are a dumb fuck. Since we are talking about the Angels in 2008. How about the fact that K-Rod came in for 1/3 or 2/3 of an inning to pick up a save 9 times. One batter, and you get a save? I'm glad that can be seen as more valuable.
You're a fool. The Angels couldn't close out those 9 games, so they bring him out to do what the others could not do. That still leaves what, 53 saves? "The offense has a big part in the wins he didn;t save, so you can suck it"
Weak, weak, weak.
Oh how silly of me. I have a weak and feeble mind because I think near perfect and perfect are damn close to each other. Yes oh great master of knowledge, teach me more.
At least the fool can admit his flaws. Do you know the definition of "near"? It means "close to" or "almost". Now insert that before the word perfect, and think about it. One day you'll get it, hopefully.
OMG!!!!!! Santana and Wainwright are starting pitchers? HOLY SHIT!!!!!! THIS IS SUCH A FUCKING REVELATION!!!!!!!!! Thank you for showing me the light!!!
Again, you go a 2nd post without having a clue how to respond to this point. You're really ignorant. Look back at the original reply for this. Somehow you read "Santana and Wainwright had games lost by the bullpen" as "Then by your logic they shouldn't be closing anymore".
Not only did you prove you are incompetent, completely missing the boat on an easily explained point, but you can't remember when these two players come into games from one post to the next.
Yes I know who they are you condescending prick. Santana was a starter in the AL Central for seven years before moving to the Mets. He won the Cy Young in 2004 and 2006, would you say that Joe Nathan was more valuable than Santana? If you do then you are an idiot.
You know for the current moment. Maybe you should bookmark something about them so you can remember.
Really, did Santana play in the AL Central? I thought the Twins were in the NL East, too
Do you follow anything about Johan Santana? He's accrued as many NDs as wins when leaving the game with a lead in his tenure with the Mets. He doesn't finish games off. He's about as good as you'll find to take the hill, yet he ends up with records like 13-9, 16-7, 15-13. Care to try and explain that?
Nathan has given the Twins stability in the closer role since 2004, and has only been over a 2 ERA twice. He's been at least the 2nd best closer in the MLB in that time frame. Johan Santana throws a gem for 6 innings, leaves, and his team loses the game. Nathan ensures 45 wins, whereas only 18 or so of Santana's starts result in victory.
Tell me what's more valuable. (pshhh it requires logic)
Wainwright did both. He was seen as more valuable as a starter.
Yes, and by winning 0 playoff games since being moved in the rotation, it was obviously the best move.
Bullpen, not just the closer. So yeah, keep talking. I like the crap you are spewing. It is hilarious.
What are you talking about? Not every point made has to directly show the correlation between the starter and closer, you moron. Since the starter rarely goes 8 and hands it to the closer, it would be ignorant to treat it as such. There a plenty of children's baseball books that will help you gain greater understanding of baseball.
No, you are just a fucking dolt and don't realize the points I'm making. Closers sit all game, whereas a starter is out there, busting his ass making pitches in big situations. They need to keep their team in the game, even when they don't have their best stuff. A closer can go out there with a three run lead, starting the inning with nobody on base, and pick up the save. Oooooohhhhh big pressure there! You call my counter argument piss poor, well if that is the case, then your's is complete shit.
You're using the weakest hypothetical possible, and loaded language.
The starter can go out, throw 5 innings of 5 run baseball, the bullpen can give up 5 runs over the next 3 innings, but your offense scored 11 runs up until that point, and the starter left with the lead, which was never lost. Now the closer comes into the 9th inning inheriting the bases loaded and no outs.
Oooooohhhhh what a great job of busting your back and making tough pitches there starting pitcher!
You're arguing is very elementary. I'd expect everyone in here to have a general knowledge, knowing how things usually work. You are arguing based off of nothing more than extreme hypothetical situations, obviously not the norm.
See, Stormtrooper actually convinced me to think both are of equal importance. You just acting like an idiot did nothing more than make you look even more like a douchebag. Now you want to say that only because you were playing "Devil's Advocate" you were saying closers are more important. No, you believed it, and are now backing out like a little bitch. You try and call me out for not reading properly, this isn't Starters vs. Bullpen. This is Starters vs. Closers. So learn to read, make a good argument, and maybe you can be seen as a competent human being.
That's because you're missing brown on your nose, so you had to go get some off of him quickly. You haven't even made any points, you've been rolling around on the floor throwing a tantrum.
Clearly, before you ever responded, I labeled it with "To play devil's advocate". Do you know what that phrase means? Don't be embarrassed if you don't, you lack a lot of knowledge, so what's one more thing? I find the closer and starting rotation to be of equal importance.
Clearly you don't have a solid grasp on the game. Its not like if Roy Halladay or Tim Lincecum aren't pitching, the league will be full of Single-A starting pitchers, never able to get the closer a save opportunity, yet you and that other moron treat it as such. Its the MAJOR LEAGUES. A rotation of 5 gets you much further than 1 star. A great closer gets you further than one star pitcher.
And if you couldn't pile it on yourself anymore, I never argued for any other bullpen role being more valuable than the closer. You're not even grasping at straws. Going on your 11th birthday later this year?
