Benitez to DL

Well....

shit

Johnny Twobags doesn't have the blues and it makes him sad, brings him down...but not down enough to have the blues.

by kenshin1 on Apr 1, 2006 5:08 PM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

That's just peachy.

In every era, someone comes along and sits on top of that hill.

by giantscatcher on Apr 1, 2006 5:15 PM PST reply actions

Actually, I'm happy. I was more worried when earlier this week Sabes said he was healthy and WOULDN'T go on the DL. Now at least he won't be hurting the team. And they've got plenty of arms to replace him. I'm not saying I feel great about Worrell or Walker closing games, but I felt worse knowing they would be on the team while 2 out of the Taschner/Accardo/Correia group wouldn't be. That's the only reason I wanted Walker traded -- because I feel like Accardo is already better than him, but would likely start the season in AAA. At least now when (if?) Benitez comes back in a couple of weeks, there will be some real (if still small sample-size) performances with which to judge who sould be sent down or traded.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f***ing amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 1, 2006 5:20 PM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

I'm happy too. If he's hurt there's reason to hope he'll recover and pitch well later. Don't know how excited I am about either Walker or Worrell as closer. I don't think Accardo, Valdez, or Wilson are quite ready yet either. But at least there's a reason for his suckiness.

by orangeandblackattack on Apr 1, 2006 5:56 PM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

After today's performance, I hope no one is surprised by this move.

And if you believe the knee story, ive got a bridge by the bay to sell ya.

Benitez is another expensive sabean mistake.

At least this time he scored some backup.

and it looks like accardo and walker will start the year off with the team.

by bacci40 on Apr 1, 2006 6:25 PM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

"And if you believe the knee story, ive got a bridge by the bay to sell ya."

Well, he did get a cortisone shot not too long ago...unless you're thinking that was part of the ruse.

Their saying that it really hurt when he tried to pitch on consecutive days, which would seem to make sense to me.

What exactly is bursitis?

Hop on the Finley bandwagon!

by Goofus on Apr 3, 2006 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

I can't believe I spelled it "their".

Hop on the Finley bandwagon!

by Goofus on Apr 3, 2006 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursitis

by sularz on Apr 3, 2006 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

You forgot "predictable
Benitez is another expensive PREDICTABLE Sabean mistake.

by zenbitz on Apr 1, 2006 6:55 PM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

What was it about Armando's 47 saves and 1.29 era in 2004 that had you all screaming in horror when Sabean got us a closer? Or did you all have the inside information that Hermanson, Brower and Herges were suddenly going to not suck at the end of games? Or was there another available closer back then you would rather have had? Looper? Percival? Urbina maybe?

I don't remember the mcc community frothing in anger when he was signed. If you lash out at Sabean for everything that goes wrong then it takes some of the teeth out of the times he truly deserves the beating.

by keithr on Apr 2, 2006 7:30 AM PST up reply actions

Signing...

an aging relief pitcher to a huge contract at a fungible position does not represent a particularly brilliant move.

Johnny Twobags doesn't have the blues and it makes him sad, brings him down...but not down enough to have the blues.

by kenshin1 on Apr 2, 2006 7:49 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Who should have got the job? Arrcado? Walker? Did you know that Valdez might be ready now when Benitez was signed. No, I liked the Benitez signing when it was done, and I've still got my fingers crossed that it will work out. Doesn't mean I'm not nervous as hell and cursing the baseball gods with every twinge of pain Armando gets, but I'm not ready to throw away a closer who as shown he can be among the elite either.

by Sayhey on Apr 2, 2006 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Add to the fact that 2004 was certainly a peak. I lived in NY for the Benitez Mets years... he can be great certainly. But I am of the opinion that you should never pay $7M/4years for closer.

Yes, give the job to Tyler Walker - or close by comittee. Yes, he/they will blow some saves, and the media will cruxify you... so what.

Spend the 7M on a first baseman who can hit. In the end, this will be worth more wins than those blown by a closer.

by zenbitz on Apr 2, 2006 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Where has "closer by committee" ever worked? I guess I'm spoiled with years of Nen and before that Shooter, but I want a guy who I have the utmost confidence in to nail down the 9th. Market prices for those guys may be just a little outrageous, but you still need a top quality closer to win much of anything. As much as I like Walker as a set-guy, he hasn't shown the ability to be that kind of guy. Accardo and Valdez are still hopes built on a wing and a prayer. Much better to bring them in as set-up men and work one of them into the closer role.

by Sayhey on Apr 2, 2006 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

I guess nobody remembers how 2004 went or ended for the Giants. The bullpen fell apart and ran out of gas because we didn't have a closer and everyone got over-used to compensate. They tried a bullpen by committee that year and it didn't work. And we got to see the bullpen hand the Dodgers the division.

The Giants needed a closer and Benitez was the best available. It hasn't worked out, but I'd much rather Sabean go for it then sit back and watch another season melt away at the end because we didn't address a glaring need when it was within our ability to address it.

Even if Benitez was aging or expected to decline from his 1.29 era it doesn't mean he was set to pop a hammy or drop off a cliff. Assume his k-rate and era was going to go down again from 2004. So, maybe he's at 1.80-2.00 era with a 7-8k/9 rate instead. That's pretty solid.

Getting Benitez was the best option at the time. Tell me someone you would have rather had?

by keithr on Apr 2, 2006 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Hermanson - but the Giants went cheap on him and didn't give him the bonus he should have got. He pitched very well as the closer, until he was grossly overused in the last week.

I would say that the whole bullpen was overused due to the lack of set-up men; or at least the lack of set-up guys without ugly platoon splits. Sure, maybe Brad Lidge would have solved the problem, but I doubt it.

I don't recall what other closers were free agents. Trades are also an option. Say, someone like Scott Shields or Juan Rincon.

Or Huston Street would have been nice. But we had Michael Tucker instead. Yay!

Benitez is just not the type of pitcher you expect to age well - lousy control, lousy conditioning, and near total reliance on being able to throw 96-98. That is why 21 mil for an average closer is very risky.

Ignorant and stubborn do a great job of impersonating stupid.

by irwin on Apr 2, 2006 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

IT'S ONE INNING.
A closer pitches, what, 50 innings. Highly leveraged, to be sure. 50 out of 1500.

Tell me how that's worth 1/10th of the budget.

by zenbitz on Apr 2, 2006 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

It's the inning in which the game is decided. Take a look at the last twenty years and tell me how many World Series winners have a closer with less than 20 saves (one - Kim's 19 saves for the D'backs.) In fact one trait constant in almost all World Series winners since divisional play started in 1969 is that the teams have quality bullpens with quality closers. In order to win it all it would seem a team has to have a quality closer. The price of that may seem exorbitant, but you still have to have the arms or you don't win.

2005 - Hemanson (34 saves)
2004 - Foulke (32 saves)
2003 - Looper (28 saves)
2002 - Percival (40 saves)
2001 - Kim (19 saves)
2000 - Rivera (36 saves)
1999 - Rivera (45 saves)
1998 - Rivera (36 saves)
1997 - Nen (35 saves)
1996 - Wetteland (43 saves)
1995 - Wohlers (25 saves)
1994 - no series
1993 - Ward (45 saves)
1992 - Henke (34 saves)
1991 - Agulera (42 saves)
1990 - Myers (31 saves)
1989 - Eckersley (33 saves)
1988 - Howell (21 saves)
1987 - Reardon (31 saves)
1986 - McDowell (22 saves)
1985 - Quisenberry (37 saves)

by Sayhey on Apr 2, 2006 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Saves are an irrelvant statistic in baseball.
How many saves would a league-average reliever garner in those situations?

by zenbitz on Apr 3, 2006 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Yeh, right. OK, there are all kinds of flawed stats in baseball, but even if the "save" is as irrelevant a stat as you say it is, the real point is that closers who excel at saves seem to be an integral part of winning teams. Teams that win their division and go far in the playoffs have quality closers - what stat you use to evaluate their work doesn't change that fact. I'm hoping Benitez comes back from injury and the Giants are one of those teams, because "closer-by-committee" has never worked and the idea of just throwing "league-average relievers" into the slot has shown it turns an awful lot of "league-average relievers" into disasters (Matt Herges, Jim Brower, etc.) Some folks can handle the ninth inning and some can't. While Benitez may turn into a total disaster as well - because of injury - I can't blame the Giants for signing the best closer available at the time.

by Sayhey on Apr 4, 2006 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Correlation != Causation.

Having good relivers is a good thing.
Havine good 1 inning relivers is a fine thing as well.

Paying them out of proportion to their value is dumb. It's dumb even if every team in baseball does it.

Also your remarks about the failure of 'closer by committee' is unknown. Before LaRussa Eckified the 9th inning... no body had a closer. Since then, everyone has one. A few terrible teams have tried it, with predictable results.

Finally, your list of world series winners and number of saves is totally meaningless. Plenty of half decent teams have 35-40 save guys... you don't even mention if the championship teams led their league in saves (which would be somewhat less meaningless)

The answer you actually wanted to post was showing that winning or playoff teams have a higher SAVE% (SV/BS) than losing teams.

That probably is true (I didn't check)... since better teams probably have better closers. But the real question is not "whether closers are useful" but whether they are worth their market value (in AB's case SEVEN MIIIIILION DOLLARS).

Herges was terrible in 2004, is that because he was mentally unsuited to be a closer? Or because he can't pitch any more?

Benitez in 1999 had 22 saves and 6 BS - not much worse than Herges there (of course, his ERA was much, much better), same in 2004 (21/8).

Not sure what you are saying about Brower... he was not really given a chance (or did they give up after 4 blown saves?)

by zenbitz on Apr 4, 2006 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Never said the correlation of saves to WS meant WS wins where caused by the number of saves a team had. The correlation that is strongest is the presence of a quality closer (by whatever stat or, preferably, series of stats you want to measure that by.) If you propose a different solution (i.e. "closer-by-committee") it is YOUR responsibility to show that it works. There is NO evidence it does.

As to your assertion that before LaRussa and Eckersley there where no closers, it only shows your confusion about the history of closers. It's true that Eck was one of the first exclusively one-inning closers, but closers such as Gossage, Quisenberry, Sutter, Fingers, McGraw, and our own Lavelle, Minton, and Linzy go back much further. What has really changed though, is not so much the presence of closers, but the use of starters. Gone are the days of expecting starters to go nine innings. Unless you purpose a return to those tactics, you have no real viable solution to the reliance on closers and an expanded role for the bullpen.

As to my list, I admit to shorting it to make a point, but here is an expanded version that shows all WS teams (not just winners) and their closers from 1969 on. I've added the league ranking in saves of each team's closers. I'm a firm believer that there is no one stat that shows baseball reality, and saves certainly are an example of this, but as a start it is a pretty good indication that successful teams, in almost all cases, have successful closers.

2005 White Sox - Hermanson (34- 9th) Astros - Lidge (42 - 3rd)
2004 Red Sox - Foulke (32 - 5th) Cardinals - Isringhausen (47 - 1st)
2003 Marlins - Looper (28 - 8th) Yankees - Rivera (40 - 3rd)
2002 Angels - Percival (40 - 3rd) Giants - Nen (43 - 5th)
2001 Diamondbacks - Kim (19) Yankees - Rivera (50 - 1st)
2000 Yankees - Rivera (36 - 4th) Mets - Benitez (41 - 3rd)
1999 Yankees - Rivera (45 - 1st) Braves - Rocker (38 - 4th)
1998 Yankees - Rivera (36 - 6th) Padres - Hoffman (53 - 1st)
1997 Marlins - Nen (35 - 6th) Indians - Mesa (16)
1996 Yankees - Wetteland (43 - 4th) Braves - Wohlers (39 - 4th)
1995 Braves - Wohlers (25 - 10th) Indians - Mesa (46 - 1st)
1994 No Series
1993 Blue Jays - Ward (45 - 1st) Phillies - Williams (43 - 4th)
1992 Blue Jays - Henke (34 - 5th) Braves - Pena (15)
1991 Twins - Aguilera(42 - 3rd) Braves - Berenguer (17 - 7th)
1990 Reds - Myers (31 - 2nd) Athletics - Eckersley (48 - 2nd)
1989 Athletics - Eckersley (33 - 3rd) Giants - Lefferts (20), Bedrosian (17)
1988 Dodgers - Howell (21 - 8th), Pena (12) Athletics - Eckersley (45 - 1st)
1987 Twins - Reardon (31 - 2nd) Cardinals - Worrell (33 - 3rd)
1986 Mets - McDowell (22 - 8th), Orosco (21 - 10th) Red Sox - Stanley (16 - 10th), Sambito (12)
1985 Royals - Quisenberry (37 - 1st) Cardinals - Lahti (19 - 7th), Dayley (11)
1984 Tigers - Hernandez (32 - 3rd) Padres - Gossage (25 - 5th)
1983 Orioles - Martinez (21 - 7th) Phillies - Holland (25 - 2nd)
1982 Cardinals - Sutter (36 - 1st) Brewers - Fingers (29 - 3rd)
1981 Dodgers - Howe (8) Yankees - Gossage (20 - 5th)
1980 Phillies - McGraw (20 - 7th) Royals - Quisenberry (33 - 1st)
1979 Pirates - Tekulve (31 - 2nd) Orioles - Stanhouse (21 - 3rd)
1978 Yankees - Gossage (27 1st) Dodgers - Forster (22 - 6th)
1977 Yankees - Lyle (26 - 2nd) Dodgers - Hough (22 - 4th)
1976 Reds - Eastwick (26 - 1st) Yankees - Lyle (23 - 1st)
1975 Reds - Eastwick (22 - 1st) Red Sox - Drago (15 - 5th)
1974 Athletics - Fingers (18 - 4th) Dodgers - Marshall (21 - 1st)
1973 Athletics - Fingers (22 - 3rd) Mets - McGraw (25 - 3rd)
1972 Athletics - Fingers (21 - 3rd) Reds - Carrol - (37 - 1st)
1971 Pirates - Giusti (30 - 1st) Orioles - Watt (11 - 10th)
1970 Orioles - Richert (13) Reds - Granger (35 - 1st)*
1969 Mets - Tayor (13 - 7th), McGraw (12 - 8th) Orioles - Watt (16 - 4th), Richert (12 - 9th)

With the Herges and Bower examples, it is clear to anyone who watched them pitch that they wilted under the pressure of the closer role. Both had been important contributors before being thrust into being closers. They are just very painful examples that throwing average bullpen guys into the ninth inning role doesn't work very well.

Lastly, I don't care about the salary argument. These are self-imposed limits by the owners and much of their arguments are bogus on the face of it. The market rate for hiring a closer is what it is. The real point is, if you have to have one to win then don't complain about paying people what their services are worth. If you can do it on the cheap, fine, but few teams have talented rookies like Oakland's Street who can do the job. It would be great if Valdez turned out to be one for the Giants, but I'm not holding my breath.

by Sayhey on Apr 5, 2006 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Notice in the above list there are only six closers out of the 72 possible that aren't ranked in the top ten in their league (Kim in 2001, Mesa in '97, Pena in '92, Lefferts in '89, Howe in '81, and Richert in '70.) Certainly some of these have a history as quality closers as well (in the Giants 1989 case, Bedrock had such a history.) Fully 51 of those closers finished in the top five in their league in saves. While saves aren't the best stat in the world, clearly there is something going on here that shows a correlation between winning and quality closers.

by Sayhey on Apr 5, 2006 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Saves, and save situations correlate with wins. Teams in the world series usually have more wins than league average, if not the top 2. What I am trying to say is that better teams get more saves, because they get more wins. They don't get more wins because they get more saves.

Saves without save percentage is not a "single stat" it's a totally meaningless stat. Saves with save percentage (or Blown Saves) is merely mostly meaningless, because there is no accounting for the difficulty of the save (and some are WAY easier than others, and good teams will have more 3-run leads in the 9th than 1 run leads in the 9th).

by zenbitz on Apr 5, 2006 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Oh, I get it. Teams get saves (or relievers do) because they win. Therefore, closers have no roll in the winning of games. The fact they must finish the game in order for the win to happen and a save recorded is incidental and any one could do it. Ever watch a game, zenbitz?

The problem with the save stat is that it doesn't show the difficulty or importance of the outs the pitcher got in order to get them. A seventh inning set-up guy may have had to face the heart of the other teams order with the bases loaded and receives no save for the effort, while the closer gets out the easiest guys with no one on a gets the credit. That's the trouble with the save stat.

What makes the stat at least marginally meaningful is that a pitcher must record outs without giving up the lead to receive one. That's a contribution to a win, NOT just a meaningless adjunct to a win but a real contribution to one. Now, I certainly don't want to say that save percentage isn't valuable in determining the effectiveness of a closer, but for the purpose of looking at the presence of a quality closer on winning teams, it isn't vital. What is is looking at the teams and the names of the closers and knowing something about the history of the game. Add to that, gross number of saves and league ranking of saves and a picture begins to emerge of good teams having good closers who contribute to their winning ways. Not an amazing conclusion to be sure, but one you don't seem to get. Now, if you want to provide save percentage for all the pitchers listed in my post above, I think it would be an interesting further elucidation of my point. While you're at it, post the WHIP of each over the league average. That would also be interesting, but it still all points out the same conclusion. Want to win, get a good closer.

yob

by Sayhey on Apr 5, 2006 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Oh, I get it. Teams get saves (or relievers do) because they win.

Yes. How many saves will a team that scores zero runs get? Who's starters have an ERA of 19.0?

* Therefore, closers have no roll in the winning of games.

I didn't say that. I said they were over paid for their contribution.

*The fact they must finish the game in order for the win to happen and a save recorded is incidental and any one could do it.

Will an average pitcher get saves? Matt Herges got 23 and he SUCKED.

* Ever watch a game, zenbitz?*

Never, I spend all my time on the internet convincing you that you are wrong. Slightly less pointless than the Devil Rays' season. Slightly more pointless than an ad hominum attack.

You are not painting the picture you think you are.

by zenbitz on Apr 5, 2006 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Sorry, if the "ever watch a game" comment came off as a personal attack. My frustration with arguing what is to me an obvious point perhaps caused me to phrase my response in a less than polite way. Having watched many games, it is obvious to me that closers play a vital role in winning games and in winning championships. We can argue forever what stat or series of stats best shows that overall truth, but somehow I think we will never agree on the value of closers. You look at it through a cash per player lens and I do not. My concern is that the Giants have the players needed to win a championship, and that must include in the modern game, as I think I've shown, a quality closer - whatever you have to pay him.

yob

by Sayhey on Apr 5, 2006 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Fair enough.
I'd rather have a 1st baseman that can hit.

Although that Nierkoolaid is looking mighty tasty after 2 games.

Just to end on a note of agreement - I would love to see the Giants with a Hoffman/Gagne/Rivera/Lidge/Wagner... or vintage Nen.

Benitez is not one of those guys, with the exception of a year or two (including 2004).

Finally - it's hilarious that you asked "ever watch a game" - it's just a classic anti-stat head remark. It would even be funnier if you said "ever get your nose out of your math book and watch a game?"

by zenbitz on Apr 6, 2006 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Signing...

Well, I've always been one for classics, even when I had no idea they qualified as such. I don't make a secret of my intolerance of the substitution of stats for reality, but I don't think that makes me against the use of statistics. When they give a better understanding of the game, great; when they tell you the sky is green, I've a problem. Does than make me anti-stathead? I guess it does to a degree. Certainly the quest for the one stat (VORP or what ever new one that comes along) to evaluate players drives me a little crazy. I think any real statistician will tell you judgement and understanding of what stats are saying is necessary for them to mean anything. Too often the judgement and understanding of the game is being lost.

We agree that Benitez isn't in the category of the guys you list, but I've still hope he can be a quality closer for the Giants.

We also agree that a classic power hitting first baseman would be nice, but a healthy Barry Bonds makes up for a lot of sins of omission on the part of other players. I just wouldn't give up a quality closer (assuming we have one) to upgrade what we have at first. I sure would like both.

yob

by Sayhey on Apr 6, 2006 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

Well, perhaps 5 straight years of a declining strikeout rate. Also, his 1.29 era came with a career best bb rate and in a great park with a great defense.

Ignorant and stubborn do a great job of impersonating stupid.

by irwin on Apr 2, 2006 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

did anybody watch the game today? i did not see evidence of any injury unless not being able to get the ball over the plate is a new medical condition.

worrell sure made me breathe a sigh of relief.................

by metzgers thumb on Apr 1, 2006 7:24 PM PST reply actions

who killed the rooster?

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/baseball/mlb/san_francisco_giants/14240341.htm?s ource=rss&channel=mercurynews_san_francisco_giants

by metzgers thumb on Apr 1, 2006 7:32 PM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

Hey 'Mando!! It's called a plate...and the ball has to cross OVER it.

When you can manage that, try to keep them from raking it into the gap for a double.

This guy is quickly becoming an overpaid, overweight version of Felix Rodriguez.

"Hats for bats...keep bats warm." ~ Pedro 'still swinging at slop nightly' Cerrano

by PacBellBoozer on Apr 2, 2006 12:35 AM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

Selective memory at work. Of Felix's 5 1/2 years with the Giants, 2 were nearly unhittable, 1 was very good, 1 1/2 were decent-to-good, and 1 was mediocre.

Then I lied as I whispered "mañana"/'Cause our tomorrow never came

by leftymalo on Apr 2, 2006 12:55 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

By mediocre I hope you mean that we can start to boo him when Felipe has him warmin up like I did with your boy Felix.

This guy stinks on ice, and I'm sorry, but I'm just not a fan of him yet. Someone that came into camp so early should't STILL be working on mechanics and trying to shed the 30 pounds of winter tonnage he seeminly put on.

Sorry Lefty, but I just don't see how either the F.Rod or the El Guapo Experiment can produce anything that I'd pay to see when it comes to relief pitching.

"Hats for bats...keep bats warm." ~ Pedro 'still swinging at slop nightly' Cerrano

by PacBellBoozer on Apr 2, 2006 1:17 AM PST reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

I'm not a Benitez fan, but you've got some facts mixed up: 1) He's LIGHTER than he was last year (not that that's saying much), and 2) The only reason he's working on mechanics is because he got injured. No matter how early you come into camp, you can still get injured. I agree, the ample extra weight he's carrying doesn't help (and could easily have contributed to the injury in the first place), but the thing that pisses me off is that he felt pain warming up for a SPRING TRAINING game, and still tried to pitch on it. He admitted afterward it made it worse, and now it's going to end up costing him about a month.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f***ing amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 2, 2006 1:43 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

Obvisouly I don't follow him as close as you do, and you do make good points, but I too was shocked that he tried pitching through it. Ain't no shame in sitting out a spring game or two.

Maybe if we're lucky he'll be out for more than a month. Frankly, I don't think I can cope with him going through the walk/plunk the leadoff guy and next thing you know, the enemy has scored the three runs they need to come back.

I guess I'm hoping that in a closer you have someone who puts fear in the hearts of the poor saps standing at the plate. And honestly, I don't think Mondo's been able to intimidate anyone other than the hot dog vendor for a few seasons now.

"Hats for bats...keep bats warm." ~ Pedro 'still swinging at slop nightly' Cerrano

by PacBellBoozer on Apr 2, 2006 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

>Sorry Lefty, but I just don't see how either the F.Rod or the El Guapo Experiment can produce anything that I'd pay to see when it comes to relief pitching.

Were you watching the Giants in 2000 and 2001?

Then I lied as I whispered "mañana"/'Cause our tomorrow never came

by leftymalo on Apr 2, 2006 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

No I didn't catch those seasons Lefty. I also wasn't the die-hard I consider myself now. I'm sorry, but I just can't stand the guy. Either of them. Nothing you can point too will make me feel differently.

It comes down to good ol' fashioned hate you see?!?

"Hats for bats...keep bats warm." ~ Pedro 'still swinging at slop nightly' Cerrano

by PacBellBoozer on Apr 2, 2006 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

There's nothing more comforting than ignoring the facts to fit your own reality. Heckuva job, Boozie. It's hard work, but you're making good progress.

Then I lied as I whispered "mañana"/'Cause our tomorrow never came

by leftymalo on Apr 2, 2006 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

Come on man. Give me a break already. I'm not about to go throwing out some stats to impress everyone and try to "prove" my case. I don't like either of them. That isn't ignorant or short-sighted even. It's my frikin' opinion and nothing else.

It's a hard thing to argue that both of them have been anywhere near a reflection of their prior selves. I, like a few others on here, consider much of that past success nothing but a fluke. There is clearly a downward trend here, and there's no insult you can throw my way to keep me from thinking otherwise.

My main point in the whole thing is this...Show me a hitter that's terrified of even stepping in the box with his team in desperate need of a rally, and I'll show you a successful and likewise well-paid closer. Spitting fire and blowing guys away, that's what I wanna see when we need 3 up and 3 down in the 9th. I haven't seen it with this guy even once since he signed with us. With the latest developments, I doubt I ever well either.

"Hats for bats...keep bats warm." ~ Pedro 'still swinging at slop nightly' Cerrano

by PacBellBoozer on Apr 3, 2006 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

I think there are two elements at work here. One, are what the stats say. Stats can lie. Or just not reveal the entire truth. Two, what's the feeling you get when a relif pitcher / closer comes into the game?

I know F-Rod had some good seasons with us and helped us get into the playoffs, BUT, I never wanted him in the game at crunch time. Never. I always got sick to my stomach when he was in the game. I always felt that when he was pitching in a meaningful game and the situation was tight, we would crumble (and he did). Game 6 in '02 ring a bell? How about Game 2 in '00? Remember that?

Same with Benitez (funny how Benitiez was the closer for the Mets that series and he gave up the homer to Snow, same game that F-Rod blew). I just don't feel comfortable when he's on the mound in tight situations. I think it was the right move at the time when we got him. But that doesn't change the feeling I get when he comes in the game.

Some players you just don't like for some reason. F-Rod was mine. Benitez is becoming one. That said, just like with F-Rod, I hope they prove me wrong.

Barry Bonds is simply a figment of Chuck Norris' imagination.

by danieljgrant on Apr 3, 2006 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

You put my exact thoughts into a well crafted message. I feel the exact way you do about the two. Couldn't agree with you more !

"Hats for bats...keep bats warm." ~ Pedro 'still swinging at slop nightly' Cerrano

by PacBellBoozer on Apr 3, 2006 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

sorry . but the dude that said felix rodriguez was decent or whatever needs a reality check a good decent and mediocre year. do you forget this schmuck cost us the world series. now it'll take another 5 years to get back. benitez doesnt have the mental makeup to close an important game. with a good closer you feel confident the game is done when he hits the mound. with this guy you never know. if alou doesnt have a panic or heart attack due to benitez blowin saves he'l be sure to retire. i know maybe we should resign felix rodrigez. wait. we have an overweight version already.

beatLAallday

by beatlaallday on Apr 2, 2006 10:23 AM PDT reply actions

Re: Benitez to DL

I think you need the reality check. Yes, Felix Rodriguez may have cost us the World Series. Yes, he was painful to watch the last few years. But that doesn't retroactively make all his early years bad, too. So, you give me the adjective to describe this year:

2001: 80 G, 9 -1 W-L, 1.68 ERA, 10.2 K/9, 1.00 WHIP

That's called complete dominance, and unparalelled excellence at his position for that season. The problem is, you're remembering him with your heart and not your head.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f***ing amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 2, 2006 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions