Impeccable

Off-season Closer Thread 2017/18

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, loro1991 said:

edit: turned my whole post into a quote on accident trying to add Morrow inj history 

 

I agree with you and that's why I am considering Bradley a short term/fluid hold. I expect to drop him but the ratio's he could offer while Boxberger is just getting off the ground still make him a reasonable handcuff. Boxberger's servere injury issues, recent arm soreness along with him building up the strength to go back to back nights make me less than 100% confident in him, closer gigs are most in the air until he has really cemented himself. Otherwise I agree with you. I will be following Ramos, Dyson and CJ/Cisek very closely and sub one of them for Bradley asap. I think Melancon is damaged goods and is in red flag territory with Morrow. Morrow being a diabetic has a big correlation with him being injured so often.

I asked insideinjury about the Morrow injury/diabetes correlation and they said 

 

"The simple answer is yes, Type I diabetes does increase a player's injury risk. There are plenty of medical studies on why exactly this is the case (it could be anything from limited blood supply to the capillaries to increased lipids that break down the structure of tendons.) So while Morrow has done a good job managing his diabetes while playing baseball, it is a contributing factor to his lengthy injury history."

 

That along with this are damning to me, keep in mind it stopped being updated in 2014, it's just the Cj or Cisek dilemma making me pause for now when I need certainty/saves more than the best available source of saves. We have to roster handcuffs before they get the nod. 

Injury History  —  No longer being updated

Last Update: 12/31/2014 23:59 ET

Date On Date Off Transaction Days Games Side Body Part Injury Severity Surgery Date Reaggravation
2014-05-03 2014-09-02 60-DL 122 107 Right Fingers Strain Index Finger Tendon Sheath - -
2013-05-29 2013-09-30 60-DL 124 110 Right Forearm Radial Nerve Entrapment   - -
2013-05-06 2013-05-18 DTD 12 10 - Low Back Stiffness   - -
2012-06-12 2012-08-25 60-DL 74 64 Left Abdomen Strain Oblique - -
2012-05-27 2012-05-27 DTD 0 0 Right Lower Leg Contusion Batted Ball Shin - -
2011-03-22 2011-04-20 15-DL 29 17 Right Forearm Recovery From Inflammation   -  
2011-03-19 2011-03-22 Camp 3 0 Right Forearm Inflammation   -  
2011-03-13 2011-03-13 Camp 0 0 Right Shoulder Contusion Batted Ball -  
2010-03-15 2010-04-03 Camp 19 0 Right Shoulder Soreness   -  
2009-08-30 2009-09-06 Minors 7 0 Right Forearm Tightness   -  
2009-04-24 2009-05-09 15-DL 15 14 Right Arm Inflammation Biceps Tendonitis -  
2009-03-02 2009-03-24 Camp 22 0 Right Forearm Soreness   -  
2008-06-18 2008-06-25 DTD 7 6   Low Back Spasms   -  
2008-06-05 2008-06-10 DTD 5 4 Right Shoulder Soreness   -  
2008-03-11 2008-03-27 Camp 16 0 Right Shoulder Soreness   -

 

 

Edited by loro1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still going with the "good teams get more saves" thing?  I thought that has been disproven several times.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan Hicks made the Cardinals OD roster. 

 

Cardinals obviously are being super aggressive with him. If it turns out big leaguers can't hit his 101 then they might say F IT and let him close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dod959 said:

Jordan Hicks made the Cardinals OD roster. 

 

Cardinals obviously are being super aggressive with him. If it turns out big leaguers can't hit his 101 then they might say F IT and let him close. 

 

I'm taking a flier on him in leagues where I'm hurting for saves. He definitely has the stuff to close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

Are we still going with the "good teams get more saves" thing?  I thought that has been disproven several times.

 

My strategy with this is that a team win will roughly equal half a save opportunity. So 100 wins = 50 save opps. 70 wins = 35 save opps. Not a perfect method but when you are looking at a bottom barrell team and a top notch team there is definitely some value in the amount of save opportunities available. To ignore that and say its been completely disproven is wrong. I'm sure there are outliers, but in general more wins should equal more saves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sidearmer said:

 

My strategy with this is that a team win will roughly equal half a save opportunity. So 100 wins = 50 save opps. 70 wins = 35 save opps. Not a perfect method but when you are looking at a bottom barrell team and a top notch team there is definitely some value in the amount of save opportunities available. To ignore that and say its been completely disproven is wrong. I'm sure there are outliers, but in general more wins should equal more saves.

 

I believe it's been proven the correlation between team wins and saves is much less significant than that.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall,  the team win to save correlation is 18.5%. So its there,  but it's not large.  I'm not hunting down the article,  if I'm off it's not by much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

I believe it's been proven the correlation between team wins and saves is much less significant than that.

 

5 minutes ago, WahooManiac said:

If I recall,  the team win to save correlation is 18.5%. So its there,  but it's not large.  I'm not hunting down the article,  if I'm off it's not by much

 

Yeah and it's pretty easy to realize that "good teams" are going to win more games by more than 3 runs, and "bad teams" aren't going to blow out teams as often, and so a larger proportion of their wins are going to be by less than 3, in general.  So yes...more successful teams definitely do generate more saves....but it's not actually as big a factor as it's made out to be (on these forums in particular).  

Edited by CAT
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CAT said:

 

 

Yeah and it's pretty easy to realize that "good teams" are going to win more games by more than 3 runs, and "bad teams" aren't going to blow out teams as often, and so a larger proportion of their wins are going to be by less than 3, in general.  So yes...more successful teams definitely do generate more saves....but it's not actually as big a factor as it's made out to be (on these forums in particular).  

That is good to know because I have some closers on some pretty s---y teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if Tony Watson or Sam Dyson would be the add, but:

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not good. I feel like if Melancon goes down for any extended period of time it'll be hard to find reliable saves elsewhere on that team. Dyson has been horrible this spring and had a pretty rough year last year. Watson might make sense but you'd also think they'd prefer to use him in lefty matchups. Could also be Hunter Strickland, but could just be a committee. 

 

Hopefully Melancon is ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

Are we still going with the "good teams get more saves" thing?  I thought that has been disproven several times.

this I think the year the Cubs won the world series their save opps were near bottom of baseball because they smoked people so bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyson has been DFA bad,  Watson not far behind but he signed a contract.  Strickland has been the best.  May be the best add because he could wind up with it anyway should Melancon miss extended time 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, WahooManiac said:

If I recall,  the team win to save correlation is 18.5%. So its there,  but it's not large.  I'm not hunting down the article,  if I'm off it's not by much

 

Yea it’s something like that.  Difference is like 30 saves vs 25.  Bad teams tend to have bad closers and trade guys at the deadline.  Draft skills but if you’re deciding between two close players pick the one on the better team. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, handyandy86 said:

That's not good. I feel like if Melancon goes down for any extended period of time it'll be hard to find reliable saves elsewhere on that team. Dyson has been horrible this spring and had a pretty rough year last year. Watson might make sense but you'd also think they'd prefer to use him in lefty matchups. Could also be Hunter Strickland, but could just be a committee. 

 

Hopefully Melancon is ok. 

 

Except Watson is better vs. righties - anyone with some insight on this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sun Tzu said:

Not sure if Tony Watson or Sam Dyson would be the add, but:

 

 

Mark Melancon is still "feeling something" in his right arm, per Alex Pavlovic of NBC Sports Bay Area.

Pavlovic notes that the Giants are "unsure if he'll be ready for Opening Day." Melancon needed surgery last September to release pressure on the pronator muscle in his forearm and he hasn't felt right all spring. It looks like Sam Dyson may return to the closer role for San Francisco to kick off the 2018 campaign. There should be more information on this situation Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a mess in SF.

 

It could be any of Watson/Dyson/Strickland.  And we're not 100% sure Melancon is out yet for any amount of time.

 

Maybe the best thing is to avoid for now and wait to see what happens.  

 

Strickland is probably the best in terms of skills/ratios.  But not sure it means he gets any SVO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really seems like they want to preserve Watson to use against lefties - they basically don’t have any decent LHP options at the moment.

 

Dyson is hideously bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheNephilim said:

Mark Melancon is still "feeling something" in his right arm, per Alex Pavlovic of NBC Sports Bay Area.

Pavlovic notes that the Giants are "unsure if he'll be ready for Opening Day." Melancon needed surgery last September to release pressure on the pronator muscle in his forearm and he hasn't felt right all spring. It looks like Sam Dyson may return to the closer role for San Francisco to kick off the 2018 campaign. There should be more information on this situation Wednesday.

 

Kind of annoying that he "hasn't felt right all spring" and we hear about it for the first time a day before the season starts. I know they don't really owe the fans playing fantasy daily updates on their health, but would have been nice if there was some word out on the potential of him missing time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, handyandy86 said:

 

Kind of annoying that he "hasn't felt right all spring" and we hear about it for the first time a day before the season starts. I know they don't really owe the fans playing fantasy daily updates on their health, but would have been nice if there was some word out on the potential of him missing time. 

Melancon has said in the past that he worried about the viability of his arm as the pronator muscle was said to be turning gray and dying off.  I think there is some bad stuff wrong with it.  I don't' eat turkey when its gray and I don't reliably pitch in the 9th either.

 

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/7977741-181/barber-giants-pitcher-mark-melancons

 

 

Edited by TheNephilim
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BMcP said:

It really seems like they want to preserve Watson to use against lefties - they basically don’t have any decent LHP options at the moment.

 

Dyson is hideously bad.

I agree, but fwiw Bochy said Dyson looked great today.  I think it's his job to implode which I'm sure he will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WahooManiac said:

If I recall,  the team win to save correlation is 18.5%. So its there,  but it's not large.  I'm not hunting down the article,  if I'm off it's not by much

The problem is actually determining which teams are good or bad. 

 

That is why its usually foolish to choose based on how good you think the team is...because you not calculating the odds that you are wrong. There is a small handful of teams that it doesn't matter how much good luck or surprise they have they will be bad like the Marlins, or stacked good teams like the Astros. Most MLB teams however i'd think its pretty arrogant to think you know how things end up for them. Injuries/surprise/luck/down years shape them. THAT is why selecting based on an already sub 20% correlation is is even less accurate on draft day/pre-season

Edited by Slatykamora
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not going anywhere near Dyson, no matter how desperate.  He is a ratio annihilator.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BMcP said:

I’m not going anywhere near Dyson, no matter how desperate.  He is a ratio annihilator.

Relievers fluctuate from year to year... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.