Thornton

[iamshack]

Thornton would be a crappy closer, he lacks a true out pitch and fastballs can be hit. He should stay as our set up man and best LHP in the pen.

Why does his stuff matter when it comes to being a setup man vs. being a closer?

[qwerty]

Well Thornton's coming up on his age 33 season and Howell on his age 27. This way it doesn't look quite as drastic.

 

I have no clue why i said howell was 25 being that he is 26. Simple mathematics must be beyond myself. I = t3h suX0rZ. Either way, a case can still be made for howell. Six years and a half years is too wide of a margin to simply discard.

Edited December 2, 2009 by qwerty

[RockRaines]

Why does his stuff matter when it comes to being a setup man vs. being a closer?

You've just asked a question that manager have pondered over for years

[iamshack]

You've just asked a question that manager have pondered over for years

The key is critical innings. Whomever pitches your most critical innings or outs is your most valuable pitcher. As far as I am concerned, Thornton pitches more critical innings than Jenks.

[3E8]

I have no clue why i said howell was 25 being that he is 26. Simple mathematics must be beyond myself. I = t3h suX0rZ. Either way, a case can still be made for howell. Six years and a half years is too wide of a margin to simply discard.

And he was used in higher leverage situations than Thornton

[witesoxfan]

I was mainly recalling the past two seasons. Howell's ERA and ERA+ are better, but Thornton's peripherals trounce Howell in pretty much every category. I'd still probably take Howell above Thornton if I were building a team, but they're both damn fine pitchers and I don't think there's a wrong choice with either one of them.

 

So, if you actually look at it, I don't think I really got pwned.

[greg775]

I'm surprised there's some luke warm sentiment on Thornton in this thread.

I got crucified last season for suggesting he would not be a great choice at closer.

I was trying to be kinder about him and now see others indicating he's not the answer at closer. I thought he showed enough to be given a shot in the role if we need to trade Bobby.

[Kalapse]

I was mainly recalling the past two seasons. Howell's ERA and ERA+ are better, but Thornton's peripherals trounce Howell in pretty much every category. I'd still probably take Howell above Thornton if I were building a team, but they're both damn fine pitchers and I don't think there's a wrong choice with either one of them.

 

So, if you actually look at it, I don't think I really got pwned.

If I'm deciding who's been the better pitcher over the past few years and there's a near full point difference in FIP between the two, personally I'll go with the guy who's relied substantially less on his defense even if he does trail in a misleading stat like ERA and a very small difference in average leverage index isn't going to sway me (something like a .13 difference in gmLI over the past 2 seasons and nearly identical in WPA.) But if the Rays come to me and offer Howell straight up for Thornton I'd probably bite though there's something troubling about a setup man with an 86 MPH fastball and a 4+ BB/9.

[Pants Rowland]

Thornton is ridiculously valuable to the White Sox and would command a very steep price if I were GM, especially in a trade deadline deal. To me, there is only one reason to trade a guy as valuable as Thornton and that is to get the motherload of players/prospects in return. I equate Thornton's value to that of an elite defender with a weak stick. You have to weigh the benefit of the runs you are getting on offense with the runs saved on the mound or in the field. The fact that he is not a closer is immaterial. He is the 7th and 8th inning closer which is just as, if not more valuable a role with far less headlines. I do not watch many non- Sox baseball game and do not pore over stats for comparison, but over the past few seasons, my eyes can not recall a middle reliever as effective as Thornton since Jeff Nelson.

[Kyyle23]

I'm surprised there's some luke warm sentiment on Thornton in this thread.

I got crucified last season for suggesting he would not be a great choice at closer.

I was trying to be kinder about him and now see others indicating he's not the answer at closer. I thought he showed enough to be given a shot in the role if we need to trade Bobby.

 

 

You did? By who?

 

Im also not seeing this lukewarm sentiment, I think pretty much the majority of Sox fans realize how good Thornton is

Edited December 3, 2009 by KyYlE23

[Ranger]

Why does his stuff matter when it comes to being a setup man vs. being a closer?

 

 

I don't think it has so much to do with having an "out pitch" as much as it does with being able to handle being the guy that lost the game in the 9th. First, you have to be able to avoid doing that in the first place, but if you do blow it, you have to be able to forget about it as soon as you leave the park. If you can't, you can't be a closer.

[iamshack]

I don't think it has so much to do with having an "out pitch" as much as it does with being able to handle being the guy that lost the game in the 9th. First, you have to be able to avoid doing that in the first place, but if you do blow it, you have to be able to forget about it as soon as you leave the park. If you can't, you can't be a closer.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

I just think the entire "closer" mentality in baseball is a bunch of bologna. I understand there are psychological effects of blowing the game in the final frame, but honestly, blowing it in any late inning has pretty much the same effect. Managers should use their best relievers in the most critical situations, not save them until the final inning. The guy that is good enough to extricate himself from sticky situations is the guy I want, not just the guy who can handle recording the final 3 outs of the game. The 9th inning is really no different than any others, in terms of the task at hand, and yet, it has been built-up to be this huge myth, as if you are required to record 5 outs in that inning or something.

[Ranger]

Yeah, I can agree with that.

I just think the entire "closer" mentality in baseball is a bunch of bologna. I understand there are psychological effects of blowing the game in the final frame, but honestly, blowing it in any late inning has pretty much the same effect. Managers should use their best relievers in the most critical situations, not save them until the final inning. The guy that is good enough to extricate himself from sticky situations is the guy I want, not just the guy who can handle recording the final 3 outs of the game. The 9th inning is really no different than any others, in terms of the task at hand, and yet, it has been built-up to be this huge myth, as if you are required to record 5 outs in that inning or something.

 

 

Tell the players that. They think it's a big deal to have to close out the game and that it's an entirely different kind of pressure to pitch in the 9th with a small lead.

 

I know that's the SABRmetrics idea to use your best reliever in the most critical moment of the game (which could happen in the 6th, not the 9th). I think there is some merit to that, but pretty much everyone you'll ever talk to about pitching in the 9th vs in another inning says it is a totally different animal.

 

And since that philsophy is statistically-based, it really doesn't take into account the fact that some guys pitch better when they start the inning as opposed to coming in with 2 runners on and 1 out. Mentally, some pitchers respond better in knowing their role will be the 9th, others like to come in and put out fires in whatever inning they're needed.

[iamshack]

Tell the players that. They think it's a big deal to have to close out the game and that it's an entirely different kind of pressure to pitch in the 9th with a small lead.

 

I know that's the SABRmetrics idea to use your best reliever in the most critical moment of the game (which could happen in the 6th, not the 9th). I think there is some merit to that, but pretty much everyone you'll ever talk to about pitching in the 9th vs in another inning says it is a totally different animal.

 

And since that philsophy is statistically-based, it really doesn't take into account the fact that some guys pitch better when they start the inning as opposed to coming in with 2 runners on and 1 out. Mentally, some pitchers respond better in knowing their role will be the 9th, others like to come in and put out fires in whatever inning they're needed.

Obviously it's more difficult to come in with runners on as opposed to starting the inning. You have less room for error when you are inheriting runners.

 

Additionally, I can understand how knowing your role ahead of time would be easier to handle mentally than having no idea when you might be called upon. I have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence stating that pitchers in the bullpen rest easier when they all have defined roles.

 

As for the 9th inning being "special," I can understand that. I think a big part of it is something that has been built up since the "saves" concept was created (wasn't it Bruce Sutter who was the first real "closer"?). Since then, this task has been recognized by the league financially as well, as closers are rewarded with money on par with the better starters in the game. That being the case, however, does not mean it is actually true. Creating some sort of mental construct does not necessarily make something reality, although, I suppose if one perceives something enough as a certain way, they may convince themselves it is indeed reality. I think that is sort of what this has become.

 

Do people honestly believe that Jenks pitched in a significant amount of high-leverage situations more than Matt Thornton did last year?

 

[Kalapse]

Do people honestly believe that Jenks pitched in a significant amount of high-leverage situations more than Matt Thornton did last year?

gmLI is the average leverage index when a pitcher enters the game. Their 2009 numbers:

 

Jenks:     1.58 gmLI (17th highest in baseball)

Thornton:  1.57 (19th highest in baseball, 3rd highest for a non-closer, Mark Lowe and Jeremy Affeldt were just ahead of him)

Dotel:     1.10

Linebrink: 0.98

Carrasco:  0.63 (3rd lowest in baseball)

[iamshack]

<!--quoteo(post=2052802:date=Dec 3, 2009 -> 07:23 PM:name=iamshack)-->

<!--quotec-->Do people honestly believe that Jenks pitched in a significant amount of high-leverage situations more than Matt Thornton did last year?

gmLI is the average leverage index when a pitcher enters the game. Their 2009 numbers:

 

Jenks:     1.58 gmLI (17th highest in baseball)

Thornton:  1.57 (19th highest in baseball, 3rd highest for a non-closer, Mark Lowe and Jeremy Affeldt were just ahead of him)

Dotel:     1.10

Linebrink: 0.98

Carrasco:  0.63 (3rd lowest in baseball)

Ok, so this shows that they entered virtually the same number of high-leverage situations last season. And yet, if this pattern continued, with Thornton as our setup man, and Jenks as our closer, there is no doubt Jenks would be paid more on the open market, especially if he compiled an era similar to Thornton's, until of course, that first team paid Thornton to be their "closer."

Edited December 4, 2009 by iamshack

[BaseballNick]

I always like seeing where fangraphs rates players' performances. They value Jenks' 2009 at $1.8mil, and Thornton's at $11.3mil. Based on what I saw last season, I can't argue with that one bit.

[WCSox]

Why does his stuff matter when it comes to being a setup man vs. being a closer?

 

If Thornton moves to closer, I'm wondering if opposing hitters begin to focus more on him and eventually begin to hit him. It's really tough to argue with his performance over the past couple of years, but one has to wonder how much of that is due to him having a lower profile than Jenks. I don't know of many closers who get by almost entirely on 96 mph fastballs. Those that I've seen in the past (Farnsworth, Karchner, Howry) never really excelled in that role.

 

If Kenny ends up dealing Jenks, I'd almost rather that he go with a cheap in-house closing option. Thornton has become so good in that versatile setup/occasional LOOGY role that I'd rather not mess with success and hope that Thornton can succeed without a good secondary pitch.

Edited December 4, 2009 by WCSox