I just think it's pretty funny when people say that Leo can't close, but he'd be great as a setup guy.

 

At what point do you guys just accept good reliever/bad reliever? For what it's worth, I believe Leo's not a bad reliever, but he's been great as a setup guy? Really? To me, he sucked last year allowing HR's the same way he allowed them as a closer last year, and as he has lately.

 

Leo was not good in the setup role last year; it just seems like it's easier to remember the blown saves when they come in the 9th because there's no chance to comeback from them (specifically on the road).

 

But he wasn't good. People love to talk about his 7 blown saves last year as proof that he could never close, but forget to mention the fact that 3 of those blown saves came while he was our 8th inning guy.

 

He was no better in one role than he was in the other.

I just think it's pretty funny when people say that Leo can't close, but he'd be great as a setup guy.

 

At what point do you guys just accept good reliever/bad reliever? For what it's worth, I believe Leo's not a bad reliever, but he's been great as a setup guy? Really? To me, he sucked last year allowing HR's the same way he allowed them as a closer last year, and as he has lately.

 

Leo was not good in the setup role last year; it just seems like it's easier to remember the blown saves when they come in the 9th because there's no chance to comeback from them (specifically on the road).

 

But he wasn't good. People love to talk about his 7 blown saves last year as proof that he could never close, but forget to mention the fact that 3 of those blown saves came while he was our 8th inning guy.

 

He was no better in one role than he was in the other.

 

 

For what it's worth, I've said many times that his ERA last year wasn't really that good for a late inning guy. I do believe he could be more effective as a setup guy, but my rationale for that is not necessarily that he would pitch better, but if he weren't a closer the team wouldn't feel obligated to keep him out there when he's not looking good until he actually blows the game. It's a big deal whenever a closer is pulled before he has actually blown a game, but a setup guy can be pulled at any time without it being a big deal. Leo's biggest problem is inconsistency and unpredictable results, and it's better to have a guy like that in a position where pulling him when he doesn't have it isn't going to cause a stir.

I just think it's pretty funny when people say that Leo can't close, but he'd be great as a setup guy.

 

At what point do you guys just accept good reliever/bad reliever? For what it's worth, I believe Leo's not a bad reliever, but he's been great as a setup guy? Really? To me, he sucked last year allowing HR's the same way he allowed them as a closer last year, and as he has lately.

 

Leo was not good in the setup role last year; it just seems like it's easier to remember the blown saves when they come in the 9th because there's no chance to comeback from them (specifically on the road).

 

But he wasn't good. People love to talk about his 7 blown saves last year as proof that he could never close, but forget to mention the fact that 3 of those blown saves came while he was our 8th inning guy.

 

He was no better in one role than he was in the other.

 

 

For what it's worth, I've said many times that his ERA last year wasn't really that good for a late inning guy. I do believe he could be more effective as a setup guy, but my rationale for that is not necessarily that he would pitch better, but if he weren't a closer the team wouldn't feel obligated to keep him out there when he's not looking good until he actually blows the game. It's a big deal whenever a closer is pulled before he has actually blown a game, but a setup guy can be pulled at any time without it being a big deal. Leo's biggest problem is inconsistency and unpredictable results, and it's better to have a guy like that in a position where pulling him when he doesn't have it isn't going to cause a stir.

 

 

That's true. It happened tonight in the 8th inning.

However, if a setup guy has to be pulled a certain amount of times because of inconsistencies, that means he's not a good setup guy.

 

The same rules apply.

 

A good setup guy should be able to close out the 8th inning consistently, much like the good closer is supposed to close out the 9th inning, consistently.

Leo looked good for the first two outs. But after that, Edwin had to pull him and put in Clay earlier than he had hoped. That's not a good setup guy. Now granted, Leo hasn't pitched in several days and he wasn't 100% healthy. All I know is, leave him in there any longer, the game could've been tied in the 8th. I'm not judging Leo though until I see him pitch more in that role.

Good to see Alejandro with another solid start and I hope he can only get better from here and be a solid pitcher in the rotation next season.

 

It's also great to see Morgan with a Caught Stealing :notworthy

Leo would theoretically be a good setup man, but ex-closers have a tendency to throw a hissy fit and not pitch their best for the team that yanked them out of the closer role. There aren't a lot of guys who have spent a significant amount of time at closer with a team who have stuck with them for long after they were pulled from that role. It's just awkward. They can more easily accept a lesser role when sent to a new team because that team will usually have somebody who has proven themselves as a closer. With their old teams, its akin to being demoted for a nobody because obviously the guy who is replacing you hasn't done any closing with that team.

 

I'm inclined to think that no closing = no Leo next year.

 

 

You're totally right on everything you said, except that you could say that Leo hasn't spent THAT much time as a closer. How long has it been?

 

Specially since he was an experiment from the start. He never established himself as a significant closer for a really long period of time (I'm thinking years). You're totally right on that other thing though though. You could never demote someone like, let's say, K-Rod and just expect him to take his new job in stride. But I just don't think it's the case with Leo.

 

Also, if the Marlins could trade him in the offseason for the value of a closer, I'm thinking they definitely might.

I'm the only one that voted Brad Davis?

 

I thought throwing out Nyjer Morgan was a HUGE play in terms of pumping up the team. And his 2nd HR was pretty nice too (remember, his first career HR was the day of the brawl)

 

Brad Davis = Nats Killer

Leo would theoretically be a good setup man, but ex-closers have a tendency to throw a hissy fit and not pitch their best for the team that yanked them out of the closer role. There aren't a lot of guys who have spent a significant amount of time at closer with a team who have stuck with them for long after they were pulled from that role. It's just awkward. They can more easily accept a lesser role when sent to a new team because that team will usually have somebody who has proven themselves as a closer. With their old teams, its akin to being demoted for a nobody because obviously the guy who is replacing you hasn't done any closing with that team.

 

I'm inclined to think that no closing = no Leo next year.

 

 

You're totally right on everything you said, except that you could say that Leo hasn't spent THAT much time as a closer. How long has it been?

 

Specially since he was an experiment from the start. He never established himself as a significant closer for a really long period of time (I'm thinking years). You're totally right on that other thing though though. You could never demote someone like, let's say, K-Rod and just expect him to take his new job in stride. But I just don't think it's the case with Leo.

 

Also, if the Marlins could trade him in the offseason for the value of a closer, I'm thinking they definitely might.

 

It's a skewed sample size, though, too. Former closers usually need to really suck to get demoted. So it's no surprise if they perform poorly in their new role, because, well, they suck.