This signing isn't preventing us from becoming a legit contender.

 

I'm not saying it is. Refer back to the first paragraph of post 310. I'm referring to the big picture.

 

What, exactly, needs to be done in the big picture? Our core is already pretty much in place. Give Mike Stanton an extension to buy out arb. years? Considering we were about to spend over $200 million on one player this offseason, I'm sure they'll have no problems doing what they want to do, financially.

 

Most of the core players are locked up, long-term. I'd say they're fine.

 

Also, what other teams do isn't irrelevant. The Marlins are just responding to the market. The only reason why they've never done this before is because they couldn't. Every team would value elite relievers in the backend of their bullpen if they could afford it.

Ensure that every dollar is spent efficiently in terms of cost/wins, which is something that a big contract to a closer does not do. The need to spend big money on a closer is mostly a fallacy in my mind, because it doesn't go a long ways for boosting your win total. Being a common practice among high revenue teams doesn't justify it, when the cost/benefit just isn't there.

Edward Mujica: Had a great year, but it's a sample of 76 innings. I'm not sold that the guy with a career 1.28 HR/9 (pitching his home games in Petco the last couple years before this one) is all of the sudden better at preventing the long ball because of 76 innings. Is he a good reliever? Absolutely. However, I'd say there's a good chance to assume that he's much more a mid-3ish guy than a 2.96 ERA guy. It's possible his .BABIP goes up some, as well. .270 last year compared to .297 career, considering the LD%'s allowed are nearly identical.

 

Also, regarding Mujica, why would you even want him to close? This is a guy who's capable of going 80 innings out of the pen. The way closers are used nowadays, you're not maximizing his value in the role; he's much more valuable in middle relief because of his versatility in roles.

 

 

Steve Cishek: Yeah, his peripherals were dandy. I actually like his stuff a lot. From a statistical standpoint, it's difficult to buy in to his dominance last year, though. This, in large part, is due to the fact that his K rate is absolutely unsustainable.

 

 

The rest of our bullpen is either average or below average. They could improve but, fact of the matter is, they haven't done it yet. This might also allow for better roles, like maybe using Mike Dunn more as a specialist which is really all he is, at this point.

 

Bell might not be a necessity, but he's a tremendous luxury.

This also seems out of character for you. Weren't you the guy last season talking about how you admired more of a sabermetric approach to the pen (ie. giving weight to match-ups)? You don't need to spend big dollars on any reliever if you can assemble a bunch of guys that have all of the angles covered in terms of match-ups.

 

It sounds like you are retreating more into the "ancient" ways of thinking with regard to closers.

This signing isn't preventing us from becoming a legit contender.

 

I'm not saying it is. Refer back to the first paragraph of post 310. I'm referring to the big picture.

 

What, exactly, needs to be done in the big picture? Our core is already pretty much in place. Give Mike Stanton an extension to buy out arb. years? Considering we were about to spend over $200 million on one player this offseason, I'm sure they'll have no problems doing what they want to do, financially.

 

Most of the core players are locked up, long-term. I'd say they're fine.

 

Also, what other teams do isn't irrelevant. The Marlins are just responding to the market. The only reason why they've never done this before is because they couldn't. Every team would value elite relievers in the backend of their bullpen if they could afford it.

Ensure that every dollar is spent efficiently in terms of cost/wins, which is something that a big contract to a closer does not do. The need to spend big money on a closer is mostly a fallacy in my mind, because it doesn't go a long ways for boosting your win total. Being a common practice among high revenue teams doesn't justify it, when the cost/benefit just isn't there.

 

A good one is certainly valuable.

 

People use WAR a lot to judge relievers and it's not really the best stat to use because it places an emphasis on innings, which relievers don't throw a lot of. Bell, though, has been worth 2 wins or more on multiple occasions in a season.

 

I hated this more when the money was going to Leo Nunez because he's...well, mediocre. Speaking of this, I'll be pissed if Juan Carlos is being paid $6 million to setup next year. Talk about absolutely unnecessary.

This signing isn't preventing us from becoming a legit contender.

 

I'm not saying it is. Refer back to the first paragraph of post 310. I'm referring to the big picture.

 

What, exactly, needs to be done in the big picture? Our core is already pretty much in place. Give Mike Stanton an extension to buy out arb. years? Considering we were about to spend over $200 million on one player this offseason, I'm sure they'll have no problems doing what they want to do, financially.

 

Most of the core players are locked up, long-term. I'd say they're fine.

 

Also, what other teams do isn't irrelevant. The Marlins are just responding to the market. The only reason why they've never done this before is because they couldn't. Every team would value elite relievers in the backend of their bullpen if they could afford it.

Ensure that every dollar is spent efficiently in terms of cost/wins, which is something that a big contract to a closer does not do. The need to spend big money on a closer is mostly a fallacy in my mind, because it doesn't go a long ways for boosting your win total. Being a common practice among high revenue teams doesn't justify it, when the cost/benefit just isn't there.

 

People use WAR a lot to judge relievers and it's not really the best stat to use because it places an emphasis on innings, which relievers don't throw a lot of. Bell, though, has been worth 2 wins or more on multiple occasions in a season.That's why WAR is a good stat, actually. It puts innings in perspective, which should absolutely have an effect on how much you should be willing to pay relievers. That's exactly my point.

This also seems out of character for you. Weren't you the guy last season talking about how you admired more of a sabermetric approach to the pen (ie. giving weight to match-ups)? You don't need to spend big dollars on any reliever if you can assemble a bunch of guys that have all of the angles covered in terms of match-ups.

 

It sounds like you are retreating more into the "ancient" ways of thinking with regard to closers.

 

 

It's always been relative to payroll, in my opinion.

 

The reason why I've complained before is because our payroll was laughable, and the guy we were giving the money to was proven mediocrity.

 

I don't think it's an efficient use of money but if you're trying to contend, I don't have a problem paying for an elite reliever.

Some innings are more important than others. WPA is much cooler for relievers.

 

WAR thinks that mediocre starters are more valuable than elite relievers just because they eat more innings.

Edward Mujica: Had a great year, but it's a sample of 76 innings. I'm not sold that the guy with a career 1.28 HR/9 (pitching his home games in Petco the last couple years before this one) is all of the sudden better at preventing the long ball because of 76 innings. Is he a good reliever? Absolutely. However, I'd say there's a good chance to assume that he's much more a mid-3ish guy than a 2.96 ERA guy. It's possible his .BABIP goes up some, as well. .270 last year compared to .297 career, considering the LD%'s allowed are nearly identical.

 

Also, regarding Mujica, why would you even want him to close? This is a guy who's capable of going 80 innings out of the pen. The way closers are used nowadays, you're not maximizing his value in the role; he's much more valuable in middle relief because of his versatility in roles.

 

 

Steve Cishek: Yeah, his peripherals were dandy. I actually like his stuff a lot. From a statistical standpoint, it's difficult to buy in to his dominance last year, though. This, in large part, is due to the fact that his K rate is absolutely unsustainable.

 

 

The rest of our bullpen is either average or below average. They could improve but, fact of the matter is, they haven't done it yet. This might also allow for better roles, like maybe using Mike Dunn more as a specialist which is really all he is, at this point.

 

Bell might not be a necessity, but he's a tremendous luxury.

 

This still sounds like a stretch. A big one.

 

Mujica's been solid throughout the last couple of years. Petco? He did fine at Joe Robbie and is now moving to place likely more cavernous than Petco. Not to mention that his FB% went down substantially last season, which has nothing to do with ballparks. I see no reason to expect a regression there.

 

And it sounds like you are just guessing completely in Cishek. Even if his K rate goes down, he still gets a fair amount of ground balls.

 

And again, you still don't need to commit $27M to one guy to improve the pen (who will maybe give you an extra win).

I believe 1 WAR is worth around $5MM on the open market? So Heath Bell would need to average 1.8 WAR. Not likely, but not impossible.

Edward Mujica: Had a great year, but it's a sample of 76 innings. I'm not sold that the guy with a career 1.28 HR/9 (pitching his home games in Petco the last couple years before this one) is all of the sudden better at preventing the long ball because of 76 innings. Is he a good reliever? Absolutely. However, I'd say there's a good chance to assume that he's much more a mid-3ish guy than a 2.96 ERA guy. It's possible his .BABIP goes up some, as well. .270 last year compared to .297 career, considering the LD%'s allowed are nearly identical.

 

Also, regarding Mujica, why would you even want him to close? This is a guy who's capable of going 80 innings out of the pen. The way closers are used nowadays, you're not maximizing his value in the role; he's much more valuable in middle relief because of his versatility in roles.

 

 

Steve Cishek: Yeah, his peripherals were dandy. I actually like his stuff a lot. From a statistical standpoint, it's difficult to buy in to his dominance last year, though. This, in large part, is due to the fact that his K rate is absolutely unsustainable.

 

 

The rest of our bullpen is either average or below average. They could improve but, fact of the matter is, they haven't done it yet. This might also allow for better roles, like maybe using Mike Dunn more as a specialist which is really all he is, at this point.

 

Bell might not be a necessity, but he's a tremendous luxury.

 

This still sounds like a stretch. A big one.

 

Mujica's been solid throughout the last couple of years. Petco? He did fine at Joe Robbie and is now moving to place likely more cavernous than Petco. Not to mention that his FB% went down substantially last season, which has nothing to do with ballparks. I see no reason to expect a regression there.

 

And it sounds like you are just guessing completely in Cishek. Even if his K rate goes down, he still gets a fair amount of ground balls.

 

And again, you still don't need to commit $27M to one guy to improve the pen (who will maybe give you an extra win).

 

Not a stretch at all.

 

My point on Mujica is that the sample size is still small to suggest that he's a completely different pitcher now. 76 innings shouldn't indicate much when evaluating a pitcher. At the end of the day, he's been in the big leagues for awhile and he's always been prone to the long ball despite pitching for a team that probably plays in the best pitcher's park in the league.

 

Even if you think last year is the real him and that he's legit, why would you want him to close?

 

 

The Cishek comment isn't a stretch at all. His K rate is unsustainable to me. I don't see how you can expect him to continue at a 9.05 K/9 pace when he wasn't even that in the minor leagues (8.2 K/9...7.4 K/9 in NOLA last year). His 8.6 swinging strike % last year in the big leagues also suggest he's not likely to repeat.

 

Cishek also has a career 4.0 BB/9 in the minors, for what it's worth.

 

Again, it's a small sample of 50 big league innings last year. He could be great; he could be a slightly better version of Ryan Webb. Difficult to forsee. I guarantee he won't be worth 1 win over 50 innings type reliever, though.

 

 

And the rest of the bullpen is very whatever. Randy Choate is a specialist good for 30 innings.

 

It's really not that great, unless you're expecting improvement from the young guys already in the system.

I believe 1 WAR is worth around $5MM on the open market? So Heath Bell would need to average 1.8 WAR. Not likely, but not impossible.

 

 

Also worth noting that 1 WAR, in the context of relievers, is considered superb.

Didn't Heath Bell have three 2 win seasons in the last 5 years?

Didn't Heath Bell have three 2 win seasons in the last 5 years?

 

 

Yes.

So, that equates to 10 million, correct? Wouldn't that make him worth the contract we just gave him if he performs like that the next 3 seasons?

I believe 1 WAR is worth around $5MM on the open market? So Heath Bell would need to average 1.8 WAR. Not likely, but not impossible.

 

That might be a conversion factor passed around, but I'm not sure it has much validity mostly because a linear model seems completely wrong. In other words, it might make sense for the first WAR, but seems invalid for the second or third WAR. For example, Gaby Sanchez had a 3 fWAR for 2011. Do you really believe that he would be a $15 million/year player in the free agent market?

 

I would like to see how that conversion factor is actually applied, because a linear extrapolation sounds completely bogus.

Not a stretch at all.

 

My point on Mujica is that the sample size is still small to suggest that he's a completely different pitcher now. 76 innings shouldn't indicate much when evaluating a pitcher. At the end of the day, he's been in the big leagues for awhile and he's always been prone to the long ball despite pitching for a team that probably plays in the best pitcher's park in the league.

 

Even if you think last year is the real him and that he's legit, why would you want him to close?

 

 

The Cishek comment isn't a stretch at all. His K rate is unsustainable to me. I don't see how you can expect him to continue at a 9.05 K/9 pace when he wasn't even that in the minor leagues (8.2 K/9...7.4 K/9 in NOLA last year). His 8.6 swinging strike % last year in the big leagues also suggest he's not likely to repeat.

 

Cishek also has a career 4.0 BB/9 in the minors, for what it's worth.

 

Again, it's a small sample of 50 big league innings last year. He could be great; he could be a slightly better version of Ryan Webb. Difficult to forsee. I guarantee he won't be worth 1 win over 50 innings type reliever, though.

 

 

And the rest of the bullpen is very whatever. Randy Choate is a specialist good for 30 innings.

 

It's really not that great, unless you're expecting improvement from the young guys already in the system.

 

The issue I have is that you aren't really providing anything tangible to indicate that those guys are going to decline. You are mostly just saying that it's inevitable. Even in Cishek's case, a decline in K% isn't necessarily a sign of serious regression given his ability to get ground ball outs.

 

You could almost as easily use the same arguments about Heath Bell. He's only been pitching 60-70 innings each of the last couple of years and showed a substantial drop in strikeouts last season. Yeah, relievers are volatile and unpredictable because of sample size, but that's one of the reasons why you shouldn't spend a lot of money on them.

I know this is the age of statistics and all, but I think the Heath Bell signing also gives us peace of mind in the playoffs.

 

I mean, who would you rather be closing a Game 7 - Heath Bell or Edward Mujica?

I know this is the age of statistics and all, but I think the Heath Bell signing also gives us peace of mind in the playoffs.

 

I mean, who would you rather be closing a Game 7 - Heath Bell or Edward Mujica?

 

If you have peace of mind at any point during a playoff run, then you're a much cooler customer than I.

If Steve Cishek doesn't go into Spring Training and learn how to field his position like a big boy, then I don't want to see him on the 25-man roster.

I know this is the age of statistics and all, but I think the Heath Bell signing also gives us peace of mind in the playoffs.

 

I mean, who would you rather be closing a Game 7 - Heath Bell or Edward Mujica?

 

 

Only one team has that in the playoffs, the Yanks. Everyone else biting their finger nails or doing some other nervous habit.

If Steve Cishek doesn't go into Spring Training and learn how to field his position like a big boy, then I don't want to see him on the 25-man roster.

 

Not that I don't think pitchers need to field their position but...no. His job is primarily pitching. The handful of times where he will have to field a ball has significantly less importance than his ability to pitch. Can't take him off the roster because he's learning to play D.

 

Cishek airmailed balls that should have been routine 1-3 putouts. Any of us could have made those plays. He gets paid to pitch, but he also gets paid to get guys out -- not let them on base because of his own inability to make a routine play. Throwing the ball to first base should be the easy part of his job, and he struggled with it this year. I don't like his 4 errors in 13 chances (.692 fielding percentage). It's a legitimate concern. He needs to work on it in Spring Training, and he needs to take it seriously because that sh*t is embarrassing -- and could cost the Marlins a few games.

I'll go a bit further than Erick has gone in saying that he wouldn't count on Cishek doing what he did in '11 and say that with scouting out on him, Cishek, who I don't think is as dominant as others think he is, will not do what he did last year in '12. That's not to say he won't be a quality reliever but I very seriously highly doubt he will post another 2.63.

I know this is the age of statistics and all, but I think the Heath Bell signing also gives us peace of mind in the playoffs.

 

I mean, who would you rather be closing a Game 7 - Heath Bell or Edward Mujica?

 

I bet that Rangers fans thought they had peace of mind with Neftali Feliz this past World Series.

Not a stretch at all.

 

My point on Mujica is that the sample size is still small to suggest that he's a completely different pitcher now. 76 innings shouldn't indicate much when evaluating a pitcher. At the end of the day, he's been in the big leagues for awhile and he's always been prone to the long ball despite pitching for a team that probably plays in the best pitcher's park in the league.

 

Even if you think last year is the real him and that he's legit, why would you want him to close?

 

 

The Cishek comment isn't a stretch at all. His K rate is unsustainable to me. I don't see how you can expect him to continue at a 9.05 K/9 pace when he wasn't even that in the minor leagues (8.2 K/9...7.4 K/9 in NOLA last year). His 8.6 swinging strike % last year in the big leagues also suggest he's not likely to repeat.

 

Cishek also has a career 4.0 BB/9 in the minors, for what it's worth.

 

Again, it's a small sample of 50 big league innings last year. He could be great; he could be a slightly better version of Ryan Webb. Difficult to forsee. I guarantee he won't be worth 1 win over 50 innings type reliever, though.

 

 

And the rest of the bullpen is very whatever. Randy Choate is a specialist good for 30 innings.

 

It's really not that great, unless you're expecting improvement from the young guys already in the system.

 

The issue I have is that you aren't really providing anything tangible to indicate that those guys are going to decline. You are mostly just saying that it's inevitable. Even in Cishek's case, a decline in K% isn't necessarily a sign of serious regression given his ability to get ground ball outs.

 

You could almost as easily use the same arguments about Heath Bell. He's only been pitching 60-70 innings each of the last couple of years and showed a substantial drop in strikeouts last season. Yeah, relievers are volatile and unpredictable because of sample size, but that's one of the reasons why you shouldn't spend a lot of money on them.

 

In Cishek's case, the more balls are put in play, the better the chances are for baserunners. Especially considering that we don't really have the best defensive infield in the world out there. That's pretty simple, really.

 

And while plenty of relievers are volatile, some are elite; Heath Bell is the latter. That's what you are as a reliever when you do it for five consecutive years.

I know this is the age of statistics and all, but I think the Heath Bell signing also gives us peace of mind in the playoffs.

 

I mean, who would you rather be closing a Game 7 - Heath Bell or Edward Mujica?

 

I bet that Rangers fans thought they had peace of mind with Neftali Feliz this past World Series.

 

More peace of mind than when they had Darren Oliver and Mark Lowe out there.

 

As a matter of fact, if Ron Washington wasn't such an idiot/sends Feliz out for a second inning, we might just be talking about the Texas Rangers as World Series champions.

 

Or maybe if Nelson Cruz doesn't play the Freese 3B like an idiot; that would've helped too.