Since TB made him a closer back in 2016, Colome has a 91% save percentage (111/122) and an ERA under 3 while functioning as the team’s closer. Hard to find anyone with a better track record in save percentage and ERA, especially a team like the Braves that need a closer specifically (unless you trust Luke Jackson).

19 minutes ago, Joshua Strong said:

WAR isn’t really a good stat towards relievers. 

They use the same criteria for everyone.  WAR is fair.

3 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

They use the same criteria for everyone.  WAR is fair.

Eh not really for relievers. Pitchers who toss more effective innings will have a higher WAR right? That typically doesn't seem to be closers.

It's not fair because it values pitchers who throw more effective innings?

2 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It's not fair because it values pitchers who throw more effective innings?

In the sense that middle relievers, long relievers, openers who throw in wins and losses are going to throw more than a closer who typically only throws one inning in save situations or when they haven't pitched in 3-4 games. Bigger sample of innings is what I'm saying.

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by soxfan2014

1 minute ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It's not fair because it values pitchers who throw more effective innings?

It's not fair because there are a lot of very good relievers who struggle in the 9th.  The 9th has a mental aspect that WAR doesn't evaluate.

Look at Colome's numbers. You know hes not 90th best reliever lol

And then there's the matchup angle.  Managers can take advantage of matchups for most of their relievers (lefty-lefty, righty-righty, or good career numbers against particular batters) in a way they can't for starters and closers.  Tends to skew the numbers.

54 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It's not fair because it values pitchers who throw more effective innings?

When WAR actually accounts for leverage we can talk about it being an effective tool for evaluating relievers.  Also, reliever usage is a decision made by the manager, so Ricky only using Colome in select situations doesn’t mean he’s not capable of throwing more inning and theoretically having a higher WAR.

1 hour ago, soxfan2014 said:

Look at Colome's numbers. You know hes not 90th best reliever lol

Good call because WAR doesn't look at the numbers.

Using WAR to compare all relievers to closers is ridiculous. Nate Jones at his peak was a 2 fWAR guy. Would you want him closing out games over a guy like Colome, who’s highest fWAR season as a reliever is 1.2? That’s a rhetorical question and is Exhibit A for why comparing middle relievers and setup guys to closers is misguided.

11 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Using WAR to compare all relievers to closers is ridiculous. Nate Jones at his peak was a 2 fWAR guy. Would you want him closing out games over a guy like Colome, who’s highest fWAR season as a reliever is 1.2? That’s a rhetorical question and is Exhibit A for why comparing middle relievers and setup guys to closers is misguided.

Colome and Abreu are easy decisions.  Either you get something good or you keep them.  

 of course you can't count on Sanchez for anything! 

Hit into a double play no runs .now this joker can't throw a strike! I can't wait till yolmer is not on the sox!

That was a strike!!!!

 oops sorry wrong topic!

Look, we acquired Colome for Omar. Omar is having a fantastic season. At this point, Omar has probably been just as valuable to Seattle as Colome to the Sox. Now the Sox want youth for Colome. Yes, he's probably worth two Rutherford type players. The question is: Will those 2 Rutherford type players ever contribute to the big league Sox. Maybe. Probably 50/50. So go ahead and trade him for 2 young guys so the segment of our fanbase that loves prospects is satisfied. 

Fans like me have to concede he "might" bring 1-2 prospects that at least have a 50/50 chance or 40/60 of being big leaguers. That's worth the gamble to those who love rebuilds. Then in the offseason you look for the next closer type and continue the cycle.

Edited June 16, 20196 yr by greg775

1 hour ago, greg775 said:

Look, we acquired Colome for Omar. Omar is having a fantastic season. At this point, Omar has probably been just as valuable to Seattle as Colome to the Sox. Now the Sox want youth for Colome. Yes, he's probably worth two Rutherford type players. The question is: Will those 2 Rutherford type players ever contribute to the big league Sox. Maybe. Probably 50/50. So go ahead and trade him for 2 young guys so the segment of our fanbase that loves prospects is satisfied. 

Fans like me have to concede he "might" bring 1-2 prospects that at least have a 50/50 chance or 40/60 of being big leaguers. That's worth the gamble to those who love rebuilds. Then in the offseason you look for the next closer type and continue the cycle.

Would you rather have Narvaez or Colome and McCann? Case closed

Is there any chance the Yankees would want Colome? You can never have enough bullpen arms in the postseason. Clearly a logjam in the OF for them. Any chance we could swing for Clint Frazier? 

4 hours ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Using WAR to compare all relievers to closers is ridiculous. Nate Jones at his peak was a 2 fWAR guy. Would you want him closing out games over a guy like Colome, who’s highest fWAR season as a reliever is 1.2? That’s a rhetorical question and is Exhibit A for why comparing middle relievers and setup guys to closers is misguided.

When Jones was 100% healthy? Absolutely.

1 hour ago, soxfan49 said:

Would you rather have Narvaez or Colome and McCann? Case closed

Narvaez.

9 minutes ago, QBBrian13 said:

Is there any chance the Yankees would want Colome? You can never have enough bullpen arms in the postseason. Clearly a logjam in the OF for them. Any chance we could swing for Clint Frazier? 

Q1: Yes
Q2: No

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Narvaez.

Are you saying you would rather have narvaez  over colome and mccann?

1 minute ago, whitesoxbrad said:

Are you saying you would rather have narvaez  over colome and mccann?

Yes. It's clear that somehow the person writing that thought it was obvious so they should see that some of us still see how "a solid catcher for the next 5 years" is a useful thing compared to a couple short termers. 

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes. It's clear that somehow the person writing that thought it was obvious so they should see that some of us still see how "a solid catcher for the next 5 years" is a useful thing compared to a couple short termers. 

If you're assuming McCann is a short termer, sure