Joe Nathan likely out for the season

[sircaffey]

This is why the numbers of comparatively few innings that you state do not tell the whole story. Look at boston where Papelbon could be a top of the line starter but they keep him as a closer because he can handle it. Or the opposite end like LaTroy Hawkins who continues to put up good numbers as a set up man but folds as a closer.

 

There's no team in MLB that would make someone a closer over a top of the line SP. They have Papelbon in the pen because he can barely handle 60 innings a year without getting injured.

[Kalapse]

That's because you're a baseball fan first, Sox fan second. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'm pretty much the same way. And if anything this gives annoying ass Twins fans (save Benchwarmin) a legitimate excuse from the get-go if we or the Tigers win the division.

I think you're 100% right. It's situations such as these that I realize my baseball entertainment and happiness is not solely predicated on the White Sox winning, I just enjoy the hell out of watching the best players in the game regardless of what team they play for and when we lose one of the best it's gonna bother me even if it does benefit my favorite team. I felt the same way last year when Mauer went down.

[BaseballNick]

I think we should offer them Linebrink as a gift to help them get over the loss of Nathan.

[Kyyle23]

I think we should offer them Linebrink as a gift to help them get over the loss of Nathan.

 

I like the way this man thinks

[BaseballNick]

There's no team in MLB that would make someone a closer over a top of the line SP. They have Papelbon in the pen because he can barely handle 60 innings a year without getting injured.

 

Agreed. If they felt Papelbon could handle a spot rotation and be anywhere near as good as he's been as a reliever, they'd have made that change a while ago. Bullpen "stuff" doesn't always translate to starter's "stuff." Look no further than Joba Chamberlain.

Edited March 9, 2010 by BaseballNick

[SoxAce]

Twins might be shopping. Big blow to them, which is good for us and the Tigers. I could see Liriano easing into that role if they want to save his arm some more, though he's been pitching very well.

[southsider2k5]

This will likely end up benefiting the Sox but for some crazy reason I'm not getting any pleasure out of a possible career ending injury to one of the best closers in the game.

 

I don't think most people are... a couple, but not many here at least.

[JoeBatterz]

 

Good news for the Sox, but I hope that Nathan recovers just in time for November.

[Ranger]

Moving one person back in the pen is what kills pitching staffs. All of a sudden your weakest guy throws more innings and the pen gets overworked putting more pressure on the starting staff tiring it out as well. Not good.

 

 

Yes. It's really not so much about the 9th inning itself. It's about having less-than-desirable options pitch in the late innings because everyone likely gets pushed back a spot. If it were to happen for the Sox, it would mean Linebrink gets closer to getting more regular work in the 7th or 8th. Now, there is no guarantee that Linebrink will struggle this year, but there is reason to be concerned about him, for sure. And at the moment, he is not the most desirable option to pitch in late inning situations.

 

[Ranger]

Losing Nathan allows them to shift a guy like Rauch or Guerrier into the closers spot, while letting another one of their 5th starter candidates to make the team. Rauch and Guerrier are by no means Nathan-esque, but they are pitchers who can be inserted into the role and trusted to produce at least league-average results out of the closers role. Their obligation will be to usually pitch one inning a performance, my understanding has always been that one inning shouldn't be too much to ask of any pitcher. Since his shift to the bullpen Nathan has averaged 63.375 innings per year, innings that can be assumed by other members of the pen. It’s unlikely the Twins will get equivalent production, but that’s not fatal. Nathan was a great pitcher, but greatness is not a requirement for the closer’s spot. Losing Nathan might cost them a couple solid performances in the 9th, but as a rule: a closer’s job varies in it’s important on a nightly basis, often with the more important innings falling to the set-up-man. The Twins will take a hit here, but that’s not enough to rule them out of the race. I hope that didn’t’ seem like a lecture, I just needed to put the case out their without leaving anything out.

 

 

I doubt this was your intent, but it's almsot like you are saying they now have the "luxury" or have the "option" to make this shift. But let's be real: the Twins would obviously rather not lose Nathan. There is a chance this injury could be some sort of blessing in disguise, but I highly, highly doubt it. This is, in no way, a good thing for the Twins.

[chunk23]

All of MLB and MLB fans after hearing about this injury.

[chw42]

I just looked some numbers up.

 

From a Sabermetric point of view, optimistically, this could cost the Twins 2 WAR and that's being pretty conservative about the loss.

 

I'm certainly somewhat biased, but I think this his loss could result in 4 less wins for the team this year, if not more.

[Kalapse]

I just looked some numbers up.

 

From a Sabermetric point of view, optimistically, this could cost the Twins 2 WAR and that's being pretty conservative about the loss.

 

I'm certainly somewhat biased, but I think this his loss could result in 4 less wins for the team this year, if not more.

Except WAR doesn't take into account leverage. Last season Joe Nathan came in at a 1.9 WAR and DJ Carrasco was a 1.3 this is because WAR uses FIP and IP when determining value so Nathan had a decent advantage in FIP (like .60 points) but Carrasco closed the gap a bit with ~20 more IP. So even though Nathan was in the top ten in pLI and Carrasco was in the bottom ten it doesn't affect their WAR because leverage never comes into play. Something tells me Carrasco wasn't worth a mere 3/5 of a win less than Nathan last year.

 

Nathan had to have been worth more than 2 wins to the Twins last year.

[chw42]

Except WAR doesn't take into account leverage. Last season Joe Nathan came in at a 1.9 WAR and DJ Carrasco was a 1.3 this is because WAR uses FIP and IP when determining value so Nathan had a decent advantage in FIP (like .60 points) but Carrasco closed the gap a bit with ~20 more IP. So even though Nathan was in the top ten in pLI and Carrasco was in the bottom ten it doesn't affect their WAR because leverage never comes into play. Something tells me Carrasco wasn't worth a mere 3/5 of a win less than Nathan last year.

 

Nathan had to have been worth more than 2 wins to the Twins last year.

 

Yeah bullpen work is hard to gauge with saber stats at this point. Especially WAR since it's very innings based.

 

That's why I think they're at least 4 wins worse without Nathan.

Edited March 9, 2010 by chw42

[Balta1701]

Yeah bullpen work is hard to gauge with saber stats at this point. Especially WAR since it's very innings based.

 

That's why I think they're at least 4 wins worse without Nathan.

The question in terms of "Wins above replacement" is "how do you judge the average closer"? Where do you define the "Replacement" level?

 

Do you define it as a league average closer, or do you define it as the level of closer that happens when a team has to scramble for a closer and disrupt your whole bullpen or make a panicked trade?

 

Adding only 5 more blown saves to Nathan's total last year would make the Twins go from 47/52 to 47/57. That still is better than an 80% closing rate, and I'm willing to bet there are teams that were substantially worse than that last year. Lidge blew 11. Not to mention any high-leverage spots he pitched in that weren't save situations.

[chw42]

The question in terms of "Wins above replacement" is "how do you judge the average closer"? Where do you define the "Replacement" level?

 

Do you define it as a league average closer, or do you define it as the level of closer that happens when a team has to scramble for a closer and disrupt your whole bullpen or make a panicked trade?

 

Adding only 5 more blown saves to Nathan's total last year would make the Twins go from 47/52 to 47/57. That still is better than an 80% closing rate, and I'm willing to bet there are teams that were substantially worse than that last year. Lidge blew 11. Not to mention any high-leverage spots he pitched in that weren't save situations.

 

The average closer should be about a ~1.3 WAR reliever according to last year's stats. I don't really know how you can define league average though.

 

Broxton was the highest at 2.9. Surprisingly, Jenks and K-Rod tied for the lowest at 0.3.

Edited March 9, 2010 by chw42

[Kalapse]

The average closer should be about a ~1.3 WAR reliever according to last year's stats. I don't really know how you can define league average though.

 

Broxton was the highest at 2.9. Surprisingly, Jenks and K-Rod tied for the lowest at 0.3.

That's because Bobby allowed 9 HR last season. When your HR/9 is 1.52 your FIP is gonna suck and it did (4.47) and when your FIP is garbage and you're only giving your team 53 IP because you're a closer and miss 20+ games due to injury your WAR is gonna blow.

 

As for K-Rod: a 5.03 BB/09 will not make for a healthy FIP.

[Flash Tizzle]

I wish the worst for Joe Nathan. Never return, please.

 

 

[Balta1701]

That's because Bobby allowed 9 HR last season. When your HR/9 is 1.52 your FIP is gonna suck and it did (4.47) and when your FIP is garbage and you're only giving your team 53 IP because you're a closer and miss 20+ games due to injury your WAR is gonna blow.

 

As for K-Rod: a 5.03 BB/09 will not make for a healthy FIP.

And yet...both the Sox and the Mets can easily, easily envision worse performance out of the closer's spot than what they got.

[Balta1701]

The average closer should be about a ~1.3 WAR reliever according to last year's stats. I don't really know how you can define league average though.

 

Broxton was the highest at 2.9. Surprisingly, Jenks and K-Rod tied for the lowest at 0.3.

To put it another way...if the difference between Broxton and Jenks was 2.6 wins...

 

Does anyone out there think that, if Nathan's gone, the Twins would be angry if they got the exact performance this year out of their closer's spot that we got out of Jenks last year?

 

Yes, it was a down year for Jenks, but I think they'd be perfectly fine with getting that out of someone.

 

In other words, completely understand how losing Nathan could be the equivalent of 3-4 losses, or maybe even more. If the Twins wind up in the mess that several teams wind up in every year, where it seems like they dread having the game get to the bullpen...that's really not an uncommon occurrence in baseball, and that's probably 4+ losses.

[maggsmaggs]

To put it another way...if the difference between Broxton and Jenks was 2.6 wins...

 

Does anyone out there think that, if Nathan's gone, the Twins would be angry if they got the exact performance this year out of their closer's spot that we got out of Jenks last year?

 

Yes, it was a down year for Jenks, but I think they'd be perfectly fine with getting that out of someone.

In other words, completely understand how losing Nathan could be the equivalent of 3-4 losses, or maybe even more. If the Twins wind up in the mess that several teams wind up in every year, where it seems like they dread having the game get to the bullpen...that's really not an uncommon occurrence in baseball, and that's probably 4+ losses.

And the division the last two years has been decided by one game. So this loss is HUGE with how close the Sox and Twins were probably going to be.

[chw42]

To put it another way...if the difference between Broxton and Jenks was 2.6 wins...

 

Does anyone out there think that, if Nathan's gone, the Twins would be angry if they got the exact performance this year out of their closer's spot that we got out of Jenks last year?

 

Yes, it was a down year for Jenks, but I think they'd be perfectly fine with getting that out of someone.

 

In other words, completely understand how losing Nathan could be the equivalent of 3-4 losses, or maybe even more. If the Twins wind up in the mess that several teams wind up in every year, where it seems like they dread having the game get to the bullpen...that's really not an uncommon occurrence in baseball, and that's probably 4+ losses.

 

Here's a interesting tidbit.

 

Matt Thornton was a 2.5, right after Broxton.

 

I'd say that seems right since Matt was probably the best reliever in baseball last year who was not a full-time closer.

 

Really makes you wonder if we should have traded Bobby this off-season while he still had some value.

Edited March 10, 2010 by chw42

[Quin]

I actually like Nathan when he's not pitching against the Sox, but I won't miss him.

 

Suddenly, the AL Central became a wee bit more interesting.

[iamshack]

I'm not as adept at these WAR figures as you guys are by any means, but I really can't stress enough that the true value in these closers is their stabilizing effect (or put more accurately, the DE-stabilizing effect an injury to one of them can have) on the rest of the pen.

 

Not only are the Twins losing Nathan's production in the closer's spot, but his absence, unless they bring in someone externally, pushes up all the other arms in their pen into higher-leverage roles. Most likely, they take a hit in WAR figures from what they would have had with each member in their normal roles had Nathan not gotten injured.

 

So say they lose Nathan at his 1.9 WAR and substitute their 2nd best reliever who produces a .6 WAR. Their third best reliever then posts a .5 WAR as the primary setup man instead of the 1.7 they might have gotten out of their original setup man. Then their fourth best reliever posts a -.6 WAR instead of the .8 WAR their third reliever would have posted, and etc., etc.

 

The substitution for Nathan may cost them 1-2 wins, but cumulatively, the bump at every slot may cost them a total of 5.5 wins or something...

[Texsox]

A few posts back the subject of being a baseball fan first and a Sox fan second was raised. For most of my adult life (beginning circa 1980) to enjoy Sox baseball you had to enjoy baseball. The experience of going to the park. There wasn't much of a competitive reason to head to the Southside after August. For me it is a simultaneous feeling.

 

That probably frames my opinion that you have to play the games. When I was playing a lot of golf, I always expected my oponent to hit the perfect shot, that way I was never unprepared. Same here. I expect their closer to be just as good, I expect he'll be back earlier rather than later, etc. So I can feel empathy that one of the better players, who seems like a decent sort of guy, is injured.