Comments on: Valuing Joe Nathan http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/03/valuing-joe-nathan/ Economic Thinking about Baseball Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:16:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JC http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/03/valuing-joe-nathan/comment-page-1/#comment-100240 JC Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:29:26 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/03/valuing-joe-nathan/#comment-100240 See the links to the discussion of other reliever contracts. See the links to the discussion of other reliever contracts.

]]> By: Alex R http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/03/valuing-joe-nathan/comment-page-1/#comment-100103 Alex R Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:30:34 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/03/valuing-joe-nathan/#comment-100103 JC: I hate to bring up the L word but can you point me to where you discuss leverage and closer contracts? A JC: I hate to bring up the L word but can you point me to where you discuss leverage and closer contracts?

A

]]> By: Josh http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/03/valuing-joe-nathan/comment-page-1/#comment-99900 Josh Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:05:35 +0000 http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/03/valuing-joe-nathan/#comment-99900 The only time the high salary closer makes sense is *perhaps* for a playoff bound team with a lot of extra payroll to spend. That team isn't needing to buy extra regular season wins, but can look more exclusively at how to deal with the high leverage situations in a playoff atmosphere. That obviously doesn't apply to the Twins currently. Perhaps the new Twins front office management isn't quite as "saber-savvy" as the last GM seemed to be. With the reliever/closer market being as over valued as it is, I think it would have made more sense to sign Santana and trade Nathan if you wanted to retain talent for 2008. As an aside: Is there any decent analysis linking good closers to playoff success? The only time the high salary closer makes sense is *perhaps* for a playoff bound team with a lot of extra payroll to spend. That team isn’t needing to buy extra regular season wins, but can look more exclusively at how to deal with the high leverage situations in a playoff atmosphere. That obviously doesn’t apply to the Twins currently.

Perhaps the new Twins front office management isn’t quite as “saber-savvy” as the last GM seemed to be. With the reliever/closer market being as over valued as it is, I think it would have made more sense to sign Santana and trade Nathan if you wanted to retain talent for 2008.

As an aside: Is there any decent analysis linking good closers to playoff success?

]]>