Predictions Updated!

[Red Thunder]

Chili,

stating that Mike Williams is a better closer is not a knock against Williamson from my part and certainly doesn't mean that Willy isn't a good reliever or that he can't blossom in the closers role. It's just an argument based on statistics.

Williams saved 46 games last year with only 4 blown saves.

Williamson blew already 4 saves in only 12 chances last year. He has much more to prove than Williams and even his high K-rate and his low ERA doesn't neccessarily make him automatically a good closer.

[cincinnati chili]

Red Thunder: I see your point, but Williamson's "blown saves" performance wasn't as bad as you'd suggest. It wasn't particularly good, but not horrible.

Remember, "blown saves" aren't always given in true save situations. IIRC, when a player relinquishes the lead anytime after the 5th inning, it's a blown save (maybe it's after the 6th inning - I forget). I think a fairer (though still flawed) way to evaluate set up men is to count holds+saves and compare that number to blown saves. Because, after all, I believe that most if not all of Williamson's blown saves were actually "blown holds."

Williamson in 2002:

8 Holds
8 Saves
4 Blown Saves
Success% - 80%

Again, 80% is NOT GOOD (regardless of what Rob Dibble says0, but it's better than 8 out of 12. Further, this doesn't even account for any games where the Reds may have been behind for one run, and then Williamson came in and kept things from getting worse.

By comparison, Danny Graves was 82% in 2002 - just one blown save away from 80%.

Last point. I got to see Mike Williams pitch a lot last year, and I'd be shocked if has the same save% this year.

[15fan]

Last call, folks.

If you want to do any more 2003 prognosticatin', get it in here asap as we're moving this thread to the archives in the not so distant future.

[Ravenlord]

Juan Pierre 60 SB, 103 R
Luis Castillo, 50 SB, 107 R

[Raisor]

Coolbeans!

This is the first post I've ever had that's been made into a STICKY.

I'm too cool for school.