anyone who has seen the mets late inning woes and the dodgers recent string of 9th inning losses could never ever think closer is overrated

Don't believe me? Check out this study by Dave Smith of Retrosheet. He researched late-inning leads over 73 seasons, from 1944 to 2003, and an additional 14 seasons prior to that span. What he found is that the winning percentage for teams who enter the ninth inning with a lead has remained virtually unchanged over the decades. Regardless of the pitching strategy, teams entering the ninth inning with a lead win roughly 95 percent of the time. That was the exact rate in 1901 and that was the rate 100 seasons later. In fact, the rate has varied merely from a high of 96.7 percent in 1909 to a low of 92.5 percent in 1941.

But I know what you're thinking. That study applies to all leads, including big ones. But what about the slim leads, the ones defined as "save situations"? Glad you asked. Because Smith looked at those leads as well. And what he found is winning rates for those leads have also remained constant -- one-run leads after eight innings have been won roughly 85 percent of the time, two-run leads 94 percent of the time and three-run leads about 96 percent of the time.

Don't get me wrong. I realize some pitchers are obviously better than others. And I would rather have six-time All-Star Billy Wagner on the mound for my team in a key situation than, say, Aaron Heilman. The Mets, however, would not. Consider last Tuesday's game against the Marlins. New York led by three runs in the ninth inning, a textbook example of the cheap save. Naturally, manager Jerry Manuel brought in Wagner even though that is a situation a team almost always wins. But two games later when the Mets and Astros were tied 3-3 with one out and the bases loaded in the eighth -- i.e, a late-inning situation in which the game's outcome was completely in doubt -- Manuel kept Heilman on the mound. Two pitches and one grand slam later, the Mets trailed 7-3 and the game was effectively over.

There's no such thing as choking.

you cant go by stats alone. anyone can find stats to fit any side of any argument

if you watch games, and follow a team specifically and see night in and night out who does what in what situations, who chokes when the game is on the line, then you can get a sense of things.

not overrated at all. if we didn't have joe nathan, there is no way we'd even be competing in our division. twitchy is this team's mvp this year.

any astros fan who watched Brad Lidge pitch on a daily basis, both when he was lights out and when he was not, will tell you its not overrated.

were there no astro fans who believed that perhaps lidge should be pulled from the closer role, and another relief pitcher substituted?

the role of having good relief pitchers in your bullpen who can come in and relieve starters and keep the opposing team from scoring is obviously important. but closers themselves are often overrated, as is the entire category of "saves." jose mesa has 321 career saves; todd jones has 319; bob wickman has 267 career saves; todd worrell has 256; danny graves has 180; eddie guardado has 187; tom gordon has 158. mike timlin has 141, and is better than all of them.

were there no astro fans who believed that perhaps lidge should be pulled from the closer role, and another relief pitcher substituted?

the role of having good relief pitchers in your bullpen who can come in and relieve starters and keep the opposing team from scoring is obviously important. but closers themselves are often overrated, as is the entire category of "saves." jose mesa has 321 career saves; todd jones has 319; bob wickman has 267 career saves; todd worrell has 256; danny graves has 180; eddie guardado has 187; tom gordon has 158. mike timlin has 141, and is better than all of them.

im just saying, when he was lights out, he was our greatest asset. the fucker dominated. when he was fucked in the head, he was our worst nightmare. it was like jeckle and hyde. and im sure similar feeling ran through the clubhouse, including the set up guys, wheeler and qualls at the time. maybe im using a bad example comparing one dude to himself. but it is in no way overrated. losing a game in the 9th when you've done everything well for 8 innings wanes on a team. especially when it happens weekly.

have you ever looked at lidge's stats? they indicate the guy is good in short doses -- such as one inning. his ERA explodes after 15 pitches. were they misusing him?

i suppose you are referencing 2007, when he blew 8 saves, but consider that in 2006, 6 blown saves pitted him 15th in the league, and in 2005, 4 placed him at 23rd. lidge has had some bad luck, it seems. even if lidge did turn for worse at certain ventures, the response would this: lidge became not a bad closer, but a bad relief pitcher. "closer" is merely a term we assign some person. like i said, scot shields could have, say, 47 saves right now.

ive seen them. i also watched him pitch every day for 4 years. 2004 and 2005, lights out. 2006 and 2007 were a nightmare. its hard to win as a team when you dont have confidence in your closer ceebs.

no he isn't.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mauerjo01.shtml