MLB Thread: 2013

Off Topic
281

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

The thing is, there must have been about 150 pitches thrown to Rays hitters in that game. Let’s say that 85 of them were strikes, give or take. That’s PLENTY of opportunities to do something to win the game. To say that they lost due to a bad call on one pitch is asinine. They lost because they didn’t do enough with the other 84 hittable pitches.[/quote]

True, statistically that was just one pitch out of 150. But they play nine innings for a reason, and that was the pitch and strike call that stopped a rally and ended the game. Zobrist laid off a tough 3-2 pitch that should have put a runner in scoring position in a one-run game. Would they have scored if the umpire made the right call? We’ll never know because the umpire robbed the Rays and their fans of that opportunity. [/quote]

I’m with DB on this one. Throughout any given game there are going to be bad calls. Sometimes they go your way and sometimes they don’t. Every once in a while, one of those bad calls come in a crucial situation. That’s the game and to avoid getting the short end of the stick, you’re better off not getting into a situation where 1 pitch can cost you the game, and every game provides plenty of opportunity to do that.

Over 162 game season, chances are the Rays will have a couple calls go their way and it should even out. [/quote]

I agree that the Rays could have played better and kept them out of that situation in the first place.

As for the bad calls, game ending bad calls that stop a rally in a one-run game are much worse than bad calls in the earlier innings. It’s the difference of giving up a solo hr in the first inning in a 0-0 game, and giving up a hr in the bottom of the ninth in a 0-0 game. You can’t make up for that. [/quote]

That’s like saying the games later in the year are more important than the games earlier in the year. Every game has the same weight, every inning has the same weight.

Everyone knows the game is 9 innings. Do enough throughout those 9 innings to win the game, whether that means scoring early, scoring late, whatever. If you’re relying on getting a good break or not getting a bad break, you don’t know much about life because that’s not how it works.

(not you personally)

282

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

The thing is, there must have been about 150 pitches thrown to Rays hitters in that game. Let’s say that 85 of them were strikes, give or take. That’s PLENTY of opportunities to do something to win the game. To say that they lost due to a bad call on one pitch is asinine. They lost because they didn’t do enough with the other 84 hittable pitches.[/quote]

True, statistically that was just one pitch out of 150. But they play nine innings for a reason, and that was the pitch and strike call that stopped a rally and ended the game. Zobrist laid off a tough 3-2 pitch that should have put a runner in scoring position in a one-run game. Would they have scored if the umpire made the right call? We’ll never know because the umpire robbed the Rays and their fans of that opportunity. [/quote]

I’m with DB on this one. Throughout any given game there are going to be bad calls. Sometimes they go your way and sometimes they don’t. Every once in a while, one of those bad calls come in a crucial situation. That’s the game and to avoid getting the short end of the stick, you’re better off not getting into a situation where 1 pitch can cost you the game, and every game provides plenty of opportunity to do that.

Over 162 game season, chances are the Rays will have a couple calls go their way and it should even out. [/quote]

I agree that the Rays could have played better and kept them out of that situation in the first place.

As for the bad calls, game ending bad calls that stop a rally in a one-run game are much worse than bad calls in the earlier innings. It’s the difference of giving up a solo hr in the first inning in a 0-0 game, and giving up a hr in the bottom of the ninth in a 0-0 game. You can’t make up for that. [/quote]

That’s like saying the games later in the year are more important than the games earlier in the year. Every game has the same weight, every inning has the same weight.

Everyone knows the game is 9 innings. Do enough throughout those 9 innings to win the game, whether that means scoring early, scoring late, whatever. If you’re relying on getting a good break or not getting a bad break, you don’t know much about life because that’s not how it works.

(not you personally)[/quote]

Well, you can make the argument that game later in the year are more important. I know technically 1 W in April = 1 W in Sept., but there is less time to make up for a losing streak in September than April. If i’m a manager of a team in September with 5 games left in the season and my team is 2 games behind the division leader, I’m gonna get my Ace to pitch 2 of those 5 games. If were 2 games behind the division leader with 5 games to go before the all-star break, I’m not going to do that because I have a whole half-season to make up those two games.

283

Also, why pitch Rivera in the ninth inning instead of the first inning? If every inning carries the same weight, why not have him pitch against the opposing teams 1-2-3 batters in the first inning instead of possibly the opposing teams 7-8-9 hiiters in the ninth?

284

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Also, why pitch Rivera in the ninth inning instead of the first inning? If every inning carries the same weight, why not have him pitch against the opposing teams 1-2-3 batters in the first inning instead of possibly the opposing teams 7-8-9 hiiters in the ninth?[/quote]

Because teams want to use the least amount of pitchers in a game as possible. If they burn the closer first and then go to the starting pitcher (ultra-long relief in this case), they’ll still likely need another reliever later in the game. Starting pitchers are starters because they have the best stuff. They feature more quality pitches than relievers, who typically only feature one or two quality pitches and thus, are not conducive to going through a lineup more than once. With a starting pitcher, you can ride him as long as possible and then use relievers the rest of the way. It’s a misnomer to simply think that the closer represents a better chance of getting three hitters out than the starter does.

In fact, the starter overwhelmingly represents the best chance of getting the same hitters out multiple times as well, so why not start with that guy and stick with him until he can’t get the same hitters out a third or fourth time? Besides, closers aren’t capable of starting every game, even if it means throwing just one inning every time. They typically throw about 70-80 innings a year. Who are you going to use in the other 80-90 games?

285

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Anonymity wrote:

The thing is, there must have been about 150 pitches thrown to Rays hitters in that game. Let’s say that 85 of them were strikes, give or take. That’s PLENTY of opportunities to do something to win the game. To say that they lost due to a bad call on one pitch is asinine. They lost because they didn’t do enough with the other 84 hittable pitches.[/quote]

True, statistically that was just one pitch out of 150. But they play nine innings for a reason, and that was the pitch and strike call that stopped a rally and ended the game. Zobrist laid off a tough 3-2 pitch that should have put a runner in scoring position in a one-run game. Would they have scored if the umpire made the right call? We’ll never know because the umpire robbed the Rays and their fans of that opportunity. [/quote]

I’m with DB on this one. Throughout any given game there are going to be bad calls. Sometimes they go your way and sometimes they don’t. Every once in a while, one of those bad calls come in a crucial situation. That’s the game and to avoid getting the short end of the stick, you’re better off not getting into a situation where 1 pitch can cost you the game, and every game provides plenty of opportunity to do that.

Over 162 game season, chances are the Rays will have a couple calls go their way and it should even out. [/quote]

I agree that the Rays could have played better and kept them out of that situation in the first place.

As for the bad calls, game ending bad calls that stop a rally in a one-run game are much worse than bad calls in the earlier innings. It’s the difference of giving up a solo hr in the first inning in a 0-0 game, and giving up a hr in the bottom of the ninth in a 0-0 game. You can’t make up for that. [/quote]

That’s like saying the games later in the year are more important than the games earlier in the year. Every game has the same weight, every inning has the same weight.

Everyone knows the game is 9 innings. Do enough throughout those 9 innings to win the game, whether that means scoring early, scoring late, whatever. If you’re relying on getting a good break or not getting a bad break, you don’t know much about life because that’s not how it works.

(not you personally)[/quote]

Well, you can make the argument that game later in the year are more important. I know technically 1 W in April = 1 W in Sept., but there is less time to make up for a losing streak in September than April. If i’m a manager of a team in September with 5 games left in the season and my team is 2 games behind the division leader, I’m gonna get my Ace to pitch 2 of those 5 games. If were 2 games behind the division leader with 5 games to go before the all-star break, I’m not going to do that because I have a whole half-season to make up those two games. [/quote]

Or you could not go on that losing streak in April and be in a much better position in September so you wouldn’t have to start your ace twice in 5 games at the end of the year.

1 game = 1 game.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Also, why pitch Rivera in the ninth inning instead of the first inning? If every inning carries the same weight, why not have him pitch against the opposing teams 1-2-3 batters in the first inning instead of possibly the opposing teams 7-8-9 hiiters in the ninth?[/quote]

Maiden - you’re better than this. I know it. :slight_smile:

286

I agree to the extent that your best reliever (closer) should come into the 7th, 8th, or 9th depending on when the heart of the lineup is due up.

I’m against only using your closer in the 9th.

287

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I agree to the extent that your best reliever (closer) should come into the 7th, 8th, or 9th depending on when the heart of the lineup is due up.

I’m against only using your closer in the 9th. [/quote]

The best relievers distinguish themselves as such because they pitch the best in pressure situations. Regardless of the arguments laid out here regarding bad calls, the fact remains that players play with more pressure on them at the end of the game and at the end of the season. The simple fact is that there is a much more significant pressure factor when a player knows that if HE makes a mistake, the game could be over or he could leave his team in a very untenable position in the bottom of the last inning.

Some guys can handle that pressure better than others, and we see it all the time. Every year a dominant setup guy has to take over the closer’s role and he just doesn’t pan out.

By definition, part of being a good reliever is the ability to handle the pressure situations well. And by definition, there is more pressure in the 9th than the 7th or 8th. So by definition, the best time to use your best relief pitcher is in the 9th inning.

288

I’m against only using your closer in the 9th. [/quote]

Not only do you only use a closer in the 9th, you only use him in the 9th in a save situation. Once in a while, I could see putting him out there in the 8th, but only with the intention of him pitching both the 8th and 9th. The pen is all about specialization.

289

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The best relievers distinguish themselves as such because they pitch the best in pressure situations. Regardless of the arguments laid out here regarding bad calls, the fact remains that players play with more pressure on them at the end of the game and at the end of the season. The simple fact is that there is a much more significant pressure factor when a player knows that if HE makes a mistake, the game could be over or he could leave his team in a very untenable position in the bottom of the last inning. [/quote]

I disagree that the 9th is automatically the most pressure packed, it depends on the quality of hitters faced also. Most teams have a significant drop off in offensive talent from the 2-5 hitters and the 6-9.

Even if they make a mistake in the 8th the game is still all but over in most cases when you have the bottom of the lineup due up, especially in the NL.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
By definition, part of being a good reliever is the ability to handle the pressure situations well. And by definition, there is more pressure in the 9th than the 7th or 8th. So by definition, the best time to use your best relief pitcher is in the 9th inning.[/quote]

You ignore the fact that the quality of hitters faced also contributes to the pressure of the situation.

290

[quote]sonnyp wrote:

Not only do you only use a closer in the 9th, you only use him in the 9th in a save situation. Once in a while, I could see putting him out there in the 8th, but only with the intention of him pitching both the 8th and 9th. The pen is all about specialization. [/quote]

Why’s that?

Specialization is relatively new. In the past, relief pitchers would pitch multiple innings.

291

Say you’re facing the angels and you have a 1-0 lead going into the 8th.

Would you rather your closer face: Pujols, Hamilton Trumbo in the 8th or Kendrick, Callaspo, Iannetta in the 9th?

292

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The best relievers distinguish themselves as such because they pitch the best in pressure situations. Regardless of the arguments laid out here regarding bad calls, the fact remains that players play with more pressure on them at the end of the game and at the end of the season. The simple fact is that there is a much more significant pressure factor when a player knows that if HE makes a mistake, the game could be over or he could leave his team in a very untenable position in the bottom of the last inning. [/quote]

I disagree that the 9th is automatically the most pressure packed, it depends on the quality of hitters faced also. Most teams have a significant drop off in offensive talent from the 2-5 hitters and the 6-9.

Even if they make a mistake in the 8th the game is still all but over in most cases when you have the bottom of the lineup due up, especially in the NL.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
By definition, part of being a good reliever is the ability to handle the pressure situations well. And by definition, there is more pressure in the 9th than the 7th or 8th. So by definition, the best time to use your best relief pitcher is in the 9th inning.[/quote]

You ignore the fact that the quality of hitters faced also contributes to the pressure of the situation.
[/quote]

You assume that the middle of the order is the only spot capable of producing significant pressure. You also assume that escaping a tight spot in the 8th means there won’t be one in the 9th.

Also, in a tight game in the NL the double-switch makes it more likely that a good bench player (of which there are many in the NL, whereas in the AL the quality of players on the bench is much less due to them not being used as much since the DH negates their value quite a bit) is already in the game and the type of pinch hitter likely to be used in the 9th is a situational type who can represent a better L vs R matchup.

You’re simply working from some false assumptions here.

293

Also - watching Jose Reyes hit is just insane. He never gets out! Guy constantly has multiple hit games.

He’s hurting the Jays defensively though. He and Bonifacio are killing our middle-infield defense.

294

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Say you’re facing the angels and you have a 1-0 lead going into the 8th.

Would you rather your closer face: Pujols, Hamilton Trumbo in the 8th or Kendrick, Callaspo, Iannetta in the 9th?

[/quote]

I’d rather use my best righty against Pujols and then put my best lefty in against Hamilton and see if he can avoid a mistake to Trumbo. If anyone gets into trouble, I’d probably go to my closer then, which is what most teams do.

Pujols is so good that he’s got a good chance against anyone, so that one’s a bit moot. Hamilton is significantly better against righties than lefties, so for that specific situation, the best reliever is not the closer but your best left-handed reliever. If Trumbo had great numbers against the lefty in the game or you were out of alternative righties or he crushed all of those too, then it makes sense to use the closer for the third out of the inning.

You aren’t thinking situationally here, Raj. You’re thinking in too absolute a manner, where the closer is the automatic out and the other relievers are a FAR more significant risk to the lead. That isn’t the case in reality. Most good bullpens have guys who are just about as good in the 8th as their closer is in the 9th. The Giants have a guy in Affeldt who is as good a reliever as there is in the game, and Javier Lopez, despite some struggles early on here, is as good against lefties as anyone in the game.

So even if Hamilton came up with two outs in the 8th with the tying and winning runs in scoring position, going with either Affeldt OR Lopez in that situation is a better move than going with the closer. The numbers say as much. The same holds true for most teams regarding their best left-handed reliever and their closer.

295

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Say you’re facing the angels and you have a 1-0 lead going into the 8th.

Would you rather your closer face: Pujols, Hamilton Trumbo in the 8th or Kendrick, Callaspo, Iannetta in the 9th?

[/quote]

Well it depends, is the game in April or September?? If it’s in Sept. and my team is down 2 games on the division leader with 5 games to go, I’m using my closer for the 8th and ninth in that situation. If it’s in April i’m saving him for the ninth.

LOL sorry Lanky

296

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

You assume that the middle of the order is the only spot capable of producing significant pressure. You also assume that escaping a tight spot in the 8th means there won’t be one in the 9th.
[/quote]

NO.

I am assuming more talented hitters have a greater probability of generating runs then less talented hitters. They do. And also more talented hitters are more likely to create a “tight spot” than less talented ones.

297

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Most good bullpens have guys who are just about as good in the 8th as their closer is in the 9th.[/quote]

If you’re trying to make an argument that using your closer before the 9th is not the best for the Giants fine.

But the average team isn’t nearly as bullpen rich.

In a situation where you have one lights-out reliever (your closer) and the rest of your bullpen is mediocre to average, would you really pick the reliever with the decent lefty splits over your closer even your closer is better against lefties?

298

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Well it depends, is the game in April or September?? If it’s in Sept. and my team is down 2 games on the division leader with 5 games to go, I’m using my closer for the 8th and ninth in that situation. If it’s in April i’m saving him for the ninth.
[/quote]

Why does your game plan change in April vs September?

Is using your closer in the 8th prove to be a more effective strategy in April vs September?

299

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

You assume that the middle of the order is the only spot capable of producing significant pressure. You also assume that escaping a tight spot in the 8th means there won’t be one in the 9th.
[/quote]

NO.

I am assuming more talented hitters have a greater probability of generating runs then less talented hitters. They do. And also more talented hitters are more likely to create a “tight spot” than less talented ones.
[/quote]

You have a defeatist attitude. High-quality major league relief pitchers, the type who would be used in crucial situations late in the game, are brimming with confidence. That’s how they get to where they are. They know who has good and bad history against them and that sort of thing, but overwhelmingly, they understand that they have the stuff to get any hitter out in any situation if they make good pitches.

So who is in the box doesn’t represent the same sort of pressure you and I would assign to that hitter from our seats on the couch in front of the TV. They know that they can get anyone out and that they can make the right pitch in the right location at the right time and get good results. They know so because they’ve done so almost every time out, which is why they are in such a position to begin with.

The point is that a pitcher who is intimidated or who feels more pressure based on who is in the box (except for a few all-time great hitters like Pujols or Bonds, neither of which Hamilton or Trumbo will ever bear comparison to) will ever find himself in those sorts of late-game, close-score positions with any regularity.

The fact is that pretty much every hitter in the league has a weakness. There are maybe a couple hitters every generation who have no weakness and can hit any pitch out of the park. Again, Pujols and Bonds are/were those types. No one else in the game right now is like that.

So yes, the middle of the order represents a higher statistical chance for creating a tight spot than the bottom does, but there is much more to it than that. Hamilton against a team’s closer is more dicey than Hamilton against a team’s best lefty in almost every instance. Pujols is scary no matter who is on the mound.

Most managers will play the odds and try to get a righty-on-righty matchup or vice versa. In that sense, they can mitigate whatever increased risk the middle of the order represents. Like I said earlier, if you had a dominant lefty and one of the best closers in the game and the best left-handed hitter in the game was up in a one-run game with runners on first and third, the best chance from a statistical standpoint is to go with the lefty and not the closer. It’s better to play the matchups as long as you can and then throw the closer out there in the 9th when you won’t have to worry about the matchups anymore.

300

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Most good bullpens have guys who are just about as good in the 8th as their closer is in the 9th.[/quote]

If you’re trying to make an argument that using your closer before the 9th is not the best for the Giants fine.

But the average team isn’t nearly as bullpen rich.

In a situation where you have one lights-out reliever (your closer) and the rest of your bullpen is mediocre to average, would you really pick the reliever with the decent lefty splits over your closer even your closer is better against lefties?

[/quote]

Here’s the thing. Teams with mediocrity across the bullpen except for the closer still have major-league caliber pitchers in the setup role. Give the pitchers some credit. Most of the guys who would enter this conversation have the stuff to get anyone out and at some point the manager is going to have to show some faith in them. The point is not to avoid using them at all costs. That’s defeatist and it’s called managing not to lose rather than managing to win.

Regardless, what I would do is play the matchups until the 9th inning. I only have one closer, but I have several other relievers. If the closer is inserted in the 8th inning and he shuts things down, what would you do in the 9th? Run him out there again and then effectively lose him for the next night? Or would you put guys who apparently don’t trust to get outs earlier in the game out there in the 9th? If they aren’t worthy of throwing in the 8th of a very tight situation then how long can you really stick with them in the 9th if things start to unravel? And if things DO start to unravel, then what do you do? You’re back into an even higher pressure situation than what you faced in the 8th and now your best pitcher is gone for the evening.

With all of the sabermetric analysis available to teams, there still aren’t any teams using legitimate closers in atypical situations. The decisions being made by professional baseball managers with more knowledge and more info at their fingertips than you or I will ever have are making decisions different than the one you would make. What does that tell you, Raj?

And before you go off on some rant about the archaic, anti-sabermetric mindset of baseball managers today, keep in mind that sabermetrics are actually used to varying extents by every single team, so the reason your approach isn’t used has nothing to do with some perceived rejection of sabermetrics. And we’re not talking about closer-by-committee here, like what the Giants did for extended periods last year.