And managers no longer have to really manage. Its like auto-pilot once your bullpen roles are defined. I guess a manager who can help mold a bullpen from scratch is valuable (kinda like 1M did), but once you have it done... you basically live and die with a set decision not based on any circumstances that are actually going on.
once again, none of this is because the save statistic exists. if they eliminated it, you'd still see "closers" finishing games in the same roles they have now. they wouldn't suddenly be pitching more innings and coming in earlier in the game.
Anyway guys, enough talk of the absurdity of pitching stats. Our first sweep of the season albeit a 2 game one
Or pitching 3 or more innings of releif and completing the game... REGARDLESS OF THE SCORE... and getting the save. Seriously... the game could be 24-0... and they simply get a pitcher in to get some work. If he pitches the final 3 innings of the game, its a save.
Unless that stat comes to define the role - in the way that the save has come to define the closers role. Closers gets saves, so they mostly show up when they get a shot at a save. Managers go with it because it's the conventional wisdom and you're never going to get hell for going with the conventional wisdom and failing.
What a game! It seems that this year we are capable of changing the momentum and make big plays when needed. 21 runs in last 2 days 51 runs in last 6 days
Not true. You'd have guys who'd be built/conditioned to throw more than 1 or so inning. Most team's set-up men are capable of throwing more than 1 inning. Same with the 7th inning guy. Of course, the 9th inning guy is the best pitcher... and in this day and age, they're groomed to only pitch one inning, but it isn't the most "practical". Also, you could eliminate the situation of where a manager brings in his closer with a 3 run lead in the 9th simply because its a "save" situation. Most members of the bullpen would be able to protect that lead... and if they ever got in trouble, or gave up a run, you would still have the closer available as a safety net.
why, it could even be 14-3 when he enters the game, and he'll still get that save for going three innings.
Is there another team in baseball that has the potential to be as deadly a combination of small ball and slugging? Phillies, Red Sox?
that is because "save situations" in the 9th inning are close, pressure-packed situations, and, in theory, these "closers" are paid because they are thought of as having the mindset and pitch aresenal to succeed in these situations.
Off the top of my head (just in the NL)... the Rockies, the Phillies, the Dodgers, the Diamondbacks, the Braves, the Cubs, and the Mets. All these teams have decent speedsters at the top of the lineup, and premium sluggers at the heart of the order. I'd name some AL teams... but they don't even try to play small ball.
I'll agree but if Bourn can break out, we will have a pretty lethal combination of speed and power. The only guys I am worried about striking out a lot are Pence, Wigginton and then Bourn, to a lesser extent.
And the converse of this is that they often apparently don't have the mindset and pitch aresenal to pitch more than one inning, or pitch in a tie game or non-save situation... simply because of the way the game is played now, and how these guys are brought up to become used to being simply the 9th inning guy. The whole "save situation" is one that arose simply because of the stat. Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage were "saving" many games... but they weren't being brought in only in the 9th, and managers weren't wasting them in easy situations simply because a "save" could be awarded.
right...that's what i'm saying. a "save situation" in the 9th inning happens to be (unsurprisingly) a pressure situation, where you'd usually want to be pitching your closer anyway.
Not if you're up 3 with nobody on. Closers are almost universally brought in during that situation as well simply because a "save" is on the line. Also, plenty of "crucial" situations often happen in the 7th or 8th innings, when releif pitchers come in with men on base, or protecting a 1 run lead... that could get extended to a 3-4 run lead by the 9th.
Except that saves often aren't the closest most pressure-packed situations in the game - the situations where you want your best reliever to pitch. Where would you rather have your best reliever pitch: against the 3-4-5 hitters in a tie/close game in the 8th, or against the 6-7-8 hitters in the 9th? Because of the save stat, only the appearance in the 9th seems to have significant value, even if the job done in the 8th was equally as valuable to a win. And because of the specialization brought about by the importance of the "save" you can just forget about asking him to go both innings on a regular basis.
I'm not sure all of those teams you listed have as much potential for speed and power as the Astros. You won't find a lineup with three guys any faster than Bourn, Matsui and Pence. You also won't find many lineups with much more slugging potential than Berkman, Lee, Tejada, Pence and Wigginton. Maybe, even Towles. For example, the D-Backs are a terrific small-ball team but do they really have proven sluggers? Jackson and Reynolds are the middle of their lineup and they haven't proven to be consistent sluggers yet. Byrne is well-rounded and Young has power but he has yet to hit for average and he hits at the top of the lineup. The Cubs have Theriot and Soriano who are quick but not faster than our speedsters. Fukudome looks like a good hitter but we haven't seen enough of him yet. Obviously, the Cubs can slug. Do the Mets really have any more slugging potential than us? Yes, I know about Wright and Beltran but who knows what Delgado will do. Reyes is as fast as anybody but do they have 2 or 3 guys like that? The Braves have slugging but I'm not sure they have the same potential for small-ball as the Astros. The Phillies have plenty of power, especially if Burrell keeps it up, but will he? I'm not sure that Berkman, Lee and Tejada aren't at least as good as Utley, Howard and Burrell. They do have speed when Rollins and Victorino are healthy but not as much as the Stros. Obviously, the Tigers have ridiculously good hitters and should get on base a lot so it's hard to say we have more small-ball/slugging potential than them. Same goes for the Red Sox. The bottom line is that the Astros have the potential to have as dynamic an offense as any team in the league, especially if Bourn has a big year. Even better, if Wigginton comes back and is at least as good as his norm. And, who knows how good Towles will end up being.
i dont see what the problem with bringing in your closer in with none on up 3 is anyway, whether mlb were to define that as a save situation or not. either way, i dont think the save statistic is for the manager as much as it is for the fan; it just so happens that "save situations" coincide with when a manager would want to use his closer anyway, so saves naturally are able to become a decent measure of a closer doing his job. i agree with what all you said about the idiocy of the blown save stat though.
i'm not disagreeing with you, but, like i said, in theory, a "closer" is somebody who has the mentality to pitch and get through a 9th inning with a small lead. having the finish line in sight apparently brings a non-closer to his knees. heck, alot of you guys brushed off qualls' 0.00 era so far this season because "it doesnt matter, we couldnt use him as a closer because he doesnt have the closer mentality".
