The following is a topic that the baseball-centric staff at YCS have discussed at great length before (while hammahed). It comes to mind specifically tonight after watching the Brewers and Reds go back and forth for 12 innings trying to hand the game to the other team, a battle the Brewers ultimately lost because Grant Balfour is the king of handing games to the other team.
Scenario:
Bottom of the 12th inning, runners at first and second, no outs, Grant Balfour on the mound for Milwaukee. Runner at first reached on a walk, runner at second walked on four straight pitches despite the fact that he was trying to lay down a sac bunt.
Brewers play-by-play announcer Brian Anderson says something to this effect: "With the situation the Brewers are in, do you think Yost would consider bringing in Francisco Cordero to put out the fire?"
Color Man Bill Schroeder: "Well, that's not the way you play if you're on the road. On the road you almost have to save your closer because if you don't, who's going to pitch after you get the go-ahead run to save the game?"
The next hitter bunts to the Balfour, who throws the ball to third. Runner is safe. Bases loaded. Pinch hitter Javier Valentin singles to right, game over.
Yost's decision to bring out recently recalled Grant Balfour (who has been terrible in an admittedly small sample size of two appearances) to pitch the 12th instead of Carlos Villanueva or Chris Spurling notwithstanding, it is my contention that this inning was managed terribly.
I am not, by the way, one to frequently second-guess managers, especially Ned Yost. I think Yost is a fine manager, in that he doesn't seem to make too many stupid decisions during games like calling a ton hit and runs, stealing bases in front of good hitters, sac bunting early in games or doing anything else that a lot of managers do to appear to be playing "aggressively." He plays to the numbers and generally does whatever he can to keep best hitters in the lineup every night. In fact, I am basically of the belief that managers don't make a very large impact on the game at large, and what impact they do make can more frequently be negative than positive.
The caveat to this opinion, however, comes when you consider decisions regarding the pitching staff. For starters, this is generally relegated to managing pitch counts and making a decision on whether to pinch hit for a starter when trying to play for a big inning in the National League. Most of the time, these decisions are relatively innocuous. When it comes to relievers, and specifically closers, the basis for making pitching changes seems increasingly to be based on little more than tradition and adherence to a tired code of "that's the way it's supposed to go."
What it boils down to is basically this: playing to the save stat is stupid. The idea that Yost shouldn't bring in his best reliever in an extremely important situation because he "needs him to get the save if and when the Brewers get a run" is absolutely, frustratingly absurd.
Consider it when broken down piece by piece:
1. There are two runners on base with no outs in a situation whose outcome could very probably determine the outcome of the game.
2. The Brewers would be best served with a strikeout or a ground ball for a potential double play.
3. The current pitcher has walked the first two batters of the inning, the second on four straight pitches.
4. Francisco Cordero is the Brewers' best relief pitcher, and the pitcher most likely to product the needed outcome of a strikeout (other than Derrick Turnbow who has already pitched).
5. Francisco Cordero should be put into the game.
That hacky and possibly nonsensical syllogism makes sense to me. And as Nate put it, "losing in extra innings in a one run game with your best reliever not having pitched" is something that just shouldn't happen.
So, you ask, say the Brewers get out of that no-out jam, end up scratching a run in the top of the 13th and then need someone to pitch the 13th. What then? Well, in that case you've got a one run cushion and still have a pair (at least) of pitchers to choose from, both of whom come in with no runners and a clean slate. If they give up a run, you're back where you started, but the most important thing is that you got to your next at-bat, the ultimate goal in extra innings. Leaving your "closer" in the bullpen because the situation doesn't fit the ambiguous necessity of pitching with a three run or less lead to finish the game baffles and pisses me off to no end.
P.S. This didn't always used to be the case for the use of a "closer." Frequently, Rollie Fingers and other closers in the late '70s, early '80s would come in whenever there was the threat of a big inning and they needed outs. Following that, the bullpen would shake itself out using the other guys in less important situations. Of all the ways the game has evolved since then, this is one aspect in which innovation isn't really progress.
P.P.S. My hypothetical idea for how to manage the situation made in obvious hindsight: don't use Turnbow in the 9th, instead using Villanueva, Wise or any of the other available short relievers. Continue using said shorties and if above situation arises, use Cordero. If you get out of it, use second best reliever Turnbow to close in the 9th. Two best pitchers pitch in most important innings. Obviously, this wouldn't always work to plan, but it's a thought.
Your thoughts appreciated, as always, in the comments.
Read more...
Posts
