Baseball Philosophy - “Closers”

[Tony]

Was talking to a few buddies today over text and we were discussing the game today. 
 

I made the argument that when Foster was struggling and it was 4-2.....why are you not bringing in Hendricks. I understand it was the 6th, but here was my premise. The game needed to be saved in that moment. It was the most important moment of the game. As we’ve seen last season and even this year...the Sox have been known to score in bunches in the later innings against middle relief pitching. Who knows what the score is going to be in the 9th. 
 

And guess what? Hendricks, the Sox best pitcher, ended up pitching in the 9th, down 4 runs. If you knew he was going to pitch today (clearly Tony did), why not place your best reliever in the biggest spot? If it’s 4-3 Sox in the 9th...you deal with it then. If you trust Foster enough to pitch with the bases loaded and the game tied in the 6th, you should trust him in the 9th to start a fresh inning. 
 

I really wish the game would evolve but the “save” is a contract stat so I’m worried it won’t anytime soon..

[fathom]

100 percent correct on your point. What’s the point of saving someone for a 9th inning appearance if you lose the lead for good.

[Rowand44]

Yup, agree with both of you.

[Balta1701]

Other teams have evolved. But the manager believes baseball achieved perfection in 2006 and all decisions must be made in that style.

[Tony]

To me, it’s like bunting in the 4th inning. How do you know you’re going to need that run to win? It might be 17-6 by the time the 9th rolls around. Play the game in front of you. That was a huge moment, I want one of my best out there...not Matt Foster. Not when you can sweep and head home. 

[fathom]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Other teams have evolved. But the manager believes baseball achieved perfection in 2006 and all decisions must be made in that style.

Through one week of games, I’m pretty sure we’ve intentionally walked one batter.....2006 biggest superstar 

[fathom]

Just now, Tony said:

To me, it’s like bunting in the 4th inning. How do you know you’re going to need that run to win? It might be 17-6 by the time the 9th rolls around. Play the game in front of you. That was a huge moment, I want one of my best out there...not Matt Foster. Not when you can sweep and head home. 

Yep we were gifted that game today with miserable pitching by the Mariners with a simply awful Sox lineup.  Winning this would have made up for one of the Angels games they should have won.

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, fathom said:

Through one week of games, I’m pretty sure we’ve intentionally walked one batter.....2006 biggest superstar 

[ptatc]

6 minutes ago, fathom said:

100 percent correct on your point. What’s the point of saving someone for a 9th inning appearance if you lose the lead for good.

I think it comes down to the philosophy of what to do with the best pitcher and how many good ones are on the team. Clearly today if they know Hendriks has to pitch he should have gone earlier.  However how often should they throw the best pitcher? The advantage of the "9th" guy is a set number of times he will pitch and he doesn't get burned out.

I don't think it is as cut and dry that the best guy needs to he ready everyday in tight situations.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

It's no different than keeping a starter in so he qualifies for a meaningless "win." Managing to a stat is always stupid.  

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It's no different than keeping a starter in so he qualifies for a meaningless "win." Managing to a stat is always stupid.  

Usually. However, there are times when managers may do it to help the player. Players appreciate it. That goodwill can help later on.

But in general I would agree.

[Balta1701]

The real answer would be to have 2 different guys on MLB Networks top 10 reliever list on this roster right now. Then you could use one guy in the pressure situation in the 6th and have another one in reserve for trouble later. Shame we can’t do that.

(is handed the list)....wait...u mean...

[ptatc]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

The real answer would be to have 2 different guys on MLB Networks top 10 reliever list on this roster right now. Then you could use one guy in the pressure situation in the 6th and have another one in reserve for trouble later. Shame we can’t do that.

(is handed the list)....wait...u mean...

But how many days in a row can they do that? How quickly do you want to burn them out? Eventually shouldn't they figure out who else can handle it?

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

But how many days in a row can they do that? How quickly do you want to burn them out? Eventually shouldn't they figure out who else can handle it?

Hendricks pitched once in the first 6 games. Bummer twice. Get back to me when they’re not having to do mop up duty to stay fresh.

[Tony]

19 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I think it comes down to the philosophy of what to do with the best pitcher and how many good ones are on the team. Clearly today if they know Hendriks has to pitch he should have gone earlier.  However how often should they throw the best pitcher? The advantage of the "9th" guy is a set number of times he will pitch and he doesn't get burned out.

I don't think it is as cut and dry that the best guy needs to he ready everyday in tight situations.

I don’t totally disagree, which is why today made me crazy. Hendricks pitched the 9th down 8-4. You knew he was going in today. You saved him for a 9th inning that didn’t need to be saved. It needed to be saved in the 6th

[ptatc]

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Hendricks pitched once in the first 6 games. Bummer twice. Get back to me when they’re not having to do mop up duty to stay fresh.

But in your scenario they each would have been in 5-6 out of the 7 games already.

[wegner]

I don't disagree with the point of this thread but the thing is that it did not have to be Hendricks in the 6th.  Bummer was going to be used today as well so they could have gone to him in the 6th when the game was on the line.

[South Side Hit Men]

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

But in your scenario they each would have been in 5-6 out of the 7 games already.

No, he would have been in 3 or 4, but he has pitched 1/3 IP in meaningful situations, because reserving your $54M reliever to possibly accumulate a Save trumps putting your team in the best position winning the game in whatever functioning brain stem remains operable in La Russa’s body.

Edited April 8, 2021 by South Side Hit Men

[ptatc]

Just now, South Side Hit Men said:

No, he would have been in 3 or 4, but he has pitched 1/3 IP in meaningful situations, because accumulating Saves trump putting your team in the best position winning the game in whatever functioning brain stem remains operable in La Russa’s body.

I disagree. They have had more high leverage situation I'm more than 3 or 4 games. I agree he hasn't used them to the best of their abilities yet. However I don't think its as cut and dry that those two pitchers need to be out there in all hogg leverage situations. At some point others will need to be as well.

[Tony]

7 minutes ago, wegner said:

I don't disagree with the point of this thread but the thing is that it did not have to be Hendricks in the 6th.  Bummer was going to be used today as well so they could have gone to him in the 6th when the game was on the line.

I would have been fine with Bummer in this scenario as well, I agree with you wegner. I was fine with Foster coming for Keuchle, by the way. But not letting him die and be ok coughing up the lead to an awful M’s offense. 

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, Tony said:

I would have been fine with Bummer in this scenario as well, I agree with you wegner. I was fine with Foster coming for Keuchle, by the way. But not letting him die and be ok coughing up the lead to an awful M’s offense. 

That was the mistake today. Not that he brought him in but that he should have pulled him earlier.

[Tony]

 

[South Side Hit Men]

25 minutes ago, ptatc said:

That was the mistake today. Not that he brought him in but that he should have pulled him earlier.

Nobody was even warming up when Foster was in, just as nobody was warming up when Ruiz was brought in to start the ninth inning with the heart of the Angels were due up. 

Bottom line is Tony has been literally asleep at the wheel for decades, he blew a World Series game before “retiring”because he was unable to use a telephone, and people are quibbling like Tony regarding whether he was asleep at the wheel as opposed to being passed out at the wheel. 

This is no upgrade in the manager, and through seven games has been a downgrade, no matter how many millions of dollars in JR’s worthless paid for media hacks attempt to spin it.

It’s a shame we didn’t acquire actual legitimate players, instead of  nearing a decade of JR/Hahn spin.

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by South Side Hit Men

[wegner]

25 minutes ago, ptatc said:

That was the mistake today. Not that he brought him in but that he should have pulled him earlier.

Totally agree and to not have anyone warming up for so long was perplexing.

[ptatc]

35 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Nobody was even warming up when Foster was in, just as nobody was warming up when Ruiz was brought in to start the ninth inning with the heart of the Angels were due up. 

Bottom line is Tony has been literally asleep at the wheel for decades, he blew a World Series game before “retiring”because he was unable to use a telephone, and people are quibbling like Tony regarding whether he was asleep at the wheel as opposed to being passed out at the wheel. 

This is no upgrade in the manager, and through seven games has been a downgrade, no matter how many millions of dollars in JR’s worthless paid for media hacks attempt to spin it.

It’s a shame we didn’t acquire actual legitimate players, instead of  nearing a decade of JR/Hahn spin.

 

I guess I'm not so absolutely positively sure in my opinion and that I can't possible be wrong so I'm giving him more than a 7 game stretch to see how it goes.