A win clinches you a spot in the playoffs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Than wouldn't you want to clinch your playoff spot as early as possible so that you have meaningless games to test all that in? Wouldn't that make sense?

---

sure, but not at the expense of long-term goals, like winning the WS.

For example, if I'm confident my team is going to clinch whatever we do, but I want to see certain pitchers in tight situations, I have to take those situations as they come - there's no guarantee the Yankees will play another close game all year, so if my plan is to look at Karstens and Veras in tight situations before the playoffs, I have to recognize the game in question could be my only chance to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ltt

sure, but not at the expense of long-term goals, like winning the WS.

For example, if I'm confident my team is going to clinch whatever we do, but I want to see certain pitchers in tight situations, I have to take those situations as they come - there's no guarantee the Yankees will play another close game all year, so if my plan is to look at Karstens and Veras in tight situations before the playoffs, I have to recognize the game in question could be my only chance to do so.

---

Very true & teams "have to make" choices WHO will be on the post season roster too...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Than wouldn't you want to clinch your playoff spot as early as possible so that you have meaningless games to test all that in? Wouldn't that make sense?

---

MMK
First of all, any major league pitcher on his best day is quite better than mariano on his worst day. Believe it or not, humans have good days a bad days.


The 6 hit thing wasn't even the way to go about judging riverain non save vs save. A better method would be good appearance vs bad ones. I thought that would have been common sense - Im sorry for not clarifying it.

You're testing for the playoffs, wouldnt a meaningful game make more sense in testing? A meaningless game wouldnt really fit the bill for testing whos ready for the playoffs, now is it?

Im sure theres more, but blah, spending time with my son.

Wow, this is actually turning into a decent thread now.
:)

(except for the last post that was just prior to this one, which I split into a different thread)

Yanks are winning by the way.....currently up by 2 with a lousy bullpen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

Yanks are winning by the way.....currently up by 2 with a lousy bullpen!

---

YES but the pen is not LOUSY,they have 4 above average guys to count on...plus the Karstens/Ohlendorfs & Veras's of this world...

Well never mind they lost when Rivera blew a save!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

Well never mind they lost when Rivera blew a save!

---

Well now they are guaranteed Cleveland....more trouble is this Clemens rehabs in Texas not with team - better drugs at home ? (* joke * or maybe not)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

The 6 hit thing wasn't even the way to go about judging riverain non save vs save. A better method would be good appearance vs bad ones. I thought that would have been common sense - Im sorry for not clarifying it.

---

??? Overall performance in a small sample size is a worse way to judge performance than an even more miniscule sample size of select appearances? In 32 non-save situations, Rivera gave up runs in 7 of them. 3 of those he gave up just one run, one he gave up 2, one he gave up 3, and one he gave up 4.

Quote:

---

You're testing for the playoffs, wouldnt a meaningful game make more sense in testing? A meaningless game wouldnt really fit the bill for testing whos ready for the playoffs, now is it?

---

It'd be better than risking not making the playoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

YES but the pen is not LOUSY,they have 4 above average guys to count on...plus the Karstens/Ohlendorfs & Veras's of this world...

---

Who are these 4 above average guys?



And listen, I understand that in the specific situation the Yankees were in, this really is pretty inconsequential. However, I created the thread because this is just one symptom of the larger problem - this happens all year round. When managers continually employ relievers in such backwards methods, it does take away wins overall in a season. This isn't the only time Torre's done such a thing. It just so happens that I was watching this game and I found the choices completely crazy (and I think they were made even more crazy by using the best relievers in a complete blowout the next day), and so I posted my opinion on it.

As you saidit happens all the time so maybe it's not so crazy afterall. Torre does these things a lot but with his proven track record and having not missed the playoffs in forever I think he obviously knows what he is doing. If he did these things and missed the playoffs yes I might question his choices.

Remember they were 14 games out before the all-star break and the best record afterwards. He obviously is making some right choices. Secondly HGM I believe you stated in a different thread that managers don't affect the game on a day to day basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

As you saidit happens all the time so maybe it's not so crazy afterall. Torre does these things a lot but with his proven track record and having not missed the playoffs in forever I think he obviously knows what he is doing. If he did these things and missed the playoffs yes I might question his choices.

---

Torre isn't the only manager to make stupid reliever decisions. In fact, most do. There isn't really any team that truly effectively leverages their relievers. I guess you could say the Indians this year are the closest, because they're best relievers aren't "proven closers" so they have their best relievers pitching in the highest leverage situations.

While I believe Torre is a good manager, mostly for his off-the-field/clubhouse presence as I believe he's a poor bullpen manager (for this leverage reason as well as other reasons which are more than talked about in the media), it's not really hard to win when you're continually handed a roster of superstars.

Quote:

---

Remember they were 14 games out before the all-star break and the best record afterwards. He obviously is making some right choices.

---

His team of super stars all got relatively healthy. Also, they were underperforming their run differential in the first half, and a good majority of the time, those things even out.

Quote:

---

HGM I believe you stated in a different thread that managers don't affect the game on a day to day basis.

---

I don't believe I've ever stated that.

Ok maybe not my bad....

I just want to make it doubly clear that I think Torre is the perfect manager for the Yankees, and back when people were calling for his firing, I found it absolutely ridiculous. Just as I feel that people give too much credit to managers for their teams winning, I likewise feel that people can also put too much blame on managers for their teams losing. In some cases, like with Ned Yost in Milwaukee recently and John McLaren in Seattle, it's warranted. However, when people were calling for Torre's head, I was thinking to myself, "So, it's his fault that the Yankees aging starters are all getting injured, and they're forced to go with tons of rookies? And somehow, a new manager is going to remedy that?" I think that Torre is one of the best clubhouse managers in the game and he really knows how to manage a mixture of veterans and rookies (something that say, Grady Little, can't do at all). He deals with the media well. He's highly respected, very well-liked, and great in all the human aspects. I feel that his only major flaw is his bad bullpen management. He tends to pick "favorite" relievers and ride their arms into the ground - a tendency that greatly influenced the "Joba rules". He, as well as other managers, doesn't leverage relievers well. I think that, when it comes to the bullpen, he's basically clueless. However, elsewhere, he's one of the best managers in the game, and his inability to manage a bullpen, while it may result in a win or two less over a full season, isn't going enough to make him a bad manager.

It's interesting here, because what your actually arguing for HGM is a return to the way reliever use (basically) used to be. It used to be that teams didn't have a "closer", they actually had a "Fireman". Basically, each team selected (usually one) ace reliever, who would come into the game to "put out fires"; hence the term "fireman". Very retro viewpoint, really.
:)

I'm actually surprised that you didn't receive more supportive posts on this one. Starting out making it more personally about Torre and the Yanks probably didn't help much, but it's still somewhat surprising. Returning to the "fireman" style of reliever use is a much more traditionalist viewpoint... although, that seems to be changing quickly. There's a chapter in Baseball Behind the Numbers which, while not actually advocating it, is supportive of it. I hear that Bill James and Co. (the Boston scouting team, more or less) has been pushing for it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

It's interesting here, because what your actually arguing for HGM is a return to the way reliever use (basically) used to be. It used to be that teams didn't have a "closer", they actually had a "Fireman". Basically, each team selected (usually one) ace reliever, who would come into the game to "put out fires"; hence the term "fireman". Very retro viewpoint, really.
:)

---

Yes but,as you know,the 2 situations are totally different - in the past (& it was argued quite expansively in another thread ;) ) the SPs pitched deeper (& more often) & thus the "fireman's" role was largely different as he would come in & pitch "multiple innings" (close the game) but on a rarer basis .Today there are far less CG's pitched by SP's & in general the Average innings pitched by a SP is down by 1 or 2 innings from the period you are "quoting".
Not to say I am for or against a return to a more traditional approach,but for it to be a viable solution the SPs have to also return to a "deeper" innings count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I'm actually surprised that you didn't receive more supportive posts on this one. Starting out making it more personally about Torre and the Yanks probably didn't help much, but it's still somewhat surprising.

---

Well,the post was & is a specific "post" not a general post about bullpen usage at a VERY specific time.That is to say,when Torre is "deciding" who will make the POST SEASON pitching/bullpen roster & he was/is "testing" the "rookies" under pressure (similar to playoffs) situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Returning to the "fireman" style of reliever use is a much more traditionalist viewpoint... although, that seems to be changing quickly. There's a chapter in Baseball Behind the Numbers which, while not actually advocating it, is supportive of it. I hear that Bill James and Co. (the Boston scouting team, more or less) has been pushing for it as well.

---

There is a certain logic - best pitcher's used most often has been advocated for both by traditionalists & certain sabermetrician BUT as said above (& in the PITCH COUNT thread) this approach is only viable,today,if SP's pitch deeper than today or a 6 man rotation or whatever "system" which means RP's come into the game LESS often but are able to pitch further(or a return to 80's level).