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

You're tied entering the bottom of the ninth inning. You have the greatest closer of all time in the bullpen, who last pitched three days ago. You bring in some old minor league pitcher, and he gets out. Bottom of the 10th inning. You're still tied. You bring in some rookie who's struggled with injuries and has fringy stuff. He gives up the game winning home run.

You still did not touch the best closer in all of baseball.

How do managers not see the worth of using their best reliever at the most crucial times? This is why I can't give Joe Torre any consideration for manager of the year. He sucks at managing a bullpen.

Yes, exactly. If I was an MLB manager i would bring in my closer in the most crucial spot in the game, not in the 9th inning. If that's in the 7th then in comes my closer.(I do this in mogul)

I mean, I could understand it if you have a good bullpen, but...Jose Veras? Jeff Karstens?

Really? In a tie game? Bottom 9th, and then extras? Over Mariano freaking Rivera? In a game that will clinch you a playoff spot?

:eek:

No excuses....bad choice.

a lot of closers struggle in non save situations..not saying that Rivera does or using it as an excuse for Torre's decision..but it certainly can be a factor

If you're a good pitcher, the amount your team is winning or losing by is irrelevent. Yeah, there's the guys like Bob Wickman who get mad when they're brought in in non-save situations, but this doesn't mean they perform worse. I've seen nothing factual to indicate the notion that a lot of closers struggle in non-save situations.

I think that a lot of that is that closers aren't really used outside of save situations, and a screw up in a non-save situation sticks in the minds of fans (and managers) more than a blown save. A young closer blows a game that wasn't a save situation? He gets branded with the "can't pitch except in save situations" label, and it's hard to get rid of. If you're a good pitcher, the score of the game is irrelevent.

And even if Rivera struggles in non-save situations, there's no way that a struggling Rivera isn't better than Jose Veras and Jeff Karstens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I've seen nothing factual to indicate the notion that a lot of closers struggle in non-save situations.

---

Eric Gagne' ?
It can take a person up to six months to adjust to a new job or workplace.

There's no evidence that the reason he's struggling is because he's no longer in save situations.

He's still striking out batters. His walk rate's a bit higher than it should be. His struggles actually started in Texas in July, after posting an ERA of 1.50 from April through June, it was 4.50 in July. The reason is explained in his batting average on balls in play, it went from .219 in June to .313 in July, and an outrageously unsustainable .515 in August, and now its back to .313 in September.

16 innings isn't enough to make any accurate judgment on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

If you're a good pitcher, the amount your team is winning or losing by is irrelevent. Yeah, there's the guys like Bob Wickman who get mad when they're brought in in non-save situations, but this doesn't mean they perform worse. I've seen nothing factual to indicate the notion that a lot of closers struggle in non-save situations.

I think that a lot of that is that closers aren't really used outside of save situations, and a screw up in a non-save situation sticks in the minds of fans (and managers) more than a blown save. A young closer blows a game that wasn't a save situation? He gets branded with the "can't pitch except in save situations" label, and it's hard to get rid of. If you're a good pitcher, the score of the game is irrelevent.

And even if Rivera struggles in non-save situations, there's no way that a struggling Rivera isn't better than Jose Veras and Jeff Karstens.

---

I have seen Rivera stuggle in non save situations and it isn't pretty.

You would think that the situation wouldn't matter but it does. It's just a totally different mindset. However, the situation does matter, no matter how much HGM wants it to not matter because then they're would be someone that exists that can't be explained by sabrmetrics.

Dempster is another that struggles when its not a save opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

I have seen Rivera stuggle in non save situations and it isn't pretty.

You would think that the situation wouldn't matter but it does. It's just a totally different mindset. However, the situation does matter, no matter how much HGM wants it to not matter because then they're would be someone that exists that can't be explained by sabrmetrics.

---

In my one and only visit to Yankee Stadium, I saw this happen too and no it was not pretty. Mo Rivera came in to pitch the 10th inning in a 3-3 game, after the Yankees had tied the game in the 9th, and got his *** kicked. I'm not saying this happens most of the time mind you, only that it can and does happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

I have seen Rivera stuggle in non save situations and it isn't pretty.

---

I've seen him struggle in save situations, and it isn't pretty.

Quote:

---

You would think that the situation wouldn't matter but it does. It's just a totally different mindset. However, the situation does matter, no matter how much HGM wants it to not matter because then they're would be someone that exists that can't be explained by sabrmetrics.

---

Aren't closers supposedly given their role for their mental fortitude, and how they're able to deal with pressure so well? If that's the case, shouldn't these guys be able to handle even higher pressure situations better than some minor league retreats? Rivera is their best reliever. He doesn't suddenly turn into Jose Lima because the game is tied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reade

Dempster is another that struggles when its not a save opportunity.

---

What are we basing this on? Some memories of him doing bad in a non-save opportunity?

Does anybody have numbers of how closers do in non-save situations vs. how they do in save situations? I'd really like to see them. I've looked but couldn't find any.

Also, Dempster doesn't exactly shut anyone down in save situations, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

In my one and only visit to Yankee Stadium, I saw this happen too and no it was not pretty. Mo Rivera came in to pitch the 10th inning in a 3-3 game, after the Yankees had tied the game in the 9th, and got his *** kicked. I'm not saying this happens most of the time mind you, only that it can and does happen.

---

Yes, and Rivera blowing a save opportunity can and does happen, as well. 58 times.

Rivera has alllowed a .644 OPS in tie games (sample size of 635 batters). That's the best data I could find. I'd sure as heck would like a pitcher on the mound that makes opposing hitters hit like Julio Lugo.

I don't care what the situation is. Who would you rather have on the mound in a tie game in the game that can clinch you a playoff spot - Jeff Karstens or Mariano Rivera?

Heck, don't want to use Rivera? Why not your other greatreliever, Joba Chamberlain? He had a day of rest. You don't even go to your third best reliever, Luis Vizcaino? He also had a day of rest. There's no excuse for turning to Jose Veras and Jeff Karstens when an important game is on the line.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7134422 - This article, unfortunately written by the same idiot that lumped Barry Bonds in with his candidates for least valuable players, was written a month ago, and looks at the top 10 closers (based on saves) this year, and how they performed in save vs. non-save situations (I don't know where those split numbers are, I'd really like to see them for every pitcher), and it's a push.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Heck, don't want to use Rivera? Why not your other greatreliever, Joba Chamberlain? He had a day of rest. You don't even go to your third best reliever, Luis Vizcaino? He also had a day of rest. There's no excuse for turning to Jose Veras and Jeff Karstens when an important game is on the line.

---

No argument there, I'm good with it.

Well, one thing is it really wasn't a crucial game. The fact that they could have "clinched a playoff spot" with a win makes it seem bigger than it is; they clinch a playoff spot with their next win or Detroit's next loss.

In fact, Brian Cashman said before the game that Clemens could have started, and would have if it had been "a must-win situation."

Also, with a tie game in the bottom of the ninth you know that in order to win you will need at least two innings of relief, not one. Somewhere over those two-plus innings will come "the most crucial time." Maybe the plan was to use Rivera once there was a base runner... or for that matter, maybe Rivera really wasn't available. Who knows what conversations might have gone on internally?

Bottom line is with no days off until the end of the season, this was the least important game left. Bring Rivera in there, and maybe he pitches a shutout ninth. Then the game goes 13 innings (do you keep Rivera in for the 10th?), and the team still loses... (maybe when Karstens finally takes over in the bottom of the 13th :)). Now the next game is "more crucial" than this one was. And the best closer in history isn't available...

The overriding goal at this point is to make the playoffs. Overriding, for example, clinching as soon as possible.

Ah, but if you only need one more win to clinch, and you have a chance to win THAT game, don't you have to go for it right then and there? What if your bats go silent and you don't even have a chance to win the next 6 games? You can what if this until the cows come home.

Unless Rivera was injured, there's still no reason not to go to your best reliever in a high leverage situation (okay, if you brought in another good reliever, fine, but Jeff Karstens? Jose Veras?), whether the game is essential or not. It just shows how much managers manage to the "save" stat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

but if you only need one more win to clinch, and you have a chance to win THAT game,.

---

Chance to win? It was tied game, in the bottom of the 10th. That is, mathematically less "chance to win" than when tied 0-0 before the first pitch of any of the remaining games -- they would have needed a scoreless inning of relief to even get to that same "chance to win," and then assuming they even got the lead later would need somebody for the save. Maybe that should have been Karstens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

You can what if this until the cows come home.

---

Exactly. That's my point, the situation isn't as black-and-white as it's being painted in this thread. In this case the GM's comments make it clear that they weren't considering this to be a crucial game. Now if they end up not making the playoffs they may regret that, but still it demonstrates that they (the organization that has won more championships than any other in pro sports and their future Hall of Famer manager) see it differently than it's being seen here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It just shows how much managers manage to the "save" stat.

---

Or how much managers feel that they should reduce the chance of wasting their best reliever and still not being in a winning position. I'm not even saying that might not be a mistake, but without mindreading I don't know what the thinking behind the decision is. I suspect, though, that managers do it because they believe it gives them the best chance to win the most games... not because they want to see a save in the box score.

When you absolutely cannot allow a run (or you lose), how do you justify using minor league retreats over any of your best 3 relievers, all of whom had at least a day of rest?

One run allowed equals a loss. There is no way that using a substantially worse reliever than you have available would increase the chance of winning. When one run scores, the game is over. The worse the pitcher, the higher the chance there is that a run scores, and thus, a higher chance of losing.

A lot of times when the manager is questioned about why they didn't bring a closer in in a tie game, they say that they were saving him in case they took the lead, and that's misusing your best arm. When you're winning, you have a signficantly higher chance of winning than if you're tied. The best reliever should be used in the highest leverage situation. A tie game is always higher leverage than when you're winning (in the late innings, a 1-1 game in the 4th inning isn't higher leverage than a 4-3 game in the 9th).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

When you absolutely cannot allow a run (or you lose), how do you justify using minor league retreats over any of your best 3 relievers, all of whom had at least a day of rest?

---

You justify it because you absolutely can allow a run, because it's not a must-win game; because you're in no way guaranteed a win if you do burn your best reliever in that inning; and because Karstens isn't viewed by anyone in the Yankee organizations as a "minor league retreat" (which I assume is supposed to be "retread?"), but as a promising prospect.

So how foolish is it to put a pitching prospect into a tight spot after September's roster expansion when you're not in a must-win situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

... they were saving him in case they took the lead, and that's misusing your best arm.

---

That's one opinion, but one that's clearly not shared by most of the people who are paid to make those opinions. They, of course, have as much right to state as fact that it would be "misusing your best arm" not to save him in case they took the lead as you do to state the opposite as fact; but either statement is actually an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayC

You justify it because you absolutely can allow a run, because it's not a must-win game; because you're in no way guaranteed a win if you do burn your best reliever in that inning;

---

Teams should always try to win every game. That's the point of baseball. If allowing a run means you lose, you should try everything you can not to do it.

Quote:

---

and because Karstens isn't viewed by anyone in the Yankee organizations as a "minor league retreat" (which I assume is supposed to be "retread?"), but as a promising prospect.

---

Than the Yankees organization sees him wildly differently than most scouting reports I've seen and things I've heard on the guy. *shrug*

Quote:

---

That's one opinion, but one that's clearly not shared by most of the people who are paid to make those opinions. They, of course, have as much right to state as fact that it would be "misusing your best arm" not to save him in case they took the lead as you do to state the opposite as fact; but either statement is actually an opinion.

---

I don't see the logic behind saving better pitchers to use in less important situations, and using worse pitchers in more important situations. It's totally backwards.

The best explanation I heard was my dad's. Something along the lines of the Yankees didn't want to win the game because they want to maximize their chances of playing Cleveland in the playoffs, or something.

Maybe I should add this: I'm absolutely not saying that it makes sense to use your best reliever only in save situations. I agree that it does not.

To me, in late innings in a close game you should be ready to use that guy. Say it's the bottom of the seventh, tied score, and your pitcher has put a couple of runners on. I'd want to go with the guy best equipped to get out of that jam; save stats wouldn't matter.

But I'm not convinced that the particular situation being discussed was such a big error. For one thing, I don't know this: was Rivera warming up? Maybe the plan was to use Karstens if he pitches well, but if he allows a runner to to Mariano. Again, you were going to need two innings of relief (at least) to get a win, not just one. In that situation, you're better off only needing four or five outs out of Rivera if you can get away with it.

But Karstens gave up a home run to the first batter he faced. That doesn't make the entire strategy flawed; Rivera's done that exact same thing. So has every other pitcher that was in the bullpen.

I don't think Rivera was warming up, although I'm not positive.


However, there's still no logic behind this decision. As I mentioned, Vizcaino and Chamberlain were also available (at least, I haven't heard any reports to the contrary, and they were both on at least a day of rest). You have your three best relievers available, and in a tie game, you go to two of your worst.

Coming into the season, Karstens was #2 on the depth chart among the team's minor league starters, behind Hughes. Some might have put Clippard ahead of him. He was injured in his first start this season, and spent the rest of the year rehabbing. Makes sense to want to see him pitch, and that's what 40-man rosters are for.

Vizcaino's pitched a lot... and they're being very conservative with Chamberlain (at Cashman's orders; doesn't seem to be what Torre wants). What about all that criticism of Torre overworking one or two "favorite" relievers? Now he goes to a fresh guy, trying not to overwork the key guys in a nonessential game with the playoffs looming... and that's wrong too. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Teams should always try to win every game. That's the point of baseball.

---

Is it? Or is the point to win as many games as possible? Or is the point to make the playoffs? Or is the point to survive "the war of attrition" and win the World Series? Or is the point to keep your team as strong as possible over a period of several seasons?

Does any team expect to win 162 games? Does any team need to win 162 games? Why would "the point" be to do something so unnecessary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayC

Is it? Or is the point to win as many games as possible? Or is the point to make the playoffs? Or is the point to survive "the war of attrition" and win the World Series? Or is the point to keep your team as strong as possible over a period of several seasons?

Does any team expect to win 162 games? Does any team need to win 162 games? Why would "the point" be to do something so unnecessary?

---

I was about to say something similar. Late to the party, I guess.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayC

Coming into the season, Karstens was #2 on the depth chart among the team's minor league starters, behind Hughes. Some might have put Clippard ahead of him. He was injured in his first start this season, and spent the rest of the year rehabbing. Makes sense to want to see him pitch, and that's what 40-man rosters are for.

---

He was 26th in Baseball America's top 30 prospects. It's not a "depth chart" but there's no way he's viewed as a top prospect. I've never heard anything mention him as a top prospect. BA labels his stuff "fringe-average."

Quote:

---

Vizcaino's pitched a lot... and they're being very conservative with Chamberlain (at Cashman's orders; doesn't seem to be what Torre wants). What about all that criticism of Torre overworking one or two "favorite" relievers? Now he goes to a fresh guy, trying not to overwork the key guys in a nonessential game with the playoffs looming... and that's wrong too. :)

---

They've recently removed the "Joba rules," if I recall correctly. Torre's problem has always been choosing one or two relievers and riding them into the ground. Pitching your best pitchers in high leverage situations isn't the same. In the grand scope of things, it doesn't matter. The Yankees are still going to get to the playoffs, but this isn't the first time Torre (and he's not the only manager to do it either, most do) has done something similar. I recall several occasions where Torre has stuck with a lesser reliever in a high leverage situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayC

Is it? Or is the point to win as many games as possible? Or is the point to make the playoffs? Or is the point to survive "the war of attrition" and win the World Series? Or is the point to keep your team as strong as possible over a period of several seasons?

Does any team expect to win 162 games? Does any team need to win 162 games? Why would "the point" be to do something so unnecessary?

---

The overall goal is to the win the World Series. First, you need to make the playoffs, and the best way to do that is to win as many games as you can. Teams should always do their best to win. In any singular game, your goal is to win that game.

Aren't closers supposedly given their role for their mental fortitude, and how they're able to deal with pressure so well? If that's the case, shouldn't these guys be able to handle even higher pressure situations better than some minor league retreats? Rivera is their best reliever. He doesn't suddenly turn into Jose Lima because the game is tied. HGM

It's an emotional let down. Happens to whole teams too. Watch a few more games and you will understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

It's an emotional let down. Happens to whole teams too. Watch a few more games and you will understand.

---

What does that mean?

Can you provide any proof that closers routinely struggle in non-save situations, beyond "It's just true. Watch baseball."?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The best explanation I heard was my dad's. Something along the lines of the Yankees didn't want to win the game because they want to maximize their chances of playing Cleveland in the playoffs, or something.

---

That is the dumbest thing I've heard all week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What does that mean?

Can you provide any proof that closers routinely struggle in non-save situations, beyond "It's just true. Watch baseball."?

---

I guess not. Go watch a game :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

That is the dumbest thing I've heard all week.

---

He's basing it on what all the announcers are talking about. the Yankees have a better season record vs. the Indians than the Angels, so they want to get the Indians in the first round of the playoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

I guess not. Go watch a game :)

---

:rolleyes:

It's a conspiracy theory for ****s sake.

Roll your eyes, that's about all you ever do lately - and no one cares if you approve of them anyway.

You're making a claim and when asked for proof, all you can say is "watch a game." I've attempted to provide proof that your claim is wrong. If you're going to make a claim, at least be able to back it up besides a condescending "watch a game" as if I don't watch baseball.

And now, with a 10 run lead, who do you turn to?

JOBA CHAMBERLAIN!

And then Luis Vizcaino.