I can't wait till the season starts (CLOSER DISCUSSION)

I don't see why relievers are such a different animal than every other player. Bench position players don't know exactly when they're going to be needed in a game. We don't have an epidemic of shattered confidences and egos of backup position players. The game survived many years without roles being defined by innings and save situations - yes, less relief innings were needed but I don't see why more relief innings means that all of a sudden relief pitchers need to know the exact inning they're going to be coming in and being used outside of that inning is going to ruin them.

Alex Cora went on the DL with a shattered confidence several times in his bench career.

I know several relievers who had absolutely no idea when they would be used. They weren't expecting to be used at all, actually. And they did awesome, considering. Those relievers were:
Nick Green
Dave McCarty
Cody Ross

If game situations can change momentarily - say, a 3-run lead can become a tie game with one swing of the bat - I'm not sure how much stability I would glean from knowing my set role.

On the other side, I can see having Papelbon be anointed 'closer' means he knows that, if its a tight game, to begin stretching in the 6th, and warmup his arms in the 7th, get ready to toss in the bullpen in the 8th.

But even if you have a few set roles - closer, long man, setup, lefty specialist - 3 or 4 guys are gonne be middle relievers or mopups guys with less of a defined role. They could be called in in the 3rd when the starter is rocked, or in the 7th in a blowout. How much mental stability they can glean from that 'role' is questionable in my mind.

I think, like anyone with a job, relievers would ideally like to know their exact, defined role - but that can be extremely hard to pin down, given a fluctuating game situation, who is rested, who is 'on' that day, etc. The whole controversy seems to be much ado about very little, but hey, I'm not a major league reliever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

and thats my point, exactly what i take issue with. that shows a lack of confiidence in the other pitchers, and upsets the defined roles.

---

This isn't little league or AYSO, we don't need to constantly build up people's self esteem. Baseball players know that there are better players than them, or they would all ask for 10 million in arby.
If there are bases loaded in the 8th and I have Papelbon and a random "8th inning guy" to choose from, I'm sending out Papelbon.
If the other reliever can't understand why, and he is no longer an effective pitcher because of his destroyed confidence then I'll just get a pitcher who is.

While it's nice for stability if every knew exactly when and where and the situation in which they would pitch, that's infeasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

true. the closer by committee approach never has worked because they were all crappy arms to begin with....and the millionaires across all MLB teams that devise bullpens with defined roles do so consistently out of ignorance and their strong desire to give the closer more statistical leverage (padded saves) to seek a larger contract from said team in the future.

There is no "mental aspect" to the game, surely not to a relief pitcher. And if there is, no way does it affect their on field performance. Just ask Mark Wohlers and/or Rick Ankiel, and/or any of the dozens of arms that let their head get in the way of being the pitcher they once were. ;)

---

Bingo. The 900 pound elephant in the room: economics and player agents. My player is worth X dollars because he performs the Y role in your team's bullpen. Period. End of story. I don't know how you can't see that the more saves a reliever accrues the more money he gets, despite the fact that the save is right up there with RBI and wins in the "dumbest stat in baseball" category. That means that economics is the biggest reason for defined roles in bullpens.

Even though it would make more sense to bring Mo in in a close game with the bases loaded and nobody out in the 7th (a very high leverage situation), a manager will select his 3rd or 4th best option, or flip-flop with matchups to try and get through to Mo by which time, he may no longer have the lead (provided of course that the opposition can hold the Yanks juggernaut offense off the board ;) ) and then he can hand the ball off to Mo with nobody out and nobody on to start the ninth. In any other business endeavour that would be called wasting a valuable resource, but in baseball it's called deploying bullpen resources in their defined roles. What you should really be advocating dickay is for a better way to determine what relievers should make the most money, by using better metrics than (ugh :( ) saves. But it's more fun to stomp your feet and rail against statheads and their silly stats. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't see why relievers are such a different animal than every other player. Bench position players don't know exactly when they're going to be needed in a game. We don't have an epidemic of shattered confidences and egos of backup position players. The game survived many years without roles being defined by innings and save situations - yes, less relief innings were needed but I don't see why more relief innings means that all of a sudden relief pitchers need to know the exact inning they're going to be coming in and being used outside of that inning is going to ruin them.

---

They're not a different animal. It happens with everyone. There was a minor controversy last year when Prince threw a hissy fit cause Macha wanted to bat him in the 3 spot. He said he wasn't comfortable in the three spot. Personally I think a good player should be able to succeed anywhere. But I think a good a manager tries and keep his players happy, within reason of course. In theory a happy worker is a more productive worker....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichelleWie

They're not a different animal. It happens with everyone. There was a minor controversy last year when Prince threw a hissy fit cause Macha wanted to bat him in the 3 spot. He said he wasn't comfortable in the three spot. Personally I think a good player should be able to succeed anywhere. But I think a good a manager tries and keep his players happy, within reason of course. In theory a happy worker is a more productive worker....

---

Ah yes, the disparity in salary between the superstars and the manager phenomenon. Grow the fu(k up Prince. Don't you know you'll get more plate appearances?