Oh no, not him again
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.
o
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.
Registered User
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?Originally Posted by beerchaser
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.
Registered User
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.
o
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.
o
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).
Registered User
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?
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.
o
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.
Than the Yankees organization sees him wildly differently than most scouting reports I've seen and things I've heard on the guy. *shrug*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.
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.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.
o
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.
Registered User
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.
o
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.
Registered User
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.
Registered User
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?
E=I*R
I was about to say something similar. Late to the party, I guess.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
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."
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.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.
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.
Posting Permissions
