PDA

View Full Version : Bullpen Losses



redsupport
04-25-2007, 11:54 PM
increasing to three tonight plus the first Milwaukee game where a 4-3 deficit turned into an 8-3 deficit. Saarloss is definitely the answer

mroby85
04-25-2007, 11:57 PM
it sucks just as bad as it did, but i don't know what they expect when it was so bad last year, and they didn't really do anything to make it better.

mroby85
04-26-2007, 12:04 AM
sorry but i'm not done, lol. it is unbelievable to me that you can be horrible so consistently at something, and the offense only puts on 2 runs once again when bronson arroyo is on the hill. just UNBELIEVABLE, i don't even know what else to say, just really really frustrating.

TOBTTReds
04-26-2007, 12:14 AM
Saarloos in the 8th inning of a close game is unacceptable. Said it all year long and in ST.

TeamBoone
04-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Here's Bronson's comment (click the link for the full story):


Arroyo retired his final 10 batters but, with him slated to be the leadoff batter in the eighth, Narron tried to spark something -- anything -- by sending Ryan Freel in to pinch-hit.

"I was fine," said Arroyo, who threw 96 pitches. "[Pitching coach Dick Pole] came down pretty quick and said 'Good game.' I assumed Jerry had his mind made up and was going to go and hit for me. He didn't even ask me how I was feeling."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20070425&content_id=1929862&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Spring~Fields
04-26-2007, 01:40 PM
I think they ought to challenge the paradigm of baseballs traditional thinking and start a bullpen pitcher in the first, and another in the second, then bring in the starter to finish the next seven innings. They could call it the paradigm shift.

TeamBoone
04-26-2007, 01:42 PM
I think they ought to challenge the paradigm of baseballs traditional thinking and start a bullpen pitcher in the first, and another in the second, then bring in the starter to finish the next seven innings. They could call it the paradigm shift.

Novel idea. I like it!

rotnoid
04-26-2007, 06:01 PM
I think they ought to challenge the paradigm of baseballs traditional thinking and start a bullpen pitcher in the first, and another in the second, then bring in the starter to finish the next seven innings. They could call it the paradigm shift.

I know you're probably only half serious, but there are a lot of possibilities there. A good double switch, or the lineup falling just right and you can actually use that to the offensive advantage as well. Almost like a one time DH. The down fall then, is what if the reliever actually has to bat? As bad as the starters are at the dish, the relievers are worse.

reds1869
04-26-2007, 06:17 PM
I have long advocated utilizing your best available reliever at the most important momement. That time is NOT always the ninth inning in a save situation. If our closer (at the moment it has to be Weathers) is available in the 7th of a one run game, you need to bring him in.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2007, 08:00 PM
I know you're probably only half serious, but there are a lot of possibilities there. A good double switch, or the lineup falling just right and you can actually use that to the offensive advantage as well. Almost like a one time DH. The down fall then, is what if the reliever actually has to bat? As bad as the starters are at the dish, the relievers are worse.

No I was serious. I just don't know the pluses and minuses of it. I have never seen it tried to see how it might work or not work.

It might work with the makeup of pitchers that the Reds have. I kind of wish that people would give it a thought and come up with the positives before they blow it off or rip it up. Reds starters run 6-7 innings 100-120 pitches I don't see why it matters at what point they start, I mean if it was the second or third innings, if the Reds had guys that could pitch a decent one or two innings.

rotnoid
04-26-2007, 10:02 PM
No I was serious. I just don't know the pluses and minuses of it. I have never seen it tried to see how it might work or not work.

It might work with the makeup of pitchers that the Reds have. I kind of wish that people would give it a thought and come up with the positives before they blow it off or rip it up. Reds starters run 6-7 innings 100-120 pitches I don't see why it matters at what point they start, I mean if it was the second or third innings, if the Reds had guys that could pitch a decent one or two innings.

I'm not ripping it up at all. I think you may be on to something. In theory it makes good sense. Low pressure situations for the relievers and the starters, who presumably have better stuff, are in there when it counts. In fact, in a set up like this, pitching staffs could maybe even get smaller which would allow the extra pinch hitter needed.

I wonder why an AL team hasn't tried it yet. Or Tony LaRussa. Might just be worth a shot, at least for a couple weeks in the minors to see what the impact is.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2007, 01:23 PM
I'm not ripping it up at all. I think you may be on to something. In theory it makes good sense. Low pressure situations for the relievers and the starters, who presumably have better stuff, are in there when it counts. In fact, in a set up like this, pitching staffs could maybe even get smaller which would allow the extra pinch hitter needed.

I wonder why an AL team hasn't tried it yet. Or Tony LaRussa. Might just be worth a shot, at least for a couple weeks in the minors to see what the impact is.

Interesting potential benefits. I would like to think of additional ones, yet it is difficult for me to assert benefits never having seen it done before to get a realization of its effects + or -.

I had a simplistic view when I thought of it considering all of the difficulties that the Reds have with a quality setup man, lefty or righty situational later in the game and with a closer etc. So I thought that they have various guys that could start one inning getting his three outs turning it over to another to do the same. Hopefully they have different type stuff to keep the hitters off balance and then turn it over to guys that you can count on for seven good innings.

I wasn't sure that it mattered what portion of the game that the traditional starters throw their 100-120 pitches, if it was an absolute must that they start in the first or second inning, and I did not see why it would make a difference if they started in the second or third.

I was trying to think of a way to get away from the late inning pressures, the multiple changes, the problem area of matchups, meaning the areas that seem to come back and hurt the Reds after the starter leaves and the bullpen pitcher takes over. Pressure should be reduced on a traditional reliever because he would not be coming in a pressure situation, he would be coming in to get three guys out with no score at the time, which might help some of them. I would rather have an Arroyo or Harang finishing out the 8th and 9th innings than any of the bullpen guys the Reds have etc.

I was looking for what could be the benefits from it. I thought that most people would just dismiss it out of hand.