View Full Version : Do you need a long reliever?

05-25-2008, 10:25 PM
I never understood the idea of keeping a sixth starting pitcher as a long man. Fogg plays the role with the Reds, but I would feel the same way with any sixth starter.

Yes, he is available if somebody gets knocked out early. But that doesn't happen too often. And even when someone gets knocked out early, usually you still try to come back and will often pinch hit for the pitcher anyway -- so the long man will only work, say, three innings. You don't need a sixth starter to do that.

Meanwhile, the long man/sixth starter hardly ever pitches, is rusty when he does pitch, and is taking up the spot of another true reliever. That true reliever can be used in different situations, not only when somebody is knocked out early.

IMO, the Reds should decide on a fifth starter -- stick with Belisle, or go with Fogg, or promote Maloney, or get someone else. And then the bullpen should be for relief pitchers.

05-25-2008, 10:31 PM
Dusty screwed up th long reliever thing today

05-25-2008, 11:34 PM
If his name is Josh Fogg, the answer is no.

05-25-2008, 11:37 PM
If his name is Josh Fogg, the answer is no.

maybe the Reds should trade for Banks.

05-25-2008, 11:44 PM
you only need a long reliever when you have inadequate starting pitching... ;)