Larson Can't Play at the Major League Level

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by gm

Still, the sabr crowd disses the concept of the closer.

The diss is more reserved for holding onto a guy just for the 9th inning, not bringing a guy in in the middle of the inning, paying a guy 6 million bucks for performing in only set situations.

6 million bucks, bring them in when it matters, not just the ninth, pitch them more than 60 innings, let the batters they get out reflect their worth not the save stat.

[gm]

Originally Posted by westofyou

The diss is more reserved for holding onto a guy just for the 9th inning, not bringing a guy in in the middle of the inning, paying a guy 6 million bucks for performing in only set situations.

6 million bucks, bring them in when it matters, not just the ninth, pitch them more than 60 innings, let the batters they get out reflect their worth not the save stat.

Lots of 2nd guessing available with that strategy. Suppose the Mgr brings in his best reliever to get out of a jam in the 8th, then the game goes into extras and another reliever blows the game in the 11th. Wouldn't the Mgr catch crap from the media? The only way to cover all the contingencies is to have a bullpen full of Nasty boys, but that gets spendy

I can understand the "use your best pitcher for the worst situation" argument, but I submit that most of the folks who support it don't have a ML contract on the line

[Doc. Scott]

OTOH, if saves are so easy to come by, then why haven't any of the great Red's relievers saved more games in April? (Give Graves some credit, it's not like he had 20+ chances to save 10)

Theo Epstein and Boston tried the "no closer" idea last April. Then scrapped the idea. Still, the sabr crowd disses the concept of the closer.

Because the great Reds relievers were on great Reds teams that often won by four or more runs. I don't know. It's much more an issue of usage theory than a measure of effectiveness.

The Red Sox' "no closer" idea failed because they didn't have enough good and healthy pitchers in their bullpen. They got a couple of better pitchers (Williamson, Kim) , and therefore won more games. Whether or not they were building up stacks of "S" tallies mattered little.

[M2]

Originally Posted by gm

Lots of 2nd guessing available with that strategy. Suppose the Mgr brings in his best reliever to get out of a jam in the 8th, then the game goes into extras and another reliever blows the game in the 11th. Wouldn't the Mgr catch crap from the media? The only way to cover all the contingencies is to have a bullpen full of Nasty boys, but that gets spendy

I can understand the "use your best pitcher for the worst situation" argument, but I submit that most of the folks who support it don't have a ML contract on the line

In that scenario, what would it matter if the manager used his closer in the 8th or 9th? He'd be out by the 11th anyway.

And I didn't see Jack McKeon catching much crap from the media in '99 when he tossed out the Tony LaRussa Bullpen Usage Guide, nor last fall when he did it again and won a World Series. Win games and the media loves you. Lose games and you'll be branded an idiot. It really doesn't matter how the team loses, it will somehow be the manager's fault.

And the Red Sox never thought it was a good idea not to have a closer. Anyone who thinks they thought that wasn't paying attention to what they were saying. What they didn't think was that it made sense to have a guy that you only use in the 9th inning with a lead and that a team should have a number of pitchers who can finish off games. BTW, that's exactly what they're doing these days. Foulke is not being reserved for three outs at the end of the game and others are covering for him on the back end when he's no longer available.

[PuffyPig]

Has any one else felt that Larson's hitting apprach sems much better this time around.

He's had 2 hits and some bad luck also.

If his bases loaded smash finds a hole, everyong would be singing his praises right now.

baseball is a marathon, not a sprint. Larson will be given more chances than 2 games to succeed. Don't be surprised if his hitting this time around is substantailly improved.

[gm]

Originally Posted by M2

In that scenario, what would it matter if the manager used his closer in the 8th or 9th? He'd be out by the 11th anyway.

And I didn't see Jack McKeon catching much crap from the media in '99 when he tossed out the Tony LaRussa Bullpen Usage Guide, nor last fall when he did it again and won a World Series. Win games and the media loves you. Lose games and you'll be branded an idiot. It really doesn't matter how the team loses, it will somehow be the manager's fault.

And the Red Sox never thought it was a good idea not to have a closer. Anyone who thinks they thought that wasn't paying attention to what they were saying. What they didn't think was that it made sense to have a guy that you only use in the 9th inning with a lead and that a team should have a number of pitchers who can finish off games. BTW, that's exactly what they're doing these days. Foulke is not being reserved for three outs at the end of the game and others are covering for him on the back end when he's no longer available.

Good for the Sox. Now all they have to do is get by NY and everyone will embrace their "early closer" concept. In the meantime, I expect Miley to c-h-a with what's been working for the last 25+ years.

(Sleepy 'ol Jack) McKeon's now getting some credit for being innovative? If I wait around long enough, I guess I'll hear "everything"

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by gm

Lots of 2nd guessing available with that strategy. Suppose the Mgr brings in his best reliever to get out of a jam in the 8th, then the game goes into extras and another reliever blows the game in the 11th. Wouldn't the Mgr catch crap from the media? The only way to cover all the contingencies is to have a bullpen full of Nasty boys, but that gets spendy

I can understand the "use your best pitcher for the worst situation" argument, but I submit that most of the folks who support it don't have a ML contract on the line

Sometime in the late 80's it became fashionable to just use the guy for the 9th, it seems excessive to me.

Bruce Sutter, John Hiller, Rollie Fingers, the list is long with guys who pitched before the ninth.

[M2]

Originally Posted by gm

(Sleepy 'ol Jack) McKeon's now getting some credit for being innovative? If I wait around long enough, I guess I'll hear "everything"

Wait around? Try going back in time. Apparently you missed the '99 season when a whole pile of people, media types too, were praising Jack for his bullpen usage with the group that went 33-23, 3.36 ERA in 530 innings and helped the team keep pace with an Astros team that enjoyed 27 more quality starts.

I'm told that he even won the NL Manager of the Year Award.

[Doc. Scott]

Wait around? Try going back in time. Apparently you missed the '99 season when a whole pile of people, media types too, were praising Jack for his bullpen usage with the group that went 33-23, 3.36 ERA in 530 innings and helped the team keep pace with an Astros team that enjoyed 27 more quality starts.

I'm told that he even won the NL Manager of the Year Award.

And, to be fair, helped Scott Williamson blow out his arm, costing him the 2001 season. I think the joke at the time was that Jack was just moving too slow to change pitchers to get traditional lefty/righty matchups a la Tony LaRussa, but it turns out in retrospect that there's a lot to be said for letting your guys go whole innings at a time.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by gm

Good for the Sox. Now all they have to do is get by NY and everyone will embrace their "early closer" concept. In the meantime, I expect Miley to c-h-a with what's been working for the last 25+ years.

(Sleepy 'ol Jack) McKeon's now getting some credit for being innovative? If I wait around long enough, I guess I'll hear "everything"

No, the concept of maximizing the arms in the bullpen instead of blindly following the status quo should be applauded instead of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. I hope Miley will scrap his bullpen pecking order soon. For a team with limited resources like the Reds, they need to figure out how to avoid paying big $ for someone to pitch an inning 3 times a week. The funny thing is that Graves was not a one inning closer when he was the closer until Boone came along. He was pitching 90-100 innings a year before PB came on the scene.

[gm]

Originally Posted by M2

Wait around? Try going back in time. Apparently you missed the '99 season when a whole pile of people, media types too, were praising Jack for his bullpen usage with the group that went 33-23, 3.36 ERA in 530 innings and helped the team keep pace with an Astros team that enjoyed 27 more quality starts.

I'm told that he even won the NL Manager of the Year Award.

Yet despite all those ringing endorsements, the ball dude remained unemployed for parts of three seasons (2000-2003) Must've been a conspiracy

My spin on the two-headed Graves/Willie closer-in-'99 idea was the FO had a strategy to keep their arbitration stats under control. The main reason the closer "role" is perpetuated is because: it's made a lot of money for certain members of the MLBPA. The agent of every ML-quality reliever wants a shot at that action.

[bucksfan]

Whether or not I agree with this topic, I would think the sentiment would be unaffected by his 2 games played this year. I think he'll hit - just an opinion - .270-ish with some pop. I am less sold on his D, but that I believe can improve. Two games does not have me making rash conclusions about him. If those are your conclusions after watching him over the past 2 years, then I respect that. But if based on 2 games as the post timing would indicate, it comes off as far too reactionary (if that's a word) in my humle opinion. But I understand the reactionary (I sure hope this is a word since I've now used it twice!) nature of eing a baseball fan. I once urnt a Ted Power baseball card in my garage after he gave up a HR that lost the game. And I liked the guy.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I hope Miley will scrap his bullpen pecking order soon. For a team with limited resources like the Reds, they need to figure out how to avoid paying big $ for someone to pitch an inning 3 times a week. The funny thing is that Graves was not a one inning closer when he was the closer until Boone came along. He was pitching 90-100 innings a year before PB came on the scene.

If the Reds want to trade Graves, the best way to use him is how they are currently using him now. The more innings Graves pitches in a game, the more likely it will be that he blows the save. It's not just Graves either. You pitch Eric Gagne 2-3 innings at every opportunity and he's not going to be Mr. Perfect like he was last year. He may blow less than Graves - literally and figuratively - but he will blow more saves if he's used like that. The more saves Graves gets, the quicker we can pawn him and his salary off on some other team who overvalues the save stat. Believe me, even at his current pace his value will increase as the season gets closer to the trade deadline.

[M2]

Originally Posted by gm

My spin on the two-headed Graves/Willie closer-in-'99 idea was the FO had a strategy to keep their arbitration stats under control. The main reason the closer "role" is perpetuated is because: it's made a lot of money for certain members of the MLBPA. The agent of every ML-quality reliever wants a shot at that action.

Yeah, that they were trying to win baseball games is way too crazy a theory to possibly merit consideration.

[reds44]

I do not know if you can say Larson can't play at the major league level. I am a total Ryan Freel lover, but i do not think Larson has had enough time to play at the major league level to no if he can or can't play.

POST NUMBER 400!