Belated Game thread 8/3/10 Mets @ Braves...

[007]

Just want to drop props on D. lowe yet again.

Dude leaves tonight's game after 6 complete scattering 6 hits giving up one run and is in line for another victory.

One thing about Lowe...he chews up innings and finds a way to keep it close.

Nice job kid. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Hold it for him bullpen.

[Braves N Canes]

Go Braves! Not gonna lie...kinda just wanting to see if my new sig pic shows up.

[007]

Cuss swear expletive!!!!!!!

Farnsworth blows the lead.

[Braves N Canes]

Pinch hitter Carter singles off the Farns, tie ball game at 2's. Runner at 1st, 1 out.

[007]

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Braves N Canes]

Mac says "No steal for you!"

[Hobbes]

Now would be a good time for Glaus to earn his pay.

[Hobbes]

But no....GIDP.

Sigh.

[Hobbes]

Venters continues his quest to pitch in 100 games this season.

[Braves N Canes]

Even after not being on the roster on Opening Day, right? Impressive by Mr. Venters.

[007]

Even after not being on the roster on Opening Day, right? Impressive by Mr. Venters.


That kid is golden right now.

[Braves N Canes]

How the hell was that 3rd pitch not a strike? Or is GameDay messing up on me again? (Talking about the Davis AB)

[Lauren T.]

Jonny is successfully kicking MattE out of the #1 Fave Brave spot. OK, he did that a month ago, I just haven't been officially telling people. :D

I just can't believe how well he's doing, and I hope Bobby doesn't kill him dead this year. Somehow, though, Jonny seems fine. Last night was game 14 of the year I've attended, and he's still all smiley and happy in BP, and he trotted out to pitch last night and tonight like he's still got a fresh arm. Is it youth on his side, or are we seeing a dominating pitcher in early action? Either way, I'm a fan now. :)

[007]

Wonder if that was a hit and run when Gonzalez got hosed. Didn't look like a straight steal.

[007]

It would be just like Melky to take on a H&R...:rolleyes:

[Braves N Canes]

It probably helps that he's really confident right now. As we get into August/September, we'll certainly start to see how much the workload has effected him.

[Hobbes]

Jeff Freakin' Francoeur.

Bleah.

[Dreamscape]

Wags has been serving up a few meatballs...and even Jeff Francoeur can hit one out.

[Braves N Canes]

It would be just like Melky to take on a H&R...:rolleyes:

He's on my most annoying players list. He's the first one to actually be on my favorite team. :rolleyes:

[Chris_Moderato]

Well that was completely unacceptable.

[007]

*#@$^$^!!!! Frenchy....

I hate that dude.

[Braves N Canes]

Really Wags!? Frenchy? 16 for 120 something Frenchy?

[Hobbes]

Damn Phillies won tonight too.

We'll need a 9th-inning comeback.

[Dreamscape]

Sigh. Dickey and Francoeur. Braves killers.

[Hobbes]

Barves lose.

[Dreamscape]

That inning seemed to be a case of taking the good pitches and going after the bad ones.

This team continues to frustrate me.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

Pathetic....our inability to hit with RISP is killin' us! So much for the obvious...What really steams me is Cox's insistence on running his closer out there when it isn't a "save" situation!! Once again it blows up in his face. I know this "use your closer in the ninth inning in a tie game" is used by many but I've seen too many closers become stiffs when they aren't going for the save. I figure their adrenaline just doesn't get going quickly enough for a win....what a wasted game...

[Andy G.]

Pathetic....our inability to hit with RISP is killin' us! So much for the obvious...What really steams me is Cox's insistence on running his closer out there when it isn't a "save" situation!! Once again it blows up in his face. I know this "use your closer in the ninth inning in a tie game" is used by many but I've seen too many closers become stiffs when they aren't going for the save. I figure their adrenaline just doesn't get going quickly enough for a win....what a wasted game...
I can see why someone might criticize a manager for bringing in a closer when the team has more than a three run lead. At least then you can say that the pitcher is used to pitching in more crucial situations and would have trouble getting into the game if the lead were so cozy. I disagree with that argument, because I don't believe any of these guys pitch differently based on the situation. I believe that, well, because it's absolutely true when you look at the statistics. I mean, how are you going to tell me a guy pitches better in one situation when his stats are virtually identical regardless of what the situation is?

Anyway, that is not the argument you are making. You're saying that because the game is tied, and is not a "save situation", Billy Wagner does not pitch as well as he would had the Braves been winning by one or two runs. I don't understand that. Do you really believe that Wagner gave up that homerun because he was pitching in a tie game? How fickle do you believe these players to be? I doubt anyone would be able to build a Hall of Fame career with that kind of psyche.

[slowride]

Well done Frenchy.

Wags....stop it!

Of course, if we could hit with RISP perhaps this wouldn't have mattered (as much).

[warefreak]

Wags didn't lose this game. Our offense did. If we can score 3 runs on freaking Johan Santana we should be able to score 3 runs on anybody on any given night.

I have utmost confidence in our pitching. It's our offense that might lose the division lead.

[quick]

A few comments:

1) Farns should have pitched in a few less-stressful spots before he was tossed to the wolves. He hasn't pitched in a game that mattered for a while. Managerial blunder.

2) Frenchy cannot hit a decent slider from a right hander--so, Bobby should have sent Saito out for the 1st batter of the 9th to throw sliders to Frenchy. THEN he could bring in Wags to get the last two outs. Managerial blunder.

3) Diaz, our hottest hitter, was not in the lineup. I do not care about the right-lefty business just now. He needs to be in the lineup until he cools off. He is too hot to sit. He is our best RBI man right now. Managerial blunder.

4) Glaus should have remained on the bench. He needs a solid week of rest and treatment on his knees. Managerial blunder.

5) Our offense is so not clutch. We just go all wobbly with RISP. And clearly HeyWood's hand is better, but not well. He just cannot rake like he did in April, especially on pitches away. He is going to be good but power-deprived and he will have trouble pulling the ball from outer-half locations until next year when he gets a good, long rest. This is really problematic as he could have been a 25-30 HR guy without the injury. No chance now and we really need some power.

6) Bring up Freeman. Why not? Tell him he'll play until Glaus is feeling better--no worries--and let him loose. He has a big advantage in that big league pitchers don't know him well. I realize there are several ways to look at this, but I say go for it. Hinske made a fool of himself last night with the bases loaded. The pitcher is wild and Ski bails him out, swinging at the first pitch, which appeared to be a ball, and striking out swinging on a ball. That bat should have been parked on Ski's shoulder until the knuckleballer threw a called strike. So, Ski is having brain cramps and Glaus is just plain cramped--let Freeman ring, as we really need someone with some power....

That is all from this end....

[Andy G.]

A few comments:

1) Farns should have pitched in a few less-stressful spots before he was tossed to the wolves. He hasn't pitched in a game that mattered for a while. Managerial blunder.
Farnsworth is a major league reliever making major league money and he's having a really good year. He shouldn't need to be eased into a stressful situations. Nobody can predict exactly when relievers will have a rough outing.

2) Frenchy cannot hit a decent slider from a right hander--so, Bobby should have sent Saito out for the 1st batter of the 9th to throw sliders to Frenchy. THEN he could bring in Wags to get the last two outs. Managerial blunder.
Ridiculous. Frenchy can't hit ANYBODY. Wagner is a dominant reliever. There is absolutely no sense in bringing out Saito for one batter. That would be a waste of an appearance for him.

3) Diaz, our hottest hitter, was not in the lineup. I do not care about the right-lefty business just now. He needs to be in the lineup until he cools off. He is too hot to sit. He is our best RBI man right now. Managerial blunder.
I actually agree. I would like to see Diaz should out there everyday right now. However, are you even aware that Melky has put up a .854 OPS since the All Star break? He's been hot for a while now. It's hard to argue with putting him in left field against righties.

4) Glaus should have remained on the bench. He needs a solid week of rest and treatment on his knees. Managerial blunder.
I'm not saying his knees aren't bothering him (I'm not saying they are either), but I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating this man. He's slumping, and it's caused you to start talking if the guy was eighty-years-old or something. He's a professional athlete after all.

[luvdembravos]

--let Freeman ring, ....

Nice.

[luvdembravos]

Farnsworth is a major league reliever making major league money and he's having a really good year. He shouldn't need to be eased into a stressful situations. Nobody can predict exactly when relievers will have a rough outing.

100% agree with this statement. Farnsworth is no babe-in-the-woods and has been in pressure-packed situations plenty of times before last night. Bobby just needs to get him out there again ASAP.

[Chris_Moderato]

...He's a professional athlete after all.

Yeah, but I mean, so were Babe Ruth and John Kruk and David Wells.

[Lauren T.]

And so was Bob Wickman.

[Andy G.]

Glaus takes care of himself. We haven't heard anything from the Braves that suggests he needs to be given the sort of treatment that quick is constantly suggesting. To criticize Bobby because Glaus was used as a pinch hitter seems irrational to me.

[Dreamscape]

But I am starting to think the Braves are going to really have to consider bringing up Freeman. 1B has lacked any production for over a month now and watching Glaus have no lateral movement tells me it's time to either DL him and bring up Freeman or find another way to bring him up.

The really bad thing about this team right now is while most contenders use a full 25 man roster, the Braves are using a 24 man roster, almost 23. It's not gong to help this club in August to basically have players sitting on their butts the entire month.

I dunno...this team just doesn't look very good right now. They didn't make the moves I felt needed to be made. Maybe they weren't there to make, I don't know. But whatever the case may be, this Braves squad has reverted back to April Braves. And that team looked like another in an increasingly long list of disappointments.

[Braves N Canes]

I'm not sure that Freeman comes up anytime before September. Yes we're not getting anything out of our 1B but I don't see us wasting a call up now with a month left. The reason we're talking about Glaus is that 1.) is in a slump(health induced or not) and 2. Hinskie isn't hitting the broad or narrow side of a barn right now. If either one was giving us anything right now then we're not mentioning Freeman. We gotta get one of our 1B going...extra time with the Terry, extra rest, whatever it takes.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

I can see why someone might criticize a manager for bringing in a closer when the team has more than a three run lead. At least then you can say that the pitcher is used to pitching in more crucial situations and would have trouble getting into the game if the lead were so cozy. I disagree with that argument, because I don't believe any of these guys pitch differently based on the situation. I believe that, well, because it's absolutely true when you look at the statistics. I mean, how are you going to tell me a guy pitches better in one situation when his stats are virtually identical regardless of what the situation is?

Anyway, that is not the argument you are making. You're saying that because the game is tied, and is not a "save situation", Billy Wagner does not pitch as well as he would had the Braves been winning by one or two runs. I don't understand that. Do you really believe that Wagner gave up that homerun because he was pitching in a tie game? How fickle do you believe these players to be? I doubt anyone would be able to build a Hall of Fame career with that kind of psyche.

Honestly, AndyG, it seems you're more about telling us how it is than allowing anyone to give their own thoughts without you questioning or correcting them.
If you can honestly state you've never seen guys choke in tight situations who are normally good in situations without that pressure, I'll just accept that you haven't seen enough baseball to comment on it. I've watched games for years and I've seen countless closers put into games where no save is available. In mop up roles just to get in some innings, in blow outs for the same reason and in tie games usually at home in the ninth inning. In these situations the closers usually come up short. Instead of a quick one-two-three inning they struggle with command or just plain look bad. Of course it doesn't happen every time, but I have seen it happen often enough over the decades to dislike it. That is all the reason I needed to offer that opinion. It has nothing to do with anyone pulling HoF credentials or anything, just from personal observations over the years. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone else, it's just my opinion. I guess it is really curious but I have heard other "baseball people" suggest the same thing. At no point did I suggest anyone was fickle. I believe it's sort of like a reversal of Pavlov's dog....the bell didn't ring and the dog didn't go for the food. The save wasn't there and the closer didn't get the job done. As for Wags giving up the homer, I wasn't entirely surprised. He hasn't been the same since right before the break. He has me worried every time he takes the mound now...

[Braves N Canes]

Glaus is getting rest.

http://atlanta.braves.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100803&content_id=12971342&notebook_id=12971762&vkey=notebook_atl&fext=.jsp&c_id=atl

[Andy G.]

Honestly, AndyG, it seems you're more about telling us how it is than allowing anyone to give their own thoughts without you questioning or correcting them.
If you can honestly state you've never seen guys choke in tight situations who are normally good in situations without that pressure, I'll just accept that you haven't seen enough baseball to comment on it. I've watched games for years and I've seen countless closers put into games where no save is available. In mop up roles just to get in some innings, in blow outs for the same reason and in tie games usually at home in the ninth inning. In these situations the closers usually come up short. Instead of a quick one-two-three inning they struggle with command or just plain look bad. Of course it doesn't happen every time, but I have seen it happen often enough over the decades to dislike it. That is all the reason I needed to offer that opinion. It has nothing to do with anyone pulling HoF credentials or anything, just from personal observations over the years. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone else, it's just my opinion. I guess it is really curious but I have heard other "baseball people" suggest the same thing. At no point did I suggest anyone was fickle. I believe it's sort of like a reversal of Pavlov's dog....the bell didn't ring and the dog didn't go for the food. The save wasn't there and the closer didn't get the job done. As for Wags giving up the homer, I wasn't entirely surprised. He hasn't been the same since right before the break. He has me worried every time he takes the mound now...
Freddy, just because it would seem that closers struggle in non-save situations doesn't mean that it's true.

Your comment about me "not seeing enough baseball to comment on it" is pretty funny, as you just criticized me for "telling people how it is".

Statistics show that pitchers pitch at the same level, if given enough appearances so that the sample size isn't too small, regardless of the situation. Just because "baseball people" think closers struggle in non-save situations doesn't mean that it's ludicrous for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise, especially when the statistics, which is what rules everything in baseball, suggest that we are in fact correct. I'm not just telling you that this isn't why closers struggle in non-save situations. I'm telling you that they don't struggle. I'm telling you that because there is statistical data to back it up, not because I don't allow others to have an opinion. This is a matter of the facts supporting one side, and not supporting in any way the other. If you can give me something other than "I've watched a lot of baseball and I've seen it happen a bunch of times", then maybe I'll start to take that opinion seriously. Until then, don't get upset with me because I "tell you how it is". It's not my fault that I've done more research on the matter.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

Freddy, just because it would seem that closers struggle in non-save situations doesn't mean that it's true.

Your comment about me "not seeing enough baseball to comment on it" is pretty funny, as you just criticized me for "telling people how it is".

Statistics show that pitchers pitch at the same level, if given enough appearances so that the sample size isn't too small, regardless of the situation. Just because "baseball people" think closers struggle in non-save situations doesn't mean that it's ludicrous for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise, especially when the statistics, which is what rules everything in baseball, suggest that we are in fact correct. I'm not just telling you that this isn't why closers struggle in non-save situations. I'm telling you that they don't struggle. I'm telling you that because there is statistical data to back it up, not because I don't allow others to have an opinion. This is a matter of the facts supporting one side, and not supporting in any way the other. If you can give me something other than "I've watched a lot of baseball and I've seen it happen a bunch of times", then maybe I'll start to take that opinion seriously. Until then, don't get upset with me because I "tell you how it is". It's not my fault that I've done more research on the matter.

I understand you now, Andy. You explained apparently all you know and believe about baseball in one sentence here, "Just because "baseball people" think closers struggle in non-save situations doesn't mean that it's ludicrous for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise, especially when the statistics, which is what rules everything in baseball, suggest that we are in fact correct."
This is where you are mistaken, Andy. Statistics don't rule everything in baseball, they don't rule anything. Statistics are merely produced by playing each game. Afterwards, while several can provide solid ideas of how players will perform, none can be counted on as a statement of proof beforehand.
You're telling us that no matter who has witnessed it, no matter how much baseball they know, something cannot be so, simply because it doesn't jibe with your stats. If that isn't you blatantly telling us how it is, nothing is. If stats were all we needed to make a baseball game no one would care - you'd always know the outcome beforehand. Fortunately, that isn't how it is. Baseball is a great game that involves so much more than numbers on paper. I hope one day you'll get into that part of the game. You might enjoy it.

[Andy G.]

I understand you now, Andy. You explained apparently all you know and believe about baseball in one sentence here, "Just because "baseball people" think closers struggle in non-save situations doesn't mean that it's ludicrous for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise, especially when the statistics, which is what rules everything in baseball, suggest that we are in fact correct."
This is where you are mistaken, Andy. Statistics don't rule everything in baseball, they don't rule anything. Statistics are merely produced by playing each game. Afterwards, while several can provide solid ideas of how players will perform, none can be counted on as a statement of proof beforehand.
You're telling us that no matter who has witnessed it, no matter how much baseball they know, something cannot be so, simply because it doesn't jibe with your stats. If that isn't you blatantly telling us how it is, nothing is. If stats were all we needed to make a baseball game no one would care - you'd always know the outcome beforehand. Fortunately, that isn't how it is. Baseball is a great game that involves so much more than numbers on paper. I hope one day you'll get into that part of the game. You might enjoy it.

No, Freddy.

I'm not saying that we know what will happen beforehand. I'm saying that statistics, after the fact, are how you measure how well people have played. I'm not talking about the sabermetric debate at all. You should get that out of your mind right now because that's not what this discussion is about.

How do you measure how well Martin Prado has hit this year? How do you measure how well Tim Hudson has pitched this year? If I were to ask you, "How has Hudson done when pitching with a lead?", or if I were to ask you, "How has he done when the other team is leading?", what would you do to answer my question?

You would tell me his stats. That's what baseball is. It's statistics. We measure how well baseball players play the game with statistics. Whether it's batting average, wins and losses, and RBI, or wOBA, FIP, and OPS, all of us use statistics to measure how well people play baseball.

Statistics tell us that pitchers pitch at the same level regardless of the situation. Take some time, look at the history of baseball. Look at pitchers' numbers when they're in save situations and non-save situations, and you'll see that they're virtually identical.

If pitchers put up the same stats regardless of the situation, then how can you possibly build a valid argument that closers need to be pitching in save situations, or else they don't have their usual stuff? They perform at the same level in non-save situations, so what gives? I'll tell you what gives, your belief is based on myth. Closers don't need to be going for a save. They only need to be standing on a pitchers mound sixty feet and six inches away from the plate. They perform at the same level whether their team is up by one in the ninth or up by twenty in the second. It doesn't matter.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

You said "Statistics rule baseball," Andy. They don't. They are simply a product or even a by-product of analysis. I didn't bring Sabremetrics into anything, although in this instance, it might be helpful. I'm sure you can find stats that will show that pitchers don't pitch at the same level all the time, not that one is needed. Are you telling us that any pitcher, besides maybe Mariano Rivera, pitches the same always? Brother, that is ludicrous!

[Andy G.]

You said "Statistics rule baseball," Andy. They don't. They are simply a product or even a by-product of analysis. I didn't bring Sabremetrics into anything, although in this instance, it might be helpful. I'm sure you can find stats that will show that pitchers don't pitch at the same level all the time, not that one is needed. Are you telling us that any pitcher, besides maybe Mariano Rivera, pitches the same always? Brother, that is ludicrous!
No, see, Freddy, it's not ludicrous.

I shouldn't have said that about "statistics rule baseball". If I knew that would be the only thing you latched onto for the rest of the conversation, believe me, I wouldn't have said it.

It's not ludicrous though, because it's fact. Baseball players don't put up different statistics based on what situation they're in. All I'm saying is that statistics are how we measure the play of a baseball player. That's how we know if they're playing poorly, or if they're playing well. Of course, over a short amount of time, statistics can lie. But I'm not talking about a short amount of time. I'm talking about entire careers. If a pitchers stats are just as good in non-save situations as save situations, and stats are how we measure the quality of his pitching, how can you say that he pitches better in one situation than in the other? Do you have an answer for that?

[bravos4evr]

Andy is right..... let me point out something to you freddy, if I may............


We had an argument on here a season or so ago about "clutch" me , and a few others on here, decided to do a bit of research on "clutch" and how it happened to fit in to the game and/or if it actually existed. I presented a finely detailed report on here(with more bells and whistles than I care to count) that PROVED that "clutch" didn't exist... people "tended" to hit how they always did, regardless of the situation and the "type" of pitcher they were facing. ( however, i did discover that there were "unclutch" players) tho they were few and far between.... continuing....

Stats DO rule baseball.... all we have to go upon is the past performance of a player.If the future performance of said player mimics the past? then great! we got what we expected!!! Every season gonna do that? hell ass no.... some will be better, some will be worse... thats baseball. is Wagner going to bring the same stuff to a game with no lead in the 9th versus a 3 run lead? yes psychology will he feel the same adrenaline, the same angst? can't tell ya, I ain't him.... do the numbers show that closers tend to not pitch well in none save situations? they kinda do.... they tend to have a half an era point higher if they aren't in save situations... is that important? hell IDK!!!! I'm not one of them!
But to say that stats aren't the game? it's ludicrous, the stats are the MEASUREMEN of the game, it tells us who performs how and when and where.... it is THE FUNDAMENTAL seperation point of baseball versus other sports IMO.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

Thanks, Nick...you just reinforced my claim that set Andy off - "do the numbers show that closers tend to not pitch well in none save situations? they kinda do.... they tend to have a half an era point higher if they aren't in save situations... " That's enough said on that.
Andy still isn't right. Stats are drawn on events that have already happened. They can only suggest a possibly similar expectation for future play. That is hardly ruling baseball. Andy you started the ludicrous slant, but I still say you are being ludicrous by ignoring the actual facts and sticking to strictly what you state to be facts. If there is no "clutch" and pitchers pitch the same in any situation, why do you have stats that show a guy's performance with RISP or with certain counts? Why come up with a stat to show how a guy fares pitching against lefty or righty hitters? Can't you see you're arguing for stats because you claimed they rule, then you later admitted that wasn't correct, but you ignore some stats because they indicate my point, that some guys perform differently in differing situations? Stats are not the game. They are historical numbers translated into data that may or may not suggest future patterns. Baseball, because it is a great game with so many nuances and things happening sequentially in each atbat, lends itself to stats from the sublime to the ridiculous. If one cares to, they can isolate and create a stat indicating a lefty hitter's tendencies on a windy Saturday afternoon in Turner Field, lights on, with a lefty junkballing loogy on the hill at 3:47pmEST with the hitter wearing sweatbands on each wrist and no eyeblack. That doesn't replace watching the game and considering a hitter's past performances then trying to guess with the loogy. Stats are a reflection of events gone by. They are only as vital as you choose to make them. It seems I'm about the game, you're about a paper trail of a game.

[Andy G.]

Freddy, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what statistics are used for in baseball. I'm not sure how you're going to take that, because unless you choose to inform yourself, you're never going to understand what I'm talking about.

People who know anything about stats, know that finding out how people perform when it's windy is dumber than a Tyler Perry sitcom (no offense to anyone who likes those shows). Stats aren't about situations. They prove, as a matter of fact, that situations don't matter. And when I say situations, I'm not talking righty/lefty. That certainly matters. I'm talking about game situations. People who know about statistics don't look at RISP, except out of curiosity. They don't think that someone becomes a better hitter with runners on just because he had a season or even a couple of seasons where his Batting Average with RISP was really high. Look at Francoeur's first couple of years in the league, his numbers in those situations, then look at his next couple of years. Those situations just don't have the impact on performance that people think they do. Not in the long run they don't.

[Andy G.]

As for bravos' comment about pitcher's having an ERA half a run higher in non-save situations, I wonder where he's getting that from. I can't even find a place to view a pitchers' numbers in save and non-save situations. I'm commenting with as much certainty as I am because, typically, in situations that I can find stats for, players do not have large differences in their numbers based on those situations. I assumed save and non-save situations were the same, because it is my belief that those situations don't cause players to perform as much worse or better than their career averages as most fans tend to believe.

That said, my initial intent was not to get into that discussion. Wagner was pitching in a tied game during the game that this thread was made for. I was genuinely surprised to see you criticize the decision to bring the closer in during the top of the ninth of a tied game. This is not a situation where the pressure is lessened by it not being a save situation. That's what I was trying to get at. I've heard the argument against a closer pitching with a lead greater than three runs, but I'd never heard anyone say that closers can't pitch as well because the game is tied.

[Dreamscape]

Yeah, I have seen what appears to be closers struggling with big leads. Manager gets them work with a seven run lead and they give up two or three before finishing the game off. I don't give the idea much credence, but I've heard of it. But it's actually pretty standard to go to your closer with a tie score in the ninth at home because, otherwise, when are you going to use him? I mean, he's supposed to be the "man" in your bullpen and you go with your best weapons before going to the guys you don't have as much faith in, right?

I dunno, I thought Wags getting the call was pretty slamdunk.

[bravos4evr]

Oh yeah, it was a slamdunk! Thats his spot!

Oh and btw, that stat about relief ERA's was from an old report somebody else did a few years ago I had saved on my pc. But after re-looking at it I discovered a flaw. It includes setup men too and anyone who recorded a save those years.... sooooo.... it kinda mitigates it if it wasn't strictly "closers".

as a former closer in HS I can say that I was guilty a few times of being a little less hyped up to pitch if we had a 3-4 run lead. But a tie game meant the same as a one run game... Ultra hyped ultra juiced ready to get those bastards out! :-)

[bravos4evr]

I just noticed something else, ERA's in non save situations are going to be A LOT higher because they are maybe only pitching 10-12 innings a year like that. If they give up say, 1 run in one 2 runs in another and 3 runs in another. (and say they blow like 8 saves that year in 36 innings , keeping the ratio of bad appearances roughly the same) thats an ERA of like 5.00!!!! Much higher then say their normal save situations era of 2.5ish.... so none of this really helps...

[Freddy_Ballgame]

I believe it boils down to AndyG not being able to comprehend that it is possible for someone to play in enough games and watch enough games to have an understanding of the game that allows him to form opinions without needing a manual full of stats to base it on. He fails to consider that every stat he so relies on never existed until someone with an understanding of the game decided there was a value in having that information. It may be as simple as a reversal of what Slayer offered in another thread, perhaps instead of us older guys thinking the younger guys are stupid, it's the younger ones being unwilling to accept or unable to comprehend that there are those who have seen enough ball to have developed a "feel" for the game, seen enough to notice peculiarities or that some just might have a bit more knowledge culled from those years of experience. I did think it was revealing that both Andy and Nick altered their own words when I challenged them or tried to use them to back up my own input.
If you take anything useful from this at all, please let it be an understanding that stats did not even exist until a knowledgeable fan saw a value in them. They don't cause anything to occur on their own, but studying them has caused many a baseball man to map out his in-game strategy to better serve his team. That guy had to have enough knowledge beforehand to see a value in using the stats that way. He learned a lot of that through playing, watching and managing the game.

[Andy G.]

Edited because this post was pointless.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

Let me see if I've got this right. Andy. Doubleday or Cartwright or whoever started out somewhere with a sheet of paper that had stuff like batting average, RBI, ERA, etc., printed on it and said, "I must invent a game to produce these stats!" According to your last misguided effort, this must be true.
Sorry to tell you pal, but the stats didn't come before the game, as I have tried to make clear to you, they were generated by someone who wanted to keep a record of production during games, most likely as an evaluation tool. The stats did not exist before the game. It is that simple. I'm willing to allow that perhaps you are able to comprehend this, I also realize that you are quite obviously too pig-headed to admit that you are wrong.
I still stand by my original assertion about using closers in non-save situations. I also state without reserve that I have heard others with much more baseball knowledge and experience than you or I offer the same. I align myself with those who have proven their abilities. All you suggest is that you have studied stats, those of your choosing, and that doesn't make you qualified at anything other than quoting them.

[Andy G.]

Edited because this post was pointless.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

So now stats exist without anyone figuring out they need or want what the stat projects? I supposed they crawled out of primordial slime. This is ridiculous, Andy. Stats aren't automatic. Someone has to want to see some sort of results in order to come up with them. The 1 for 3 is the average of hits per at bat. Someone must've decided this was a useful calculation and started using it. It has lasted. In fact, stats are numbers calculated by people to show something they want to know. Any fan can and has developed their own stats to answer questions about certain situations in games. Ever heard of Bill James? He's the guy who popularized the Sabremetrics. I'm pretty sure he developed many of their calculations.
You want irritating? Try and have a discussion with someone so set on being right they can't recognize simple facts! You have already decided anything "old school" which borders on insulting as you use it, is wrong. Period.
For someone wanting to come across as being on top of it, I am surprised at how backwards you see this.

[Andy G.]

Freddy, we are arguing semantics right now. This is asinine. All I wanted to talk about was the decision to bring closers into the top half of the ninth during a tied game. I'm sorry that I am so stubborn. I will work on it, and hopefully we won't have to go through this again.

I hope that we can both learn to have civil disagreements with each other. That would be better than for you and me to stop talking about baseball all together.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

Agreed.