Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles County, CA
    Posts
    41,488
    Zack Cozart says this is bad for the game lol

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    36,636
    Quote Originally Posted by MJNetsIsles View Post
    I dislike it, outside of putting the DH in the National League, I am a Baseball purest and hate seeing the game change. The ďopenerĒ there should only be a ďCloserĒ the ďopener is called a starting pitcher. I hate the shift even though the numbers/analytics back it up. It just looks weird every position should have a set spot on the field, nerds are ruining the game of baseball. I hate instant replay Baseball was beautiful when mistakes were made and the number of mound visits having a limit. Again Iím not a fan. I hate changes and Baseball is slowly but surely becoming a different game than I grew up watching. I am however a fan of pitch counts and matchups in the Bullpen I think thatís great.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    37,943
    Quote Originally Posted by SfgiantsJD3 View Post
    How long before an opposing manager starts with 7-9 to offset the percieved advantage
    Lol

    "there's no scraps in my scrapbook"

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    14,319
    I see the sense behind it, but team's would eventually combat it. I do get what they are trying to do with a bullpen day, and its happened before on rare days when the scheduled starter has to be scratched at the last moment. I heard Mike Stanton on the radio yesterday, and he said that he had to start a game because Ramiro Mendoza showed up sick and couldn't pitch. He went four innings, Jason Grimsley followed him and pitched another four, with Mariano Rivera coming on to close. That kind of piggybacking could work. Teams will figure out a way to get around a true reliever starting for an inning or two.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    17,649
    It can really mess with the top of the order and it also only give 1-3 a max of 2 looks at a starter. I admit I thought it was dumb at first but am starting to like it.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,865
    I'd love to see what happened if someone ditched starters all together and rolled with 12 "relievers". The game (and some of its fans) might explode.

    Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    53,624
    Quote Originally Posted by WOwolfOL View Post
    Zack Cozart says this is bad for the game lol
    lol, I love when players say dumb things like that.

    It can't be bad for the game. Unless shifting, stealing bases, and curveballs are bad for the game too.

    It's strategy. Adjust or get beat.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    3,295
    I've never bought into the whole dedicated reliever roles thing to begin with. Any MLB pitcher should be able to step in and be up to the challenge of getting any batter out under any circumstance of a game. Or try to at least.

    I understand some pitchers make better starters, some are better relievers. I understand L/L or R/R match-ups in given situations. But in general any pitcher should be able to go into a game at any time with the expectation of retiring whatever batter they face. If your 'closer' pitches in the 7th, and your 'setup guy' closes, who cares?
    "They throw the ball, I hit it. They hit the ball, I catch it." - Willie Mays

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    La Puente, CA
    Posts
    12,746
    Quote Originally Posted by #24 View Post
    I've never bought into the whole dedicated reliever roles thing to begin with. Any MLB pitcher should be able to step in and be up to the challenge of getting any batter out under any circumstance of a game. Or try to at least.

    I understand some pitchers make better starters, some are better relievers. I understand L/L or R/R match-ups in given situations. But in general any pitcher should be able to go into a game at any time with the expectation of retiring whatever batter they face. If your 'closer' pitches in the 7th, and your 'setup guy' closes, who cares?
    Agreed, 100%.

    Future Hall of Shamers:
    (1) B.A.L.C.O. Barroids (2) Mark McJuicer (3) Jose Chem-seco (4) Rafael Palmeiroids (5) Ken Chem-initi (6) Jason Gi-andro (7) Ryan Fraud (8) Muscle Melk (9) Woman-Ram (10) Shammy Sosa (11) Roger Clear-mens (12) A-Roid (13) Ryan HGHoward

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,927
    Quote Originally Posted by #24 View Post
    I've never bought into the whole dedicated reliever roles thing to begin with. Any MLB pitcher should be able to step in and be up to the challenge of getting any batter out under any circumstance of a game. Or try to at least.

    I understand some pitchers make better starters, some are better relievers. I understand L/L or R/R match-ups in given situations. But in general any pitcher should be able to go into a game at any time with the expectation of retiring whatever batter they face. If your 'closer' pitches in the 7th, and your 'setup guy' closes, who cares?
    I donít completely disagree, but it also sort of takes some of the human aspect out of things. People are generally creatures of habit. Some guys deal with ambiguity better than others. Itís not really any different than any other life situations. Anyone who works in an office probably recognizes the different personalities as well. Some people deal with change very well and others donít and need to have their process in place to succeed.

    So while I generally agree with what youíre saying, I think itís also a bit of an oversight to not acknowledge that some guys very likely perform better in a defined role.

    I look at the brewers bullpen as an example (as abrewers fan, I use them as an example quite often). But a guy like Jeremy Jeffress has thrived under his relatively fluid spot in the pen. Heís been dominant and has come in for basically every imaginable scenario and anywhere from the 5th to 9th inning. Heís started innings, heís come in for one batter, heís come in with the bases loaded and no one out, heís thrown multiple innings, heís closed and heís been part of blowouts both ways. And heís succeeded in all situations.

    But I donít think everyone is like that. Some guys benefit from knowing they will throw the 8th inning when you have a lead in most cases. They can begin to mentally prepare and work their way into a situation with a clean inning to start the inning. And thatís fine if heís a good pitcher.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    17,649
    Quote Originally Posted by #24 View Post
    I've never bought into the whole dedicated reliever roles thing to begin with. Any MLB pitcher should be able to step in and be up to the challenge of getting any batter out under any circumstance of a game. Or try to at least.

    I understand some pitchers make better starters, some are better relievers. I understand L/L or R/R match-ups in given situations. But in general any pitcher should be able to go into a game at any time with the expectation of retiring whatever batter they face. If your 'closer' pitches in the 7th, and your 'setup guy' closes, who cares?
    Are you talking specifically about relievers and their roles or are starters in the mix as well? I agree that relievers should be able to come in whenever but not starters. Preparation in between games is much different plus starters need to throw a longer BP before entering a game.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    3,295
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    Are you talking specifically about relievers and their roles or are starters in the mix as well? I agree that relievers should be able to come in whenever but not starters. Preparation in between games is much different plus starters need to throw a longer BP before entering a game.
    Yes, referring to relievers and their roles. Though lines are getting blurred when a 'reliever' like Romo starts a game, then a 'starter' comes in relief to pitch the next 6 or so innings. Must drive the spreadsheet guys nuts. Does Romo get a 'quality start' if he only goes one or two scoreless and/or hitless innings?
    "They throw the ball, I hit it. They hit the ball, I catch it." - Willie Mays

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    3,295
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I donít completely disagree, but it also sort of takes some of the human aspect out of things. People are generally creatures of habit. Some guys deal with ambiguity better than others. Itís not really any different than any other life situations. Anyone who works in an office probably recognizes the different personalities as well. Some people deal with change very well and others donít and need to have their process in place to succeed.

    So while I generally agree with what youíre saying, I think itís also a bit of an oversight to not acknowledge that some guys very likely perform better in a defined role.

    I look at the brewers bullpen as an example (as abrewers fan, I use them as an example quite often). But a guy like Jeremy Jeffress has thrived under his relatively fluid spot in the pen. Heís been dominant and has come in for basically every imaginable scenario and anywhere from the 5th to 9th inning. Heís started innings, heís come in for one batter, heís come in with the bases loaded and no one out, heís thrown multiple innings, heís closed and heís been part of blowouts both ways. And heís succeeded in all situations.

    But I donít think everyone is like that. Some guys benefit from knowing they will throw the 8th inning when you have a lead in most cases. They can begin to mentally prepare and work their way into a situation with a clean inning to start the inning. And thatís fine if heís a good pitcher.
    I mean if some guys perform better in a defined role, that's fine. No need to upset that continuity just for the sake of changing things.

    But I also don't think, once into the 'traditional' relief innings, that pitchers should have it set in stone that they 'have to' pitch only certain innings. Bring in whatever guy you need to get the job done. Like I said, if your 'closer' can get the job done in the 7th inning, great.

    Traditional starters are different in that their preparation is different and I understand that. Whether or not bringing in a reliever to pitch an inning or two to start a game is a good strategy, only time, and how opposing teams counter that, will tell.
    "They throw the ball, I hit it. They hit the ball, I catch it." - Willie Mays

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    3,295
    Quote Originally Posted by dodgerdave View Post
    Agreed, 100%.
    At the risk of being scorned by my fellow Giants fans, I agree with you (a Dodger fan) agreeing with me.
    "They throw the ball, I hit it. They hit the ball, I catch it." - Willie Mays

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    106
    I think it's a cool idea. Would be cool to see more closing caliber pitchers pitch only the first inning and then another just to pitch the 9th. Why not?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •