Steve of phpBB wrote:I think the strategy of planning to have pitchers throw once through the order each, then get replaced is clearly better than the historical practice of having a "starter". I think that is the future of AL baseball.
Its better in a short series like this because you're having more innings pitched by better pitchers but I don't see how you implement it in the regular season when there's already a dearth of pitchers who can throw more than one inning and/or without serious splits.
Perhaps - but you also have 5 guys trained to throw 6 or 7 innings. And I don't think the one-inning limit on pitchers really results from a dearth of pitchers able to do it, but rather because that is how pitchers have been used lately.
You'd probably still have a few one-inning guys anyway. If you have someone who throws 104, he may still be your fireman.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Steve of phpBB wrote:Perhaps - but you also have 5 guys trained to throw 6 or 7 innings. And I don't think the one-inning limit on pitchers really results from a dearth of pitchers able to do it, but rather because that is how pitchers have been used lately.
Disagree strongly there; think about how many versions of Lee Smith exist in the majors right now. How many of them can extend beyond their current usage without either blowing out or losing their stuff?
Steve of phpBB wrote:You'd probably still have a few one-inning guys anyway. If you have someone who throws 104, he may still be your fireman.
Isn't Chapman one of the two guys this postseason showing what a dominant stretch reliever can do? Doesn't that mean Strop is going 2-3 instead of 1, and that's on a good bullpen day?
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
Steve of phpBB wrote:Perhaps - but you also have 5 guys trained to throw 6 or 7 innings. And I don't think the one-inning limit on pitchers really results from a dearth of pitchers able to do it, but rather because that is how pitchers have been used lately.
Disagree strongly there; think about how many versions of Lee Smith exist in the majors right now. How many of them can extend beyond their current usage without either blowing out or losing their stuff?
I guess I think the causation runs the other way. Larussa starting limiting Eckersley to one-inning save situations. He did really great because he never had to pace himself. So then others started using their closers the same way. So I am not sure that they only throw one inning because their stamina is limited; I think it is more likely that their stamina is limited because they only throw one inning.
You'd probably still have a few one-inning guys anyway. If you have someone who throws 104, he may still be your fireman.
mister d wrote:Isn't Chapman one of the two guys this postseason showing what a dominant stretch reliever can do? Doesn't that mean Strop is going 2-3 instead of 1, and that's on a good bullpen day?
It might mean that Strop would go 2-3 innings regularly. But I think most of the change would be on the starters. Instead of throwing 7 innings every five games, you throw 3 innings every 2 or 3 games. I think Strop could become one of those guys, but maybe not.
As I understand it, Game Five was the longest outing of Chapman's career - or at least the last several years. I don't know how he would handle being counted on for 2-3 innings every 2-3 days.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Yeah, I just overall disagree. Specializing is more and more a thing because it works, not just because its what everyone does. I do think staffs will shrink and you'll get more relievers crossing over, because platoons work and are under-utilized now with short benches, but I can't see 2-min, 3-max outings being a full time deal.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
I'd love to know how many guys would take a deal-with-the-devil of "you're guaranteed a win tonight but you'll suffer an injury that will cost you 2017" versus playing out the game.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
mister d wrote:I'd love to know how many guys would take a deal-with-the-devil of "you're guaranteed a win tonight but you'll suffer an injury that will cost you 2017" versus playing out the game.
there was a question like that years ago. would you win a gold medal if it meant dying in 20 years. most took the gold medal (or course cause it's hypothetical)
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
mister d wrote:I'd love to know how many guys would take a deal-with-the-devil of "you're guaranteed a win tonight but you'll suffer an injury that will cost you 2017" versus playing out the game.
there was a question like that years ago. would you win a gold medal if it meant dying in 20 years. most took the gold medal (or course cause it's hypothetical)
Are you sure? I mean, how many years ago was this?
mister d wrote:I'd love to know how many guys would take a deal-with-the-devil of "you're guaranteed a win tonight but you'll suffer an injury that will cost you 2017" versus playing out the game.
there was a question like that years ago. would you win a gold medal if it meant dying in 20 years. most took the gold medal (or course cause it's hypothetical)
Would you come down with pneumonia if it meant that you could stay home and watch Game 7? Answer: I guess I don't have much of a choice.
Anyway, hello Baseball Swamp. Let's do this.
Looking forward to Kyle Schwarber doing Kyle Schwarber things all night, then tomorrow's big story being how the American League screwed things up by winning the All Star Game, thus giving Schwarber an extra game as DH. Or something. I just want good baseball and no rain delays.
mister d wrote:I'd love to know how many guys would take a deal-with-the-devil of "you're guaranteed a win tonight but you'll suffer an injury that will cost you 2017" versus playing out the game.
I was going to ask if they'd take the loss if they could pick the President. Particularly those in Cuyahoga Co.
he’s a fixbking cyborg or some shit. The
holy fuckbAllZ, what a ducking nightmare. Holy shot. Just, fuck. The
mister d wrote:I'd love to know how many guys would take a deal-with-the-devil of "you're guaranteed a win tonight but you'll suffer an injury that will cost you 2017" versus playing out the game.
there was a question like that years ago. would you win a gold medal if it meant dying in 20 years. most took the gold medal (or course cause it's hypothetical)
Are you sure? I mean, how many years ago was this?
And this is why I wouldn't have treated this as a normal Kluber start. Even though Cleveland can probably go with Miller and Allen the rest of the way, they're screwed if Lester has his good stuff. Milller should've been working at the start of the 4th, at the latest, to come in for that jam.
Francona has had a great postseason, but I can't believe he let Kluber give up runs 2-4, with Miller so fresh. I would've considered bringing in Miller to start the 4th with Bryant up, and definitely had him in after the Rizzo HBP. Now it's too late. Indians aren't getting three more runs this game.
Joe K wrote:Francona has had a great postseason, but I can't believe he let Kluber give up runs 2-4, with Miller so fresh. I would've considered bringing in Miller to start the 4th with Bryant up, and definitely had him in after the Rizzo HBP. Now it's too late. Indians aren't getting three more runs this game.
Yep. He finally closed the barn door, but the horse already got away.
Joe K wrote:Francona has had a great postseason, but I can't believe he let Kluber give up runs 2-4, with Miller so fresh. I would've considered bringing in Miller to start the 4th with Bryant up, and definitely had him in after the Rizzo HBP. Now it's too late. Indians aren't getting three more runs this game.
Yep. He finally closed the barn door, but the horse already got away.
Yeah, you just cannot lose that game without your best pitchers being the ones who get beat. And Kluber on short rest is not on par with Miller and Allen.
Joe K wrote:Francona has had a great postseason, but I can't believe he let Kluber give up runs 2-4, with Miller so fresh. I would've considered bringing in Miller to start the 4th with Bryant up, and definitely had him in after the Rizzo HBP. Now it's too late. Indians aren't getting three more runs this game.
Yeah, it's a shame. Francona had this seemingly revolutionary idea (use your best players in important situations) that might be copied by other teams next year, but he was late tonight.
And we're one step closer to my big wish: David Ross, World Series Hero. Just you watch.
A_B wrote:Wow. Just wow. You win by the Maddon you risk losing by the Maddon.
Yup. He'd never fuck either of Lester or Ross by splitting them and that's why his guys love him but also won't split Lester and Ross in Game 7 and that's why he ranks strategically where he ranks.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
I legitimately don't even care about the pitching change. It wasn't good, but who knows what Contreras or a clach is seeing. Ross is HOLY FUCKING SHIT JESUS CHRIST!!!
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
