5/9 @ Yanks

[S5Dewey]

You have captured my earlier comment that I'm not so sure Kimbrel is worth huge amounts of money over the long term. yes, 300 saves, but many on talksox think saves is a stupid stat. I'm neutral on that.

I'm not prepared to call it stupid stat, probably because I like watching it happen, but I think it may be overrated. I've long been wary of any player who can only perform "in certain situations". As I said earlier, a clean inning is a luxury for a reliever but how often does a reliever other than the closer get to start with nobody on base? A clean inning is a recipe for success while coming into a situation with runners on base is a recipe for failure - and yet we revere the guy who always has to have the clean inning.

[illinoisredsox]

As painful as this is to admit there's a possibility that I may be <gasp> wrong about something.

I've been an advocate of using your best reliever a/k/a Kimbrel in the toughest situations. As it turns out he appears to be more effective if he can start with a clean inning. When it comes to pitching, a "clean inning" is actually a luxury. In fact, at this moment I'd rather see Joe Kelly in the toughest situations and save Kimbrel for his "clean inning".

This does bring to bear the value of having a "True closer" vs. a "Fireman" though as it pertains to their worth to the team and therefore their salary. Is it possible that we (and everyone else in MLB) are overpaying for that closer when a "normal" BP arm can get those outs in the 9th inning and what's really necessary is the pitcher who has the kajones to come in earlier and get outs when the team is in trouble?

In some sense, Kimbrel is the "true closer" while Kelly is the "Fireman". Or to use another example, for the Indians the past couple years, Allen the closer, Miller the fireman.

[OH FOY!]

Not worried about this series as much as everyone is. It's May. Seen these 2 teams doing this for years. What worries me, going forward, is injuries. Yanks have the Reserves in the Minors, to overcome key injuries. We Don't.
Thornberg is going to be a huge key to our success this year. He's important.
We need a reliable 8th inning shutdown Pitcher. Who can get Lefties and Righties out.

[OH FOY!]

Tonight's game a little more important me, not only avoiding the sweep. But my reason is Sabbathia. He absolutely dominated us last year, with basically this same Line-up, but without JD.
Cant let this guy think he's in our head.
If I remember right E-Rod had a hell of a game against the Yanks late in the season in the Bronx.
Pitched a beauty.

[jad]

I'm not prepared to call it stupid stat, probably because I like watching it happen, but I think it may be overrated. I've long been wary of any player who can only perform "in certain situations". As I said earlier, a clean inning is a luxury for a reliever but how often does a reliever other than the closer get to start with nobody on base? A clean inning is a recipe for success while coming into a situation with runners on base is a recipe for failure - and yet we revere the guy who always has to have the clean inning.

"Save" is a completely artificial stat (well, so are all others, I suppose). A guy who can only perform in 'save situations' is a guy who is more concerned with stats than production. (Although in fairness to Kimbrel, I don't recall him ever saying anything about only coming in in certain situations--maybe his agent has?) Can you imagine a batter saying "Sorry. I only hit with an 0-0 count." Or a fielder-- "Nope. I'm not standing out here if they're going to hit ground balls; I only do pop-ups."

[jacksonianmarch]

Last night our lineup came back against reliever Green to get the 6-5 lead, only to have our bullpen blow another.

Green got tagged for a homerun. They happen. We aren't going to be giving back a lot of leads, although right now we are a little thin out there. Once we get Kahnle and Warren back, the pen will be a little less stressed than it has been of late

[Maxbialystock]

Not worried about this series as much as everyone is. It's May. Seen these 2 teams doing this for years. What worries me, going forward, is injuries. Yanks have the Reserves in the Minors, to overcome key injuries. We Don't.
Thornberg is going to be a huge key to our success this year. He's important.
We need a reliable 8th inning shutdown Pitcher. Who can get Lefties and Righties out.

Good for you. I feel exactly the same way and said so on moonslav's thread, "A Realistic View of 2018, part II." Despite the weak bottom of the order, we have a good lineup. Infield D is so-so, but outfield is good. Rotation is good. Bullpen not so good. We would be 3 up on the Yankees right now if the bullpen hadn't been Yankee rally enablers Tues and Wed night.

[a700hitter]

As painful as this is to admit there's a possibility that I may be <gasp> wrong about something.

I've been an advocate of using your best reliever a/k/a Kimbrel in the toughest situations. As it turns out he appears to be more effective if he can start with a clean inning. When it comes to pitching, a "clean inning" is actually a luxury. In fact, at this moment I'd rather see Joe Kelly in the toughest situations and save Kimbrel for his "clean inning".

This does bring to bear the value of having a "True closer" vs. a "Fireman" though as it pertains to their worth to the team and therefore their salary. Is it possible that we (and everyone else in MLB) are overpaying for that closer when a "normal" BP arm can get those outs in the 9th inning and what's really necessary is the pitcher who has the kajones to come in earlier and get outs when the team is in trouble?

I am not a big fan of the 1 reliever 1 inning pattern that every manager follows. We may have discussed this in Fort Myers. Every time you go to the pen you are getting a "box of chocolates" with the possible exception of the closer who should be a 90% certainty. The other pitchers in the pen are not close to that degree of certainty. When a guy puts up a strong inning with a reasonable pitch count let him pitch a second inning, especially if it is against the bottom of the order. He has already settled in and proved that he is having a good night. Why roll the dice on another pitcher after 1 inning? I don't think the arguments about keeping the pen fresh for the long haul is a good countering argument. If I use Smith for 2 innings last night and don't have to use Barnes, Barnes is fresh for tonight and if he is going well, Smith gets the night off. How is that more taxing than using these guys 1 inning at a time for 2 or 3 games in a row? It is an approach that I have never liked, but it is so ingrained with managers that there is no hope that it will turn around anytime soon. We will have to wait for a manager to be successful with that approach and then there will be copycats.

[Maxbialystock]

I am not a big fan of the 1 reliever 1 inning pattern that every manager follows. We may have discussed this in Fort Myers. Every time you go to the pen you are getting a "box of chocolates" with the possible exception of the closer who should be a 90% certainty. The other pitchers in the pen are not close to that degree of certainty. When a guy puts up a strong inning with a reasonable pitch count let him pitch a second inning, especially if it is against the bottom of the order. He has already settled in and proved that he is having a good night. Why roll the dice on another pitcher after 1 inning? I don't think the arguments about keeping the pen fresh for the long haul is a good countering argument. If I use Smith for 2 innings last night and don't have to use Barnes, Barnes is fresh for tonight and if he is going well, Smith gets the night off. How is that more taxing than using these guys 1 inning at a time for 2 or 3 games in a row? It is an approach that I have never liked, but it is so ingrained with managers that there is no hope that it will turn around anytime soon. We will have to wait for a manager to be successful with that approach and then there will be copycats.

First, thanks for the game reports from enemy territory. Neat, especially the comment on whether Beni should have caught that sinking liner.

Second, I mostly agree that relievers should stay in for a second inning if they are effective in the first. Why? Because their stuff is working and they have confidence. Last night I was fine with Johnson only getting 3 outs (but in 2 innings) and bringing in Smith. I would have brought him out for the 8th and said so.

However, I refuse to let Barnes off the hook. He had a clean inning to work with and the bottom third of the Yankees lineup, and he got only one out. Unsat. I would have left Carson Smith in, but Barnes should not have been a bad call by Cora. If he can't get 2 outs against the bottom 3d of the order, what's the point of having him on the roster? Remember, Johnson got three outs: a grounder by Gardner, a fly out by Judge, and a line out by Gregorius. Then Smith got a ground out by Stanton, gave up a single to Sanchez, and struck Hicks out.

[Slasher9]

However, I refuse to let Barnes off the hook. He had a clean inning to work with and the bottom third of the Yankees lineup, and he got only one out. Unsat. I would have left Carson Smith in, but Barnes should not have been a bad call by Cora. If he can't get 2 outs against the bottom 3d of the order, what's the point of having him on the roster? Remember, Johnson got three outs: a grounder by Gardner, a fly out by Judge, and a line out by Gregorius. Then Smith got a ground out by Stanton, gave up a single to Sanchez, and struck Hicks out.

your defense of Cora is comical in this instance. have you seen barnes splits vs NYY? surely Cora has. or at least i hope so. to put him in a high leverage situation vs NYY is not the right move. to put him in high leverage situation at yankee stadium is borderline neglect. there are plenty of pitchers on plenty of rosters that would never be put in that position by their manager because he knows the odds are not good. so there is a point of having him on the roster. but it's definitely NOT to pitch vs NYY in a winnable game situation. not all "bottom third of an order" are the same. in fact...the #9 hitter (i suppose in your book the easiest out for barnes??) is batting .333.
you know when he should have been put into last nights game? after Kimbrell shit the bed and we were down 3 runs. until then he should have been a spectator.

[Spudboy]

Yeah, it's gotten so bad I actually miss having you around, which is basically like having such a painful stomachache that you miss the days when all you had were blinding migraines.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !1!1!!

I think the return of UN is fucking great.

And now you have a reason to post your sarcastic wit anytime UN posts.

This is quality entertainment.

Carry on Gents.

[Spudboy]

As painful as this is to admit there's a possibility that I may be <gasp> wrong about something.

I've been an advocate of using your best reliever a/k/a Kimbrel in the toughest situations. As it turns out he appears to be more effective if he can start with a clean inning. When it comes to pitching, a "clean inning" is actually a luxury. In fact, at this moment I'd rather see Joe Kelly in the toughest situations and save Kimbrel for his "clean inning".

This does bring to bear the value of having a "True closer" vs. a "Fireman" though as it pertains to their worth to the team and therefore their salary. Is it possible that we (and everyone else in MLB) are overpaying for that closer when a "normal" BP arm can get those outs in the 9th inning and what's really necessary is the pitcher who has the kajones to come in earlier and get outs when the team is in trouble?

Okay Kimmi.

Actually this is just common sense. Of course lesser arms can do most of what Kimbrell does.

They all just throw baseballs and relievers are relievers because they can't cut it as starters.

I am never surprised when a reliever coughs it up. It's who they are.

[a700hitter]

First, thanks for the game reports from enemy territory. Neat, especially the comment on whether Beni should have caught that sinking liner.

Second, I mostly agree that relievers should stay in for a second inning if they are effective in the first. Why? Because their stuff is working and they have confidence. Last night I was fine with Johnson only getting 3 outs (but in 2 innings) and bringing in Smith. I would have brought him out for the 8th and said so.

However, I refuse to let Barnes off the hook. He had a clean inning to work with and the bottom third of the Yankees lineup, and he got only one out. Unsat. I would have left Carson Smith in, but Barnes should not have been a bad call by Cora. If he can't get 2 outs against the bottom 3d of the order, what's the point of having him on the roster? Remember, Johnson got three outs: a grounder by Gardner, a fly out by Judge, and a line out by Gregorius. Then Smith got a ground out by Stanton, gave up a single to Sanchez, and struck Hicks out.

Of course Barnes takes the ultimate blame, and he got tagged with a well-deserved loss. I still believe that it is a poor strategy to continue the 1 inning per relief pitcher, because you are rolling the dice each time. Barnes didn't perform and lost the game, but Cora rolled the dice 1 too many times last night and snake eyes came out of the pen.

[Maxbialystock]

your defense of Cora is comical in this instance. have you seen barnes splits vs NYY? surely Cora has. or at least i hope so. to put him in a high leverage situation vs NYY is not the right move. to put him in high leverage situation at yankee stadium is borderline neglect. there are plenty of pitchers on plenty of rosters that would never be put in that position by their manager because he knows the odds are not good. so there is a point of having him on the roster. but it's definitely NOT to pitch vs NYY in a winnable game situation. not all "bottom third of an order" are the same. in fact...the #9 hitter (i suppose in your book the easiest out for barnes??) is batting .333.
you know when he should have been put into last nights game? after Kimbrell shit the bed and we were down 3 runs. until then he should have been a spectator.

Come on. You're saying Barnes shouldn't be asked to get three outs against the bottom of the Yankees order right after Johnson--yes, Johnson--was asked to get three outs against the top of the Yankees order? If so, I simply disagree.