|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Jun 20, 2017 8:31:37 GMT
What I don't get is why they replace a pitcher when there is only one more out to go and there is a runner on 2nd base.
The reliever (Named Joe) gets the third out.
Then when they have the field again, another pitcher (Named Sam) comes in.
Why not keep in Joe who just got the third out?
Then when that inning is over, they may replace Sam with George.
Why not leave Sam in?
What is the thinking of always replacing pitchers as the game gets later and either for just the last out/one batter and then just for one inning?
Especially when he is not showing any signs of his arm getting tired?
|
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Jun 20, 2017 13:08:58 GMT
It has to do mainly with whether the pitcher is left handed or right handed and if he's a facing a left handed or right handed batter.
|
|
|
|
Post by xystophoros on Jun 20, 2017 13:33:06 GMT
What xeliou said. A lot of managers go by the book and bring in lefty/righty specialists, especially if they're facing dangerous hitters or the heart of the other team's order.
But baseball has become dominated by statistics, so these managers are also looking at numbers. If you've got a dangerous hitter coming up, but that hitter is 2-17 lifetime against a guy you have in the bullpen, you bring that pitcher in if it's a close game.
And a third factor is that these guys are coddled little shits now, or at least most of them are. Say a manager uses a guy for two outs on Tuesday night, and that reliever throws 12 pitches to get those two guys out. If the reliever is needed the next night, commentators will actually sit there in the broadcast booth, saying shit like "I dunno, Jim, he threw 12 pitches last night and [insert manager name here] doesn't want to give him a heavy workload heading into the postseason!"
In that respect, baseball has gotten really out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 20, 2017 13:54:41 GMT
As others have mentioned, it's pretty much per theory re handedness--whether the pitcher and batter are left or right-handed. Sometimes it's also based on a particular pitcher's stats re left versus right-handed batters, and sometimes their particular stats against the batter in question, though that's more rare.
I agree that it's gotten out of hand, and I agree that managers should manage less by stats.
I'd like to see a bunch of rule changes in baseball, and this is one of them. I'd make it so that barring injuries, you can't use more than four pitchers per 9 innings--so you get your starter, two relievers and a closer in any one game. (And if more are used due to injury, the supposedly injured player wouldn't be able to play for the next 10 games, to avoid just claiming that someone is injured when they're not.)
Some changes I'd make are pretty radical--including that I'd be open to either making the game less innings (7 maybe) and/or starting everyone at a 1-1 count to speed up the game. I'd require adherence to the pitch clock, etc. Games should ideally be about 2 hours long. (And I'd decrease average game length for the other sports, too, minus soccer.) Another radical thing I'd do is require that a significant percentage of a team be made up of players from the team's market (I'd have residency requirements), and I'd put a strict cap on the number of times that players can go to other teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by xystophoros on Jun 20, 2017 14:50:25 GMT
As others have mentioned, it's pretty much per theory re handedness--whether the pitcher and batter are left or right-handed. Sometimes it's also based on a particular pitcher's stats re left versus right-handed batters, and sometimes their particular stats against the batter in question, though that's more rare. I agree that it's gotten out of hand, and I agree that managers should manage less by stats. I'd like to see a bunch of rule changes in baseball, and this is one of them. I'd make it so that barring injuries, you can't use more than four pitchers per 9 innings--so you get your starter, two relievers and a closer in any one game. (And if more are used due to injury, the supposedly injured player wouldn't be able to play for the next 10 games, to avoid just claiming that someone is injured when they're not.) Some changes I'd make are pretty radical--including that I'd be open to either making the game less innings (7 maybe) and/or starting everyone at a 1-1 count to speed up the game. I'd require adherence to the pitch clock, etc. Games should ideally be about 2 hours long. (And I'd decrease average game length for the other sports, too, minus soccer.) Another radical thing I'd do is require that a significant percentage of a team be made up of players from the team's market (I'd have residency requirements), and I'd put a strict cap on the number of times that players can go to other teams. MLB made a lazy effort to speed the games up with those new rules designed to prevent guys from constantly stepping out of the batter's box, or pitchers taking forever to deliver. Unfortunately the umpires don't enforce those rules, or rarely do, and that's the league's fault. They're definitely not going to reduce the number of innings, or mess with the count, for the same reason they're loathe to mess with the 162-game schedule -- if you do that, then you're destroying the continuity of stats. It would impact the major career milestones in the sport, like getting 3,000 hits, or hitting 500 HR, as well as the seasonal achievements that have been the same across eras -- getting 200 hits in a season, winning 20 games, stealing 40 bases, and so on. That's the stuff sportswriters jerk off to, the stuff that fuels drunken bar debates, the stuff that people call sports radio at 2 am about. I do like your idea about penalties for using more than a certain number of pitchers in a game, unless it goes extra innings. But I think most of the fat is from all the bullshitting that happens between every pitch and at-bat. |
|
|
|
Post by No_Socks_Here on Jun 20, 2017 15:53:04 GMT
"...for the same reason they're loathe to mess with the 162-game schedule -- if you do that, then you're destroying the continuity of stats..."
They didn't have anhy problems with bumping it from 154 games to 162 games....why now?
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Jun 20, 2017 16:07:50 GMT
"...for the same reason they're loathe to mess with the 162-game schedule -- if you do that, then you're destroying the continuity of stats..." They didn't have anhy problems with bumping it from 154 games to 162 games....why now? This, plus the issue is only when it comes to shortening the season. They would never do that because that would decrease gate revenue. That's basically the end of the convo. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 20, 2017 17:19:57 GMT
"...for the same reason they're loathe to mess with the 162-game schedule -- if you do that, then you're destroying the continuity of stats..." They didn't have anhy problems with bumping it from 154 games to 162 games....why now? This, plus the issue is only when it comes to shortening the season. They would never do that because that would decrease gate revenue. That's basically the end of the convo. Yeah, I think that's ultimately the reason why. We could do comparative stats via computer, and it could use sophisticated heuristics. Plus people would get used to the new stats. Heck, I'd cut the season to 82 games--the same as basketball and hockey. |
|
|
|
Post by hairybuttcheeks on Jun 20, 2017 18:17:59 GMT
They expanded the season because travel became easer and faster, and more games were televised, so mlb got more revenue from the games
|
|
|
|
Post by runie on Jun 20, 2017 18:37:16 GMT
i dont know and do not pretend to be coming out with a very valid comment.
however i have a feeling there are a lot of mnd games hat are similar to cricket.
is a very different sport - but the odd beamer, the odd slow ball - the odd player that you allways get out or allway's lose to happens. these characteristics of the 'gamesmanship mus be similar'
I am sure a lot of the tactics are based on game position and who you are up against and what position the baseman are at - like in cricket but with different situations. you can play ballls that have less chance of getting a hit or run or home run or boundary but less chance of a wicket etc etc
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jun 20, 2017 19:52:54 GMT
i dont know and do not pretend to be coming out with a very valid comment. however i have a feeling there are a lot of mnd games hat are similar to cricket. is a very different sport - but the odd beamer, the odd slow ball - the odd player that you allways get out or allway's lose to happens. these characteristics of the 'gamesmanship mus be similar' I am sure a lot of the tactics are based on game position and who you are up against and what position the baseman are at - like in cricket but with different situations. you can play ballls that have less chance of getting a hit or run or home run or boundary but less chance of a wicket etc etc Asking a probable stupid question (I've tried to wrap my mind around cricket), but is there advantages in matching up a left handed bowler to a left handed striker? In baseball, a left handed pitcher usually has the edge against a lefty batter (same for right). So a manager will pitch hit a right handed batter against a lefty pitcher o a manager will bright in a righty reliever to pitch against a lefty hitter. I think the substitution rules are different in cricket, but will a righty bowler usually do better against a right handed striker? |
|
|
|
Post by runie on Jun 20, 2017 21:05:31 GMT
teams like to have left and right combos in batting - which can mess with the bowler strategy. this also affects field placements.
Due to there being quite a lot of lefties in cricket - you have to learn how to play against them - but many batsman have there issues - i wouldn't say one like you state - like a specific one . All batsman have there Achilles heal , as do bowlers.
|
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Jun 21, 2017 1:08:37 GMT
i dont know and do not pretend to be coming out with a very valid comment. however i have a feeling there are a lot of mnd games hat are similar to cricket. is a very different sport - but the odd beamer, the odd slow ball - the odd player that you allways get out or allway's lose to happens. these characteristics of the 'gamesmanship mus be similar' I am sure a lot of the tactics are based on game position and who you are up against and what position the baseman are at - like in cricket but with different situations. you can play ballls that have less chance of getting a hit or run or home run or boundary but less chance of a wicket etc etc Asking a probable stupid question (I've tried to wrap my mind around cricket), but is there advantages in matching up a left handed bowler to a left handed striker? In baseball, a left handed pitcher usually has the edge against a lefty batter (same for right). So a manager will pitch hit a right handed batter against a lefty pitcher o a manager will bright in a righty reliever to pitch against a lefty hitter. I think the substitution rules are different in cricket, but will a righty bowler usually do better against a right handed striker? In very general terms, No. There are too many variables for it to be that simple. As an example, the equivalent to the rubber in cricket is actually 4 yards wide. Most international fast bowlers also have the ability to 'curve' (called swing in cricket) BOTH directions in the air, and change its direction when it bounces. And then there is the perfectly legal tactic of bowling fast with the intention of hitting the batsman. And that's just fast bowling. There is slow bowling too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 1:18:35 GMT
What I don't get is why they replace a pitcher when there is only one more out to go and there is a runner on 2nd base. The reliever (Named Joe) gets the third out. Then when they have the field again, another pitcher (Named Sam) comes in. Why not keep in Joe who just got the third out? Then when that inning is over, they may replace Sam with George. Why not leave Sam in? What is the thinking of always replacing pitchers as the game gets later and either for just the last out/one batter and then just for one inning? Especially when he is not showing any signs of his arm getting tired? i'd love to go with the old 'lefty vs. righty' argument and a pitcher may have worn out his arm. i think they're true in situations. sometimes a manager overthinks himself and doesn't stay with the 'hot arm' - which - well - allows for blown saves or a stretch reliever blowing a game. |
|
|
|
Post by xystophoros on Jun 21, 2017 1:25:41 GMT
"...for the same reason they're loathe to mess with the 162-game schedule -- if you do that, then you're destroying the continuity of stats..." They didn't have anhy problems with bumping it from 154 games to 162 games....why now? That was almost 60 years ago, and it was a lousy 8 games. In the grand scheme of things, 8 games is not going to make the difference between an unusually long, grinding season, and a more reasonable schedule. Regardless, it's rare to see guys play 162 game seasons these days. No one's really coveting that Cal Ripken Jr. record. If the goal is to significantly slim down the baseball season, they would look to chop off more than 8 games from the schedule. But as others have said, they won't do it for financial reasons as well as the continuity of stats. |
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Jun 21, 2017 2:25:35 GMT
What xeliou said. A lot of managers go by the book and bring in lefty/righty specialists, especially if they're facing dangerous hitters or the heart of the other team's order. But baseball has become dominated by statistics, so these managers are also looking at numbers. If you've got a dangerous hitter coming up, but that hitter is 2-17 lifetime against a guy you have in the bullpen, you bring that pitcher in if it's a close game. And a third factor is that these guys are coddled little shits now, or at least most of them are. Say a manager uses a guy for two outs on Tuesday night, and that reliever throws 12 pitches to get those two guys out. If the reliever is needed the next night, commentators will actually sit there in the broadcast booth, saying shit like "I dunno, Jim, he threw 12 pitches last night and [insert manager name here] doesn't want to give him a heavy workload heading into the postseason!" In that respect, baseball has gotten really out of hand. Since you seem to know your stuff on this, and I appreciate your input, let me ask you this and anyone else can chime in as well: In tonight's Brewers vs Pirates game, the opposite happened. The starting pitcher for the Brewers, Zach, gave up 6 runs against the Pirates in the 1st inning. The Brewers did nothing for their bats. What does the Brew. manager do? Bring in another pitcher? Nope. Leaves Zach in there so that a bit later the Pirates can hit a solo home run for another score. What could the thinking be behind this? 6-0. So why not bring in a fresh and potentially better arm? Why do they pull out a pitcher that lets a team score like 2 runs or more in the middle of the game but leave in a kid who gave up 6 runs in the first inning? Is there any rhyme or reason to this? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 2:30:11 GMT
What xeliou said. A lot of managers go by the book and bring in lefty/righty specialists, especially if they're facing dangerous hitters or the heart of the other team's order. But baseball has become dominated by statistics, so these managers are also looking at numbers. If you've got a dangerous hitter coming up, but that hitter is 2-17 lifetime against a guy you have in the bullpen, you bring that pitcher in if it's a close game. And a third factor is that these guys are coddled little shits now, or at least most of them are. Say a manager uses a guy for two outs on Tuesday night, and that reliever throws 12 pitches to get those two guys out. If the reliever is needed the next night, commentators will actually sit there in the broadcast booth, saying shit like "I dunno, Jim, he threw 12 pitches last night and [insert manager name here] doesn't want to give him a heavy workload heading into the postseason!" In that respect, baseball has gotten really out of hand. Since you seem to know your stuff on this, and I appreciate your input, let me ask you this and anyone else can chime in as well: In tonight's Brewers vs Pirates game, the opposite happened. The starting pitcher for the Brewers, Zach, gave up 6 runs against the Pirates in the 1st inning. The Brewers did nothing for their bats. What does the Brew. manager do? Bring in another pitcher? Nope. Leaves Zach in there so that a bit later the Pirates can hit a solo home run for another score. What could the thinking be behind this? 6-0. So why not bring in a fresh and potentially better arm? Why do they pull out a pitcher that lets a team score like 2 runs or more in the middle of the game but leave in a kid who gave up 6 runs in the first inning? Is there any rhyme or reason to this? absolutely. their bullpen is already worn out. they can't waste anymore arms. and the starting pitcher they have in there stinks anyway. so who cares if he gets embarrassed. who cares if you're getting humiliated and you stink. we're thinking long term here and are protecting arms. take your beating and deal with it like a man - we're not wasting tomorrows game when today's game is already lost you scrub. hope that helped |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 21, 2017 2:32:50 GMT
GM's are being hired & promoted because of metrics. Managers are told they have to manage their staffs accordingly.
I guess that's about it in a nutshell.
re. 162, I'd kill both DHs & pitchers hitting... make it 150 game schedule... 8 man batting order shouldn't be too out of whack historically for stats (god forbid).
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Jun 21, 2017 2:34:27 GMT
Since you seem to know your stuff on this, and I appreciate your input, let me ask you this and anyone else can chime in as well: In tonight's Brewers vs Pirates game, the opposite happened. The starting pitcher for the Brewers, Zach, gave up 6 runs against the Pirates in the 1st inning. The Brewers did nothing for their bats. What does the Brew. manager do? Bring in another pitcher? Nope. Leaves Zach in there so that a bit later the Pirates can hit a solo home run for another score. What could the thinking be behind this? 6-0. So why not bring in a fresh and potentially better arm? Why do they pull out a pitcher that lets a team score like 2 runs or more in the middle of the game but leave in a kid who gave up 6 runs in the first inning? Is there any rhyme or reason to this? absolutely. their bullpen is already worn out. they can't waste anymore arms. and the starting pitcher they have in there stinks anyway. so who cares if he gets embarrassed. who cares if you're getting humiliated and you stink. we're thinking long term here and are protecting arms. take your beating and deal with it like a man - we're not wasting tomorrows game when today's game is already lost you scrub. hope that helped So they don't have much of a choice? It's better to bring in pitchers later in the game so their arms don't get worn out as quickly? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 3:02:56 GMT
absolutely. their bullpen is already worn out. they can't waste anymore arms. and the starting pitcher they have in there stinks anyway. so who cares if he gets embarrassed. who cares if you're getting humiliated and you stink. we're thinking long term here and are protecting arms. take your beating and deal with it like a man - we're not wasting tomorrows game when today's game is already lost you scrub. hope that helped So they don't have much of a choice? It's better to bring in pitchers later in the game so their arms don't get worn out as quickly? if one of their valued starters is getting shelled - they'll save him. if it's a ham and egger that has no future - take your lumps and go back to the minors - we'll save our bullpen and arms for tomorrow if they're already worn out with no rest. there's a method to the madness. |
|
