I've complained about this in the past, but it frustrates me nonetheless every single damn time I see it.
Top of the 9th, tie game, Yanks threatening to break it open. Two relievers warming up for the Yanks, the incomporable Mariano, and the man who's as good as the part of the body suggested by his last name, Scott Proctor.
Kay announces what every baseball fan takes for granted, but is ridiculously stupid: if the Yanks take the lead, Mariano will come in. If it remains tied, Proctor will pitch.
The first part makes sense. If you take a lead, you want to bring in your best to nail it down. But why in the hell would you bring Scott Proctor in if the game is tied? Scott Proctor, and pitchers of his ilk, are to be used in games in which you are either up or down 10 runs. Why would you bring in a scrub like Proctor in a game-deciding situation?
Kay pointed out that the A's had their closer (and their best reliever) pitching in the 9th, even though the game was tied. The brilliant reason proferred by Kay? As the home team, if you're tied in the 9th, you'll never have the opportunity to get your closer (or anyone else) into a save situation. True enough. But isn't the point of baseball, or any team sport, to win the game? Isn't the win/loss record of the team supposed to trump consideration for individuals' statistics? If so, who gives a crap whether using your closer in a non-save situation in the 9th (or any other inning) will prevent him from being usable in a save situation that may or may not come up later? If he's your best shot to shut down the other team and win (and closers become closers because they're usually the team's most dominant, shut-down reliever) how in the world can you justify not putting him in?
The astounding thing is that every manager in baseball manages this way. Nobody does it any differently. It makes you long for the days before the Save was an official rule, and managers brought in the best, most appropriate pitchers for given situations rather than bring pitchers into situations that best serve their stats. Managers should manage to win, not to serve their players' stats.
One solution might be for the 'Hold' to become an official stat. If Holds were official, and were deemed as desirable and valuable (read: middle relievers made big bucks based on their number of holds, just as closers get for saves) then maybe managers wouldn't object to bringing their best pitchers in to the most important moments of the game, irrespective of the inning. I would imagine that as many games are won and lost in the 7th inning as are lost in the 9th. Yet in a bases-loaded, tie game situation with no outs and the offense's best hitter coming up, the defensive manager will NEVER bring in his best reliever, unless it's the 8th or 9th inning. Does that make sense?
So aggravating to watch.
Top of the 9th, tie game, Yanks threatening to break it open. Two relievers warming up for the Yanks, the incomporable Mariano, and the man who's as good as the part of the body suggested by his last name, Scott Proctor.
Kay announces what every baseball fan takes for granted, but is ridiculously stupid: if the Yanks take the lead, Mariano will come in. If it remains tied, Proctor will pitch.
The first part makes sense. If you take a lead, you want to bring in your best to nail it down. But why in the hell would you bring Scott Proctor in if the game is tied? Scott Proctor, and pitchers of his ilk, are to be used in games in which you are either up or down 10 runs. Why would you bring in a scrub like Proctor in a game-deciding situation?
Kay pointed out that the A's had their closer (and their best reliever) pitching in the 9th, even though the game was tied. The brilliant reason proferred by Kay? As the home team, if you're tied in the 9th, you'll never have the opportunity to get your closer (or anyone else) into a save situation. True enough. But isn't the point of baseball, or any team sport, to win the game? Isn't the win/loss record of the team supposed to trump consideration for individuals' statistics? If so, who gives a crap whether using your closer in a non-save situation in the 9th (or any other inning) will prevent him from being usable in a save situation that may or may not come up later? If he's your best shot to shut down the other team and win (and closers become closers because they're usually the team's most dominant, shut-down reliever) how in the world can you justify not putting him in?
The astounding thing is that every manager in baseball manages this way. Nobody does it any differently. It makes you long for the days before the Save was an official rule, and managers brought in the best, most appropriate pitchers for given situations rather than bring pitchers into situations that best serve their stats. Managers should manage to win, not to serve their players' stats.
One solution might be for the 'Hold' to become an official stat. If Holds were official, and were deemed as desirable and valuable (read: middle relievers made big bucks based on their number of holds, just as closers get for saves) then maybe managers wouldn't object to bringing their best pitchers in to the most important moments of the game, irrespective of the inning. I would imagine that as many games are won and lost in the 7th inning as are lost in the 9th. Yet in a bases-loaded, tie game situation with no outs and the offense's best hitter coming up, the defensive manager will NEVER bring in his best reliever, unless it's the 8th or 9th inning. Does that make sense?
So aggravating to watch.
