Set ups and closers

[cp176]

just a pet peeve but it is it absolutely necessary to stick with the script. A relief pitcher eases his way through the 7th but is replaced by the "setup" man who strikes out the side but must give way to a "closer". 95% of the time this happens. Is the concept of I just want to win, become secondary to specialization? I am refreshed when I see a starting pitcher willing to work out of the bullpen when the situation calls for it.

[seabeachfred]

just a pet peeve but it is it absolutely necessary to stick with the script. A relief pitcher eases his way through the 7th but is replaced by the "setup" man who strikes out the side but must give way to a "closer". 95% of the time this happens. Is the concept of I just want to win, become secondary to specialization? I am refreshed when I see a starting pitcher willing to work out of the bullpen when the situation calls for it.

 

cp---This is the craze that has taken over baseball the past quarter century. Specialization has settled in like cement. Since you're an old war horse like me you can remember when relievers might throw three or four innings, and there were usually two or three of those types going one day after another. Now with specialization and pitch counts don't you dare have a starter go over more than 100 pitches. Complete games and starters relieving went out long ago. I remember when I lived in Queens and would g o to Ebbets Field or Yankee Stadium. The pitchers like Allie Reynolds, Eddie Lopat, Vic Raschi, Don Newcombe, Preacher Roe, Carl Erskine and the whole lot of them went nine innings every time they could, and the relievers weren't afraid to go and throw multiple innings. Hell, in 1950, Newcombe started a double header for the Brooklyn Dodgers, winning the first game and going deep in the second where the bullpen came in and one of them g ot the win. No more. Maybe the pendulum may swing back but with agents and humongous contracts pitchers are as concerned about their health as pitching in games.

[cp176]

cp---This is the craze that has taken over baseball the past quarter century. Specialization has settled in like cement. Since you're an old war horse like me you can remember when relievers might throw three or four innings, and there were usually two or three of those types going one day after another. Now with specialization and pitch counts don't you dare have a starter go over more than 100 pitches. Complete games and starters relieving went out long ago. I remember when I lived in Queens and would g o to Ebbets Field or Yankee Stadium. The pitchers like Allie Reynolds, Eddie Lopat, Vic Raschi, Don Newcombe, Preacher Roe, Carl Erskine and the whole lot of them went nine innings every time they could, and the relievers weren't afraid to go and throw multiple innings. Hell, in 1950, Newcombe started a double header for the Brooklyn Dodgers, winning the first game and going deep in the second where the bullpen came in and one of them g ot the win. No more. Maybe the pendulum may swing back but with agents and humongous contracts pitchers are as concerned about their health as pitching in games.

 

Wow - Now you do back farther than I do and I don't give a good goddam about what anyone thinks about how I feel about the games in general. I do know that "our " OLD ways do in fact work. Some would say that our old ways wouldn"t work today. Sorry but they are wrong. I still love the games but with ridiculous salaries paid out to players of marginal abilities - millions - things have changed for sure. Dick Williams benched Yaz. in 1967. He dealt with it got over it and had what I still consider to be the greatest season any player has had since I have been alive. It is just called being coached. Our last World Series team accomplished more than any in history. No fools just a bunch of coachable winners. Newcombe I do remember the rest just from hearing about them. Fred - I won't apologize to anyone again for liking your posts again. A good dose of the

past when do all some good. Keep it coming!

[Bellhorn04]

One team wins and one team loses every time, just like back then. I don't see any big deal about how the use of pitchers has changed.

[seabeachfred]

Wow - Now you do back farther than I do and I don't give a good goddam about what anyone thinks about how I feel about the games in general. I do know that "our " OLD ways do in fact work. Some would say that our old ways wouldn"t work today. Sorry but they are wrong. I still love the games but with ridiculous salaries paid out to players of marginal abilities - millions - things have changed for sure. Dick Williams benched Yaz. in 1967. He dealt with it got over it and had what I still consider to be the greatest season any player has had since I have been alive. It is just called being coached. Our last World Series team accomplished more than any in history. No fools just a bunch of coachable winners. Newcombe I do remember the rest just from hearing about them. Fred - I won't apologize to anyone again for liking your posts again. A good dose of the

past when do all some good. Keep it coming!

 

I'm a baseball fanatic cp and as I told you and others I didn't become a Red Sox fan until I took a game in at Fenway in 2000 so I am a johnny-come-lately compared to you and others. I probably should have refrained from getting on that guy's when he was telling he was defecting. Rooting for the Red Sox to me was like becoming alive for the autumn of my years and the biggest thrill I ever got in all my years watching baseball was when the Sox clinched the AL Title in 2013 against the Tigers. I and the rest of the crowd went completely ape and I told everyone I wasn't leaving the ballpark until I was forced to. What a trip that was and I didn't get back to my hotel until three in the morning. Keep posting my friend because I enjoy your missives.

[seabeachfred]

One team wins and one team loses every time, just like back then. I don't see any big deal about how the use of pitchers has changed.

 

I don't like pitch counts Bell. I really believe that there are times pitchers should be stretched out when they are pitching a terrific game. What really blows my mind is when a reliever comes in after seven terrific innings by the starter and proceeds to blow the game. To me that's the worst way to lose and has the most negative effect on me.

[mvp 78]

I don't like pitch counts Bell. I really believe that there are times pitchers should be stretched out when they are pitching a terrific game. What really blows my mind is when a reliever comes in after seven terrific innings by the starter and proceeds to blow the game. To me that's the worst way to lose and has the most negative effect on me.

 

What gets me is when a starter is pitching a terrific game and loses it in the 8th when the manager should have gone to the pen after 110 pitches.

[Gringo]

I was really surprised we didn't trade Koji last summer. We could have got a decent haul of prospects in return.

 

Mujica can be a good closer for us. Tazawa too. They are interchangeable.

[jacksonianmarch]

Your pen is such a weird spot this season. Uehara was amazing for a year and a half, then imploded. Mujica was nearly cut before the ASB, then he finished with a flurry. Tazawa was good as well. Layne was used like Mike Myers and posted solid numbers. That being said, you are losing 88GP and 99IP with Wilson being dealt and Badenhop being a FA. Both those guys were solid last yr. Not sure what you should expect from your pen.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't like pitch counts Bell. I really believe that there are times pitchers should be stretched out when they are pitching a terrific game. What really blows my mind is when a reliever comes in after seven terrific innings by the starter and proceeds to blow the game. To me that's the worst way to lose and has the most negative effect on me.

 

What gets me is when a starter is pitching a terrific game and loses it in the 8th when the manager should have gone to the pen after 110 pitches.

 

And together, these posts eloquently capture the dilemma that regularly faces major league managers. When his decision works out, nobody says a word. When it doesn't, he's a f***ing bozo LOL

[Dojji]

What gets me is when a starter is pitching a terrific game and loses it in the 8th when the manager should have gone to the pen after 110 pitches.

 

Probably the ur-example of why you absolutely use pitch counts is what happened to Gil Meche. Pitching brilliantly for the Royals for a couple seasons, but the manager at the time has a penchant for leaving a guy with arm troubles out there for 120+ pitches on a relatively regular basis -- twice in the same month in 2009, which would up being the year his arm gave way for good. The end result is that by year 3 of his 4 year contract Meche is out of the league.

[sk7326]

just a pet peeve but it is it absolutely necessary to stick with the script. A relief pitcher eases his way through the 7th but is replaced by the "setup" man who strikes out the side but must give way to a "closer". 95% of the time this happens. Is the concept of I just want to win, become secondary to specialization? I am refreshed when I see a starting pitcher willing to work out of the bullpen when the situation calls for it.

 

Short answer is no. What I am curious about is whether Petit's success in San Francisco can give some new credence to the idea of true multi-inning relief options. Obviously the days of Rich Gossage are over - which is fine. But can you plan fifty 40 pitch outings to get 100 innings of value out of somebody? What the current hyper specialization has done is create 12 pitcher rosters, which in a 25 man world is frankly insane. Fundamentally closing is not a difficult job as defined in 2014.

 

I do think though that regular season bullpen use is much different than postseason. In the former, it makes sense to have starters work out of jams - try to get guys into the 7th inning even if it might not be a "winning" strategy all the time. You don't want to demolish your staff to chase wins ideally. I think in the postseason the rules change - you give your starter one time through the order and then you are on watch.

[sk7326]

Your pen is such a weird spot this season. Uehara was amazing for a year and a half, then imploded. Mujica was nearly cut before the ASB, then he finished with a flurry. Tazawa was good as well. Layne was used like Mike Myers and posted solid numbers. That being said, you are losing 88GP and 99IP with Wilson being dealt and Badenhop being a FA. Both those guys were solid last yr. Not sure what you should expect from your pen.

 

I imagine that is much of Cherington's chore the rest of the summer (and one he does well, since the ownership knows nothing about this part of the gig) is finding arms. How do you staff a bullpen - throw stuff at the wall until it fits. Middle relievers are wholly fungible - indeed if they don't deal them I imagine somebody like Ranaudo will get a look in the bullpen.

[seabeachfred]

What gets me is when a starter is pitching a terrific game and loses it in the 8th when the manager should have gone to the pen after 110 pitches.

 

Thanks Grady:D

[seabeachfred]

Your pen is such a weird spot this season. Uehara was amazing for a year and a half, then imploded. Mujica was nearly cut before the ASB, then he finished with a flurry. Tazawa was good as well. Layne was used like Mike Myers and posted solid numbers. That being said, you are losing 88GP and 99IP with Wilson being dealt and Badenhop being a FA. Both those guys were solid last yr. Not sure what you should expect from your pen.

 

Agreed. We need at least one solid reliever and "TWO WOULD BE BETTER" to quote Charles Bronson in my all time favorite movie 'THE GREAT ESCAPE".

[Spudboy]

Not sure why they have waited so long to sign Badenhop. They probably have multiple cheaper targets.

[Behindenemylines]

Sounds like the Sox will fill any holes they have in the pen with some of the kids in the system. With no true ace the pen will have to come up big in 2015.

[seabeachfred]

Sounds like the Sox will fill any holes they have in the pen with some of the kids in the system. With no true ace the pen will have to come up big in 2015.

 

Wow!!!!! Just read that James Shields want a five year $110 million dollar contract to sign. Looks like he isn't coming to Boston and for that kind of bread for a 33 year old I will back up our front office on this one. Unless his demands come down let the Giants have him........or our friends from that slum in Northern New York City.

[TylerD]

I was really surprised we didn't trade Koji last summer. We could have got a decent haul of prospects in return.

 

Mujica can be a good closer for us. Tazawa too. They are interchangeable.

 

Koji was the one constant for us all last year though. I think the staff really likes him. He is such a solid focused baseball player. I'm glad the team still has him. It's hard to say who we could have got for him, but when a team struggles to find a closer it can really hurt you in tight ball games.

 

Then again..... I don't know how much Paplebon helped Philly lol.

[Dojji]

The reason nobody seriously ducks the 7th-setup-closer system, is because no one has done so successfully in a very, very long time. One of the characteristics of the teams that win, and usually the teams that qualify for, the World Series, is that they tend to have closers who are among the best at what they do, at least at the time.

 

I don't even know the last team to actually win the World Series without at least a competent closer, playing a closer type role. And I do know a few teams that have been hurt badly in a playoff run by their distinct lack of one -- 2003 Red Sox, 2006 Tigers, 2007 Guardians spring to mind quickly. All three of those teams lost big games in late innings in key postseason situations due to the lack of a shutdown back end of the pen, and all three of those teams spend a lot of time in the season in question playing without a "true" closer and attempting to find other ways to get the job done in late innings.

 

Put it this way: If Grady little had had a closer he could trust -- really, really trust -- and players in the setup role that he could count on to get him to that guy, would he ever have left Pedro in Game 7? I doubt it. *THAT WAS EXACTLY THE KIND OF OLD SCHOOL MOVE YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT*. Screw the pitch counts, screw everything else, Pedro is dealing, he stays in. Starter finishes the game. And if he had finished the game you guys would have been singing "Gump's" praises all these years.

 

Instead, he *GOT TIRED,* flagged, and began pitching worse. Even ignoring the potential for injury and increased wear on the arm (Look at the stats, Pedro wasn't even close to himself ever again after 2003 game 7. Coincidence?) it was still a bad idea. Pedro knew he was done, but manager knows best. Starter finishes the game. Said "starter" wound up making the mistakes that tied the game because they left him in against a good lineup for long enough for that lineup to take a measure of him.

 

What the older set don't understand is that pitching has *GOTTEN HARDER* in the last half decade. Prior to the 1960's not every player even trained regularly in the offseason. Some took winter jobs even. With free agency comes higher professional standards for all professional ballplayers. The standard of athleticism and professionalism for hitters *HAS GONE UP* in the last 50 years and that means that it is harder to pitch effectively and successfully than it was in the good olden days of yore.

 

You can't make the appeal to history when history says that over the last 20-30 years, no one has managed to successfully challenge the Eckersleyan type closer and also win a World Series at the same time, even if a few teams have come close. That relief specialist structure was a gradual response to increased hitter effectiveness and an increased focus on pitch counts *by hitters." including a focus on OBP and on working the count. These are good habits that a lot of hitters displayed prior to 1960, especially the good ones, but every hitter is trained from the proverbial cradle to do them now, and that certainly wasn't true of an era where your 7 8 9 hitters were usually automatic outs, even when one of them wasn't a pitcher.

 

Trying to go against that trend for the sake of doing so is now an act of throwing away tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars worth of player investment, especially if you try to do it with a player who has a multiyear big dollar commitment to your team and it blows his arm out the way it happened to Gil Meche. Maybe that shouldn't be the primary concern from purely a baseball standpoint, but when you combine that with the fact that there was a will to buck the closer role in the height of the Moneyball insanity a decade ago and despite at least half a dozen teams, including several big market teams, trying the new relief-ace model, *NO ONE WAS EVER ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY OUTCOMPETE THE ECKERSLEYAN FORMAT,* even in the name of the faddish "relief ace" model (to say nothing of a multi-inning model that was based on a kind of big league ballplayer that *WOULDN'T EVEN MAKE AAA TODAY*) and the whole idea is just as dead as model A's, sandwich boards and the phonograph, and for the same reason -- smart people just came up with a better way to do it and history proved them right.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Dojji

[a700hitter]

The problem with the Pedro game in 2003 was that Grady had been taking him out after 7 innings and 100 pitches all season long. His stuff had been falling off a cliff after that. He got out of a jam and clearly was on empty and he was taking his congratulations in the dugout.

 

Also, the argument is not whether starters should be removed from games. A good manager needs to know when the starter is done. I think the argument is centered on 1 inning or multiple inning relief specialists. Most teams don't have 3 quality arms in the pen, but no managers push the end of the bullpen guys more than an inning. It 's a great formula to mix and match in the 7th inning and to have an 8th inning specialist and a closer, but if you don't have the horses managers should not be forcing the formula.

[User Name]

The reason nobody seriously ducks the 7th-setup-closer system, is because no one has done so successfully in a very, very long time. One of the characteristics of the teams that win, and usually the teams that qualify for, the World Series, is that they tend to have closers who are among the best at what they do, at least at the time.

 

I don't even know the last team to actually win the World Series without at least a competent closer, playing a closer type role. And I do know a few teams that have been hurt badly in a playoff run by their distinct lack of one -- 2003 Red Sox, 2006 Tigers, 2007 Guardians spring to mind quickly. All three of those teams lost big games in late innings in key postseason situations due to the lack of a shutdown back end of the pen, and all three of those teams spend a lot of time in the season in question playing without a "true" closer and attempting to find other ways to get the job done in late innings.

 

Put it this way: If Grady little had had a closer he could trust -- really, really trust -- and players in the setup role that he could count on to get him to that guy, would he ever have left Pedro in Game 7? I doubt it. *THAT WAS EXACTLY THE KIND OF OLD SCHOOL MOVE YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT*. Screw the pitch counts, screw everything else, Pedro is dealing, he stays in. Starter finishes the game. And if he had finished the game you guys would have been singing "Gump's" praises all these years.

 

Instead, he *GOT TIRED,* flagged, and began pitching worse. Even ignoring the potential for injury and increased wear on the arm (Look at the stats, Pedro wasn't even close to himself ever again after 2003 game 7. Coincidence?) it was still a bad idea. Pedro knew he was done, but manager knows best. Starter finishes the game. Said "starter" wound up making the mistakes that tied the game because they left him in against a good lineup for long enough for that lineup to take a measure of him.

 

What the older set don't understand is that pitching has *GOTTEN HARDER* in the last half decade. Prior to the 1960's not every player even trained regularly in the offseason. Some took winter jobs even. With free agency comes higher professional standards for all professional ballplayers. The standard of athleticism and professionalism for hitters *HAS GONE UP* in the last 50 years and that means that it is harder to pitch effectively and successfully than it was in the good olden days of yore.

 

You can't make the appeal to history when history says that over the last 20-30 years, no one has managed to successfully challenge the Eckersleyan type closer and also win a World Series at the same time, even if a few teams have come close. That relief specialist structure was a gradual response to increased hitter effectiveness and an increased focus on pitch counts *by hitters." including a focus on OBP and on working the count. These are good habits that a lot of hitters displayed prior to 1960, especially the good ones, but every hitter is trained from the proverbial cradle to do them now, and that certainly wasn't true of an era where your 7 8 9 hitters were usually automatic outs, even when one of them wasn't a pitcher.

 

Trying to go against that trend for the sake of doing so is now an act of throwing away tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars worth of player investment, especially if you try to do it with a player who has a multiyear big dollar commitment to your team and it blows his arm out the way it happened to Gil Meche. Maybe that shouldn't be the primary concern from purely a baseball standpoint, but when you combine that with the fact that there was a will to buck the closer role in the height of the Moneyball insanity a decade ago and despite at least half a dozen teams, including several big market teams, trying the new relief-ace model, *NO ONE WAS EVER ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY OUTCOMPETE THE ECKERSLEYAN FORMAT,* even in the name of the faddish "relief ace" model (to say nothing of a multi-inning model that was based on a kind of big league ballplayer that *WOULDN'T EVEN MAKE AAA TODAY*) and the whole idea is just as dead as model A's, sandwich boards and the phonograph, and for the same reason -- smart people just came up with a better way to do it and history proved them right.

 

This is a great post, and a700hitter trying to dance around the response means your post hit his argument (and the argument of many here) pretty hard. Well done.

[seabeachfred]

The problem with the Pedro game in 2003 was that Grady had been taking him out after 7 innings and 100 pitches all season long. His stuff had been falling off a cliff after that. He got out of a jam and clearly was on empty and he was taking his congratulations in the dugout.

 

Also, the argument is not whether starters should be removed from games. A good manager needs to know when the starter is done. I think the argument is centered on 1 inning or multiple inning relief specialists. Most teams don't have 3 quality arms in the pen, but no managers push the end of the bullpen guys more than an inning. It 's a great formula to mix and match in the 7th inning and to have an 8th inning specialist and a closer, but if you don't have the horses managers should not be forcing the formula.

 

I liked what Dojii had to say but think in Grady's case (or Pedro's) it might now wash. Keep in mind that when batters faced Martinez throwing less than 100 pitches their average against him was somewhere in the 230's. When he pitched with over a 100 pitches it was about 375---an enormous difference. However, keep in mind that in that disastrous game Pedro got the first out in the bottom of the eighth inning on an infield pop-up. The next batter doubled but the tapes show that Nixon badly misplayed the ball. That ball, though hit hard, should have been snagged by Trot and wasn't. Jeter then singled in a run but there would have been no RBI had Nixon caught that ball. A double, well hit, then followed, but the hit by Posada that eventually tied the game was a bleeder that dropped in. If that could have been caught Pedro might have actually gotten out of it without surrendering a run.

 

Still Ted, it came back to Little. By the ALCS in 2003 the Red Sox bullpen had become a fairly effective one, and so without the could ofs, should ofs, etc, Pedro's ass should have been in the showers that eighth inning in the first place.

[jacksonianmarch]

There have been plenty of teams who went into a season without a designated closer and went deep into the postseason. But typically, by the time the postseason rolled around, someone distanced themselves and took over the closers role. You do not see many teams entering a postseason without a designated closer and win.

[cp176]

The reason nobody seriously ducks the 7th-setup-closer system, is because no one has done so successfully in a very, very long time. One of the characteristics of the teams that win, and usually the teams that qualify for, the World Series, is that they tend to have closers who are among the best at what they do, at least at the time.

 

I don't even know the last team to actually win the World Series without at least a competent closer, playing a closer type role. And I do know a few teams that have been hurt badly in a playoff run by their distinct lack of one -- 2003 Red Sox, 2006 Tigers, 2007 Guardians spring to mind quickly. All three of those teams lost big games in late innings in key postseason situations due to the lack of a shutdown back end of the pen, and all three of those teams spend a lot of time in the season in question playing without a "true" closer and attempting to find other ways to get the job done in late innings.

 

Put it this way: If Grady little had had a closer he could trust -- really, really trust -- and players in the setup role that he could count on to get him to that guy, would he ever have left Pedro in Game 7? I doubt it. *THAT WAS EXACTLY THE KIND OF OLD SCHOOL MOVE YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT*. Screw the pitch counts, screw everything else, Pedro is dealing, he stays in. Starter finishes the game. And if he had finished the game you guys would have been singing "Gump's" praises all these years.

 

Instead, he *GOT TIRED,* flagged, and began pitching worse. Even ignoring the potential for injury and increased wear on the arm (Look at the stats, Pedro wasn't even close to himself ever again after 2003 game 7. Coincidence?) it was still a bad idea. Pedro knew he was done, but manager knows best. Starter finishes the game. Said "starter" wound up making the mistakes that tied the game because they left him in against a good lineup for long enough for that lineup to take a measure of him.

 

What the older set don't understand is that pitching has *GOTTEN HARDER* in the last half decade. Prior to the 1960's not every player even trained regularly in the offseason. Some took winter jobs even. With free agency comes higher professional standards for all professional ballplayers. The standard of athleticism and professionalism for hitters *HAS GONE UP* in the last 50 years and that means that it is harder to pitch effectively and successfully than it was in the good olden days of yore.

 

You can't make the appeal to history when history says that over the last 20-30 years, no one has managed to successfully challenge the Eckersleyan type closer and also win a World Series at the same time, even if a few teams have come close. That relief specialist structure was a gradual response to increased hitter effectiveness and an increased focus on pitch counts *by hitters." including a focus on OBP and on working the count. These are good habits that a lot of hitters displayed prior to 1960, especially the good ones, but every hitter is trained from the proverbial cradle to do them now, and that certainly wasn't true of an era where your 7 8 9 hitters were usually automatic outs, even when one of them wasn't a pitcher.

 

Trying to go against that trend for the sake of doing so is now an act of throwing away tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars worth of player investment, especially if you try to do it with a player who has a multiyear big dollar commitment to your team and it blows his arm out the way it happened to Gil Meche. Maybe that shouldn't be the primary concern from purely a baseball standpoint, but when you combine that with the fact that there was a will to buck the closer role in the height of the Moneyball insanity a decade ago and despite at least half a dozen teams, including several big market teams, trying the new relief-ace model, *NO ONE WAS EVER ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY OUTCOMPETE THE ECKERSLEYAN FORMAT,* even in the name of the faddish "relief ace" model (to say nothing of a multi-inning model that was based on a kind of big league ballplayer that *WOULDN'T EVEN MAKE AAA TODAY*) and the whole idea is just as dead as model A's, sandwich boards and the phonograph, and for the same reason -- smart people just came up with a better way to do it and history proved them right.

 

This is a solid post. I think that most people have realized that no know team wins big without a solid bullpen. When do the "old days" start? I don't know when the expressions closer and setup came into vogue but those roles have been filled for the last 50 plus years. I don't think that it is a trend. It has been the winner's way for a long time now. The game is tough to play but does not require great brilliance. The KISS principle still applies and many in all realms of athletics are subject to paralysis by analysis. To be even vaguely competitive you have and have had to for decades have a solid bullpen with a competent strike throwing closer. The but is that every game does not have to be scripted. The Grady Little story is obviously a classic. I wonder how many of the people following this thread would have been able to look Pedro in the eye and tell him he was coming out of that game regardless of who was in the bullpen behind him. Wait - I take that back - if he knew he had an Eck, a Mariano, or even a "Monster" ( Radatz ) backing him up, he might have gladly handed that ball to Little. I try not to judge Grady Little - I was never in that position on that stage. Not happy at the time but did not judge.

[mvp 78]

I liked what Dojii had to say but think in Grady's case (or Pedro's) it might now wash. Keep in mind that when batters faced Martinez throwing less than 100 pitches their average against him was somewhere in the 230's. When he pitched with over a 100 pitches it was about 375---an enormous difference. However, keep in mind that in that disastrous game Pedro got the first out in the bottom of the eighth inning on an infield pop-up. The next batter doubled but the tapes show that Nixon badly misplayed the ball. That ball, though hit hard, should have been snagged by Trot and wasn't. Jeter then singled in a run but there would have been no RBI had Nixon caught that ball. A double, well hit, then followed, but the hit by Posada that eventually tied the game was a bleeder that dropped in. If that could have been caught Pedro might have actually gotten out of it without surrendering a run.

 

Still Ted, it came back to Little. By the ALCS in 2003 the Red Sox bullpen had become a fairly effective one, and so without the could ofs, should ofs, etc, Pedro's ass should have been in the showers that eighth inning in the first place.

You're actually trying to make a case that Grady didn't f*** up. This may be the dumbest thing you've ever said on here. I'm sorry.

[mvp 78]

This is a solid post. I think that most people have realized that no know team wins big without a solid bullpen. When do the "old days" start? I don't know when the expressions closer and setup came into vogue but those roles have been filled for the last 50 plus years. I don't think that it is a trend. It has been the winner's way for a long time now. The game is tough to play but does not require great brilliance. The KISS principle still applies and many in all realms of athletics are subject to paralysis by analysis. To be even vaguely competitive you have and have had to for decades have a solid bullpen with a competent strike throwing closer. The but is that every game does not have to be scripted. The Grady Little story is obviously a classic. I wonder how many of the people following this thread would have been able to look Pedro in the eye and tell him he was coming out of that game regardless of who was in the bullpen behind him. Wait - I take that back - if he knew he had an Eck, a Mariano, or even a "Monster" ( Radatz ) backing him up, he might have gladly handed that ball to Little. I try not to judge Grady Little - I was never in that position on that stage. Not happy at the time but did not judge.

Pedro already thought he waa done when he got to the dugout after the 7th. The "who here could tell Pedro he was coming out" nonsense is a total strawman. I hate saying that word as it is overused, but it applies here.

[Bellhorn04]

The really sad thing about 2003 was that Timlin and Embree were both outstanding that postseason. I didn't even realize how good they had been until I looked at the numbers afterward. Grady obviously should have had those numbers right in front of him.

[mvp 78]

I thought Williamson was pitching better at the time as well.

[Spudboy]

I remember watching that game and exhaling once the 7th was over as Pedro was gassed. Hitters were getting good wood on the ball.

 

Pedro should have been pulled. Grady pulled a major boner there.