The Pen

[jung]

I guess it's hard to now, and that's why I hate these kind of changes to the game, especially made in secret.

 

They ruin the integrity of the game and its history.

 

It could be a little of both, but how can we ever know.

 

You won't know using comparative statistics and neither will the franchise spread sheet geeks. Baseball is going to have to go back to fully manned scouting departments and THEIR opinions are the opinions should count more than some spread sheet geek's spread sheet. Manfred is basically making those statistical orders of merit meaningless.

 

To know how much talent a player has, you have to value how he plays and I don't mean just the stats he produces by playing. How does the pitcher throw the baseball? If he is a flamethrower does he generate his velo from a complete, proper motion or not? Apparently nobody even within the franchises cares any longer. If he hits a number of the gun.....its all good I guess because there are clearly too many guys throwing hard will lousy technique and mismatched physical characteristics. Whether or not he can maintain that velo or can throw velo with command, apparently is out the window. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

 

As for the fan's view, I have a tip for those watching MLB on a network as opposed to being at the park. You can watch the baseball off the bat for a much longer period of time when you are at the park than you should be watching it on TV or on some live stream. If you are watching on a network or off a stream, forget the baseball. The baseball is going to go where the baseball is going to go and you will get ample replays anyway. As soon as the producer switches to the general area of the player simply watch the player....how he moves to the ball, how he manipulates his glove and then how he sets up to throw. I pay little to no attention to the baseball itself once it leaves the bat. I will get replays for that.

 

As for the hitter in the box and the pitcher on the mound.....good luck paying enough attention to both at once to be able to determine what is happening. If I want to try to understand the state of a particular pitcher I will watch the pitcher set up on the mound, watch him throw and the pitch itself paying little attention to the batter. Again, I will get s zillion replays that will allow me to see what the hitter did anyway. Fans watching a TV have little concern for pitchers and what they are doing, completely enamored with the majesty of the hitter.

 

If I want to really know what is going on with a hitter, I will pay little attention to the pitcher especially if I already know how he sets up on the mound and how he throws. I will focus almost entirely on the batter in the box, where he is in the box and what he is doing to trigger his swing, whether he widens his stance with two strikes or not and the swing itself and what happens as a result.

 

With the exception of focusing on the pitcher, the ball itself is the last thing I worry about when watching a network broadcast.

[jung]

personally i dont think the pitching has dropped off that much. i think the hitting preparation has gotten better. video / training / pitcher tendencies / harder bats. plus the unwritten rules have changed. pitchers can no longer light it up inside willy nilly. thank the insanely high priced salaries players get for that one.....

 

 

Sorry, but you cannot explain away the fact that starting pitchers that regularly went 7 and completed 1/3rd to 1/2 there games no longer can even go 7 regularly and now can't go 6 regularly and are on the way to can't go 5 regularly. That trend is on a much longer time line than the appearance of the first Manfred Missile is on or harder bats or better preparation for hitters. From what I can see the so-called better preparation has done NOTHING across most of baseball. The bulk of the modern hitter thinks the count is always 2-1. That is the way he swings. If he was valuing all this "preparation" then he would not always swing like the count is 2-1.

 

Explain away relief pitchers now utterly incapable of throwing more than 1 inning and in some cases, can't even go an inning?

 

THEY ARE THROWING TOO HARD for their technique and physical characteristics. They are breaking down too often and bounced out of baseball too soon. This has now gone on long enough that MLB ends up backfilling for the wreckage with trash pitchers.

 

As for throwing inside, willy-nilly, pitchers did not throw inside willy-nilly. Check the records. HBP escalated in the 1990's and went clear through the ceiling by 2006. Then it stayed steady state for a few years and is back to going through the ceiling again.

 

HBP, MLB

2006 = 1817

2007 = 1755

2008 = 1672

 

2013 = 1536

2014 = 1652

2015 = 1602

2016 = 1631

2017 = 1763

2018 = 1922

2019 ytd = 1421

 

I suspect it is spiking again because the number of hitters that hang out over the plate (Bellenger for example who's elbow is fully covering the inner 1/3rd of the plate just because of where he sets up ) plus the number of hitters that dive across the batter's box (Rafi and X for example).

 

It hardly matters. These changes all effect quality of performance over time. If you want to look at HBP:

- either the pitchers are not talented enough to pitch inside effectively or

- are afraid to pitch inside

 

If you want to look at nibble, nibble, nibble or pitchers that depend on chase, chase, chase refusing to challenge hitters:

- either the pitchers are not talented enough to challenge

- are afraid to challenge because of the Manfred Missile

 

Ultimately all of these factors roll up into the same thing, diminished quality of pitching across MLB. As for hitters, if you do not have to work as hard as they should have to in order to achieve a result, increased use of video and other preparation aspects will be meaningless. Why waste the time. If 150 lb soaking wet 2nd basemen are hitting the thing over the Sox bullpens, who needs excessive preparation enhanced by video. Just tick the ball with any part of the barrel and you are in business. I can assure you that any of them have hand eye coordination that make them seem like aliens from another planet when compared to the average human.

 

As for the bat itself, the only kinds of hits that the wood effects is soft liners and bloop hits. Yes there does appear to be an epidemic of those. In other words, pitches that should have shattered a bat previously are now soft liners and bloops to the OF. To me that is the least of MLB's problems. No pitcher fears a soft liner to the OF. At least the hitter had to make some contact.

 

Pitchers should fear HR's and they do now more than ever and they should fear walks which they appear not to fear at all.

[Bellhorn04]

jung, I must point out that only 5 years ago, in 2014, the collective ERA of major league pitchers was 3.74!

 

That was when people were freaking out that baseball was being dominated too much by pitchers.

[moonslav59]

jung, I must point out that only 5 years ago, in 2014, the collective ERA of major league pitchers was 3.74!

 

That was when people were freaking out that baseball was being dominated too much by pitchers.

 

Many of those same pitchers are still around.

 

Even the ones that are still in prime, now mostly "suck".

[jung]

Many of those same pitchers are still around.

 

Even the ones that are still in prime, now mostly "suck".

 

I wasn't "freaking out" at 3.74. Were you?

 

The 1980 season registered a 3.83 collective ERA against a 714 collective OPS. In 1975 it was 3.01 against a 701 collective OPS. Those numbers were not killing MLB. If anything the game survived on its own merits. No carnivals...no sweet caroline. Seats full of actual baseball fans.

 

The inability of the MLB to reach a collective bargaining agreement for the 1994 season is what damn near killed MLB. The owners getting caught in a collusion plot is what damn near killed MLB. MLB management correctly assumes that the steroid era rescued MLB from the strike years because NOBODY and I mean NOBODY was going back to the ballparks. The sentiment was "you idiots could not even reach an agreement between a bunch of rich people that would allow us to have a World Series champion and you want US to come back?" I DON"T THINK SO was a common reply.

 

The issue IMO or at least one of them is that MLB incorrectly assumes it knows WHY the steroid era saved MLB baseball and has in this era entirely pursued turning a multidimensional game into a one dimensional game of power from both mound and batter's box and stick its head the sand to the consequences.

 

More importantly, if MLB wanted to boost offensive numbers, then do it honestly. Don't have Manfred shrug his shoulders and give us the "Sgt Shultz, I know nothing" when asked about baseballs produced by a company that MLB owns!

 

While I would bet some of the "better pitchers from 2014 are still around, the issue for pitching is not "the better pitchers" just as the issue for hitters is not "the better hitters". Are there any hitters challenging the season HR record....NOPE...not even close. So the cream of the crop of HR hitters in baseball are not really benefiting all that much from the Missile. The benefit to hitters in the main from the Manfred Missile has come for the average or below average MLB hitter.

 

The turnover in pitchers is in the pitchers that sit under the top echelon in baseball. It stands to reason that some number of the better pitchers can perform over time, guys like Verlander and Scherzer. It also stands to reason that focusing on velo and spin rate (obviously the current thinking in MLB) is going to burn out more pitchers faster than if velo and spin rate are taken in stride with command.

 

There is no magic bullet of evolution or training techniques that will create more Verlanders and Scherzers.There is no magic to throwing a baseball that hard, that many times. Evolution is not creating arms that are better adapted to throwing baseballs. Baseball players are still a fraction of human beings. Make them throw harder and they will break down sooner and more often and be bounced out of baseball faster. It ain't rocket science.

 

If MLB pitching staffs could be made up of all Verlanders and Scherzers MLB might have a shot at what they are doing. But they can't...there isn't enough of them and there won't be enough of them.

 

The call for robot umps makes me laugh in one sense. We are soon to need robot pitchers before we need robot umps.

[moonslav59]

I wasn't "freaking out" at 3.74. Were you?

 

The 1980 season registered a 3.83 collective ERA against a 714 collective OPS. In 1975 it was 3.01 against a 701 collective OPS. Those numbers were not killing MLB. If anything the game survived on its own merits. No carnivals...no sweet caroline. Seats full of actual baseball fans.

 

The inability of the MLB to reach a collective bargaining agreement for the 1994 season is what damn near killed MLB. The owners getting caught in a collusion plot is what damn near killed MLB. MLB management correctly assumes that the steroid era rescued MLB from the strike years because NOBODY and I mean NOBODY was going back to the ballparks. The sentiment was "you idiots could not even reach an agreement between a bunch of rich people that would allow us to have a World Series champion and you want US to come back?" I DON"T THINK SO was a common reply.

 

The issue IMO or at least one of them is that MLB incorrectly assumes it knows WHY the steroid era saved MLB baseball and has in this era entirely pursued turning a multidimensional game into a one dimensional game of power from both mound and batter's box and stick its head the sand to the consequences.

 

More importantly, if MLB wanted to boost offensive numbers, then do it honestly. Don't have Manfred shrug his shoulders and give us the "Sgt Shultz, I know nothing" when asked about baseballs produced by a company that MLB owns!

 

While I would bet some of the "better pitchers from 2014 are still around, the issue for pitching is not "the better pitchers" just as the issue for hitters is not "the better hitters". Are there any hitters challenging the season HR record....NOPE...not even close. So the cream of the crop of HR hitters in baseball are not really benefiting all that much from the Missile. The benefit to hitters in the main from the Manfred Missile has come for the average or below average MLB hitter.

 

The turnover in pitchers is in the pitchers that sit under the top echelon in baseball. It stands to reason that some number of the better pitchers can perform over time, guys like Verlander and Scherzer. It also stands to reason that focusing on velo and spin rate (obviously the current thinking in MLB) is going to burn out more pitchers faster than if velo and spin rate are taken in stride with command.

 

There is no magic bullet of evolution or training techniques that will create more Verlanders and Scherzers.There is no magic to throwing a baseball that hard, that many times. Evolution is not creating arms that are better adapted to throwing baseballs. Baseball players are still a fraction of human beings. Make them throw harder and they will break down sooner and more often and be bounced out of baseball faster. It ain't rocket science.

 

If MLB pitching staffs could be made up of all Verlanders and Scherzers MLB might have a shot at what they are doing. But they can't...there isn't enough of them and there won't be enough of them.

 

The call for robot umps makes me laugh in one sense. We are soon to need robot pitchers before we need robot umps.

 

I'm not arguing about how the juiced ball has ruined baseball.

 

My point is the juiced ball is making pitchers look awful- even the same ones that were great 1-3 years ago-- like Sale.

 

Sure, pitchers need to throw inside more, but that trend did not originate overnight.

[Slasher9]

BLAME STATISTICS / STAT GEEKS.

From a Mets writer:

 

Remember when the pitchers owned the inside of the plate? Hitters didn’t wear helmets, and it was much easier for a pitcher to intimidate a hitter. The inside half of the plate belonged to the pitcher. If you ventured too far into the pitcher’s territory, you more than likely got a nice clean shave from a pitch that was high and tight, reminding you that you crossed the line.

 

The pitchers used the inside pitch to keep hitters off balance. Hitters that were overly conscious of an inside pitch blazing in at 95mph were left vulnerable to off speed pitches and pitches on the outside part of the plate. Logically speaking, the pitchers that used the inside part of the plate as part of their strategy seemed to be more successful.

 

I always believed that pitchers chose to shy away from pitching inside because of the steroid era freaks being able to turn on the inside pitch consistently, and park it in the bleacher seats. The hitters began to crowd the plate more and more as advanced equipment came out to protect them — remember Barry Bonds‘ robo-arm guard? The hitters had less fear of getting hit by an inside pitch, and had more ability than ever (due to the enhancements from PEDs) to do more damage with the inside pitch.

 

But the question is, now that game has been cleaned up from rampant PED use, why haven’t the pitchers taken back the area of the plate that was once rightfully theirs?

 

Since we are in this golden age of advanced statistics, I wondered if there were any that could show that pitchers are more successful if they don’t pitch inside. If that were the case, it would explain why pitchers have all but abandoned pounding the ball in.

 

The search didn’t take long. Sure enough, I stumbled on to an incredibly detailed article on Fangraphs which tackled this very topic. In the article, they use statistics to either validate or void some comments that Zack Greinke made about pitching inside. I’m not going to get into great detail here (Read article on Fangraphs), but Greinke basically says while he found that hitters made better contact and hit the ball harder when he stayed away, and hitters tend to get on base more on inside pitches.

Very interesting. But did the stats back up what Grienke was saying?

 

I have to admit, I was skeptical in thinking the stats would back up all of his claims, but they did. In fact, the hitters had a higher batting average and slugging percentage on inside pitches. That means that not only were they getting on base more successfully, but they weren’t exactly squibs either. The data was so convincing, that they go on further in the article to question why any pitcher would pitch inside anymore.

 

Well that just busted my bubble. I was hoping that with this dominating Mets staff, where the average pitch speed is something like 94mph on the radar gun, we would see some old school pounding of that inside corner. Now I don’t think it’s such a great idea. Wheeler may have been right about people getting soft on pitching inside, but is more than likely the statistics dictating new pitching strategies as everyone is looking for every advantage in their journey to a World Series title.

 

The first part of the sentence made perfect sense to me, but the second half was hard to believe.

 

He goes on to add that even though the hitters tend to hit the outside pitch harder, most hitters don’t have the power to hit a ball over the outfielder’s head to the opposite field. If a guy hits a ball 300 feet in the air, it’s more than likely an out. When he came inside to hitters, they had just enough power to get a squib hit that would often drop in.

[jung]

Not pitching inside is not an advantage. Its not the inner 3rd that the pitcher ends up owning if he pitches inside. Its the outer third that he robs away from the hitter if he pitches inside.

 

Now we have hitters diving across the batters box with impunity or simply setting up with their front sides directly over the plate because the pitchers don't pitch inside. They are hitting balls 3-4 inches outside, never mind over the outer half of the plate. Worse, with the Manfred Missile any old doink from a RH hitter reaching across the plate goes into the Sox bullpen. Hitters with middling power now reach Fenway CF bleachers with one handed swings, having expended all of their actual power long before making actual contact with the ball.

 

Worse still, pitchers are hitting batters at a ridiculous and growing rate WHILE NOT TRYING TO PITCH INSIDE.

 

Pitchers used to be good enough to pitch inside with intentions to at least claim the outer 3rd of the plate. Now the only guys that do it are guys like the Angels Heaney who had no idea where his "supposed" two seam FB was going. That is the kind of pitcher now that ends up making hitters leery of diving across the batters box or setting up literally over the plate, pitchers that exhibit no earthly idea where the pitch is going.

 

Like I posted in the GT during the Heaney game we just saw here, Heaney pitched so bad that he was good. Porcello pitched just good enough to be bad.

Edited August 12, 2019 by jung

[a700hitter]

I'm not sure the game really ever had any integrity. Deadball, racism, gambling, greenies, steroids, high pitchers mounds, juiced balls... Did I miss anything? That is the nature of all sports. What keeps me from giving up on it is the drama of it all. You can't predict the outcome. Unless it is all fixed, which I don't really think it is.

i think Moon was referring to statistical integrity. He was not challenging your cynicism.

[a700hitter]

I guess it's hard to now, and that's why I hate these kind of changes to the game, especially made in secret.

 

They ruin the integrity of the game and its history.

 

It could be a little of both, but how can we ever know.

Statistical integrity and history are being blown to bits. Also, I don’t know who makes the decision to juice up the ball, but advance knowledge of this super ball might have affected a GM’s approach to roster building. The Red Sox Roster is not a one dimensional roster. Our lineup has power, but it also has speed and the ability to get on base. The Yankees are 1 dimensional and they are thriving with this super ball.

[moonslav59]

i think Moon was referring to statistical integrity. He was not challenging your cynicism.

 

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

[moonslav59]

Statistical integrity and history are being blown to bits. Also, I don’t know who makes the decision to juice up the ball, but advance knowledge of this super ball might have affected a GM’s approach to roster building. The Red Sox Roster is not a one dimensional roster. Our lineup has power, but it also has speed and the ability to get on base. The Yankees are 1 dimensional and they are thriving with this super ball.

 

Make me wonder if helping the Yanks was a contributing factor in the secret decision. (Or, maybe it was not kept secret from the Yanks.)

[dannycater]

When Walden was pitching in the 9th last night, right before the game's final pitch I thought, "He's got this great streak of not allowing anything and he's overdue to give up..."...it was over the fence before I finished my thought. That's the Sox Pen this year (except Workman).

[harmony]

Statistical integrity and history are being blown to bits. Also, I don’t know who makes the decision to juice up the ball, but advance knowledge of this super ball might have affected a GM’s approach to roster building. The Red Sox Roster is not a one dimensional roster. Our lineup has power, but it also has speed and the ability to get on base. The Yankees are 1 dimensional and they are thriving with this super ball.

The Yankees (.345) have a higher on-base percentage than the Red Sox (.344):

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31&sort=13,d

 

So there's that dimension.

[OH FOY]

Statistical integrity and history are being blown to bits. Also, I don’t know who makes the decision to juice up the ball, but advance knowledge of this super ball might have affected a GM’s approach to roster building. The Red Sox Roster is not a one dimensional roster. Our lineup has power, but it also has speed and the ability to get on base. The Yankees are 1 dimensional and they are thriving with this super ball.

 

Also playing the Orioles 19 games. And kicking their ass.

[jacksonianmarch]

The Yankees (.345) have a higher on-base percentage than the Red Sox (.344):

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31&sort=13,d

 

So there's that dimension.

 

The Yanks have more power and essentially the same OBP. The Sox have 13 more steals as a team. Ultimately, the two offenses are pretty similar in productivity. Where the similarities end is on the injury side. We’ve lost an entire season from Andujar and Stanton, 2+ months of Judge, a month of Voit, 2+ months from Hicks, 2 months from Didi, a couple weeks of Sanchez, a week of Lemahieu and Torres (didn’t hit the DL, but both with groin/core issues), and two weeks of Gardner. Heck, we even lost two weeks of Frazier when he was with the big club. We have gotten yeoman’s work from some backups, but imagine if our lineup was actually intact? They’ll all presumably be healthy for next year. That doesn’t bode well for the AL

[notin]

The Yankees (.345) have a higher on-base percentage than the Red Sox (.344):

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2019&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2019-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31&sort=13,d

 

So there's that dimension.

 

So one more Yankee reaches base for every 1,000 who come to the plate and you go out of you way to say it’s higher?

 

Said it before, say it again - the biggest problem with baseball stats is people don’t understand math...

[oldtimer]

The Yanks have more power and essentially the same OBP. The Sox have 13 more steals as a team. Ultimately, the two offenses are pretty similar in productivity. Where the similarities end is on the injury side. We’ve lost an entire season from Andujar and Stanton, 2+ months of Judge, a month of Voit, 2+ months from Hicks, 2 months from Didi, a couple weeks of Sanchez, a week of Lemahieu and Torres (didn’t hit the DL, but both with groin/core issues), and two weeks of Gardner. Heck, we even lost two weeks of Frazier when he was with the big club. We have gotten yeoman’s work from some backups, but imagine if our lineup was actually intact? They’ll all presumably be healthy for next year. That doesn’t bode well for the AL

 

So, get a new training staff or don't sign so many muscle bound players.

[Slasher9]

So one more Yankee reaches base for every 1,000 who come to the plate and you go out of you way to say it’s higher?

 

Said it before, say it again - the biggest problem with baseball stats is people don’t understand math...

 

thats pretty good. lol.

[harmony]

So one more Yankee reaches base for every 1,000 who come to the plate and you go out of you way to say it’s higher?

 

Said it before, say it again - the biggest problem with baseball stats is people don’t understand math...

Such as the poster who claimed the Yankees are a one-dimensional power team as opposed to a multi-dimensional Red Sox team with the ability to get on base.

 

Consider the context.

[kenmeister]

When Walden was pitching in the 9th last night, right before the game's final pitch I thought, "He's got this great streak of not allowing anything and he's overdue to give up..."...it was over the fence before I finished my thought. That's the Sox Pen this year (except Workman).

 

I went to sleep before the game was even tied up. When I woke up and saw they'd lost, my first thought was, "I bet Walden blew it. He's due." Just that kind of year, yeah.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Cashner looked pretty nasty coming out of the bullpen and picking up a save on Tuesday night. Now that Cashner have been moved to the bullpen, perhaps the Red Sox can get a read on his effectiveness as a relief pitcher and potential closer? He has the stuff of a closer (as well as the look of a closer).

 

If Cashner performs well down the stretch in the pen, maybe the Red Sox resign him for a cheaper rate than what the Giants Will Smith will get on the free agent market. Smith is a little younger--30 years old, while Cashner will be turning 33 in less than a month. Smith will probably be more expensive, perhaps over 10 m per year, and he will likely get a longer contract than Cashner.

[jacksonianmarch]

You’re kidding. You really have to be kidding. Or high. One outing after sucking hard for a month and you want to anoint him as a better alternative than Smith, whose been a dominant closer or setup man for years? You’re too much.

 

Cashner is going to sign with someone as a starter. His record in Baltimore is going to be useful for him and with the dearth of SP, someone will sign him on a pillow contract for a season to see if he can still start.

[Bellhorn04]

Just for fun, I'm watching to see if we can keep the save % above 50% for the year. We're currently at 51%.

[notin]

Such as the poster who claimed the Yankees are a one-dimensional power team as opposed to a multi-dimensional Red Sox team with the ability to get on base.

 

Consider the context.

 

Now now. Don’t go using the failure to understand math of other people to justify your own...

[notin]

Just for fun, I'm watching to see if we can keep the save % above 50% for the year. We're currently at 51%.

 

You know how to party...

[Kimmi]

Cora had some interesting comments a couple of days ago on his handling of the pen. He basically said that he messed up in trying to make Barnes an "ace reliever". I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with him on how he used Barnes. I think the problem lies more with the frequency that he had to use Barnes in high stress situations due to the starting pitching underperforming and the offense not tacking on runs like they did last season.

[dgalehouse]

Cora had some interesting comments a couple of days ago on his handling of the pen. He basically said that he messed up in trying to make Barnes an "ace reliever". I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with him on how he used Barnes. I think the problem lies more with the frequency that he had to use Barnes in high stress situations due to the starting pitching underperforming and the offense not tacking on runs like they did last season.

I said it before and I'll say it again . The concept of " leverage situations " is misguided. These guys can warm up and prepare better when they have defined roles . And they certainly prefer to start a clean inning as much as possible . Some things that may look good on paper do not always work so well in reality .

[Kimmi]

I said it before and I'll say it again . The concept of " leverage situations " is misguided. These guys can warm up and prepare better when they have defined roles . And they certainly prefer to start a clean inning as much as possible . Some things that may look good on paper do not always work so well in reality .

 

On the whole, I do not think that a closer should be limited to just pitching the 9th inning. Sometimes, the game needs to be saved in the 7th or 8th innings, and I think it's a mistake to keep the closer on the bench for a save situation that may never come.

 

That said, I do agree with you that many, probably most relievers are creatures of routine, and they prefer to know exactly what their roles are. Kimbrel certainly comes to mind here. It's on the manager to know his players well enough to discern who can handle what.

 

For the most part, I think Barnes' 'failure', if you can call it that, came not from the lack of a defined role, but from overuse and overexposure. Cora had to go to Barnes a lot more than he anticipated. Lack of bullpen depth contributed to this, along with the things mentioned in my previous post.

[notin]

I said it before and I'll say it again . The concept of " leverage situations " is misguided. These guys can warm up and prepare better when they have defined roles . And they certainly prefer to start a clean inning as much as possible . Some things that may look good on paper do not always work so well in reality .

 

I think that is a sweeping generalization that certainly applies to some relievers, but not all. There are also pitchers who want the ball no matter what, relish the high leverage chances and challenges, and always think they're the guy for any situation. These are human beings and aren't so easily categorized...