Vazquez traded to Houston

[Old Red]

I am still blaming that 10-19 start more on the offense, or lack thereof, than I am on the bullpen. Bloom put together an offense that should be one of the top offenses in the league. They have underperformed. Not Bloom's fault.

 

You can blame the 10-19 start on the offense all you want, and they were a big part of the blame, but how do you account for all the blown leads that the Red Sox had in those early games, and leading the league in blown saves. Now you can blame the offense for not getting big enough leads, but you can’t blame the offense for blowing the leads that they did have., and that was on the back end of the bullpen, or lack of. Blowing saves mean they did have a lead that they lost. To me Bloom’s fault for not adequately stocking the bullpen.

[Kimmi]

You can blame the 10-19 start on the offense all you want, and they were a big part of the blame, but how do you account for all the blown leads that the Red Sox had in those early games, and leading the league in blown saves. Now you can blame the offense for not getting big enough leads, but you can’t blame the offense for blowing the leads that they did have., and that was on the back end of the bullpen, or lack of. Blowing saves mean they did have a lead that they lost. To me Bloom’s fault for not adequately stocking the bullpen.

 

I understand all of that. My contention is that the strength of this team was supposed to be the offense. The pitching staff needed to pitch well enough to keep the team in most games and let the offense do its thing. The offense averaged a mere 3.28 runs/game. Had they scored runs like they should have been able to, the team would have won more games, because the pitching was good enough.

 

In those first 29 games, there were 6 games in which the Sox pitchers gave up 3 or fewer runs and the team lost. If the offense were able to score just 4 runs in those games, the team record would be 16-13 in that stretch. There were another 2 losses in which the pitcher allowed 4 runs. There were only 4 losses in which the offense scored 5+ runs. In other words, when the offense scored, the team won. When they didn't, the team lost.

[Old Red]

I understand all of that. My contention is that the strength of this team was supposed to be the offense. The pitching staff needed to pitch well enough to keep the team in most games and let the offense do its thing. The offense averaged a mere 3.28 runs/game. Had they scored runs like they should have been able to, the team would have won more games, because the pitching was good enough.

 

In those first 29 games, there were 6 games in which the Sox pitchers gave up 3 or fewer runs and the team lost. If the offense were able to score just 4 runs in those games, the team record would be 16-13 in that stretch. There were another 2 losses in which the pitcher allowed 4 runs. There were only 4 losses in which the offense scored 5+ runs. In other words, when the offense scored, the team won. When they didn't, the team lost.

 

I agree with you on all of this, but what about the record when they were either tied, or had the lead in the 8th inning on in those games?

[moonslav59]

I am still blaming that 10-19 start more on the offense, or lack thereof, than I am on the bullpen. Bloom put together an offense that should be one of the top offenses in the league. They have underperformed. Not Bloom's fault.

 

It was a group effort, and the SP'ers and defense played into some of our losses. The whole pen blew the start of the season has been a false flag all along.

 

Here is a game by game look from opening day to game 19:

 

L 6-5 NYY: Sure, the pen let up a run in the 9th and a ghost runner in the 10th, but they outpitched Nate.

Nate 5 IP 5H 3ER 1BB 7K

Pen 5 IP 4H 1ER 2BB 8K

People remember the pen "blowing" the game, BUT THEY ACTUALLY PITCHED WELL.

 

L 4-2: The offense could be blamed. The SP maybe second. The pen did great.

Pivetta 5.2 4 4 3 4

Pen 2.1 0 0 0 1

 

Win 4-3: Who gets the most credit? IMO, the pen!

Houck 3.1 6 3 3 3

Pen 5.2 5 0 1 6

 

L 3-1 DET: Offense and Pen to blame. 4 hit by Manning.

Wacha did his share 4.1 2 1 3 4

Pen 3.9 6 2 0 6

 

W5-3: Offense did enough. Pen out-pitched the starter by a lot:

Hill 4.1 5 3 1 4

Pen 4.2 0 0 1 2, including 4 no hit IP by Whitlock

 

W 9-7: The starter outpitched the pen, but no blown saves, and the offense &Nate won this one.

Nate 5.0 4 2 1 6

Pen 4.0 7 5 2 6

 

L 8-4 MIN Looks like a pretty even blame on the O & SP'er, and while the pen did not do great, they did better than the other areas.

4 runs scored

Pivetta 2 5 4 2 2

Pen 7 4 4 6 11

 

W 4-0 Min Off did okay ? Houck pitched more than half, but the pen allowed no runs.

Houck 5.2 2 0 3 4

Pen 3.1 3 0 1 5

 

W8-1 MIN O did great

Wacha did great 5 IP 1H 0ER 2BB 5 K

Pen 4.0 3 1 1 5 (No blame on pen)

 

L 8-3 Min ) did not do well- pitching was equally bad:

Hill 4.2 6 4 2 2

Pen 4.1 3 4 5 4 We were never closer than down 4-2, so no pen dramatics.

 

W2-1 TOR No help from O. Pen out-pitched Nate, although both did great:

Nate 4.2 7 1 1 6

Pen 4.1 1 0 0 3 (1 hit/0 BB relief over 4.1 in tight game) I'd say Pen won the game.

 

L 6-1 TOR O sucked- Pivetta sucked. Pen did very well, again!

Pivetta 4.0 7 5 4 4

Pen 5.0 2 1 1 7

 

L3-2 TOR: O sucked, SP worse than pen

Houck 5.0 3 2 1 4

Pen 4.0 6 1 1 4

 

W4-3 TBR: O was okay, I guess. Wacha did well- the pen did slightly better, again!

Wacha 5.0 3 2 2 3

Pen 4.0 3 0 3 4

 

We have to get to game 15 to see the pen lose the game, but really, it was the defense. The O did poorly, too. This was the game Story made the 2 out error in the 10th allowing the inning to continue and then 2 ERs to score

L3-2 TBR in 10 innings (scoreless after 9!)

Whitlock 4.0 1 0 0 7

Pen 5.2 2 0 2 7 Hard to blame the pen, although Robles let up the dinger after the error.

 

L 5-2 TBR: Offense to blame, but the pen first.

Hill 4.0 4 0 3 1

Pen 4.0 5 5 1 2 This is probably the first game, where the pen might be blamed the most. (Game 16!)

 

L 6-2 TOR: I say O to blame, but the pen the most.

Nate 7.0 5 2 0 5

Pen 1.0 5 4 0 1 (second pen blame loss in 17 gms)

 

L 6-5 TOR: Another pen loss, but 3 ER in 5 IP is not horrific. (Diekman meltdown)

Pivetta 4.2 3 2 4 6

Pen 5.0 5 3 2 4

 

W 7-1 O did well, pen slightly outpitched SP Call it dead even on credit.

Wacha 6.0 4 1 2 5

Pen 3.0 1 0 0 3

 

L 1-0 TOR has to be on the D and O. Pen pitched 5 shut out innings.

Whitlock

3.0 4 0 2 2 (unearned run)

5.0 1 0 1 3

 

Three bad pen games in a row in those first 20 or so games, but certainly the pen was not the major reason we started out so slowly.

[Old Red]

It was a group effort, and the SP'ers and defense played into some of our losses. The whole pen blew the start of the season has been a false flag all along.

 

Here is a game by game look from opening day to game 19:

 

L 6-5 NYY: Sure, the pen let up a run in the 9th and a ghost runner in the 10th, but they outpitched Nate.

Nate 5 IP 5H 3ER 1BB 7K

Pen 5 IP 4H 1ER 2BB 8K

People remember the pen "blowing" the game, BUT THEY ACTUALLY PITCHED WELL.

 

L 4-2: The offense could be blamed. The SP maybe second. The pen did great.

Pivetta 5.2 4 4 3 4

Pen 2.1 0 0 0 1

 

Win 4-3: Who gets the most credit? IMO, the pen!

Houck 3.1 6 3 3 3

Pen 5.2 5 0 1 6

 

L 3-1 DET: Offense and Pen to blame. 4 hit by Manning.

Wacha did his share 4.1 2 1 3 4

Pen 3.9 6 2 0 6

 

W5-3: Offense did enough. Pen out-pitched the starter by a lot:

Hill 4.1 5 3 1 4

Pen 4.2 0 0 1 2, including 4 no hit IP by Whitlock

 

W 9-7: The starter outpitched the pen, but no blown saves, and the offense &Nate won this one.

Nate 5.0 4 2 1 6

Pen 4.0 7 5 2 6

 

L 8-4 MIN Looks like a pretty even blame on the O & SP'er, and while the pen did not do great, they did better than the other areas.

4 runs scored

Pivetta 2 5 4 2 2

Pen 7 4 4 6 11

 

W 4-0 Min Off did okay ? Houck pitched more than half, but the pen allowed no runs.

Houck 5.2 2 0 3 4

Pen 3.1 3 0 1 5

 

W8-1 MIN O did great

Wacha did great 5 IP 1H 0ER 2BB 5 K

Pen 4.0 3 1 1 5 (No blame on pen)

 

L 8-3 Min ) did not do well- pitching was equally bad:

Hill 4.2 6 4 2 2

Pen 4.1 3 4 5 4 We were never closer than down 4-2, so no pen dramatics.

 

W2-1 TOR No help from O. Pen out-pitched Nate, although both did great:

Nate 4.2 7 1 1 6

Pen 4.1 1 0 0 3 (1 hit/0 BB relief over 4.1 in tight game) I'd say Pen won the game.

 

L 6-1 TOR O sucked- Pivetta sucked. Pen did very well, again!

Pivetta 4.0 7 5 4 4

Pen 5.0 2 1 1 7

 

L3-2 TOR: O sucked, SP worse than pen

Houck 5.0 3 2 1 4

Pen 4.0 6 1 1 4

 

W4-3 TBR: O was okay, I guess. Wacha did well- the pen did slightly better, again!

Wacha 5.0 3 2 2 3

Pen 4.0 3 0 3 4

 

We have to get to game 15 to see the pen lose the game, but really, it was the defense. The O did poorly, too. This was the game Story made the 2 out error in the 10th allowing the inning to continue and then 2 ERs to score

L3-2 TBR in 10 innings (scoreless after 9!)

Whitlock 4.0 1 0 0 7

Pen 5.2 2 0 2 7 Hard to blame the pen, although Robles let up the dinger after the error.

 

L 5-2 TBR: Offense to blame, but the pen first.

Hill 4.0 4 0 3 1

Pen 4.0 5 5 1 2 This is probably the first game, where the pen might be blamed the most. (Game 16!)

 

L 6-2 TOR: I say O to blame, but the pen the most.

Nate 7.0 5 2 0 5

Pen 1.0 5 4 0 1 (second pen blame loss in 17 gms)

 

L 6-5 TOR: Another pen loss, but 3 ER in 5 IP is not horrific. (Diekman meltdown)

Pivetta 4.2 3 2 4 6

Pen 5.0 5 3 2 4

 

W 7-1 O did well, pen slightly outpitched SP Call it dead even on credit.

Wacha 6.0 4 1 2 5

Pen 3.0 1 0 0 3

 

L 1-0 TOR has to be on the D and O. Pen pitched 5 shut out innings.

Whitlock

3.0 4 0 2 2 (unearned run)

5.0 1 0 1 3

 

Three bad pen games in a row in those first 20 or so games, but certainly the pen was not the major reason we started out so slowly.

 

I believe it hasn’t been said that the BP was the Major Reason the team got off so slowly, but only that the team would have a better record with a reliable closer in the beginning, and also the team lead the league in blown saves for some time. Putting Houck as the closer, and putting Whitlock back in the pen, and the emergence of Schreiber has made the back end of the pen the best it’s been all season, and was big in just taking 2 from the Yankees with Whitlock being the anchor.

[oldtimer]

Vaz was the longest tenured player, but even with that being the case, Bogaerts was always touted as the team leader. He needs to step it up in that role. Hosmer should be a great clubhouse presence, though being a newcomer, it might take a little longer for him to become a team leader.

 

If the message Bloom was trying to leave with the team is we are still in it and trying to make a run at a wild card, it seems to me that trading our number1 catcher and fixture in the clubhouse was off message. Getting McGuire and a couple of prospects in different transactions didn't align with making a wild card effort. It may bear fruit in future, but seemed to have had a negative impact when it was done.

[moonslav59]

If the message Bloom was trying to leave with the team is we are still in it and trying to make a run at a wild card, it seems to me that trading our number1 catcher and fixture in the clubhouse was off message. Getting McGuire and a couple of prospects in different transactions didn't align with making a wild card effort. It may bear fruit in future, but seemed to have had a negative impact when it was done.

 

You don't see adding Hosmer, a real 1Bman, and Pham, the RH'd OF bat we've craved all year might have outweighed the Vaz to McGuire downgrade?

 

To me, trading Diekman was an addition by subtraction, despite DHern's numbers, since the trade. We will replace him going forward.

 

Pham and Hosmer add a lot to this team, even in mainly support roles.

 

Maybe this McGuire kid ends up doing better than Vaz, not just this year, but going forward and at a much lower cost.

[sk7326]

I am still blaming that 10-19 start more on the offense, or lack thereof, than I am on the bullpen. Bloom put together an offense that should be one of the top offenses in the league. They have underperformed. Not Bloom's fault.

 

Sure - though positions where most teams get offense were places where the Red Sox made some bets but the bets were failures. When you combine that with Story not being very good - and Kike being hurt/bad ... just a lot of the places where the team expected help just did not materialize.

 

It is also worth blaming the defense which has been bad the last two seasons - and has certainly not provided the pitchers much help. And while the players have struggled - there are real questions about whether the defensive algorithm magic has been particularly effective. It is fair to wonder whether the machine learning defensive positioning models are actually providing good information.

[moonslav59]

Sure - though positions where most teams get offense were places where the Red Sox made some bets but the bets were failures. When you combine that with Story not being very good - and Kike being hurt/bad ... just a lot of the places where the team expected help just did not materialize.

 

It is also worth blaming the defense which has been bad the last two seasons - and has certainly not provided the pitchers much help. And while the players have struggled - there are real questions about whether the defensive algorithm magic has been particularly effective. It is fair to wonder whether the machine learning defensive positioning models are actually providing good information.

 

The thing is, we improved at SS and 3B without changing who we had.

 

We greatly improved 2B defense with Story.

 

We greatly improved RF defense with JBJ.

 

Our 1B defense was atrocious. Our CF defense suffered with Kike's injury. Our LF defense was maybe the same as 2021- not great/not horrible.

 

I won't get into catcher D.

 

Obviously, something went wrong along the way to improving D.

[redsoxrules]

I wouldn't say JBJ greatly improved the defense. I mean he certainly did improve it but he's been on a steady decline on D since 2018. In fact if he continues his current trajectory he'll be negative value on defense next year

[redsoxrules]

On his very first game with the Jay's he f***ed up 2 plays already

[moonslav59]

I wouldn't say JBJ greatly improved the defense. I mean he certainly did improve it but he's been on a steady decline on D since 2018. In fact if he continues his current trajectory he'll be negative value on defense next year

 

I disagree. It was the one plus from the Renfroe trade (prospects pending.)

 

JBJ: Second best UZR/150 out of all RF'ers with 500+ innings in RF. T3 in DRS.

[moonslav59]

On his very first game with the Jay's he f***ed up 2 plays already

 

Not for us.

[notin]

You don't see adding Hosmer, a real 1Bman, and Pham, the RH'd OF bat we've craved all year might have outweighed the Vaz to McGuire downgrade?

 

To me, trading Diekman was an addition by subtraction, despite DHern's numbers, since the trade. We will replace him going forward.

 

Pham and Hosmer add a lot to this team, even in mainly support roles.

 

Maybe this McGuire kid ends up doing better than Vaz, not just this year, but going forward and at a much lower cost.

 

 

Last winter, Bloom tried to acquire Jacob Stallings, the MLB season leader in Defensive Rubs Saved.

 

I wondered if this was part of his evaluation of catchers.

 

It turns out McGuire is also very good at DRS, especially relative to his innings played. So I was far from surprised he was targeted as a catcher.

 

Will he start next season? Best I can say is “Maybe?”

[Maxbialystock]

I believe it hasn’t been said that the BP was the Major Reason the team got off so slowly, but only that the team would have a better record with a reliable closer in the beginning, and also the team lead the league in blown saves for some time. Putting Houck as the closer, and putting Whitlock back in the pen, and the emergence of Schreiber has made the back end of the pen the best it’s been all season, and was big in just taking 2 from the Yankees with Whitlock being the anchor.

 

Your favorite tune: the 9th inning is the only inning that counts; hence the crucial need above all others on a pitching staff, is a reliable closer.

 

And once again I disagree. Oh, I love a great closer, with Uehara probably my favorite, especially in the 2013 postseason when he was magnificent, but the closer only becomes key when he is part of a strong pitching staff with a good rotation.

 

Thus my too often cited example of the Sox postseason in 2021, when they had no closer and no saves and yet were way more successful (beat the Yankees in the wild card, beat the 100 wins Rays in the ALDS, 3 games to 1, and finally lost to the Astros in the ALCS, 4 games to 2) than anyone expected. The one blown save was in game 1 of the ALCS when Sale started and lasted just 2.2 innings. Houck pitched the 6th, gave up 2 runs, and got the blown save.

 

Last year, I hasten to add, was successful in part because both Houck and Whitlock were used as multi-inning relievers, plus Houck even started.

 

Before this season, neither Houck nor Whitlock had ever been a closer. And when this season started, Barnes and Robles (when they weren't doing bookstores) had been successful closers in the past. So to me it made sense to re-use Whitlock and Houck in the muli-inning mode in which they were so useful last year. That included using Whitlock as a starter, which made sense given his excellent repertoire. In the first 5 games of this season the starters were Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck, Wacha, and Whitlock, and the Sox won the games started by--wait for it!!!--Houck and Whitlock.

 

So my question for you is, where was all your ranting about the complete misuse of Houck and Whitlock back in early April?

[moonslav59]

Last winter, Bloom tried to acquire Jacob Stallings, the MLB season leader in Defensive Rubs Saved.

 

I wondered if this was part of his evaluation of catchers.

 

It turns out McGuire is also very good at DRS, especially relative to his innings played. So I was far from surprised he was targeted as a catcher.

 

Will he start next season? Best I can say is “Maybe?”

 

I was big on trying to get Stallings. He's apparently very good with the staff, too. I must have suggested 2 dozen trades with PIT to get him- sometimes with others included.

 

I do think that was a clear sign the Sox had concerns about Vaz's intangibles on defense. His trade is more evidence that they wanted to move on from what he brought to the team, clubhouse leadership and all.

 

I don't know enough about McGuire to comment on his intangibles, but my guess is, he falls into the Stallings, Plawecki, Leon category of working well with pitchers and doing the unmeasurable very well.

 

I hope they know what they are doing, here. Stallings took a huge nosedive on offense in 2022. (.701 career before 2022 to .576 in '22, which looks like Plawecki material. The team is 37-42 in his starts, however, and 14-23 in games he did not start. The staff has a .690 OPSA with him catching and .738 with Fortes catching/.752 with Henry catching.

 

The 2 years of McGuire's team control far outweighed Vaz's 2 months, IMO.

[moonslav59]

Your favorite tune: the 9th inning is the only inning that counts; hence the crucial need above all others on a pitching staff, is a reliable closer.

 

And once again I disagree. Oh, I love a great closer, with Uehara probably my favorite, especially in the 2013 postseason when he was magnificent, but the closer only becomes key when he is part of a strong pitching staff with a good rotation.

 

Thus my too often cited example of the Sox postseason in 2021, when they had no closer and no saves and yet were way more successful (beat the Yankees in the wild card, beat the 100 wins Rays in the ALDS, 3 games to 1, and finally lost to the Astros in the ALCS, 4 games to 2) than anyone expected. The one blown save was in game 1 of the ALCS when Sale started and lasted just 2.2 innings. Houck pitched the 6th, gave up 2 runs, and got the blown save.

 

Last year, I hasten to add, was successful in part because both Houck and Whitlock were used as multi-inning relievers, plus Houck even started.

 

Before this season, neither Houck nor Whitlock had ever been a closer. And when this season started, Barnes and Robles (when they weren't doing bookstores) had been successful closers in the past. So to me it made sense to re-use Whitlock and Houck in the muli-inning mode in which they were so useful last year. That included using Whitlock as a starter, which made sense given his excellent repertoire. In the first 5 games of this season the starters were Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck, Wacha, and Whitlock, and the Sox won the games started by--wait for it!!!--Houck and Whitlock.

 

So my question for you is, where was all your ranting about the complete misuse of Houck and Whitlock back in early April?

 

With all due respect, I think you guys have beaten this horse to death several times, already. I do the same thing, too, at times, so I'm not trying to sound holier than thou, but nothing new is being added to this debate.

 

I will add that the team is 50-5 when ahead after 7 innings and 52-4 when ahead after 8.

 

The numbers when tied are troubling:

8-8 after 6

5-9 after 7

4-10 after 8

7-7 after 9

 

One has to expect, even the teams with good closer would have lost some of these games, too, so how many "extra loses" are we talking about, here?

 

Sure, even 2-3 would make a big difference in the WC standings, but so would just having decent 1B defense, better offense, better SP'ing, better set up men and less blunders on the basepaths or on defense.

 

Closer has been a weak spot on this team. There is no doubt about that. It does matter. How much is debatable, and how much moving Whitlock or Houck to closer earlier would have hurt another area should be considered, too.

 

You both have logical positions. It's time to let it go, IMO.

[Old Red]

With all due respect, I think you guys have beaten this horse to death several times, already. I do the same thing, too, at times, so I'm not trying to sound holier than thou, but nothing new is being added to this debate.

 

I will add that the team is 50-5 when ahead after 7 innings and 52-4 when ahead after 8.

 

The numbers when tied are troubling:

8-8 after 6

5-9 after 7

4-10 after 8

7-7 after 9

 

One has to expect, even the teams with good closer would have lost some of these games, too, so how many "extra loses" are we talking about, here?

 

Sure, even 2-3 would make a big difference in the WC standings, but so would just having decent 1B defense, better offense, better SP'ing, better set up men and less blunders on the basepaths or on defense.

 

Closer has been a weak spot on this team. There is no doubt about that. It does matter. How much is debatable, and how much moving Whitlock or Houck to closer earlier would have hurt another area should be considered, too.

 

You both have logical positions. It's time to let it go, IMO.

 

Well said, and I’m gone.

[dgalehouse]

I have heard so many people in baseball say that a blown save is the worst kind of loss. Very demoralizing. The tension in the ninth inning of a close game is like no other inning. And everyone in the ballpark feels it. But some people just don't see it that way . The subject has been debated to death . There is no point in continuing . Everything has been said and it is now all redundant. We can all be content in our opinions , even if they are wrong.

[Bellhorn04]

I have heard so many people in baseball say that a blown save is the worst kind of loss. Very demoralizing. The tension in the ninth inning of a close game is like no other inning. And everyone in the ballpark feels it. But some people just don't see it that way . The subject has been debated to death . There is no point in continuing . Everything has been said and it is now all redundant. We can all be content in our opinions , even if they are wrong.

 

Emotionally speaking, yes, it's a painful way to lose.

 

But is there a real carryover effect to the next game, assuming there is one? For the players, I'd said no.

 

One of the adages about closers is that they have to have short memories.

[dgalehouse]

Emotionally speaking, yes, it's a painful way to lose.

 

But is there a real carryover effect to the next game, assuming there is one? For the players, I'd said no.

 

One of the adages about closers is that they have to have short memories.

 

I think Mariano Rivera was the first one I heard say that about short memories. Since he was certainly the best closer ever , his opinion carries a lot of weight. Then you see a guy like Holmes , who looked almost unhittable , blows a couple of saves and now seems to have lost all confidence.

[moonslav59]

I have heard so many people in baseball say that a blown save is the worst kind of loss. Very demoralizing. The tension in the ninth inning of a close game is like no other inning. And everyone in the ballpark feels it. But some people just don't see it that way . The subject has been debated to death . There is no point in continuing . Everything has been said and it is now all redundant. We can all be content in our opinions , even if they are wrong.

 

I agree, those losses hurt more, and may have lasting affects on team morale and confidence. I also think losing on a late error or base-running blunder hurts like hell, too. That big error by Story with 2 outs and the lead, followed by a BB and a dinger was a horrible loss, and could be partially blamed for setting the tone.

 

The games where the offense goes flat and is the main reason for a loss, don't seem to have such a lasting affect, unless the slump continues onwards.

[redsoxrules]

Not for us.

 

It doesn't matter who's team he was playing on when he makes a bad play. He just Made another one last night. He's not what he used to be

[notin]

Emotionally speaking, yes, it's a painful way to lose.

 

But is there a real carryover effect to the next game, assuming there is one? For the players, I'd said no.

 

One of the adages about closers is that they have to have short memories.

 

I wonder if it’s harder for fans sometimes.

 

I’m not as sure players get as emotionally invested as fans do. I mean, after a while one might think they numb to the sheer repitition.

 

As fans, we get excited when the game is ending and our team is winning. It’s what we paid for. Announcers certainly try to build on the excitement; it’s what they’re paid for?

 

But do players get excited for the ninth inning at this level? I’m sure some do, but I have to think that after a while there is the mindset “It’s the ninth inning. We played one yesterday. We’ll play another one tomorrow. We see more of them per year than Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays combined.”

[moonslav59]

It doesn't matter who's team he was playing on when he makes a bad play. He just Made another one last night. He's not what he used to be

 

He's an upgrade on D over Renfroe- major or minor. Can we agree on that?

[jad]

I don't know. What was your experience playing sports? I remember being 'sort of' invested in winning/losing (more invested in whether I played well or not). But I don't remember any 'carry-over' effect: you wanted to play well; it didn't matter what you'd done earlier. I think you're right about fans, although there is some evidence against this (e.g., no fan I know of killed themselves bec. their team lost).

[Bellhorn04]

I wonder if it’s harder for fans sometimes.

 

I’m not as sure players get as emotionally invested as fans do. I mean, after a while one might think they numb to the sheer repitition.

 

As fans, we get excited when the game is ending and our team is winning. It’s what we paid for. Announcers certainly try to build on the excitement; it’s what they’re paid for?

 

But do players get excited for the ninth inning at this level? I’m sure some do, but I have to think that after a while there is the mindset “It’s the ninth inning. We played one yesterday. We’ll play another one tomorrow. We see more of them per year than Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays combined.”

 

Agreed on all that.

 

One other point, though. If the closer blows a game, it's not really a big deal in the overall picture. If he blows two in a row, though, people start to worry. And if he blows three in a row, the manager might look at changing things up a bit...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Agreed on all that.

 

One other point, though. If the closer blows a game, it's not really a big deal in the overall picture. If he blows two in a row, though, people start to worry. And if he blows three in a row, the manager might look at changing things up a bit...

 

Funny interview on MLB radio yesterday with Seattle closer Paul Sewald. He had three career saves before becoming closer last year at age 31...

 

When Sewald was asked who makes the best set-up man, he replied, "A guy who pitches the 8th with a four-run lead, and gives up one run to set up a save situation for the 9th."

[sk7326]

I wonder if it’s harder for fans sometimes.

 

I’m not as sure players get as emotionally invested as fans do. I mean, after a while one might think they numb to the sheer repitition.

 

As fans, we get excited when the game is ending and our team is winning. It’s what we paid for. Announcers certainly try to build on the excitement; it’s what they’re paid for?

 

But do players get excited for the ninth inning at this level? I’m sure some do, but I have to think that after a while there is the mindset “It’s the ninth inning. We played one yesterday. We’ll play another one tomorrow. We see more of them per year than Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays combined.”

 

I think they get excited - they don't fake those walk off celebrations. But you just can't get bogged down by games. The one thing baseball teaches players quickly is that you are going to fail ... A LOT. If you can't deal with that, this ain't the gig.

 

After all, while we as fans care - it's not our livelihoods.

[notin]

I think they get excited - they don't fake those walk off celebrations. But you just can't get bogged down by games. The one thing baseball teaches players quickly is that you are going to fail ... A LOT. If you can't deal with that, this ain't the gig.

 

After all, while we as fans care - it's not our livelihoods.

 

Post-season wins and walk off wins - especially walk off wins when you enter the inning trailing - are different.

 

But straight up regular season saves seem so unemotional when they happen. It’s not like players celebrate each win with a dog pile of an emotional orgy. They walk around high-fiving each other with all the gusto and verve that my mailman has upon successfully delivering me my bills and junk mail. I’ve seen bigger celebrations for 8th grade graduation (which are a real thing in the Midwest), and those are not exactly rarities.

 

I do find it hard to believe that all this tension and pressure exist in these situations. At least not to the level fans want to believe it does…

Edited August 17, 2022 by notin