Jump to content

How many wins will the closer role cost the Orioles?

Barnaby Graves

By Barnaby Graves
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply
kyleott Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

kyleott

Posted
Posted
I didn't particularly like what I saw of Hunter yesterday. Too many hittable pitches right down the middle. If the umpire wasn't calling high strikes it may have been a totally different outcome. If he was throwing 99 mph every pitch, I could live with it but 94-96 right down the middle is not going to make anyone feel good with a 1 run lead. He needs a pitch that moves out of the zone and makes hitters chase it or he is going to blow a significant amount of 1 run leads.

After rewatching the ninth inning, I am going to both agree and disagree. It appeared to me that Tommy had three separate pitches that clocked at 90+, and they all moved differently. He had a 4 seamer that touched 99 but was straight. He had a 2 seamer that tailed arm side, similar to Johnson, that touched 95. And he had a cutter that ran glove side in on lefties that was around 93.

The issue was the times and way he used them. First of all, there should never be a straight fastball down the middle of the plate to anybody, especially Pedroia. Second, he was experimenting in the top of the zone again, which we have seen lead to trouble.

That being said, if he is controlling which pitch with which movement he throws, I don't see why he couldn't be successful. But he might be smart to scrap the straight fastball altogether. He seemed to favor the 2 seamer to lefties, which I didn't quite understand. The cutter would saw off hitters more where the 2 seamer could run up the barrel.

I am very much conflicted on Hunter. He showed some good things, but didn't answer the questions we had. I think that he got pretty lucky with Ortiz and Bradley, and if you leave pitches up in the zone in the 9th -- especially straight ones -- it's a recipe for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark_beckens Major Leaguer Rising Star

mark_beckens

Posted
Posted
You guys need to work on your reading comprehension if you think this thread has anything to do at all with yesterday's game.
Tommy Hunter is a fine reliever and an important asset to this team. And this isn't a reactionary thread as any given reliever can have a scary inning in a one-run game in the ninth.

liars.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LookinUp Hangout Grand Counsel

LookinUp

Posted
Posted
Not me. I realize that JJ didn't have a great spring, and had a bad outing to start the season yesterday. I still think, at bottom, his stuff is better than Hunter's.

Stuff without location loses meaning very quickly. JJ's sinker and hook are elite when he has a clue where they're going. When he doesn't, the sinker becomes a belt high flat fastball and the hook bounces at 57'.

But...I don't have proof that I'm right, for sure. We'll see what happens with JJ this year. Like I said, I think he's cooked unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tsqd AA

tsqd

Posted
Posted

I agree with the premise of the original poster. The closer role is mostly ridiculous and kudos to the new braintrust at the Astros for recognizing this. A few points:

  • What's so special about the 9th inning that makes managers disregard the obvious strategic advantages they use in other innings? If Matusz isn't burned in the 8th, does anyone wonder if Buck brings him in against Ortiz in the 9th to finish off the lefties? I sure do. I would have been thrilled as a Boston fan to continue against Hunter instead of Matusz.
  • The idea of 9th inning pressure is extremely questionable. These guys have been playing baseball their whole lives, in front of how many people? Somehow they are relaxed in front of 40k during the 7th, but not the 9th? I'd argue that if pressure meant anything, the 9th is easier, since the batters are the ones under the gun. Rob Neyer had a great piece on this years ago.
  • The closer role is blowing money or players in the future. Jim Johnson's agent walks into negotiations with 100 saves over the last two years, and demands $10 million. Does O'Day's agent do that? Probably not. The only difference (besides that O'Day is better), is that O'Day is a relief pitcher, while Johnson is a super-glorified relief pitcher. If Johnson's got 24 saves next to his name last year instead of 40+, does that lower his price by a couple million?

The only case I see for a closer is if the would-be closer is a special case where the manager sees an advantage in playing sports psychologist. Of course, even if you do have a guy like that, is it worth the couple million in future payroll and reduced in-game flexibility, all so you can entrust such a supposedly important spot in the game to a guy whose fragility requires this sort of special handling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LookinUp Hangout Grand Counsel

LookinUp

Posted
Posted
Second, he was experimenting in the top of the zone again, which we have seen lead to trouble.

This is the beginning and end of the conversation with Hunter*. He wasn't experimenting up in the zone, it's where he lives. That's his problem. He does not command his stuff down in the zone.

* Not really the beginning and end. The other stuff you posted about pitch selection could be meaningful. He clearly doesn't have a pitch that's highly effective specifically against lefties, so it could either be pitch selection or pitch quality, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark_beckens Major Leaguer Rising Star

mark_beckens

Posted
Posted
I agree with the premise of the original poster. The closer role is mostly ridiculous and kudos to the new braintrust at the Astros for recognizing this. A few points:
  • What's so special about the 9th inning that makes managers disregard the obvious strategic advantages they use in other innings? If Matusz isn't burned in the 8th, does anyone wonder if Buck brings him in against Ortiz in the 9th to finish off the lefties? I sure do. I would have been thrilled as a Boston fan to continue against Hunter instead of Matusz.
  • The idea of 9th inning pressure is extremely questionable. These guys have been playing baseball their whole lives, in front of how many people? Somehow they are relaxed in front of 40k during the 7th, but not the 9th? I'd argue that if pressure meant anything, the 9th is easier, since the batters are the ones under the gun. Rob Neyer had a great piece on this years ago.
  • The closer role is blowing money or players in the future. Jim Johnson's agent walks into negotiations with 100 saves over the last two years, and demands $10 million. Does O'Day's agent do that? Probably not. The only difference (besides that O'Day is better), is that O'Day is a relief pitcher, while Johnson is a super-glorified relief pitcher. If Johnson's got 24 saves next to his name last year instead of 40+, does that lower his price by a couple million?

The only case I see for a closer is if the would-be closer is a special case where the manager sees an advantage in playing sports psychologist. Of course, even if you do have a guy like that, is it worth the couple million in future payroll and reduced in-game flexibility, all so you can entrust such a supposedly important spot in the game to a guy whose fragility requires this sort of special handling?

Do you think it's easier to kick a fg in the 1st quarter then it is with 2 seconds left to win the game. Or to make a free throw in the 1st half or with 3 seconds left in OT? The 9th inning is the last chance to win or lose a game. It's why it's viewed different. It's why fans blame the closer for losing a game when he gives up a run or two, yet the starter gave up 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...