~~~ OFFICIAL YANKEES 2007 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS OR BUST THREAD ~~~

[shemp]

The opponent has 3 outs to your none and 6 to your 3. You are, in essence, not in a tie game, but trailing by some fraction of a run. There's a game tomorrow and there still may be a close situation in this one. And what you are bargaining for is spending your closer without a win.

It is, of course, your privilege to smugly scoff at the division of labour in the modern bullpen and the definition of the role of the closer, but it makes a lot of sense to hold out a closer in a tie game on the road.

Not to say that I wouldn't gamble more and on the lines preferred by Joe Sixpack...

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I'd roll the dice and use Mo more in such situations, you guys do understand why you don't put a closer into tie games on the road, right? It's hardly stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i mean why would you want your best pitcher to prevent a team from winning the game

[/ QUOTE ]

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
The opponent has 3 outs to your none and 6 to your 3. You are, in essence, not in a tie game, but trailing by some fraction of a run. There's a game tomorrow and there still may be a close situation in this one. And what you are bargaining for is spending your closer without a win.

It is, of course, your privilege to smugly scoff at the division of labour in the modern bullpen and the definition of the role of the closer, but it makes a lot of sense to hold out a closer in a tie game on the road.

Not to say that I wouldn't gamble more and on the lines preferred by Joe Sixpack...

[/ QUOTE ]

you have done nothing to demonstrate why this is true. if you're trailing by a fraction of a run, isn't that a reason to bring in your best pitcher, in order to hold that 'deficit'?

keep in mind he hasn't pitched in a week (because torre is a moron and kept him out during a 13 inning game).

your argument seems to be to give your opponent a greater chance of winning tonight so he might have a lesser chance tomorrow. it is very unlikely that a higher leverage situation comes up in tomorrow's game.

[andyfox]

This team fields poorly, pitches poorly and hits poorly. Their hitting stats as a team look OK, but three guys have essentially generated all the offense.

[shemp]

I don't know the referent of "this" -- the "this" I haven't shown by demonstration.

He didn't pitch Rivera in the 13th of a game for a similar reason-- combined with knowing the fury that would have accompanied trotting out Melky Cabrera for the 15th.

There's a strong likelihood that a better situation will arise in this game, that must be added to the likelihood a close situation will arise tomorrow.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the referent of "this" -- the "this" I haven't shown by demonstration.

He didn't pitch Rivera in the 13th of a game for a similar reason-- combined with knowing the fury that would have accompanied trotting out Melky Cabrera for the 15th.

There's a strong likelihood that a better situation will arise in this game, that must be added to the likelihood a close situation will arise tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is no better situation that will arise in the game. this is painfully obvious. holding a lead is much less difficult than holding a non-lead, DUCY?

i didn't watch the 13 inning game - but not to get your best relief pitcher in there is absolutely inexcusable.

[shemp]

If you get through the 9th, a better situation has arisen. You have 3 outs and they have 3 outs, and there is some fraction of a run that you can expect to be ahead before they come to bat in the bottom of the 10th.

In the 9th, if they are 25% to score on Rivera and 33% to score on Proctor, bringing in Rivera will make a difference only ~8%, but you'll be in the afore described better situation for the 10th 67% if you go with Proctor in the 9th.

There's some sleight of hand, but this is gov't work.

As for the 13 inning game, the force is strong in you that all you know is that Mo didn't pitch and Torre is therefore an idiot.

[GuyIncognito]

[ QUOTE ]

There's a strong likelihood that a better situation will arise in this game, that must be added to the likelihood a close situation will arise tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better than with a man on third and 1 out in the 9th inning of a tie game?

You can't have Rivera getting up and sitting down every time trouble starts brewing, but a simple strategy of having him warm up in the 8th and putting him in whenever, say, (1) a guy reaches 3rd with fewer than 2 outs or (2) the big bats come up, then keeping him in for a total of 1 inning is quite likely higher EV than saving him for a 1-run lead.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There's a strong likelihood that a better situation will arise in this game, that must be added to the likelihood a close situation will arise tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better than with a man on third and 1 out in the 9th inning of a tie game?

[/ QUOTE ]

How often can we expect that guy to score on Proctor? How often can we expect that guy to score on Rivera? The difference is the value add of Rivera. The probability a better situation arises is 1 minus the likelihood Proctor gives up that run.

[Triumph36]

shemp -

what you don't seem to be understanding is that winning in the game in the 10th means not losing it in the 9th. you bring in rivera in the 9th because that same possibility of proctor blowing it exists in subsequent innings, but there's the possibility that A: you have a lead in later innings (meaning proctor's mistakes are less likely to cost the yankees the game) and B: you might have a huge lead! (meaning you could bring in colter bean and not worry). What you're doing is taking that 8% difference which you KNOW exists, and moving it back to innings where hopefully you can absorb that margin better - you KNOW for sure that you CAN'T do that in the 9th inning.

somehow managers understand this concept when they bring out their closer for the top of the ninth in a tie game, but their head explodes when save baubles are brought up.