A question about conventional wisdom
Posted on April 25th, 2008 – 10:53 PMBy Howard
The Twins managed to lose to Texas on a night when pretty much everyone whose name wasn’t Morneau or Mauer managed to contribute to the defeat.
But let’s talk about conventional wisdom and whether this was a time to try something different.
You’re in a 5-5 game going into the bottom of the 10th inning on the road. You have one of baseball’s elite relievers warmed up along with another guy who hasn’t shown you a thing for the better part of two seasons (and whom you unsuccessfully tried to trade over the winter).
The other team has its 3-4-5 hitters coming up.
If you go with the elite reliever, you stand an awfully good chance of getting through the inning. Then, in the 11th, your batters will be facing a team with the worst bullpen (statistically) in the league. And that team has already used its closer for an inning, which isn’t unusual for the home team in a tie game. So you should stand an OK chance of scoring in the 11th, at which time you can decide whether to let your elite reliever pitch a second inning or bring in someone else to face, probably, the lower part of the opponent’s batting order.
If you don’t score in the 11th, maybe your elite reliever pitches two innings and then you take your chances.
Keep in mind, too, that your elite reliever hasn’t pitched since Tuesday and your team has two days off in the next week. So overuse isn’t an issue.
Does this seem like a good time to bring in Joe Nathan to pitch the 10th instead of Juan Rincon?
other people are here too
47 Responses to "A question about conventional wisdom"
No brainer if you ask me. No one other than Morneau had a good game.
Of course in hindsight it would have been better to bring in Nathan, but over the long haul of the season, you have to have some other relievers be able to take on the challenge of some big innings. Joe can’t be the only one. The problem is that “Juanie” hasn’t been the same pitcher since he got off the roids. His velocity is down 3-4 mph and he has not had the same success since.
gomez did
Mauer had a good game. A great game!
Howard has a good analysis. A great analysis.
Right, AaronK.
Ask Gogo if he had a good game after being hurt when the Twins needed a base runner. Didn’t look like a “good game” injury to me. Hope that Span didn’t get all the way to Rochester before seeing that!
Howard,
You are absolutely right about pitching Nathan against the 3-4-5 hitters, but Gardy (like most other managers) wouldn’t have the heuevos to risk losing while being creative.
When they get beat as they did tonight, Gardy can always say he was going by the book and live in the protection of the herd stupidity that protects all the other gutless managers.
There is always a risk when a manager (or statesman, politician or any professional) acts outside the box and fails. Only the courageous dare to be innovators.
Does this seem like a good time to bring in Joe Nathan to pitch the 10th instead of Juan Rincon?
Not just a good time, the perfect time. Gardy has an infatuation with saving Nathan for hypothetical save situations.
I 100% agree with you, Howard. Gardy needs to loosen his definition of “closer” because as it is there aren’t many games the Twins need closed.
Incompetence by a major league manager.
Seems to be a constant with the Minnesota Twins.
It’s as if Gardenhire refuses to use Joe Nathan unless it’s in a save situation. I guess that’s why the Twins are paying him all that money.
*rolls eyes*
The 40 million dollar man better be able to give me three innings in two days if the need should arise.
Gardy did blow this one maybe next time he won’t go to Rincon because Juany will be gone!
I know it’s probably wishful thinking but we can still hope!
Maybe my 11:23PM rant at MLB managers for their fear of creativity is actually part of the problem.
I have never had a job from which I could be fired for creativity. I thought outside the box, because thats what my job required.
If a MLB manager comes up with a great idea which fails initially, he gets blasted by the critics and he may be bagging groceries for a living next week. Not much incentive for non-conformity.
Its like when Joe Mauer is blasted for not hitting enough HR’s.
He then tries to pull the ball and as a result rolls over his swing and hits ground balls to the second basemen.
He then gets blasted for that, even though the initial criticism probably drove him to abandon his whole-field line-drive approach. (which won him a MLB batting championship)
Critics like the media, bloggers and commenters (like me) may possibly be a cause of the situation which we are criticizing.
Went to bed when Rincon came in knowing what the outcome would be.
Simple answer to Howard’s question: yes.
How did Juan make this club anyway. It’s time to cut the cord.
I agree but the main reason they lost is getting shutout for seven innings by that horrible pitching staff (including 4 by the statistically worst bullpen in baseball). I agree with Joe C’s analysis of the offense yesterday. It cost them another game last night. It’s early, but how bout those Bill Smith lineup “upgrades”?
What would make Nathan pitching the 10th even easier is the fact that he was warming up in both the top of the 8th and 9th innings.If you get him up you use him correct? And Gardenhire is mad at the players for making mistakes in the field last night? Someone needs to look in the mirror.
Gardenhire was in the bathroom working the Caulk and not thinking again. Maybe we need Denard Span back because now when Little Nicky Punto is in the game, there is no one else to work the Caulk, and Gardenhire can’t do two things at once.
Kyle Lohse was australian for loss.
Juan GONE WITH THE WIN Rincon is pretty much that with a little bit of belle pepper.
It’s just sad. A road game where your team has stopped hitting and you just spent 40 million on the wrong pitcher… it’s time to start using that wrong pitcher more, and not using the worst pitcher on the staff at all.
Rincon’s got a good arm for a blowout. How many god damn times do we need to have the truth spelled out for us that he cannot handle pressure?
When is it time to fire Joe Vavra?
I think (how he handled the bullpen) is the right way to go over the course of the season. But I think the closer should be used more liberally when he’s been underworked and probably needs to get some work in anyway.
BC…Vavra should have never even been hired.
Look at Washington Did he brought in his closer early……Gardy gave the game away by using Rincon who is done and has been over over a season.
This team is driving me nuts as they get you excited one game and then like last night break your heart.
Young looked lost last night at bat and in the field.
nathan is not guardado, i think he can handle non-save situations a bit better.
Rick Anderson for Manager!!
Tolbert needs to replace Lamb at third. The kid can hit.
Absolutely right, Howard. That situation just screamed “bring in Nathan NOW!”
Texas may have eventually won anyway… but the choice that gave the Twins the best chance at winning would have been to bring in Nathan at that point, rather than Rincon.
Bad decision.
Right on the money, Howard.
Put Nathan in for an inning, maybe two, and pray for an offensive miracle.
Watching them put Rincon in was the equivalent of watching a horribly written horror movie, and seeing the dumb co-ed heading into the basement by herself.
I’m going to respectfully disagree with your premise, Howerd.
First, an observation you almost certainly know but that some posters may not: going to your closer in an extra-inning tie is part of the conventional wisdom, if you’re the home team. After all, if you score, the game is over.
You do note that Texas has, statistically, the worst bullpen in the AL, but also note that Texas’s closer was in the game. Let’s say the Twins go with Nathan in the bottom of the 10th, and he pitches a scoreless inning. Texas’s closer returns for the top of the 11th and throws a scoreless inning (surely Mariano Rivera isn’t the only closer in the game able to go two innings every now and then?), then Nathan throws a scoreless bottom of the 11th. The Rangers go with another reliever in the 12th and surrender a run.
Now what?
Do you go with Nathan for a third inning? (If memory serves, the last time we tried that, in the 2004 playoffs, it didn’t go so well, either.) Or do you go with Rincon now to try and get the save? Say Rincon allows a run, as he did in the actual game. Now you’re back to square one, only now you don’t have Nathan. In addition, by going with Nathan for two innings, you’ve put yourself into a dangerous position if you have to go back to Nathan in each of the next two games of the series.
Sure, it’s tough when it looks as though a game was thrown away, but honestly, baseball isn’t usually about the ‘win at any cost’ mentality — and especially not in April. (Unless you’re fighting to keep your job, as Ron Washington certainly seems to be.)
If the Twins come back and win the next two by one-run margins, with Nathan nailing down both saves, I think a few folks will owe Gardy an apology. Or the next two games could both be blowouts and thus how you use the closer in this game wouldn’t have mattered. If anybody here knows which way the next two games will go, well, maybe they should be the Twins manager.
Nathan is the right choice, especially since Rincon was not rested. Even keeping Neshek in for a second inning would have been a better choice than putting in Rincon.
Rincon did not lose that game, though, and I don’t think he’s as bad a pitcher as many people here seem to think.
I’m placing my blame squarely on Jason Kubel’s ego. Every time he came to the plate, he swung for the fence. And every time he came up a little short. Result: 0-5 with 7 runners left on base.
Jason, buddy, you’re a good player. But you gotta try to hit singles sometimes. I know it’s tempting to want to be the hero and everything, but don’t expect to be able to hit it out every time.
Texas didn’t have their closer in the game, David. He played the top of the 9th, and was replaced for the top of the 10th.
I think Gardy’s decision could have been second-guessed either way. Had he put Nathan in and the Twins scored a run two inning later, who comes in to close it out? Rincon? Crain? Korecky (sp?)?
I was just saying last night, where o where is Tolbert?? The boy can hit and he can field. But no, we have harris and Lamb ( who can’t see a slow rolling ball between his legs!!).
Well, Howard’s argument doesn’t seem as cut and dried as it was at first glance. Nice post, David W.
But I still conclude with Howard, barely. The team is dealing with the double shock of Liriano and Gomez. The report was that the bench got awfully quiet when Gomez went down. And the exuberance from the grand slam got squashed due to the 5-5 tie.
So the team needed a win. A slight one-time roll of the dice would have been okay on Gardy’s part. And Crain was still available.
Which leads to the obvious question, Why did Gardy use Rincon instead of Crain?
Doesn’t matter. As long as Punto is an every day player, and Lamb is in there, and Young can’t hit….need I go on? They went 7 straight innings against TX w/o scoring.
What was TX team ERA before that game? I bet it was over 5!
Nothing about the pitching matters (even Gardy making good or bad decisions) until this team finds more hitters.
“Tolbert needs to replace Lamb at third. The kid can hit.”
What???? Tolbert is 4 for his last 22 (.182), and 1 for his last 9 (.111).
Let’s not let his 10-18 start cloud us from what he really is.
Lamb is 5 for his last 17 (.294). Let’s not make too much of small sample sizes.
I think Gardy’s decision could have been second-guessed either way. Had he put Nathan in and the Twins scored a run two inning later, who comes in to close it out? Rincon? Crain? Korecky (sp?)?
There’s that hypothetical save opportunity again.
Your point is completely irrelevant because Nathan didn’t come in to pitch, the Twins didn’t score any runs, and another pitcher didn’t need to come in to close it out, because Rincon blew it long before this mythical save had the opportunity of happening.
Thanks for the clarification, Katie.
I think the conventional wisdom has a very good point to make — you can’t win a tie game until you score, and if you’re the visiting team, you still have to get through the home half with someone on the mound. Ideally, you want that guy to be your closer — that’s his job, after all.
If you put in your closer in the bottom of the 10th, you’re basically gambling that you’ll score in the top of the 11th, or that you’ll do just as well without your closer later in the game. If your closer comes in later with a lead and does his job, the game ends with a win — if he comes in with a tie and does his job, you probably get to decide next inning whether to keep him out there, which burns another inning, or replace him, which puts you back into the ‘problem’ of not having your best pitcher on the mound in a tie game. Meanwhile, burning two or more innings out of your closer in a tie ballgame deprives you of the opportunity to use him later in the series if the other games are close, and thus having your best pitcher in a game where you do have the chance to ice a win.
It looks like it should be a good move, bringing the closer in for a tie game on the road, but it’s really a lose-lose proposition, unless you get lucky. And if you’re going to get lucky, then what does it matter who’s pitching?
[…] overrated — and therefore the Joe Nathan signing was unwise. After Friday night’s loss, Howard Sinker has some words about the conventional wisdom of keeping the closer on the bench in extra inning […]
You know, for all the times Nathan’s closed the game out for us and I can understand everyone wanting him to come in, but I’ve noticed that when ever he comes in during a tied game in extra innings or pitches multiple innings, alot of times he gives up a run or two, so I think Gardy made the right call it’s April and he wants to see who’s gonna be clutch, obviously Rincoln couldn’t do it and now we have a better understanding of where he’s at.
To the “fire Gardy guy” put your huevos on ice, NOW! Perhaps you could do a better job? I think NOT. To the other senders, my kudos.
I believe that Gardy did the right thing in saving Joe, what he did is Baseball 101(for those of you who think you know how to call a game). We are the visiting team, they used their closer…
My only problem is that Gardy had faith in a guy that just can not seem to do it anymore. Gardy’s choice was on the $$$, Juanies’ pitching was not and has not been for some time.
Keep Gardy, ditch Juanie.
Can I get an Amen brother?
Sunday Morning Prayer for the Martyrs:
Forgive them Saint Joseph (Vavra),
for they know not……..
wtf they are talking about.
You have to put your elite stopper to get the win. Nathan has pitched 2 innings in the past and has excelled. Baseball people have to get past the “closer” moniker and more appropriately use the word “stopper.”
Example, Borowski of CLE led the league in saves (closing) but is certainly NOT a “stopper.” What’s more important–Nathan’s save numbers or the number of team W’s?
There’s very little “non-conventional” thinking in baseball. It only seems that way because someone is coming up with new ways to crunch statistics every year. In practice, not much is changing. You’ll see Milwaukee or St. Louis bat the pitcher 8th sometimes, but I don’t see any outside-the-box thinking in baseball.
In a situation like that you always have to worry about getting beat with your best! Not your 8th best.
It’s the extra innings and one run will win the game, you bring in your best pitcher, and work your way down the list from best to worst. End of conversation. Gardy Screwed the pooch, and thought it was Punto.
Gardy blew it on the Rincon over Nathan call…maybe they can trade him midseason…then Juanee would be gonee.
I don’t see that anyone has brought this up…but why couldn’t Blackburn go back out for the 7th inning? He wasn’t using many pitches after the Rangers tied it up in the 3rd and probably could have gotten through the 7th without going much over the magic 100 mark (he was at 90).
This is another angle I’m surprised no one is mentioning since it would have pushed the relievers back an inning and would have given the Twins another chance to score before Rincon was put in to lose the game for us. I too stopped watching when they put him in since I knew that is our way of waving the white flag.
This was very interesting reading…
I was at this game, as well as Saturday’s game –
We shouldn’t even be concerned about the pitching decision…it should have NEVER come down to that–Twins should have won it in nine! (Nathan Save)
If Mike Lamb could field a SIMPLE ground ball, throw to second and on to first for a double play none of you would be discussing the pitching issue.
The inning would have ended at 5-2, Delmon wouldn’t have booted the ball in left field, and Blackburn (twins best starting pitcher thus far) would have pitched longer and re’cd another win!
I blame the whole loss on a Mike Lamb “boot” - heck, I could have made that play!!
[…] links that help explain my disdain for Gardenhire’s near-unrivaled managerial idiocy: his decision to leave a well-rested Nathan on the bench during last weekend’s extra innings affair. Please, someone, justify how this makes sense. […]
