- Thread starter
- #1
uncfan103
Not Banned
The last few games there have been a couple of games that went into extra innings or ended in the ninth inning before a team used their closer. Do managers really care this much about the ego of their closer that they just won't pitch him unless he needs work or it's a save situation? Obviously, if you're the home team in an extra inning game you will never have a save situation come up. Why not pitch the best reliever you have and hope you score before they do? Or at least bring your closer in to face the heart of the order.
Atlanta lost to the mets a few days ago in 14? innings, kimbrel never pitched. It could've been injury related but if not what were they waiting for? It's better for him to not get an appearance or get a bs than for him to pitch with a chance to get the win?
The reds never brough in Broxton tonight, the cardinals didn't bring in rosenthal yesterday, both teams lost in the bottom of the ninth as roads teams without their "closer" aka. best reliever getting into the game. I don't get it. It makes much more sense to bring in your best reliever in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game than to bring him in up three in the 15th, if you're lucky enough to even get there.
What's the reasoning for saving closers?
Atlanta lost to the mets a few days ago in 14? innings, kimbrel never pitched. It could've been injury related but if not what were they waiting for? It's better for him to not get an appearance or get a bs than for him to pitch with a chance to get the win?
The reds never brough in Broxton tonight, the cardinals didn't bring in rosenthal yesterday, both teams lost in the bottom of the ninth as roads teams without their "closer" aka. best reliever getting into the game. I don't get it. It makes much more sense to bring in your best reliever in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game than to bring him in up three in the 15th, if you're lucky enough to even get there.
What's the reasoning for saving closers?