Classic second-guess: Should Cliff Lee have started the ninth last night? Now that we know Kerry Wood was not going to succeed, we can yes it should have been Lee. But the problem nowadays is managers are so programmed. The closer pitches the ninth, so he starts the ninth. Me, I don't know what's wrong with letting the starter go into the ninth and if he struggles bringing in the closer. It can happen once in a while, no? Just like a complete game can happen, too. Lee is the reigning Cy Young winner.
Bottom line: Wood is being paid to get three outs, and he didn't. Wedge trusted Wood, he let Wedge down and because of that the decision seems silly and the second-guessing begins. As Yahoo wrote: "If Lee's not tired and could have pitched the ninth, Wedge was being a sheep. Bahh! General manager Mark Shapiro bought him an expensive toy, a closer, in the wake of the demoralizing ninth innings of 2008. The Indians might have won the AL Central if the back of their bullpen had been in order. These factors probably went into Wedge's thinking. When it came to push the ninth-inning button, he did it. He's no fool. Except, that, he was."
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
i don't really consider it a second guess. wedge had been burnt by pulling reyes and pavano too early against the yankees in april and wood had squandered 8 innings of shutout ball by lee in against boston not long afterwards.
a smart manager would probably stay away from a gas can bullpen. but the indians have wedge so here we are in may heading for a 100 loss season.
why would you want cliff lee to go nine innings?? you would honestly rather have a chance at a win now, rather than saving his arm for later in the season (which may include at least 50 wins at this rate) which would allow cliff to keep us in the game until the 8th inning before turning it over to the bullpen to lose then???
Pat, couldn't agree more. A starter that has pitched that well and is not showing signs of fatigue deserves the chance to finish his own game. Not only am I sick of overall major league bullpen specialization, I am sick and tired of the fact that teams use their best relief pitcher in theory (the closer) only to come in and start a 9th inning when they have the lead. If they are your best reliever (and one of your highest paid pitchers), they should be used in the 8th inning if the set up man or men get the team in a jam. Closers should be able to throw more than 45-60 innings in a year.
What was Lee's pitch count through the 8th inning?
101
Well, there you are. 101. Most managers are hung up on pitch counts. So are a lot of media people, I might add. So you really can't blame Wedge for this.
I used to have e-mail arguments with Terry Pluto all the time about pitch counts. His go-to pitch e-mail was always "Sandy Koufax." And I'd e-mail him back and say "Sam McDowell." And he'd mail me back and say "Sandy Koufax." And I would e-mail him back and say "Sam McDowell." And it would go on and on and on. So I just gave up. When somebody's mind is made up, then their mind is made up.
I mean, it's just mindless. The true sole underlying purpose of pitch counts is agent-driven. Extend a pitcher's career and his economic potential. That's it. It has nothing to do with performance. But Wedge truly believes in pitch counts, and nothing will ever change his mind. Whatever.
I read an interview with Bob Feller last week. The dude is 91. The oldest Hall of Fame guy still alive. And he still is going crazy about managers shutting pitchers down over pitch counts. Rants and raves about it in every interview.
If it were up to me, it would be four-man rotations, and if you're pitching well, then you can pitch until your arm falls off or you scream "Uncle!" Just like the old days. Screw the agents and the Players Association.
I'm sure that the Indians have done the math. They know that the numbers say that you are more likely to win a 3-run game by starting the 9th with the closer instead of putting the starter back out there after he has thrown 101 pitches.
This is pure second-guessing. No facts to support the correctness or incorrectness of the decision, other than the fact that the Indians lost last night. I thought the age of on-hand statistics was supposed to get rid of this type of "I know it when I see it" sportswriting.
a quick look at cliff lee's pitch counts in the last handful of games will tell you that argument is bunk.
113, 113, 114
he had another inning in him.
here's a quick fact to support the incorrectness of the decision:
cliff lee-2008 cy young winner
Mike, who cares what "the numbers" generally say. That's why you have pitching aces and pitchers one step below the aces, so you don't have to look at the numbers. Those pitchers can manage themselves, they don't need some by-the-numbers robotic fool telling him he's done.
The entire concept of "closers" is dumb, particularly when it's a three-run game. But it doesn't have to be a three-run game to be dumb, it's dumb anyway. I blame Jerome Holtzman, the otherwise good baseball writer who created the save statistic in 1960, and baseball stupidly made it an official statistic in 1969.
Since then, it's been all downhill. It's pandering to the agents of starters who want longer careers for more money, and it's pandering to the agents of "closers" who wouldn't have a baseball career if not for the stupid invention of the closer in the first place.
Let a starter finish. If people would stop trying to copy Billy Beane and instead just use their own brains, the Indians wouldn't have this problem.