Yet when Seattle was in the midst of losing 13 of 14 games in late August and early September to tumble from the wild-card lead to hopelessly out of playoff contention, Putz pitched only twice. So when the team was floundering at a make-or-break point of the season, its supposed best pitcher -- the league's alleged best reliever -- was of no help because the Mariners were not in official and proper "save situations."
That's because regardless of era, all stats point to this truth: The key is not who you have on the mound in the ninth but getting to the ninth with a lead.
Taking out a well functioning pitcher in favor of someone who may or may not be on seems insane to me.
That doesn't bother quite as much as slavishly refusing to use your best reliever in what may be the most important situation in a game.
I would be really surprised to see any manager breaking the taboo and using their best reliever for critical, non-save situations earlier in the game. I don't follow Oakland, but don't they use Street in strictly the closers role? Beane appears to talk about changing the paradigm, but talk seems to be about it.
How often do you see the set-up man have to go through 3, 4 and 5, while the closer gets to pitch to 6, 7 and 8, and the closer gets the credit?
How often do you see the set-up man have to go through 3, 4 and 5, while the closer gets to pitch to 6, 7 and 8, and the closer gets the credit?I remember this happening a lot when Dotel was setting up Wagner.