The Pulling of a Hot Starting Pitcher

[Melville]

What does “game cold” mean and do we know it’s disadvantageous?

Wrong question.
How does a manager know the reliever will be advantageous if replacing a starting pitcher who is being highly effective in the current game?
He doesn't.
No why replace what is working extremely well with a question mark?

[CorneliusWolfe]

What does “game cold” mean and do we know it’s disadvantageous?

Wrong question.
How does a manager know the reliever will be advantageous if replacing a starting pitcher who is being highly effective in the current game?
He doesn't.
No why replace what is working extremely well with a question mark?

Yep. Nothing more detrimental than pulling a starter who is dominating. Who needs to play the matchup game when your starter is already out-matching the opposition? Just asking for trouble and giving the opponent hope and a breath of fresh air.

Pulling starters too soon and obsession with the homerun by players who are not suited for it are the two worst trends in the modern game.

[Hazelwood72]

What does “game cold” mean and do we know it’s disadvantageous?

Wrong question.
How does a manager know the reliever will be advantageous if replacing a starting pitcher who is being highly effective in the current game?
He doesn't.
No why replace what is working extremely well with a question mark?

Yep. Nothing more detrimental than pulling a starter who is dominating. Who needs to play the matchup game when your starter is already out-matching the opposition? Just asking for trouble and giving the opponent hope and a breath of fresh air.

Pulling starters too soon and obsession with the homerun by players who are not suited for it are the two worst trends in the modern game.

Absolutely and totally agree.

[Hazelwood72]

Hazelwood’s Law 45-A:
Your chances of winning a baseball game are inversely proportional to the number of relief pitchers you use.

Simply put, sooner or later, you’re gonna bring the one guy in who is having a lousy day and totally loses the game for you.

Hazelwood’s Corollary #32-B:
You should keep your effective starting pitcher in the game until he ACTUALLY shows signs of deterioration. Not because of pitch count or how many times he’s been through the order.

Hazelwood’s Addendum 327-C-3.2-A:
A good manager will tell the Analytics Geeks to shove their iPads up where the sun don’t shine when said manager’s experience and eyeballs say it’s necessary. This is how managers earn their salaries. Otherwise, just fire the manager and coaches and let AI and iPad run the team far more cheaply.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this really isn’t that difficult.

[ScotchMIrish]

Good starting pitchers are a very sought after commodity and pitch counts are rational during a 162 game season. At this time of the season the strategy changes and you see good starting pitchers working on short rest and late in games out of the bullpen but during the season you would destroy the starting pitchers by overworking them.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Good starting pitchers are a very sought after commodity and pitch counts are rational during a 162 game season. At this time of the season the strategy changes and you see good starting pitchers working on short rest and late in games out of the bullpen but during the season you would destroy the starting pitchers by overworking them.

We are basically talking about one start in post season. If two more innings, and thirty more pitches are that much duress, maybe the game/pitching, is too physical.

[ScotchMIrish]

Good starting pitchers are a very sought after commodity and pitch counts are rational during a 162 game season. At this time of the season the strategy changes and you see good starting pitchers working on short rest and late in games out of the bullpen but during the season you would destroy the starting pitchers by overworking them.

We are basically talking about one start in post season. If two more innings, and thirty more pitches are that much duress, maybe the game/pitching, is too physical.

You didn't make that clear in your op. I agree in the postseason. Bumgarner in 2014 pitched a complete game shutout and on 2 day's rest a 5 inning save. One reason I didn't agree with the Cardinals selling instead of adding in July. Postseason is a new season. You don't use you 4 and 5 starters. Should have added a pitcher and made a run at it.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Good starting pitchers are a very sought after commodity and pitch counts are rational during a 162 game season. At this time of the season the strategy changes and you see good starting pitchers working on short rest and late in games out of the bullpen but during the season you would destroy the starting pitchers by overworking them.

We are basically talking about one start in post season. If two more innings, and thirty more pitches are that much duress, maybe the game/pitching, is too physical.

You didn't make that clear in your op. I agree in the postseason. Bumgarner in 2014 pitched a complete game shutout and on 2 day's rest a 5 inning save. One reason I didn't agree with the Cardinals selling instead of adding in July. Postseason is a new season. You don't use you 4 and 5 starters. Should have added a pitcher and made a run at it.

You are correct. I was murky. To be clearer, I’m not talking about a starter on a run of the mill start. I’m referencing exceptions, for instance Snell.

Other than a number three or lower, who has a history of losing it, or just seems up against the wall, sometimes leaving a starter in a batter or two more may be more appropriate.

It’s just me.

[CCard]

Good morning.

If there is one thing I can’t stand, it is an unnecessary removal of a starter who is cooking. And then it blows up.

I believe when you remove a lathered up, performing pitcher, in lieu of four “game cold” relievers, one of them will fail. This he game.

I don’t know if it is this - 3rd time thru syndrome, or the pitch count issue, or a manager wanting to be a part of the show, but something drives that move.

Using Snell as an example. Dominant thru 8. Aren’t the chances he will do ok in the ninth as good as a closer?

Last night ninth produced four base runners and one run. Ended bases loaded. Lots of drama based on one move.

Conclusion. I think this is one area a manager makes a huge difference in a game, the removal of his hot starter.

Thoughts.

Well, they probably have the stats to back their decisions up dog, they just backfire sometimes. But hindsight is 20/20 and when you take out a successful starter and it backfires then you look like a fool. No guarantee that the starter will continue to dominate, but I do believe there are exceptional pitchers that you don't do that to. I would never take out a Gibson, Scherzer type pitcher. They've earned the right to pitch late. Some though, you just know they will tire and give it up. The manager has to decide this and he's never going to be perfect. No one is.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Good morning.

If there is one thing I can’t stand, it is an unnecessary removal of a starter who is cooking. And then it blows up.

I believe when you remove a lathered up, performing pitcher, in lieu of four “game cold” relievers, one of them will fail. This he game.

I don’t know if it is this - 3rd time thru syndrome, or the pitch count issue, or a manager wanting to be a part of the show, but something drives that move.

Using Snell as an example. Dominant thru 8. Aren’t the chances he will do ok in the ninth as good as a closer?

Last night ninth produced four base runners and one run. Ended bases loaded. Lots of drama based on one move.

Conclusion. I think this is one area a manager makes a huge difference in a game, the removal of his hot starter.

Thoughts.

Well, they probably have the stats to back their decisions up dog, they just backfire sometimes. But hindsight is 20/20 and when you take out a successful starter and it backfires then you look like a fool. No guarantee that the starter will continue to dominate, but I do believe there are exceptional pitchers that you don't do that to. I would never take out a Gibson, Scherzer type pitcher. They've earned the right to pitch late. Some though, you just know they will tire and give it up. The manager has to decide this and he's never going to be perfect. No one is.

Of course you are correct. No one is perfect. My thing. Seems several times this year with our manager and now others, it’s like it’s scripted. Sometimes, it seems the manager Dam near runs to the mound.

At that point, a scripted reliever cerse a hot starter, I’d probably stick with my horse. How much longer? That is the real question. How much longer. When.

[blackinkbiz]

Good morning.

If there is one thing I can’t stand, it is an unnecessary removal of a starter who is cooking. And then it blows up.

I believe when you remove a lathered up, performing pitcher, in lieu of four “game cold” relievers, one of them will fail. This he game.

I don’t know if it is this - 3rd time thru syndrome, or the pitch count issue, or a manager wanting to be a part of the show, but something drives that move.

Using Snell as an example. Dominant thru 8. Aren’t the chances he will do ok in the ninth as good as a closer?

Last night ninth produced four base runners and one run. Ended bases loaded. Lots of drama based on one move.

Conclusion. I think this is one area a manager makes a huge difference in a game, the removal of his hot starter.

Thoughts.

Completely agree Snell should have been allowed to start the 9th. The Dodgers, who not only have every advantage no other team has, also seem to possess tremendous luck in the postseason. I think there was a ball in play that hit off 3rd base and miraculously bounced the Dodgers way, and if the Brewers' final batter had simply turned backwards instead of lunging out of the way, that entire series could have gone differently.

But at least Snell went 8. I heard about some manager in the playoffs, a few years ago, that pulled his starter after 5.1 IP when the pitcher was crafting a masterpiece as most hitters couldn't even make contact. And the starter was only at 70-something pitches. I think everything blew up when that same manager was forced to get 5 outs from his injured closer all because the manager thought he was smarter than everyone and pulled his starter at LEAST 20 pitches and 2 innings too soon.

Wonder if that guy still has a job ... If he does, he must have made up for by leading his team to unrivaled success ever since that game...

[sikeston bulldog2]

My issue is, some starters get pulled, regardless of inning, when they may still have as much to offer as a just in game reliever.

How it turns out is not really my point. It’s the act. And by doing so, it started or joined that vicious cycle of pitcher going less innings.

Maybe some of the oroblem was man made.

[CCard]

Good morning.

If there is one thing I can’t stand, it is an unnecessary removal of a starter who is cooking. And then it blows up.

I believe when you remove a lathered up, performing pitcher, in lieu of four “game cold” relievers, one of them will fail. This he game.

I don’t know if it is this - 3rd time thru syndrome, or the pitch count issue, or a manager wanting to be a part of the show, but something drives that move.

Using Snell as an example. Dominant thru 8. Aren’t the chances he will do ok in the ninth as good as a closer?

Last night ninth produced four base runners and one run. Ended bases loaded. Lots of drama based on one move.

Conclusion. I think this is one area a manager makes a huge difference in a game, the removal of his hot starter.

Thoughts.

Well, they probably have the stats to back their decisions up dog, they just backfire sometimes. But hindsight is 20/20 and when you take out a successful starter and it backfires then you look like a fool. No guarantee that the starter will continue to dominate, but I do believe there are exceptional pitchers that you don't do that to. I would never take out a Gibson, Scherzer type pitcher. They've earned the right to pitch late. Some though, you just know they will tire and give it up. The manager has to decide this and he's never going to be perfect. No one is.

Of course you are correct. No one is perfect. My thing. Seems several times this year with our manager and now others, it’s like it’s scripted. Sometimes, it seems the manager Dam near runs to the mound.

At that point, a scripted reliever cerse a hot starter, I’d probably stick with my horse. How much longer? That is the real question. How much longer. When.

It does feel that way, I agree. Remembering that the starting pitcher was your stud and leaving him in as long as he could lift his arm are a thing of the past it seems. The numbers guys starting looking at effectiveness instead of feeling the vibe of the game and I think the game has suffered for it. That being said, it's a job for them and they are going to do what they think works best and everything else be damned. Herzog once said that a great bullpen made him a genius and bad bullpen made him and idiot. (paraphrased of course.) LOL

[sikeston bulldog2]

Last night was similar.

[sikeston bulldog2]

So Woo, a starter is one out into his third inning. Gives up two on- boom pitching change.

Then Bazardo gives up the bomb/ woo could have done that, and likely not. Woo was warm and lathered. Still might have given up another hit, but I doubt it’s a bomb to soringer.

[rockondlouie]

I wouldn't have removed Kirby that soon.