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?
Moderators: STLtoday Forum Moderators, Cards Talk Moderators
Wrong question.
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.
Absolutely and totally agree.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑19 Oct 2025 21:14 pmYep. 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.
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 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 07:11 am 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.
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 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 07:19 amWe 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 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 07:11 am 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.
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.ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 08:58 amYou 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 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 07:19 amWe 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 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 07:11 am 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.
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 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2025 07:33 am 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.
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.CCard wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:14 amWell, 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 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2025 07:33 am 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.sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2025 07:33 am 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.
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.) LOLsikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:23 amOf 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.CCard wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:14 amWell, 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 wrote: ↑14 Oct 2025 07:33 am 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.
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.