Would you put your closer into a tied game (bottom of 9th)?

[Mattingly]

In last night's game (Tue, 4/4), Oakland Athletics manager Ken Macha put their closer, Hudson Street, into the top of the 9th of a tied game. He retired the Yankee hitters.

In the bottom of the 8th at McAfee Coliseum, Yankee Manager Joe Torre had used setup man, Kyle Farnsworth. However, in the bottom of the 9th, used mid-reliever Scott Proctor, which cost the Yanks the win.

In such a situation, many said that Torre should've either stayed with Farnsworth, who'd only faced 2 batters and thrown only about 10 pitches. Some said he should've gone straight to Mariano Rivera, seeing if he could go 2 innings, as he'd had the day off on Monday's blowout.

What would you baseball fans here have done?

Thx.

[astromaker]

Had I have been the manager, and depending on my assessment on whether or not to use Rivera for two innings (I would lean towards no), would have been to have Proctor go in after Myers and have Fransworth go and then have Rivera close. Should Proctor have given up a run, there would have been a good chance that the lineup (no matter where they were) would be able to score a run or two.

As far as Oakland putting Huston Street in, I don't imagine they had many bullpen options after Monday's game and Street can definitely go two innings.

[Mattingly]

astromaker:

Both would have to be able to do 2 innings, since it was a tied game. Street was "saved" from a 2nd inning by one of his guys hitting a single over Matsui's head, following an IBB.

I think that keeping Farnsworth in would've been the best option. The Yanks have shown often that in a tied game, they can't score that single run in a tied game, so eventually the pitching gives out. Look at that 14-innin game from the 2004 ALCS vs Boston. Man, that was rough.

Sometimes I'd have liked Rivera, but he's not too good in 2-inning saves (or wins, if that were the case). Once you take out the setup man, who'd have to be someone who can go for 2 innings anyway, you then have to go to lesser mid-relief pitchers anyway if it gets to the 11th inning.

I think that the Yanks need a better plan when going into extra innings.

[redlegsfan21]

If the closer has the most favorable matchup, then yes, if not, no.

[The Big C]

I would have stuck with Farnsworth.

[KCGHOST]

I don't know why in game two of the season with an off two days later you would feel compelled to use your twelfth best pitcher, when you #1 reliefer is available. Torre was basically saying that he won't use Rivera unless it is a save situation.

[CuriousBoston]

Rivera...

How often does Torre use Rivera for more than one inning?

[Mattingly]

How often does Torre use Rivera for more than one inning?

Not that often. He first did this, to my knowledge, in the 2001 WS. The last time obviously cost him.

He's done it before, but usually the 2nd inning, Mo isn't so good. If he has a quick inning, he can do the next one effectively.

[Brooklyn]

Frank Robinson did the same thing last night against the Mets.

I'mprobalby in the minority, but I think it is a good move. Presumably, your closer is the best pitcher in the bullpen. If you don't put him in and lose, then you saved him for nothing. You need 3 outs from him either way, I'd rather put him in in the ninth to have your best chances of extending the game.

Of course, this is just looking at the one game and assuming he is well rested. If he had pitched, for example, in 3 straight days before that, I wouldn't bring him in, because then if he doesn't get in, I at least have the positive outcome that he gets some rest.

I'm also from the school that I'd like the managers to bring their closers in earlier then the ninth if appropriate. Again, assuming he is your best reliever, more often then not the key moment in the game occurs before the ninth, so why not have your best pitcher in there? The big problem with this is that relievers contracts are based on the save stat, so unitl they change the stat, it will be tough to change how closers are used

[Astro]

On another note: The Phillies used their closer, Tom Gordon, in a tied game and he ended up losing

[trosmok]

It might rain tomorrow

What would you baseball fans here have done?

Thx.

I would have traded for and used Jonathan Papelbon.
Seriously, I never liked the specialization that has made the pitching position merely a shadow of what it once was. Closer, set-up, lefty one-batter, part time fifth starter. middle reliever, etc., are wholly uneccessary pigeon holes. You have starters, you have a bullpen, and everything else is day to day decisions by the manager. If I was the Yankee manager, , I likely would have stuck with Farnsworth until he started to crumble.

[Mattingly]

I would have traded for and used Jonathan Papelbon.
Seriously, I never liked the specialization that has made the pitching position merely a shadow of what it once was. Closer, set-up, lefty one-batter, part time fifth starter. middle reliever, etc., are wholly uneccessary pigeon holes. You have starters, you have a bullpen, and everything else is day to day decisions by the manager. If I was the Yankee manager, , I likely would have stuck with Farnsworth until he started to crumble.

Insert Sir tros as the Cubbies manager. We'll figure out which basement he's hidden Dusty.

Anyway ... how does he set the relationship between the rotation and bullpen? How many guys are in there, and in which situations are they used?

I figure that for the Yanks, you've got the closer (Mo), setup (Farnsworth). What else is done after this?

[Erik Bedard]

I would have traded for and used Jonathan Papelbon.
Seriously, I never liked the specialization that has made the pitching position merely a shadow of what it once was. Closer, set-up, lefty one-batter, part time fifth starter. middle reliever, etc., are wholly uneccessary pigeon holes. You have starters, you have a bullpen, and everything else is day to day decisions by the manager. If I was the Yankee manager, , I likely would have stuck with Farnsworth until he started to crumble.

That's how I play MVP 05. Leave my starter in until he gets too fatigued, then bring in a reliever and leave him in until he gets too fatigued, then bring in another reliever, and by then the game should be over.

[iPod]

I don't remember where it was, but I think it was Bill James that did a study about how a run surrendered in late innings affects winning percentage. They found that winning percentage was affected most with the score tied, followed closely by a run surrendered with a 1 run lead. Unless there's some really compelling confounder here that I'm not seeing, it seems therefore that those are the 2 scenarios you would want your relief ace to be used for, rather than 1 run lead, 2 run lead, and 3 run lead.

[efin98]

Frank Robinson did the same thing last night against the Mets.

I'mprobalby in the minority, but I think it is a good move. Presumably, your closer is the best pitcher in the bullpen. If you don't put him in and lose, then you saved him for nothing. You need 3 outs from him either way, I'd rather put him in in the ninth to have your best chances of extending the game.

Of course, this is just looking at the one game and assuming he is well rested. If he had pitched, for example, in 3 straight days before that, I wouldn't bring him in, because then if he doesn't get in, I at least have the positive outcome that he gets some rest.

I'm also from the school that I'd like the managers to bring their closers in earlier then the ninth if appropriate. Again, assuming he is your best reliever, more often then not the key moment in the game occurs before the ninth, so why not have your best pitcher in there? The big problem with this is that relievers contracts are based on the save stat, so unitl they change the stat, it will be tough to change how closers are used

The difference between when the Yankees did it and the Nats is that the Yankees probably don't have a bullpen problem, the Nats do.