Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
|
Terrific stuff there! I wonder if anyone has taken this further by analyzing whether relief pitching itself is actually effective other than in situations where the starting pitcher has been hurt or isn't feeling well. In other words, when pitchers are getting bombed and are relieved, are the results any better than when they stay in and finish the game? You can't tell me that on the rare occasions when Walter Johnson was taken out of a game, every batter in the other dugout didn't say a little "thank you" under their breaths. Also, there must be a corollary analysis somewhere of how much or even whether starting pitchers do worse as the game goes into the last few innings. Ironically, Johnson himself appears to be the beneficiary of the first great example of relief specialization in 1924-25 when the big rookie Fred Marberry would come in to spell him in the 8th or 9th innings of close games. Of course, age as a reason for taking a starting pitcher out might be more accurately lumped in with the categories of injury or illness. In his latter days as a pitcher and then especially in his 7-year stint as a manager, Johnson got to witness the early days of the phenomenon of the relief specialist, and he didn't think much of it. "If pitchers aren't allowed to go deep into games, they will lose the ability to go deep into games," is a reasonable paraphrase of his attitude and quotes on the subject. To get back to Rivera, he was a dominating pitcher, there's no question about that. But if it turns out on close analysis that closing--or relief pitching itself--is an ineffective strategy even for the best of them, just how great can his career or that of any other relief pitcher be considered?