Reliever or Starter...still a pitcher

by marco054 on Dec 25, 2006 2:47 PM CST Comment 7 comments

I always hear alot of excuses for B-Mac's struggles as a reliever but everytime I hear it I always think of this quote. Just wondering what some of your thoughts are one this. I think it makes sense.

"On the other hand, every time he fails -- I hear a comment by Jack McDowell, when he says, 'You're a starter, you're a reliever, when you're on the mound you're a pitcher.' If you're a reliever or if you're a starter, when you're on the mound you're a pitcher, you still have to do your job."

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

it's this sort of sound commentary

that has me wishing jack was our color man. he was fantastic filling in.

by larry on Dec 25, 2006 4:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

when I first heard blackjack say this

I thought he was right too

then I heard from other guys here and I started seeing the holes in his argument
a starter goes through a heck of a lot more and different preparation before he pitches
the guy has a schedule before he throws the first pitch and nobody dare change it
he may need 1 hour to get his curveball right

another thing is that a reliever enters the game in an entirely different situation
a reliever usually starts with 1-2 men on
this changes both his thinking/mental composition and his pitching selection
he is under a hell of a lot more pressure: I got to get this guy out, I don't have any room for error, I can't throw 3 inches outside the strike zone hoping the guy will swing, I gotta strike him out etc.

HEY THIS IS JI
JIM THOME
THE PEORIA POUNDER

by The Wizard on Dec 25, 2006 6:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i agree with what you say

in fact, i was probably one of those who made the same argument. but what jack was getting at is that, in baseball, you're assigned a job. sometimes you're given a job that isn't quite tailor-made for your abilities. a pitcher's job - whenever you come into the game - is to get outs. saying BMac wasn't cut-out for relief doesn't change the job he has to do. and his attitude towards his position wasn't the best. i can't recall as much, how shall i say, resistance from guys like MB and garland.

by larry on Dec 25, 2006 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good point

I don't remember MB or garland saying the same things
otoh, I don't think this is a good enough reason to trade a good player

HEY THIS IS JI
JIM THOME
THE PEORIA POUNDER

by The Wizard on Dec 25, 2006 7:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well

i don't think that was one of the main reasons. the sense i got - and i could be completely off on this - was that BMac 1) took being in the bullpen as a sort of insult and 2) he didn't really get why he was there and what he was supposed to be accomplishing. the first i understand and, honestly, i like that. he felt that his past performance should have put him in the starting five. the second is a little more disconcerting. some of the stuff you point out in your post - like needing a warmup to get a pitch right or coming in during tough situations - have analogs to the starting. sometimes you warm up for an hour and you still don't have a pitch. sometimes you make two pitches to start a ballgame (or a paticular inning) and you've got first and third already. how do you deal with this stuff? that's some of what BMac was supposed to be learning about last year. he seemed frustrated that he wasn't effective all the time. and that's understandable. but that was also sort of the point of the whole exercise of him being in the bullpen: put himself in tough situations and get better. he just didn't seem to get it as much as the two i mentioned. and that may be part of where the whole "rumor" about him not being as coachable or open to suggestion comes from.

by larry on Dec 25, 2006 9:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by the way

(and i know i'm repeating a point i already made on another thread), i think the main reason this trade was made was that KW knows that his organization doesn't have anyone who could be considered a really top level pitching prospect. this was a very, very serious hole - especially in our division where we know liriano and verlander will be around for a quite a while and santana and sabbathia will be, too. danks' ceiling is close to their level - certainly closer than anyone else we have in the pipes. on the other hand, we've got a few guys who are basically BMac. which is good, of course; but to be a contender, you really need a top end guy.

if we keep MB, we've potentially got two guys. if we lose him, hopefully danks will be ready to begin filling part of those big shoes. top end, young pitching talent rarely becomes available. in this case, because the rangers view themselves (and not without some reason) as a legit contender for a world series in '07, one became available in exchange for a major league ready middle of the rotation guy. KW saw it as an opportunity to fill a big organizational need and grabbed it. hopefully, it will pan out.

by larry on Dec 25, 2006 10:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A bit more

going off of what Larry said, is the fact that the Sox' overall organizational roster is better today than it was before this trade.

Arguing, "KW could have gotten more", is essentially a fruitless enterprise for us fans. Unless you go back and analyze trades involving similar type players in the last 20 years, you'd have no idea. Even then, who knows what the market was like?

This is one area that as fans we really have no insight into. Just because organizations are throwing large paychecks around to land FA pitching doesn't necessarily mean they are willing to trade players to land pitching.

Many GM's are under the influence of thinking that not making a trade is better than making a trade. The status quo is easy in baseball, signing FA pitchers is en vogue. Compared to signing an overpriced but "proven" FA pitcher, risky prospect for prospect trades are by nature risky, and open up the GM to criticism more so than FA signings.

by madvillian on Dec 26, 2006 1:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs