Footwedge;1230381 wrote:One last time...and then I am done with you, Slick. My argument is clear. I believe that in the past, managers using their best relief pitchers for more than one inning provided better results. I showed a pile of statistical evidence supporting my argument. You have shown nothing to support yours.
In today's world of push button technology and robotic thinking, baseball managers reduce the chances of their winning by conforming to today's status quo of "one inning closers". The stats I provided bore this out.
The ERA is one of the best determinants in rating pitchers. My point is that those that have the best ERA's, give your team the best opportunity to win. Pitching your best pitchers 2 innings instead of one is is simply....a no brainer....and the stats I posted....that you apparently can't read, is proof. Yesteryear's "best relief pitchers" averaged 2 innings plus...whereby today's relief pitchers don't. Yet the ERA's in comparing the 1 inning "closer" to the "2 inning closer" are very very close. If you can't understand the stats, then that is your problem.
If you want to continue the cherade in calling me names...knock yourself out. Life is short...and precious. I'm finished with you.
you havent provided any stats. my god man, you are senile. how can you possible say they provided better results when they pitch more than one inning when statistically they blow 10% more saves? not even to mention all of the pitchers you mentioned, did NOT average more than two innings pitched.
and ERA is NOT a good way to determine the effectiveness of a relief pitcher. here is how, if your old brain can computer
Old school pitcher throws 2 innings but gives up 2 runs and blows a save ERA = 9.00
Modern pitcher throws 1 inning and gives up 2 runs and blows a save ERA = 18.00
who gives a fuck what their ERA was, they lost the game. even if they dont blow the save, who cares what their ERA is, they got the save and the win.
