You might as well put your top guy out there in that inning because the game’s on the line then.

Than the closer shouldn’t be a set role for the ninth inning. I wish teams would actually use their best reliever (generally the closer) when they are most needed, which is not always the ninth inning.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/04/17/thebook.excerpt/index.html

I hate the term closer mentality, but I think it applies here. I’m guessing Macha likes his closer to come in knowing his role. That way the closer can come to the park and get into his routine. Since coming in for the 9th inning with the game on the line is a lot of pressure, letting that pitcher get into a routine removes a lot of the other worries that come along with being a bullpen pitcher, and lets him relax.

I’ve always thought closers were completely overrated, so I can’t say I entirely agree with Macha, but I definitely prefer his train of thought to Ned’s.

ive always said we should throw our best reliever out there when we need him most, that being the 7th 8th or 9th inning. all my buddies disagree with me and think we should have clearly defined set roles like ned yost had. i cant stand clear-cut roles such as 7-9th inning guys. it depends on the situation

do we have an actual competent manager? Thank God!!!

Mitch Williams, Dan Plesac, and Jim Kaat were in studio for the last episode of “Hot Stove.” Amongst others, the topic of conversation was 300 game winning pitchers. No one thinks anyone but Randy Johnson will ever reach that milestone again. Based simply on a 5-man rotation vs. previously used 4-man rotations, one would have to agree.

But it really struck me—things are so different in baseball than they once were. Just think, if we had a 4-man rotation that went 8 or 9 innings most every game, how different would it be?

… I can’t help but wonder how many of the Clemens’ (and maybe only him out of that group) victories came after his career would have ended but for steroids, HGH or other PEDs. We’ll never know the answer to that, of course. The notion that one of the major (if not primary) benefits of steroids and HGH was that it could extend careers effectively beyond ages where huge dropoff in performance have been common historically. I think that’s significant in this instance because his 300th win cam after his 40th birthday. While that may not be an uncommon age to reach that statistical landmark historically, longevity and durability are obviously the biggest obstacles to hitting that number of wins. One of the many, many reasons why Clemens is such a compelling case-study for the impact of PEDs on the game is that (to my admittedly ill-informed eyes) there appears to be a statistical “trough” in his year-to-year numbers in the mid-90’s that went hand in hand with durability problems. Then, quite suddenly in my opinion, he regained his old form (and his durability) in the late 90’s while putting up another 160+ wins. I know that wins are often coincidental to a pitcher’s performance in any particular game or season rather than a direct result of that performance, but you can’t get a win if you’re not on the mound, and it seems likely to me that PEDs gave Clemens, at least, the opportunity to take the mound for a longer period of time than would have been likely without them.

Would he have done that without the benefit of PEDs? Maybe. And maybe he accomplished some or even most of that without ’em. What chafes me the most about PEDs is the guys like Clemens and Bonds and A-Rod who could have (and in the case of Bonds, would have) been HOF players without their use and yet they chose to use them anyway. They gave away their immortality, and they took away the joyful memories that (some) fans would otherwise have of them.

i dont think that Macha wants to forget the fact that CV is also a great multiple inning eater… he can be put in when a starter sucks it up… i know we also have McClung for that but if you think that McClung wont be in the rotation at sometime this year than you are mistaken. CV and McClung are interchangeable; both can be the set-up man and both can be starters/long relievers…
the best thing that Macha is doing is that he is leaving his options open and not comitting to anything… unlike Yost who set everthing in stone until the numbers told him to do differently… I think its smart, in a political aspect. Go Macha!