Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
apparently Mo Rivera was warming, so I believe Girardi would have pulled him.
Mo needed work and was going to go in, in the 9th if CC gave up a hit. Players do have specific roles. Mo is our closer but they have to make sure he doesn't go too long between outings, so they were waiting for that hit.
There have been seven no-hitters that were pitched by two to seven different pitchers.
Is it really worth risking your ace in order to get a no-hitter? Look at what happened last year after Buehrle's perfect game - five or six ineffective starts.
As someone else said, they happened by chance and usually involved starters who were not "Hall of Fame" or close to it (though the famous 6 pitcher no hitter AGAINST the Yankees did involve Roy Oswalt, who while I wouldn't call "Hall of Fame" did win 20 games one year). In the Babe Ruth/Ernie Shore no-hitter, the Babe was thrown out of the game for arguing with the ump. In at least one or two others, the pitcher was injured during the game and it otherwise would not have gone to a reliever. And I don't believe in any of them the starter was pulled in the 8th or 9th inning.
I can just imagine the media if CC was pulled in the 8th or 9th, especially if the reliever blew the no-no. Though having someone like Mariano as part of one would be interesting......
I don't care what anyone says. If CC got that final out in the 8th, i'd bet my life he'd be in there for the 9th. Alot of times managers say differently especially after it's broken up but no way in hell would Girardi upset George and Co. by removing CC with a no no. Especially considering he was averaging about 15 pitches an inning.
I couldnt agree more. CC wasnt coming out until they game was over or he gave up a hit.
But back on the topic at hand - i hate pitch counts too. Hopefully sometime we will go back to the old way and just let folks pitch until they lose their effectiveness. This is only half of the measure these days. It seems that when a pitcher gets to 100 pitchers most people assume they are spent. How many times do you see them pull a starter who may have thrown 6 solid innings but is at 100 + pitches and then the relievers come in and blow the game.
But back on the topic at hand - i hate pitch counts too. Hopefully sometime we will go back to the old way and just let folks pitch until they lose their effectiveness. This is only half of the measure these days. It seems that when a pitcher gets to 100 pitchers most people assume they are spent. How many times do you see them pull a starter who may have thrown 6 solid innings but is at 100 + pitches and then the relievers come in and blow the game.
G Man
The Brewers pulled Bush after 6 innings yesterday , he'd only thrown 77 pitches and they were leading by 3 at the time. Over 50 of of his pitches were strikes, but they pulled him anyway.
The Brewers pulled Bush after 6 innings yesterday , he'd only thrown 77 pitches and they were leading by 3 at the time. Over 50 of of his pitches were strikes, but they pulled him anyway.
the Brewers ended up losing the game. Opps.
Exactly, i mean that is ridiculous. I dont care if he was at 100 pitches, if he is throwing a shut out, then why take him out unless it is determined that he is actually spent?
I'm with the OP, 100%. The pitch count is a completely worthless statistic, mainly because we're talking about human beings as opposed to machines. Some pitchers are capable of throwing more than others, and it won't get any simpler than that. Removing a pitcher from the game not because of a particular situation, but because he's thrown a predetermined number of pitches...that even sounds ridiculous! I think the person who came up with the pitch count as a guideline should be banned from the game.
The Brewers pulled Bush after 6 innings yesterday , he'd only thrown 77 pitches and they were leading by 3 at the time. Over 50 of of his pitches were strikes, but they pulled him anyway.
the Brewers ended up losing the game. Opps.
Serves them right, too bad they probably won't "learn" from that.
Roy Halladay was a weird exception who had a lot of complete games. I wonder now that he's in the NL where the pitcher bats and there were always (at least in the DH era) less complete games than the AL because of pinch hitting for the pitcher if that's going to change.....
The Brewers pulled Bush after 6 innings yesterday , he'd only thrown 77 pitches and they were leading by 3 at the time. Over 50 of of his pitches were strikes, but they pulled him anyway.
the Brewers ended up losing the game. Opps.
then the Brewers deserved to lose the game, thats just dumb
When a starting pitcher is pitching "lights out" in the 8th inning, it's nuts to bring the closer in. If after 8 inning they haven't so much as touched the starter it's absurd to think they will in the 9th either.
I'm guessing, and I bet I'm right, that the last time a starting pitcher pitched 10 innings in a game was Jack Morris in game 7 of the 1991 World Series for the Twins. They almost had to call security when Tom Kelly was trying to bring in the closer after the 9th.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
