Can someone explain- replacing Greinke?

[Anonymous]

I understand pitching and relief, but I think a lot of that is predicated on the idea that it's a long season, and you need to rest your best, etc.

But this was literally the last game of the season. I think convention goes a bit out the window. Greinke's pitch count was low...like, unusually low for that point in the game. Even giving up a walk and a home run, I think he was their best option through that inning. And now that manager will be second-guessed for the rest of his career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is asking a fair (and a good question). His pitch count was relatively low and he looked strong and finding his spots. All of Nats hits were ground outs. Max looked much worse but Nats kept him in. Not sure why above posters were being so snotty.

yes, i feel like the Nats were going on feeling / trust and not just stats, IMO.

PP you are responding to. I give MAX a lot of credit. Obviously, he was not near 100% but, boy, he gave his all. That's how you earn your respect.

I AGREE!!!! He had a LOT of grit both world series games that he pitched in!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes pitchers last an incredibly long time, like Strausburg in game 6, but the norm is for them to go 6-7 innings. I too was surprised about not using Cole, given the importance of the game. Even starting pitchers will come in as a relief pitcher if the stakes are high, I believe Scherzer did in fact come in as a relief pitcher during one of the Dodgers games (I think I have that right, they used two starting pitchers in one game). Cole is now a free agent, and apparently there was some bad blood about not using him.

There are a lot more strategies to pitchers than I realized.

Scherzer did come in - but what they are saying about starting pitchers is that usually they start them at least at the beginning of an inning when they do in relief. Not mid inning like how they used Harris - that is more what relief pitchers are used to.

[Anonymous]

^^ when Scherzer came in against the Dodgers it was for one full inning. (I meant to add that too)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is asking a fair (and a good question). His pitch count was relatively low and he looked strong and finding his spots. All of Nats hits were ground outs. Max looked much worse but Nats kept him in. Not sure why above posters were being so snotty.

yes, i feel like the Nats were going on feeling / trust and not just stats, IMO.

Yes, I think so too, and that makes them all more interesting and unpredictable, I just love the energy of this team!

[Anonymous]

Statistics show that a pitcher, any pitcher, is much less effective the 3rd time he faces any given batter in a game. Greinke was about to go through the Nat lineup for a third time so his manager was ready to yank him at the first sign of trouble. This is the norm in baseball these days - starters go 5-6 innings rather than the 7-8 innings they went just a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statistics show that a pitcher, any pitcher, is much less effective the 3rd time he faces any given batter in a game. Greinke was about to go through the Nat lineup for a third time so his manager was ready to yank him at the first sign of trouble. This is the norm in baseball these days - starters go 5-6 innings rather than the 7-8 innings they went just a few years ago.

Thank you. That was very helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand pitching and relief, but I think a lot of that is predicated on the idea that it's a long season, and you need to rest your best, etc.

But this was literally the last game of the season. I think convention goes a bit out the window. Greinke's pitch count was low...like, unusually low for that point in the game. Even giving up a walk and a home run, I think he was their best option through that inning. And now that manager will be second-guessed for the rest of his career.

This was my thinking too, although remember that it was his third time through the order and all teams -- and especially good-hitting teams like the Nats -- are making adjustments by the third trip through.

That said, it can be awful hard to hit a 67 mph hanging curve when you're used to seeing pitches in the mid-90s. That's why there were so many checked-batted balls into play.

[Anonymous]

CC Sabathia was breaking this down for ESPN and he said that he didn't agree with Houston's pitching changes and that they seemed against convention. He says he expected them to leave Greinke in a little longer and then go immediately to Cole.

(By the way, I really like CC as an analyst.)

[Anonymous]

I think part of the argument was that Greinke, while a great pitcher, wasn't known as a "workhorse" pitcher that was used to pitching a tremendous number of pitches and going to late innings. And another part was that they were nervous about bringing Cole in mid-inning and having him pitch more than one inning because he wasn't used to being in that situation and he was a starter on less rest than usual. So they wanted only to use bring him in the beginning of 9th inning as their closer if they were ahead.

But I think this reasoning was iffy. First, Greinke had a tremendously low pitch count at that point in the game. Second, I'm not sure the concerns about bringing in a starter mid-inning or for more than one inning on short rest were that valid...

[Anonymous]

NP. Boswell is seriously the best (like everyone else probably realized that 30 years ago, but I only realized it in 2019 with a 2019 article linked to DCUM and now I read all of his stuff!), and he writes stuff that is even easy to understand for new to sports people.

So true. I put a quote of his on my yearbook page almost 30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a sports fan so please bear with me. I started watching the Nationals game after seeing them on the news coverage and the newscasters talked about how they fought this season, they sounded like a great team and they just spread positivity all around the DMV specially going through the finals. I'm so ecstatic when we won, because it wasn't looking really good at the beginning. Soo.. that being said, I followed their game during finals, and I knew Greinke was good and they had trouble with him even when they played here, so I didn't understand why Astros replaced Greinke on the final game when they were leading, anyone here care to explain?

[Anonymous]

OP here, thank you to all who provided great insights on this!

[Anonymous]

Just adding to the info here -- Harris (the Astros reliever who took over for Greinke) had been pretty unhittable during the postseason. From all the reporting I've read, it sounds like he threw a good pitch but Kendrick -- who is an excellent hitter -- was able to get ahold of it and hit the 2-run HR. Just imagine a few inches to the right -- it would have been foul and no HR!

Here's a good article from MLB.com: https://www.mlb.com/news/will-harris-takes-loss-in-world-series-game-7

Also, for those of you new to following the Nats, I highly recommend the Post sportswriters. They are all so good. Someone already mentioned Thomas Boswell, but there's also Barry Svrluga (also writes a perspective column), Dave Sheinin (column), and Jesse Dougherty (Nats beat writer). They brought in Chelsea Janes for the Series -- she was the beat writer but is now covering the 2020 election. Their writing is superb and they provide insight on plays and players that really makes a difference in terms of overall understanding of the team and the sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statistics show that a pitcher, any pitcher, is much less effective the 3rd time he faces any given batter in a game. Greinke was about to go through the Nat lineup for a third time so his manager was ready to yank him at the first sign of trouble. This is the norm in baseball these days - starters go 5-6 innings rather than the 7-8 innings they went just a few years ago.

This.