DVD Talk
Randy Johnson is yet another MLB player that's bow out of the All-Star game.... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Randy Johnson is yet another MLB player that's bow out of the All-Star game....


Deftones
07-07-02, 09:01 PM
Just announced on the local D-backs radio telecast.

twikoff
07-07-02, 09:03 PM
johnson out

glavine out because of the blister

das Monkey
07-07-02, 09:13 PM
Shame about Glavine. He's having what could be the best season of his career, an incredible accomplishment considering his career, and he gets a blister at the worst possible time. You could tell last night that his pitches were sailing because of it. Oh well. As much as I love Glavine, I doubt any of the fans are going to be that upset. :)

das

Deftones
07-07-02, 09:17 PM
Oh, in case you are all wondering, RJ decided to take the extra days rest to prepare for his next start in SF. An admirable thing to do. :)

zuffy
07-07-02, 09:22 PM
Smart move. Thinking of his team first.

twikoff
07-07-02, 09:22 PM
i kindof hope that smoltz doesnt play either
he could use the extra time off

Jericho
07-07-02, 11:29 PM
Mike Remlinger was name to replace Johnson. :lol: Poor Brian Giles, who does he have to sleep with to get on the team? Granted RJ is a pitcher, but the NL already has 9 pitchers sans RJ. The AL only has 9 pitchers.

Josh H
07-07-02, 11:40 PM
Remlinger definitely deserved the spot. He's arguably the best middle reliever/set-up man in baseball.

Take a look at his stats.

42.2 innings pitched
45 strikeouts
15 walks
17 holds
.176 opposing batting average
1.48 ERA

Deftones
07-07-02, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by joshhinkle
Remlinger definitely deserved the spot. He's arguably the best middle reliever/set-up man in baseball.

Take a look at his stats.

42.2 innings pitched
45 strikeouts
15 walks
17 holds
.176 opposing batting average
1.48 ERA

Agreed, and since Padilla was named to replace Glavine, Remlinger was the next P in line to deserve being picked.

Jericho
07-08-02, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by joshhinkle
Remlinger definitely deserved the spot. He's arguably the best middle reliever/set-up man in baseball.

Take a look at his stats.

42.2 innings pitched
45 strikeouts
15 walks
17 holds
.176 opposing batting average
1.48 ERA

The real question is, if you had one spot left on the all-star and were selecting between Giles and Remlinger, who would you take?

Deftones
07-08-02, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Jericho


The real question is, if you had one spot left on the all-star and were selecting between Giles and Remlinger, who would you take?

it doesn't work that way. they replace the player with one in a similar position. of course if an OF dropped out, Giles would probably be either 1st or 2nd behind Larry Walker.

Jericho
07-08-02, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Deftones17


it doesn't work that way. they replace the player with one in a similar position. of course if an OF dropped out, Giles would probably be either 1st or 2nd behind Larry Walker.

No, they can replace the player with whoever they want

Josh H
07-08-02, 12:29 AM
I would take Remlinger over Giles.

But I'm a Brave's fan and hate the Pirates. :D

Kidding aside, I think Remlinger's stats are more impressive than Giles'. If you were going to take an outfielder, Larry Walker's numbers are better than Gile's. So even at that position Giles wouldn't be my first pick.

Deftones
07-08-02, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Jericho


No, they can replace the player with whoever they want

i'm sure they can, and I never said they couldn't, I just said it doesn't work that way. The manager will replace the player lost w/ a player that plays a comparable position.

Jericho
07-08-02, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Deftones17


i'm sure they can, and I never said they couldn't, I just said it doesn't work that way. The manager will replace the player lost w/ a player that plays a comparable position.

Well that is how it usually works. Partly because many positions only have one back-up. But it's not how it always works. There are examples where different position players make the team as replacements (though not this year). It's just that I wouldn't describe Remlinger as deserving. I mean, by my definition there are 30 deserving all-star guys. And since some of them still aren't on the team, then I wouldn't pick someone else over them. I was just wondering if you would make the same choice.

das Monkey
07-08-02, 12:53 AM
Remlinger is a great candidate, and it's sad that players in his position get ignored, much like Andruw Jones was. I don't think there is an argument. He's the best middle reliever in the game and a major reason the Braves are where they are today. Glavine and Maddux aren't pushed to 7 and 8 innings because Remlinger can give 2 solid innings every night if needed. That's a major benefit and one that is shamefully ignored in favor of more star power pitchers. Giles is a great player, and I wouldn't argue against him being selected either; but there's certainly nothing wrong with Remlinger.

das

Jericho
07-08-02, 12:55 AM
By the way, do the Cardinals no one on the team now? I just realized that...

Deftones
07-08-02, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by das Monkey
Remlinger is a great candidate, and it's sad that players in his position get ignored, much like Andruw Jones was. I don't think there is an argument. He's the best middle reliever in the game and a major reason the Braves are where they are today. Glavine and Maddux aren't pushed to 7 and 8 innings because Remlinger can give 2 solid innings every night if needed. That's a major benefit and one that is shamefully ignored in favor of more star power pitchers. Giles is a great player, and I wouldn't argue against him being selected either; but there's certainly nothing wrong with Remlinger.



look at the Hall of Fame. Can you name any middle relievers that are in there? There was a huge discussion of this last year when the HOF candidates were announced.

Jericho
07-08-02, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by Deftones17


look at the Hall of Fame. Can you name any middle relievers that are in there? There was a huge discussion of this last year when the HOF candidates were announced.

Why I think middle relievers are discounted...

Basically the biggest problem is that middle relivers are generally the worst pitchers on the team. The best pitchers are starters and those that don't have enough pitchers, are failed starters, have no stanima, etc.. becaome closers. Those not good enough for either are middle relivers. Being the best middle reliever is I guess being like the best bench guy. But there are a few set-up guys who are pretty good and just stuck behind good closers (like Octavio Dotel).

Deftones
07-08-02, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Jericho


Why I think middle relievers are discounted...

Basically the biggest problem is that middle relivers are generally the worst pitchers on the team. The best pitchers are starters and those that don't have enough pitchers, are failed starters, have no stanima, etc.. becaome closers. Those not good enough for either are middle relivers. Being the best middle reliever is I guess being like the best bench guy. But there are a few set-up guys who are pretty good and just stuck behind good closers (like Octavio Dotel).

ummm, worst pitchers? Do you watch much baseball? Why would they want their worst pitcher coming in trying to hold the lead? There are plenty of guys I can name who have been great set up guys, but never get any credit.

Shamu
07-08-02, 03:03 AM
By worst he means guys that failed as a starter. They basically couldnt' cut it as a starter, so they become a reliever. Like he said, they either don't have enough stamina, not enough plus pitches, or some other reason that makes them become relievers.

A lot of relievers were originally starters in the minors, but are now starters. Octavio Dotel, who was mentioned in this thread, was originally a starter in the Mets system.

das Monkey
07-08-02, 04:04 AM
Worst? Failed? Whatever. Different skills yield different positions. Aside from the rare case, a closer is no more a failed starter than the reverse. Middle relievers are not failed starters - they're middle relievers. Some guys can give you one good inning a night. Some guys can give you 7 good innings every 5 days. Some guys can give you a few good innings every other day or so. It's a unique breed of player who mentally can perform both as an 8th inning setup guy and a 3rd - 7th inning bailout man. The only reason there's a "failed" perception is managers not spotting who are the best middle relievers. Maddux and Glavine would suck as middle relievers. Remlinger would suck as a starter. None of those players is a failure because he cannot perform in another position.

Btw, my grandmother was a starter in the minors.

das

Shamu
07-08-02, 06:12 AM
These cases aren't actually 'rare'. Octavio Dotel, Grant Roberts, Eric Gagne, John Smoltz, Casey Fossum, Isringhausen, Escobar etc. are middle relievers or closers that were at one point starters either in the majors or minors (and all were highly regarded starting pitching prospects in the minors). Also don't forget Eck.

Lots of times a team will start off a starting pitching prospect as a reliever. If a starting pitching prospect fails, then he becomes a reliever. Also, some starting pitching prospects that don't project well are predicted to be relievers in the majors. There's a reason why relief pitching prospects are rarely ever ranked highly.

But it's not impossible to have a closer become a starter, but that's pretty rare. Derek Lowe would be one case, but he also started early in his career.

Shamu
07-08-02, 06:21 AM
Also, Remlinger did start early on in his career. He basically wasn't that good and when he went to ATL, he became a reliever.

AndyCapps
07-08-02, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Jericho
By the way, do the Cardinals no one on the team now? I just realized that...

Matt Morris is going to attend. But no, no one from the Cardinals is actually going to play.

das Monkey
07-08-02, 09:23 AM
Every pitcher was a starter at one time. It has nothing to do with failure but poor identification of skill sets. You can tell whether someone will be a good third baseman through practice. If he shows better skills at short, he's not a failed third baseman ... he's a successful short stop. With pitchers, however, you cannot tell who will be a good starter until you put him in the rotation. Practice only indicates so much. There's a lot more in-game trial and error involved with pitchers and shuffling around of the roles depending on the current pitching staff. Some guys may be great starters on a team with 5 starters already. The #2 starter may be the best reliever, and it makes sense to move him to a position of daily impact.

Taking a potentially great reliever and forcing him to start does not make him a failed starter any more than if you took an outfielder and forced him to start. Assuming that relievers are just washed up starters really cheapens the significant impact and incredible mental discipline required to be called upon for something different and unknown every single day.

das

LurkerDan
07-08-02, 10:59 AM
As has been said, different skill sets. A pitcher with one or 2 great pitches will be a good reliever; a pitcher who has more pitches, even if his best pitch isn't as good, will make a better starter. Also, a pitcher who throws heat is often a better reliever, because he can throw all out for 1 or 2 innings, whereas starters have to conserve energy. Other than RJ, most of the fastest throwers are relievers...

Red Dog
07-08-02, 11:35 AM
I don't even know why they bother with an All-Star game anymore. It used to mean huge bragging rights. Now with the elimination of separate league offices and umpiring, interleague play, the proliferation of national cable television, and AS Games not starting until 8:45 eastern, who cares?

Jericho
07-08-02, 12:03 PM
I think you completely misunderstood what I said, and yes I do watch plenty of baseball. It's a proven fact that starting pitchers make a bigger impact that relief pitchers. It's rare for a middle reliever to crack 80 innings, although it does happen. But a starter will crack 200 innings, sometimes much higher if you're someone like Randy Johnson (think 270 innings). The point is, you need good starters to succeed. Pretty much all prospects are developed as starters. Hell, even many major league closers are former starters as recently as AAA (Gagne, Smoltz, Wagner, Koch, Escobar, etc...). In general, you only move to the bullpen if you fail as a starter. And you only are in middle relief if you fail to be better than the closer. So in that sense, middle relievers are the worst pitchers in baseball. Now, do I mean a good middle reliever like Remlinger is worse than a bad starter like Mike Hampton? No. But Remlinger's season is generally an exception to the rule. He'll likely decline in 2nd half, finish with okay numbers, but not have the impact or worth on the Braves that say Greg Maddux has. And even awesome middle relief years are rarely duplicated. Does a middle reliever have value? Sure he does. He pitches with the game on the line and provides useful innings. And with the way some teams use their closers these days, they can have a similar impact as a closer. But on the whole, these guys are inconsistent, easily replacable, and only their because they can't make it as a starter.

classicman2
07-08-02, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Red Dog

I don't even know why they bother with an All-Star game anymore. It used to mean huge bragging rights. Now with the elimination of separate league offices and umpiring, interleague play, the proliferation of national cable television, and AS Games not starting until 8:45 eastern, who cares?

Agreed - who cares?

Remember when they had 2 All-Star games in a year?

Josh H
07-08-02, 12:52 PM
Middle relievers have a huge impact. A lack of quality middle relievers is the main reason the Braves have only won one world series during their decade+ of success.

They just don't get the recognition they deserve because they don't have the star power of starting pitchers. Plus there are about 5 too many teams in baseball, meaning there are a bunch of starting pitchers that don't deserve to be starting who would likely excel as a middle reliever.

Jericho
07-08-02, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by joshhinkle
Middle relievers have a huge impact. A lack of quality middle relievers is the main reason the Braves have only won one world series during their decade+ of success.

They just don't get the recognition they deserve because they don't have the star power of starting pitchers. Plus there are about 5 too many teams in baseball, meaning there are a bunch of starting pitchers that don't deserve to be starting who would likely excel as a middle reliever.

I'd stongly disagree with this statement. In the playoffs, you hardly even need middle relief. They'll pitch a few innings here and there, but any major league pitcher can have great success or incredible failure over a small sample size like 5 innings. Besides, the Braves had some decent middle relievers, what's so bad about them?

Look at the Diamondbacks last year. Even their closer was blowing games in the playoffs. The starters (Schilling and RJ) are what make them go.

twikoff
07-08-02, 04:32 PM
not sure if anyone has mentioned it
but along with johnson and glavine.. you can add matt morris to the group of all stars that wont go

robb nen is taking his place

Josh H
07-08-02, 11:34 PM
Not every starter can go 8 or 9 innings like Shilling and Johnson, hence the need for middle relief. Maddux and Glavine can usually only give 7 innings or so, unless they're having a great night and not throwing many pitches.

Having a good middle reliever means your starter can go 7 innings, the middle reliever can come in for the 8th and the closer in the 9th. That way the opposing team is faced with fresh pitchers, and the starter will be in better shape for his next start in the series.

And the Brave's bullpen always sucked in the pasts. Any Braves fan can tell you that. They had mediocer middle relievers, and except for one or two good years from Wohlers and Rocker, no closer to speak of.

Jericho
07-08-02, 11:55 PM
I know the Braves bullpen wasn't that bad, and I'll prove it. I'll list some standout middle relievers (not closers) for past Braves teams:

'92 (Pena closing)
RP Marvin Freeman 3.22 ERA 64.3 IP
RP *Kent Mercker 3.42 ERA 68.3 IP
RP Mark Wohlers 2.55 ERA 35.3 IP

'93 (Stanton Closing)
RP Greg McMichael 2.06 ERA 91.7 IP
RP Jay Howell 2.31 ERA 58.3 IP
RP Steve Bedrosian 1.63 49.7 IP

'94 (McMicheal closing)
RP Mike Stanton 3.55 ERA 45.7 IP
RP Steve Bedrosian 3.33 ERA 46.0 IP

'95 (Wohlers closing)
RP Greg McMichael 2.79 ERA 80.7 IP
RP Brad Clontz 3.65 ERA 69.0 IP
RP Pedro Borbon 3.09 ERA 32.0 IP

'96 (Wohlers closing)
RP Greg McMichael 3.22 ERA 86.7 IP
RP Pedro Borbon 2.75 ERA 36.0 IP
RP Terrell Wade 2.97 ERA 69.7 IP

'97 (Wohlers closing)
RP Alan Embree 2.54 ERA 46.0 IP
RP Brad Clontz 3.75 ERA 48.0 IP
RP Mike Cather 2.39 ERA 37.7 IP

'98 (Lighteneberg closing)
RP John Rocker 2.13 ERA 38.0 IP
RP Mike Cather 3.92 ERA 41.3 IP
RP Rudy Seanez 2.75 ERA 36.0 IP

'99 (Rocker closing)
RP Mike Remlinger 2.37 ERA 83.7 IP
RP Kevin McGlinchy 2.82 ERA 70.3 IP
RP Rudy Seanez 3.35 ERA 53.7 IP
RP Russ Springer 3.42 ERA 47.3 IP

'00 (Rocker closing)
RP Mike Remlinger 3.47 ERA 72.7 IP
RP Kerry Ligtenberg 3.61 ERA 52.3 IP
RP Bruce Chen 2.50 ERA 39.7 IP

'01 (Smoltz/Rocker closing)
RP Mike Remlinger 2.76 ERA 75.0 IP
RP Jose Cabrera 2.88 ERA 59.3 IP
RP Kerry Ligtenberg 3.02 ERA 59.7 IP
RP Steve Karsay 3.43 ERA 44.7 IP

I'm not sure why these guys have kept the Braves from winning. I mean how many playoff games have these guys specifically blown? And the closers have almost always had good seasons too. The Yanks and D-backs had great closers, but not the greatest of bullpens. And even the closers blew games. I think the reason the Braves have lost in the playoffs is that either the hitting or starting pitching hasn't been good enough.

Jericho
07-09-02, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by joshhinkle
Not every starter can go 8 or 9 innings like Shilling and Johnson, hence the need for middle relief. Maddux and Glavine can usually only give 7 innings or so, unless they're having a great night and not throwing many pitches.


I understand the use of middle relievers. Although besides RJ, no one has averaged more innings over the last three years than Glavine or Maddux. But I'm not sure what the point is. Middle relievers do sometimes pitch in close games. They also often pitch in games where the outcome is likely decided.

Josh H
07-09-02, 12:17 AM
We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

As for the Brave's bullpen in the post season, it wasn't so much that they blew games in the post season, but that they had been shakey in the regular season and Cox didn't have the confidence to go to them in close games at times. As a result he left his starters in too long several times, and they got rocked and blew the game.

An example that comes to mind is Game 1 of the 1999 World Series against the Yankees. They were up 1-0 the whole game, but left maddux in one inning to long, and ended up losing.