The New Relief Pitching Philosophy...

[Alex]

BEFORE the 1997 World Series 9th inning, 7th game loss, I've questioned the idea of starting a new relief pitcher at the start of a new inning.

I've often felt that in many situations, you are better off using the pitcher from the previous inning, to start a new inning, and that you should leave that pitcher in until they allow a baserunner.

Here's why, a relief pitchers job is to pitch out of a jam, that's what they do. So if a reliever comes in and gets the starting pitcher out of a jam, why not use them to start the next inning, and keep your other relivers available if he allows a runner on base.

Because now, the circle is complete, the new reliever must come in and put out a situation.

There may be exceptions to this rule, but in general, I am seeing managers overmanage and not get such great results.

In the last couple of games, I've seen Wedge adopt this philosophy. First Wedge kept David Riske in after Riske had pitched an effective 8th inning. Riske pitched well in the ninth and got the save.

If Riske had allowed a baserunner to get on in the ninth, he would be replaced. No harm, no foul.

Tonight, Jason Boyd came in the eighth and pitched lights out. I'd let Mr. Boyd start the ninth, and keep him in until he allowed a baserunner.

[Alex]

Well, true to form, Danys Baez came out for the ninth inning. Danys gave up a single and a bloop double. Runners on second and third and no outs!

But then he "settled down" and got the side out without allowing a run to score. Perhaps it was a confidence booster for Danys to get out of the inning unscathed. As for me and other Indians fans, probably not much of a confidence booster.