Sports Columnists

By JM

August 24, 2006 10:04 PM | Link to this

Fuman, I love ya, man, but it’s 2006, not 1936. Closers are here to stay.

By JM

August 24, 2006 10:05 PM | Link to this

Furman*

By Peter Brawley

August 24, 2006 11:12 PM | Link to this

200 million dollar payrolls bastardized baseball. payroll inequity bastardized baseball. Steroids bastardized baseball. 20 million dollar per year contracts bastardized baseball. The free agent merrygoround bastardized baseball.

Greed and cheating bastardized baseball. Closers actually improved it a little.

By David Kemph

August 25, 2006 12:06 AM | Link to this

That is alot like railing against the political machine in Washington. From a baseball standpoint it affirms my viewpoint that more is less. But more seems to be the name of the game these days. I do enjoy your column and have for years.

By Head Coach

August 25, 2006 12:54 AM | Link to this

The closer , the designated hitter , set up men , interleague play , the utility player , the defensive late inning replacement player , platoons and so on and so forth. It’s all changed the game of baseball from a studebaker into a cadillac. It’s a highly evolved multibillion dollar enterprise and its all about the players , owners , tv networks and agents getting filthy rich , not baseball. Just you wait and see , the DH will come to the N.L. and dont say I didn’t warn you.

By jed

August 25, 2006 01:25 AM | Link to this

hey, ya old crank, there are much better things to rail against in baseball. the DH (if that ever happens in the NL, i’ll quit watching) is one, but the biggest joke is the 5-game lst round series in the playoffs. it’s terrible in that it does nothing to make it harder for the wild card team to win and overturn what has been proven over the course of a season. (in a sport where the long season IS the point.) bigger joke is MLB could fix the problem by adding 2 games to that first round, but they refuse to! thoroughly ridiculous. but here’s something nobody ever talks about: the absurdity of blocking the plate. i understand blocking the plate in a playoff stretch and in the playoffs. fine. but why instruct your most valuable position player to block the plate in a may game? look at estrada last year, and mccann this year. luckily mccann survived it but he could just as easily have broken his ankle and been done for the year. what good does that do you? you saved one run, which may or may not have won you one game, and meanwhile, you’ve lost one of the most important players you’ve got—especially, if like estrada & mccann—your catchers are a big part of your offense, as well. now, that to me is thoroughly crazy. i know, it’s “part of the game” and part of the macho code of baseball, but other than those two rather conceptual points, is there any sane justification for sticking estrada up there to have a 210 pound man with a full head of steam barrel into him?

By BERT

August 25, 2006 03:52 AM | Link to this

A GOOD CLOSER IS WORTH HIS WAIT IN GOLD, BUT WHY CAN’T THESE HIGH PRICED STARTERS FINISH THEIR OWN GAMES? MR.BISHER MAKES A GREAT POINT.

By jim in pine mountain

August 25, 2006 06:04 AM | Link to this

Cox had not seen a three hit shutout going into the the ninth in a long time. He just didn’t remember what to do.

By A

August 25, 2006 06:21 AM | Link to this

Tom Seaver won SIX complete games for the Mets in September of 1969 as they overtook the Cubs. Bisher is right on. If they are in better shape, have better travel conditions, eat better, etc.,etc.,than the pitchers of yesteryear, then they should be able to pitch longer.

By Drexel Gal

August 25, 2006 07:27 AM | Link to this

As a previous commenter said, the closer is here to stay. In the past, many cursed the larger gloves (the glove, and not the player, makes the play), the batting helmet (less intimidation from the brushback pitch), night baseball (unfair advantage to pitchers), the DH (pitcher emboldened because he doesn’t have to face knockdown pitches himself), division play (team with lesser record can win pennant), the wild card (ditto), and interleague play (dilutes value of World Series). I didn’t even mention artificial turf or indoor venues. In the future, we’ll rail about international play, unlimited substitutions, and Tim McCarver. (Hey … some things NEVER change.)

By Tim

August 25, 2006 07:55 AM | Link to this

Mr. Bisher, I couldn’t agree with you more.

By EddieJ

August 25, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this

You go Furman! And while we are at it, let’s do something about these newfangled automatic transmissions and the internet.

By mart

August 25, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Per usual you’re right, Furman. I also don’t take the role of “closer” seriously. And I also don’t have any respect for a starter who only pitches 6 innings just so he can give way to the “set up” man and then to that one-inning wonder. It’s stupid and wastes talent.

By grady byrd

August 25, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

furman,like you told me a month ago in asheville,it is over for the braves.I have finally thrown in the towel.

By Chuck

August 25, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

I agree that it would be more fun in we didn’t have closers; however, baseball people aren’t dumb, and have evolved the game in order to win. Just like improving strength improves batting power, the closer has helped teams win more games. So many people look at “tradition of innovation”, and only see “tradition”. Not that all change is good! The DH, interleague play, huge salaries, etc., are all killing the game. But owners don’t respect the game, they milk the game - and that is their game. Chuck

By Tom

August 25, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

While we’re at it, let’s complain about a few other modern day problems:

The “microwave.” Whatever happened to heating the oven for 10-15 minutes and then putting that leftover plate in there for another 10 minutes? I rue the day the microwave was invented.

“Remote controls”: I yearn for the day of getting up every 5 minutes to turn that knob. A chance to view every commercial in it’s entirety is also long gone. Now we have these lazy SOBs that sit back in their easy chairs and don’t miss a thing. It sickens me….

“Cable TV/Satellite”: It just wasn’t enough, was it? Having channels 2, 5 and 11 to depend on. Now we have to have all of these special channels…EPNS…or whatever it’s called. Too many letters for me to keep up with. Whatever happened to the Saturday Game of the Week? Back in the old days, if it wasn’t the best of baseball games, so what? You dealt with it. You appreciated the game of baseball for what it was.

What was so wrong with aluminum foil on the rabbit ears????????????????

Egats.

By Jim

August 25, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Warren Spahn once said: “Who sas my set-up man? I was. Who was my closer? I was.”

In the days before pitch counts (1963), at age 42, he dueled Juan Marichal for 16 innings of scoreless ball and lost on his 201st pitch of the night when Willie Mays ended the game with a walk-off home run (before it was ever called a walk-off home run). Don Newcombe in the 50’s once pitched both ends of a double header, going 7 innings in the second game. Spahn finished his career with 63 shutouts. Seaver, in the last generation of pitchers to complete at least half of their starts, had 61.

The first generation of closers (Fingers, Gossage, Sutter) often went more than 1 inning. Mike Marshall once logged more than 200 innings pitching out of the pen.

The biggest reason for the change to the 7 inning start is probably money. It is not only the big money that an ace pitcher can command today that limits the pitch count, but also the big money that is given to high round draft picks who are babied through 3 inning stints in the low minors and rarely are asked to pitch more than 6 or 7 innings in a game in the high minors.

If you have a Gagne or Rivera in your bullpen, it makes sense to go to your closer in the late innings. But if you are stuck with a Reitsma or a Kolb, a complete game from the starter would sure help a lot!

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

I agree that saves are overrated. But I don’t think it’s very good to have pitchers throw a 120-pitch complete game almost every start.
Saves are overrated, but high pitch-counts aren’t good

In the old days pitchers threw a lot of complete games, but how many actually had long careers? Maybe a few.

If pitchers were able to throw a lot of innings for a long career in the old days it was because they were just freaks of nature or some extraneous circumstance or both. Warren Spahn is a good example. Spahn went off to war when he was younger; he wasn’t throwing 250 innings a year. He didn’t throw 200 innings until he was 26.

It is important to keep a young pitcher’s pitch-count down to reduce the risk of injury. Most guys in their early 20’s haven’t fully put on the weight and muscle mass to support throwing a baseball 100 times two or three times a week.

I’m an advocate of the four-man rotation and carefully monitored pitch counts. I would rather see Smoltz out there more often for a little less innings than less often for maybe two or three more innings.

Also, using your best reliever in the 9th all the time is rediculous. In the book Baseball Between the Numbers there is a whole chapter that provides evidence that the game is on the line more often in the sixth or seventh inning.

By Gary

August 25, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Managers go by the pitch count, not the effectiveness. I wouldn’t be surprised to have a manager say in a post-game interview “I left him in the game because although he was just lobbing the ball, he had thrown only 60 pitches and my chart shows that he can throw 90 before he loses his stuff.”

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Gary,

I think managers go by both. I’m sure some managers rely on pitch count too much and some don’t rely on it enough, but I would bet all go by both pitch count and effectiveness.

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

The Good Ol’ Days Weren’t All Good

You hear a lot of people talk about the good ol’ days not just in sports but in all facets of life. I understand that some things were better in the past, but not everything.

Our understanding of things like pitch counts and keeping pitchers healthy is much better now than it was back 50 years ago.

Also people are bigger and stronger now. Look at every olympic event from 50 years ago and you’ll see most of the gold medal winners from then would have a hard time winning high school events today.

Also, without going into details, I’m not sure I would be alive without modern technology, and I’m sure many of you out there wouldn’t be either.

By OLD TIMER CAN'T ACCEPT CHANGE...

August 25, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Get over it old man. Had we had one of these so called “closers” earlier in the year, we would be talking about how the Mets are tanking and the division is ours. Or at worst, the we would have run away with the wild card by now. Get a grip on reality, it’s not 1918 anymore.

By m

August 25, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

The closer/set up men are only a matter of money. Nowadays, pitchers are a big investment. Owners/managers keep handling them with kid gloves since there are so many injuries. That can all be traced to the overzealous parents wanting Tommy to be the next Cy Young and getting a big fat contract so they’re set for life…sad. As far as Braves pitching, I miss rockin’ Leo! Pitchers were so much durable when he was around. Doesn’t Bobby have the notes from Camp Leo he can pass along? Seriously, McDowell (or the next pitching coach) should institute that program.

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

The Good Ol’ Days Weren’t All Good

You hear a lot of people talk about the good ol’ days not just in sports but in all facets of life. I understand that some things were better in the past, but not everything.

Our understanding of things like pitch counts and keeping pitchers healthy is much better now than it was back 50 years ago.

Also people are bigger and stronger now. Look at every olympic event from 50 years ago and you’ll see most of the gold medal winners from then would have a hard time winning high school events today.

Also, without going into details, I’m not sure I would be alive without modern technology, and I’m sure many of you out there wouldn’t be either.

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

m,

Money may play a role, but it’s also a better understanding of the injury risks of pitching. There have always been injury risk with throwing a baseball. I bet if you look hard enough you’ll find as many young pitchers that were supposed to be stars in the old days as you would over the last 10-15 years.

By OLD TIME CAN'T ACCEPT CHANGE...

August 25, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Some of you people defending this old man, obviously didn’t play the game or if you did didn’t understand it. I can GUARANTEE that back in the day there weren’t guys throwing 100 miles an hour. That’s the reason you can’t compare yesterday to today. Babe Ruth never saw a 100 MPH fastball and then a devastating slider. I know there were good “pitchers”, but the guys these day are MUCH bigger and MUCH stronger. And when I say big, I don’t mean fat like The Babe.

Throwing 95-100 MPH 50 times in a game is VERY stressful. Not to mention snapping of another 30-40 breaking balls. It is indeed all about protecting your assets. Sure these young pitchers may last a few seasons getting run into the ground, but give them 5 years and they are toast.

Just face it, the game has changed and it continues to change. It is very enjoyable to watch a pitcher run out of gas to hand it off to a lights out closer. If you have the right guy to close things out, it is electric. Look at the Yankess, nuff said.

By m

August 25, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

The closer/set up men are only a matter of money. Nowadays, pitchers are a big investment. Owners/managers keep handling them with kid gloves since there are so many injuries. That can all be traced to the overzealous parents wanting Tommy to be the next Cy Young and getting a big fat contract so they’re set for life…sad. As far as Braves pitching, I miss rockin’ Leo! Pitchers were so much durable when he was around. Doesn’t Bobby have the notes from Camp Leo he can pass along? Seriously, McDowell (or the next pitching coach) should institute that program.

By Natfan

August 25, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Blame your buddy Jerry Holtzman, Furman. He invented the save in 1969. With entire organizations limiting pitch counts, nothing will change. Ever.

By John Hughes

August 25, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

I agree. There should be starting pitchers and relief pitchers. If a pitcher’s arm doesn’t fall off let him pitch no matter what inning it is. Managers (especially Cox) don’t think for themselves. They just follow the pattern established by some one else. Go back to the days of Allie Reynolds, Early Wynn and Bob Gibson. They had guts enough to pitch nine innings.

By Larry ofGoliad

August 25, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Now you have it. Bobby Cox doesn’t know when to change pitchers! Just go by the book. Remember the book was written for those who don’t know how to manage!you can always go by the book and relieve yourself of responsibility. An old addage was that the reliever did not pitch to the third batter if he had gotten no one out. And the same went “if he is getting them out, leave him in the ball game.” But those are not in the book.

By Gary Bock

August 25, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Furman, do you play golf? I hope so, because 2006 baseball and baseball players are just as good as ever, and maybe you should just go play 18 every day and leave baseball comments to the young Turks. At least their commentary is easy to read.

Past players always get glorifed beyond their performance, as do sportswriters.

Selah!

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

It’s always been about money

In the old days pitchers threw more complete games, not because of less greed, but because nobody understood the risks of pitching like they do now. There have always been injury risks with throwing a baseball. I bet if you look hard enough you’ll find as many young pitchers that were supposed to be stars in the old days as you would over the last 10-15 years.

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Larry ofGoliad,

Does the book mention anything about pitchers not being machines and not being about to throw 500 innings a year?

By Mike

August 25, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

All this crying about Cox taking Smoltzie out of the game - good grief! If you had seen the write-up on www.atlantabraves.com, you would know that Smoltz took himself out. He told Cox he was done.

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Mike,

Good point. From what I’ve heard and read Cox relies on his pitchers to be honest about how they feel.

Also, the Braves won! Who cares if Smoltz went 6 innings or 8 innings or 9 innings? Sure it increases your chances the more innings your best pitcher throws, but the best way to increase your best pitchers innings without overworking him is to go with a four-man rotation and a somewhat strict pitch count. That’s the way to go against “the book” and increase wins.

By Beachcomber

August 25, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Shaun - Good point about the 7th or 8th being the most important inning. If you’re going through a team’s 2-3-4 or 5, who would we rather have out there Wickman or Ken Ray? Get those guys out and a lesser light can face 6-7-8 in the ninth.

By AZBravoFan

August 25, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Perhaps you forgot about last year, when Mr. Smoltz pitched a bunch of complete games in mid-season because we had no reliable closer then had NOTHING left in the tank when we really needed him at the end. That 18 inning game might have been excruciating last year, but who was going to start Game 5? Jorge Sosa? Sure there were some freaks with rubber arms who could throw unlimited innings. But how many guys blew out arms that we never hear about? How many games would Sandy Koufax have won if he could have come out after 7 and turn it over to a Gagne or Rivera?

By bobbo

August 25, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

Geez Furman is old man , real old

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

AZBravoFan,

Good point. Sandy Koufax basically had to retire at age 30 or his arm was going to fall off. Managers just basically ignored pitch counts in those days.

I think the four man rotation would increase the innings out of your top starters without wearing them down. With a four-man rotation and a somewhat strict pitch count, you increase games without decreasing innings too much. It’s better to throw more often with a few fewer innings a week than to decrease starts with a 5-man rotation. But I have a feeling it would be hard to convince the powers that be in baseball that a four-man rotation would be better.

By Shaun

August 25, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Remember in 2003 when Boston used a closer-by-committee bullpen and it didn’t seem to work in the regular season? Well they used their three best relievers, Timlin, Embree and Arroyo, in set-up roles (i.e. in the 6th, 7th and 8th innings) during the playoffs and it worked out great (until Grady Little refused to go to them in Game 7 of the ALCS).

By AZBravoFan

August 25, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

You’re right Shaun, the player’s union would probably start crying about the Kyle Lohse’s of the world losing their jobs.

By Steve

August 25, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

If closers are so irrelevant and their overuse is “bastardizing” the game, why is it so difficult to find a guy who can get the last three outs of the game? There is a singular reason why the Yankees have been so good for so long: Mariano Rivera.

Closers may be evil in Furman’s mind, but they are a necessary evil

By OLD TIMER CAN'T ACCEPT CHANGE...

August 25, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Hey Shaun and AZ, you guys are morons. Going with a 4 man rotation would have the starters going every 4 days. If you want to ruin a pitcher, that would be the way to do it. What, would you limit their pitches to 80 with your so called strict pitch count? That may not be enough to get to the 6th inning depending on what’s going on. So, you then would have to go to your bullpen MUCH more. Worse than that, the pitcher has 1 less day to recover on your 4 days rest. I would rather him throw 100-120 pitches every 5 days and have a lights out closer. Kind of what you would have in a Hoffman, if the Braves would have ponied up. BUT, they thought they could get it done with a committee at worst. That thought process cost us 15 in a row.

I think you guys must mean a 6 man rotation if your trying to save arms. The Marlins are considering going with a 6 man over the next month. They have 20 games in 20 days. They are trying to keep their pitches rested as much as possible.

By Jim Resce

August 25, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

If Koufax had a closer, his arm probably wouldn’t have failed. Good Lord, imagine 20 years worth of Sandy Koufax!

By BigDawg

August 25, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Injured Dick forces Nutt to insert Johnson

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (AP) — Robert Johnson is getting another chance to start at quarterback for Arkansas. Johnson, benched midway through last season when the Razorbacks needed a spark, was made the starter for 2006 on Wednesday night. Coach Houston Nutt’s announcement ended — for now — a three-way competition between Johnson, Casey Dick and prized freshman Mitch Mustain.

…Johnson played well during spring practice, and his improvement continued in the fall. …Meanwhile, Dick has been bothered by a back injury that has caused him to miss some practice time.

…Nutt said Dick wouldn’t be ready for Arkansas’ opener Sept. 2 against Southern California, and the team needs to move forward with a clear No. 1 quarterback. He hopes Johnson will be helped by having more experience than at this time last year.

“Arky fans love Johnson because he likes to go deep, he’s very comfortable in the red zone, and if he has to run, he really knows how to pound the hole. Johnson probably has a few wrinkles to work out, but being thrust into an awkward position might motivate him. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want Nutt in his face.”

By BigDawg

August 25, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

Injured Dick forces Nutt to insert Johnson

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (AP) — Robert Johnson is getting another chance to start at quarterback for Arkansas. Johnson, benched midway through last season when the Razorbacks needed a spark, was made the starter for 2006 on Wednesday night. Coach Houston Nutt’s announcement ended — for now — a three-way competition between Johnson, Casey Dick and prized freshman Mitch Mustain.

…Johnson played well during spring practice, and his improvement continued in the fall. …Meanwhile, Dick has been bothered by a back injury that has caused him to miss some practice time.

…Nutt said Dick wouldn’t be ready for Arkansas’ opener Sept. 2 against Southern California, and the team needs to move forward with a clear No. 1 quarterback. He hopes Johnson will be helped by having more experience than at this time last year.

“Arky fans love Johnson because he likes to go deep, he’s very comfortable in the red zone, and if he has to run, he really knows how to pound the hole. Johnson probably has a few wrinkles to work out, but being thrust into an awkward position might motivate him. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want Nutt in his face.”

By Bismark

August 25, 2006 06:53 PM | Link to this

Here’s the deal, Furman. You haven’t been intentionally near an actual athlete in a competition setting in decades. You’re old, extremely boring and have nothing relevant to say. Really. Please die soon.

By BERT

August 25, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Bismark, Mr.Bisher probably laughs when he reads comments like yours. He probably forgets more in 1 day than you will understand in a lifetime. Lighten up

By Bo

August 26, 2006 02:47 AM | Link to this

Bismark you couldn’t carry Mr. Bishers jock strap. If you started now it would take you fifty years to know as much as he did at 21. Mr Bisher I agree with your comments on Cox and Smoltz. But todays players are not tough like they used to be because of the big bucks.That’s another reason player love Mgr like Cox instead of Billy Martin type, because he takes it easy on them and that #1 reason for so many injuries. TOUGH TIMES GO AWAY….TOUGH GUYS DON’T