Cleveland Indians @ Kansas City Royals Game Thread (5/19)

[Stanley Nickels]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

Thank you.

Who do you guys think Bannister is?

Bannister is good, but he's good in that he's a quality back of the line starter.

Hillman did nothing wrong; you guys all just think the Royals are a lot better than they are. There's nothing wrong with that, other than it's going to be a hell of a long season for some of you.

I'm going to say this one more time, and NOT AGAIN after that. Bannister has a solid history of losing control of his pitches around 80. The bulk of his earned runs fall between 70-100-- and, yes, that's to be expected from pitchers. But it's the MANAGER'S JOB, especially in a one-run game, to know when to bring in his bullpen.

To think otherwise is, well, unwise.

[Chiefless]

Originally Posted by Stanley Nickels

I'm going to say this one more time, and NOT AGAIN after that. Bannister has a solid history of losing control of his pitches around 80. The bulk of his earned runs fall between 70-100-- and, yes, that's to be expected from pitchers. But it's the MANAGER'S JOB, especially in a one-run game, to know when to bring in his bullpen.

To think otherwise is, well, unwise.

Then he should not be starting in the majors.

[Stanley Nickels]

Originally Posted by Chiefless

Then he should not be starting in the majors.

The funny thing is, lack of control in higher pitch counts is the reason HOCHEVAR was in the minors so long.. until he proved he could sustain his two best pitches up to the 100 mark. Wouldn't have expected it from Banny.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Stanley Nickels

I'm going to say this one more time, and NOT AGAIN after that. Bannister has a solid history of losing control of his pitches around 80. The bulk of his earned runs fall between 70-100-- and, yes, that's to be expected from pitchers. But it's the MANAGER'S JOB, especially in a one-run game, to know when to bring in his bullpen.

To think otherwise is, well, unwise.

If thats true, then he should be in the bullpen. His record says otherwise

[Stanley Nickels]

Originally Posted by alnorth

If thats true, then he should be in the bullpen. His record says otherwise

Yeah. For a guy that went 9-16 in 2008, I would've expected dominance.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Stanley Nickels

Yeah. For a guy that went 9-16 in 2008, I would've expected dominance.

or a guy who went 12-9 for a horrible team?

[Stanley Nickels]

Originally Posted by alnorth

or a guy who went 12-9 for a horrible team?

Quick, name five pitchers who pitch this season more like they did in 2007 than 2008. But if it helps your point, I guess you can select whatever stats you'd like instead of the most recent..

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Stanley Nickels

Quick, name five pitchers who pitch this season more like they did in 2007 than 2008. But if it helps your point, I guess you can select whatever stats you'd like instead of the most recent..

point is, if the "fact" that he falls apart after 5 were some universal truth etched in stone, then he shouldnt be starting ever under nearly any circumstances. The Royals obviously believe otherwise, so leaving him in there at the slightest whiff of trouble is not a stupid idea.

Your acting as if we just had two starters go down and we have to bring our long-reliever out for an emergency start.