"one guy one inning"... sounds ideal however

By: Torpedoman



that is in a perfect world. I think it may be flawed.  So just off the top of my head, say the bully guy that plays the 1st inning struggles, which he'd have a better chance at than a top starting pitcher? So he gives up BB's or even worse runs! Then the starter comes in for the 2nd inning down runs and could more realistically be facing the 5,6,7,8 hitters and trailing... If he's not sharp he could give up early runs too which in a full season can happen lots of times.. then youre down even more and the 2nd inning starter may end up being PH for after just a few innings.. and you're now down 2 pitchers, losing and the whole philosophy goes downhill from there. That is also partially why those so called "bully games" are usually losses... One of my favorite things about baseball is that it's too unpredictable to totally master.. and that it takes at least 27 outs regardless of what happens or how long it takes.. 

I think that over the long haul of a season you start your very best option to get you as deep into the game as possible, while trying all you can do, to get ahead which forces them to PH and then use their lesser pitchers from the bully which makes it easier to add to your lead. I'd rather face a teams top starters with a lead gotten off some bully guy in the 1st inning, than facing them initially.  The team that can do that holds the marbles in my opinion.  

Post Please Log in OR Register for an account before posting.