Why Keep Bobby Cramer at All?

Here's a question: what's the point of keeping Bobby Cramer around if you have no interest in pitching him? I can appreciate that we went pretty low on the depth chart last year because of injuries to the starting rotation, but by now we have a couple guys kicking around the minors who are chomping at the bit to be able to enter what is becoming an elite starting staff. Why, then, keep around Bobby Cramer at all? Even if it's for cash considerations, Bobby Cramer could be starting on some rotations in the major leagues; it's really not fair to keep him just in case something were to happen not only to one of our starters, but probably now two of our starters, as I think its inevitable that Ross will slip into the sixth spot on the depth chart for starters, and that doesn't even go into the guys in the minors, and the real possibility that someone will emerge by the All-Star break as impossible to ignore.

And the longer we keep him and don't use him, the less opportunities left for him to prove himself. Hell, he may be too old in two years to pitch in the big leagues at all; that's kind of a brutal way to treat a guy who has done everything he was asked to do above the level that could ever have been expected of him. I understand that he can't be flipped for much, but he can be flipped for a pittance at least, and that would allow Cramer to get regular time in a rotation, something that is probably not going to be possible with Oakland in the near future.

I understand that to our organization, he's a considerable asset--a guy who might be able to come in during a rough stretch and eat up innings. But to another organization he'd been a number 4 or 5 starter. That means regular work, and that means increased pay. As an asset in our organization, we would be foolish to part with him, but as a man who is trying to earn a living, it is bordering on cruel to stuff him in the bullpen and pitch him only when it gets to the thirteenth, or when the score is 15-2.

It's just a matter of respect. If you don't have an immediate use for a guy, especially an older guy who probably doesn't have a lot of years left to make some money, you should probably part amicably with him. We probably don't want to be known around the league as a place where no matter how good you pitch, you're probably not going to see much playing time unless several people ahead of you get hurt.

But maybe the A's will get their wish, and the White Sox will destroy them 19-3. giving that rare opportunity for Bobby Cramer to actually pitch an inning.

Bullpen Management

One thing that kills me about Bob Geren is that acts sometimes like the worst thing in the world would be if the bullpen gave up a lead...in April. I appreciate the fact that the offense isn't scoring runs, and that the starters are so incredibly good that it's a matter of respect to try, wherever possible, to get the best statistical match-ups, but it really seems like Geren shoots himself in the foot over a 162-game schedule.

See, the thing is, statistically, the best pitcher on your roster is your closer for one inning. So if you're playing the numbers, it doesn't make sense to do anything but pitch your closer for as many innings as you possibly can. Geren has then managed precisely what the numbers say: the more you pitch your best pitcher, the better the results. But look at the results over the last few years. The pattern has been to run their best pitcher into the ground and then find some other poor schmuck to take over the position. They've been really good at finding the guy to fill the hole left by the last guy's extended stay on the DL, but is that really any way to manage your bullpen?

Take a guy like Jerry Blevins. Geren always uses Blevins when there is a runner on, unless Blevins pitches so phenomenally in the previous inning that he's allowed to stay on for the next inning. On Tuesday against the Blue Jays that wasn't enough. Blevins cruised through the ninth, only to be lifted for Balfour in the tenth--which turned into a colossal disaster. I mean, the numbers don't lie. Blevins is considerably more hittable for left-handed batters, as attested by the Thome home run on Sunday.

But I think the home run on Sunday was directly attributable to being lifted the previous Tuesday--and then not pitching again until Sunday. Why not give Blevins the chance to close the game? If he had, he would have grown as a reliever, felt more confident in his ability to get guys out from both sides of the plate. He would have the opportunity to be more than he is now, rather than be locked into their expectation of him.

This is not to say that Jerry Blevins is the second coming of Christ or anything, just that April 5 is not a make or break time in the season. It is worth more to find out what you have in the guys you're not completely sure of, especially since the alternative is to run guys into the ground you will definitely need down the stretch. A healthy Balfour is September is infinitely preferable to a win on the road they had no right to in the first place, and who knows, Blevins may have gotten a tough save and felt more confident, and maybe that would have changed his approach to Thome. Maybe instead of think, I better get this guy out because I'm being put in just to get this guy out and if I don't I won't pitch again for a week, he would have thought, I get through this inning and maybe Fuentes will be setting me up in September.

Guys like Blevins and Cramer must feel like, no matter how good I am, I'm always going to come in with runners on or when the ballgame's out of reach and that's just the way it is. And guys like Balfour and Fuentes must feel like, I wonder what happens if God forbid this team makes it to the playoffs, because I'll have thrown a eighty innings already, and that's a damn lot for me. And when they feel a little bit off, you know what happens? They try too hard. And when they try too hard and they feel a little bit off, you know what happens? Lengthy stints on the disabled list.

So why not try this: leave the bringing in your closer with a 6-5 lead on the road for after the All-Star break--and find out in these first couple months while nothing really matters what a Jerry Blevins or Bobby Cramer looks like closing out a tight game. Who knows? You might even find that they don't do the worst job in the world, and you might have at least one guy in your bullpen you can count on come September that hasn't already thrown seventy innings. What a thought.

Of Gio, Powell and Suzuki

I've gone around and around on whether Landon Powell or Kurt Suzuki should catch Gio Gonzalez, and I still think, over the long term, Landon Powell should catch him and not Kurt Suzuki. I say this not because of the results of Suzuki catching Gio, but because the numbers say that, over the long term, any pitcher that consistently walks batters will suffer the consequences, and the numbers bear out that when Kurt Suzuki catches Gio Gonzalez, Gio Gonzalez consistently walks more batters.

When Landon Powell catches Gio Gonzalez, he usually gets hit harder. But the stat line Gio had on Sunday was deceiving. He went seven, and allowed only one run, but he allowed six hits and four walks. That's a WHIP of 1.43 for those of you scoring at home. Or, in other words, almost one and half baserunners per inning. Now, only one of those baserunners scored, yes, but no one ever called the Mariners the best clutch-hitting team in the majors. Their cleanup batter is professional rallykiller Jack Cust, for God's sakes, and it doesn't get much better as you go further down the lineup. The only guy in that lineup other than Ichiro that deserves to be in a major league lineup is Justin Smoak, and he's at least two years away from being the force he will some day be in the majors.

The walks will catch up to Gio, and I like his chances better challenging batters with his 95 MPH fastball than dancing around the edges, waiting for the strike call that he has neither earned from being thought of as an elite pitcher, nor will ever get because Kurt Suzuki complains about every call and holds pitches on the outside corner way too long. Kurt Suzuki seems to have learned from Jason Kendall only to have an attitude behind the plate; he doesn't seem to have realized yet that you have to earn that.

Which is not a huge knock on Suzuki. He catches an elite staff, and he can have an attitude about that. Kurt's an excellent defensive catcher; he can be a clutch hitter, although his numbers lately have dropped off a cliff. It's just that Gio is not a complete pitcher. He's a work in progress, and will be a work in progress for the next couple years. I just don't see him developing with Kurt behind the plate into a strike-throwing machine, which he will need to be to start dominating the way he can at times. Gio will get knocked around quite a bit more with Powell behind the plate, but at least he will attack the zone. Gio may learn to do by necessity what he's needed to do since he came into the league, and that's consistently throw a third pitch for a strike.

Waiting for that outside fastball to finally be called strike three isn't going to cut it, long term.

On a positive note, Jerry Blevins pitched 2, allowed no hits, one walk and struck out three. Especially impressive considering that there's really no considerable difference between Jerry Blevins and Gio Gonzalez in their pitching styles. Makes you wonder what would have happened in Friday's game if they hadn't pulled Blevins for Breslow. I say, let Cramer, Blevins and Ziegler mop up the innings until the eighth and platoon Breslow, Wuertz, Balfour and Fuentes in a closer-by-committee. A guy goes only 4 2/3 like Cahill did on Friday, you treat it like a second start lasting 2 1/3.

Cramer is sixth or seventh on the depth chart for starting, so you might as well use him like you would a starter and see how he does. This bring in a guy for one batter stuff is ridiculous, because the guy still has to warm up like he's throwing longer than a third or two-thirds of an inning. And it's kind of ridiculous to see a guy get pulled because he walked one batter, often when the pitch that walked the guy could really have gone either way.