I think installing Brach as the closer could well be the wrong move. Wouldn’t argue if that had been your point.
But once you’ve made a decision to bring someone in, you do not have a nervous breakdown and panic at the first sign of adversity. I didn’t like the 2 walks either. But ANYONE can have a bad inning. The idea is very common on here that Buck should manage by panicking and yanking pitchers at the first sign of adversity. And it’s silly. The people making the assumption always assume, of course that the next guy would do great. And that a bad sequence to a few batters means the pitcher can’t recover.
Managing by panicking at every hint of adversity is wrong in every sense. It makes you overuse your relievers. It tells your pitchers they have to look over their shoulder at the slightest hint of trouble because you will yank if they struggle in any way. I am glad that Buck doesn’t manage that way.
Once again… if I was in charge I would probably be going with Givens as the closer right now. But the bottom line is Brach is still one of your three best relievers and he’s going to be pitching in high leverage 7-8-9th inning situations no matter how you slice it. You can’t treat him like a hothouse flower and take him, or any other guy you hand the ball to do a job, every time they struggle a bit or look like they “don’t have it tonight”. That type of reactionary managing would be a recipe for disaster. For the bullpen, for the team, and for the pitchers’ confidence. You make a decision that someone is the best for a particular job — maybe it’s the wrong decision in hindsight — and you let them try to do the job. Yes, sometimes they will fail. Just like sometimes a batter will fail with the bases loaded. Baseball is a game of failure. Everyone fails now and then. And yes, sometimes that leads to a loss. Sometimes it doesn’t. No one EVER knows what would have happened if the opposite decision had been made. You give guys a job to do, and if they fail… it doesn’t always mean it was the wrong decision. Every pitcher, and hitter, fails at their job periodically. Just the way it is. Fernando Rodney failed at his job today, worse than Brach. So did Joe Kelly and Carson Smith. I’m sure there are people on the Red Sox board saying that as soon as Kelly got in trouble in the 8th, they should have brought Kimbrel in for a 5 or 6 out save rather than let Kelly and Smith blow a 4 run lead. Maybe if Cora had done that, the Red Sox wouldn’t have lost. Tonight. BUt if you send the message to Kelly and Smith that they have to be perfect or they are gone, what does that do to their ability to help you all season. Are you going to bring Kimbrel in for 2 out saves 60 times in the season?
I know I’m in the minority here, but I do NOT think that Buck “sticks with pitchers too long”. I think he gives guys jobs to do, and if they fail, well, we might lose because of it. Just as we might lose if a fielder can’t do his job, or a hitter can’t get a hit with men in scoring position. But you can’t assume that every misstep by a pitcher means he hasI’m to be replaced immediately. You simply can’t manage a team like a scared rabbit, which is what a lot of fans around here want Buck to do every time a pitcher hits a rough spot. I’m glad Buck doesn’t.
That being said I think that Givens is probably better suited for the 9th inning than Brach. But like lineup construction, it’s probably not as big a deal as people think. If Brach gives up 2 runs in the 8th and we don’t have a 2 run lead to hand to Givens in the 9th… it really hurts almost as much as Brach giving 2 runs in the 9th. Yes, a bit more leverage in the 9th, but not that much. If you are going to have Brach on the team and he is going to be one of your best relievers, he is going to be pitching in fairly high leverage situations. If he isn’t good enough, well, we will probably lose some games. Just like we will lose some games if Adam Jones isn’t good enough for the role he is put in, or any other player.
