Do you have a better metric of his performances in "games that matter"? Almost half his earned runs came in games he was either getting work to get work or games he was thrust into at the last second due to mop up failure. As of now, Devo will be even more needed in his bridge from starter to end of game role... with starting pitching no longer a given. Giles, nor any other Astro, can fill that role.
For comparison sakes, Brad Lidge was 42-4 in his 46 save opportunities in 2005, when the Astros went to the World Series. Lidge was an all star and an elite closer that year. At Giles' current rate, he would be 41-5 in 46 save opportunities. This team has some holes, most noticeably at starting pitching. While the team can always upgrade just about any position on the team, bullpen and closer role is not something that is much of a concern.
I'd think Hinch is good and experienced enough coach to put the best closer out there. There's no controversy, it's obvious who's struggling and who's not.
No. I don't have 1 number that is the end all, be all. But I don't think the 15-2 number is all that telling on its own either. I tried to believe in him, and then he gave up runs in three straight high leverage outings, and showed his propensity to forget where the zone is when the pressure was turned up. Again, he has been very good for portions of the year, but i'm not just going to look at that 15-2 number and think that he is an elite closer who I am happy to give the ball to when it counts. Devo has been good in the bridge role, but I don't think he is nearly as locked into it as he was earlier in the season. We will see. At the end of the day, we both set out narratives at the start of the year, I don't believe Giles has done much to quell the doubt. I am not sure you can just extrapolate Giles' numbers like that, given how different all save situations are, and how many of Giles have come in relatively low leverage situations.
Who is the best 5th/6th/7th inning high leverage hybrid in close games if you move devo to closer? Open to your full thoughts vs. partial
Anyone else excited to see Peacock pitch? I am very interested to see if he continues his great pitching or if he regresses back towards old Peacock.
What if we get a deadline starter and Mchugh comes back? In that case, Peacock. Or you could give Harris the ninth, and use Devo and Peacock interchangeably.
So we move Devo into a role of lesser value, and a role he may not even succeed in. Closing is different, it isn't an automatic transition. Harris was given a shot last year, and after a solid start his results fell off noticeably. You also can't just throw pitchers into Devo's current role and assume they will handle it. Plus you never know how Giles will feel getting demoted, or Harris for getting passed over. It has the potential to throw the whole thing into chaos. This team is doing a great job of finishing off games exactly as constructed. Giles has had cosmetic issues, but when asked to finish games he has done it a high clip. If he starts failing to do that, then we may have to rock the boat, but it hasn't happened.
The whole thing is based on the assumption that Giles will not be the guy. In which case, rocking the boat will be necessary. It obviously comes with putting guys in unfamiliar roles, but it will be necessitated by Giles failure. Peacock showed that he could be good in plenty of high leverage situations. You never know with Devo in the closer role, but if he is good at it, then he won't be loosing much value, he will be winning us games. As far as Harris goes, why is it that you guys take one poor stint from him and look to it like gospel, but are willing to look past Giles numerous falters? None of this may happen. but there are definitely options if need be, and I'm sure Hinch won't hesitate to try them.
He gave up runs in 2 straight save situation, not 3. One of them was a mid-inning appearance that could have been handled differently at the start if the stakes were higher. You have a ridiculous yo-yo pattern of overreacting to the bad outing and ignoring the 10+ good outings that preceded it. It's impossible for you to grasp the longevity of the season that will feature several ups/downs and how the entire bullpen is constructed as a cohesive unit. One part significantly effects the other. Giles will blow at least another save if not 3-4 more. Devo himself has blown 2. It's going to be harder to replace Devo's role than it is Giles, and as it is... Giles still has the ability to succeed in the role he's in.
Don't get into the habit you have of telling me I said things that I didn't. I said he gave up runs in three straight outings. (Which he did.) I'm not sure what this yo-yo pattern is that you are talking about, I have a lot more trust in him. (Which I said even after he blew his most recent save.) I am not overreacting. I never said a change had to happen today. You are assuming things. I am simply predicting that a change will have to be made at some point.
"Three straight high leverage outings" Your words, not mine. You seemingly ate crow in the midst of the good stretch and now you are back the war path after the blown save. That is yo-yoing.
Right. 3 straight high leverage outings, because that's what they were. (I guess the 1st Texas game wasn't really high leverage, but it was a poor outing) Well, you expect me to eat crow after Giles was poor in three straight outings. That's not how eating crow works? Usually bad outings lead to less confidence in guys, unless, you don't believe three straight poor outings mean anything? Which is ridiculous. Again. What war path? Giles is still the closer.
Not going to bring up your own words about eating crow... some time during the Detroit or Baltimore series? Yes, the Texas game was not a high leverage outing. It was because he needed work. Half of his earned runs have come in similar situations. It's pointless to have any sort of rational discussion if you immediately ignore any positive results at the first sign of a negative result. It's also pointless when you look at all negative results in a vaccume without context... which is odd because this is exactly what you're advocating people not to do for his positive results (as you don't acknowledge the 15/17 saves without scrutinizing). Flip flopping will get you nowhere around here. Likewise, digging in on one side is perfectly fine... but if you're proven wrong more often than not, don't expect anybody to take you all that seriously.
Giles 15-2 doesn't tell the story, but I'm still somewhat confident he can improve. He needs to since Devo gets more value where he is. Giles performance Tuesday is worth 2-3 BAD outings.
Name one other situation that I have been proven wrong in? Since according to you I am proven wrong so often? The fact remains I will not eat crow after a guy has three straight poor outings that doesn't make sense, and its not flip flopping. Are you saying I'm not taken seriously around here? Who's on more Ignore lists? I bet I know the answer.
An extremely odd and overly defensive response that has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Again, stick with your stance. If you admit you've been convinced otherwise (as you did last week when things were going good), don't be alarmed when you flip back and others think you're a tad comical. Hypersensitivity also sticks to some... and not in the good way.
I said Giles was serving me crow. Where in that, do you get "I have completely changed my opinion of Giles for good, and I'm convinced?" Nowhere. You are inventing another argument. Telling me people find it comical, because I said I have more trust in Giles?? Who finds that comical? Who reads that and says "I'm not going to take this guy seriously?" I may be a bit harsh on Giles for sure, but you are just flat out making this **** up.
