Are we concerned about Axford yet?

[GormanHarvey]

Not that it really matters, but Nathan went to Gardenhire and asked to be taken out of the closers role for now. Maybe Ax should do likewise

[RockCoCougars]

I'm not ready to get the pitchforks out yet with Axford, especially considering that Saito is injured. I want no part of Hawkins closing games. Just ask Cub or Twins fans how that works. I'll go with Saito at this point, but as I said- based on past Brewers history, look for a dark-horse to emerge (Mitre has quietly been putting up nice numbers).

[crewcrazy]

The shelf life for a successful Brewers closer is usually .5-1.5 seasons before Plan B takes over and pitches lights out only to falter or be traded during/after the next season.

I think you just described the vast majority of closers in baseball. There are very few guys who are very good from year-to-year.

 

That's not to say we shouldn't worry about Axford a bit (especially with his minor league history), but it isn't like what we've seen through 6 innings this year is normal for Axford, either. There are a lot of things out of whack with his numbers so far (less first pitch strikes, less swinging strikes, more pitches in the zone in hitter's counts, more contact made by opponents, etc.), but most of it goes back to fastball location. If he can get the ball down regularly again, he'll be fine.

 

I wouldn't worry about him becoming "the next Turnbow." Turnbow had control problems, too, but they were mostly psychological towards the end. Axford's are more mechanical. That's a lot easier to remedy.

[Hammer]

At least he is still having fun http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

From Twitter:

JohnAxford

John Axford

You are a master of words! The most clever person on Twitter! RT: @danamundson: Hey @JohnAxford, get off your knees, you're blowing saves!

[jeffy]

"It would take a lot to remove him during an inning," said Roenicke. "With a one-run lead, I don't see doing it. Now, if Kameron Loe was well rested and we had a three-run lead and 'Ax' walked four in a row, that might be different.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/120235039.html

 

Yes, if he sucks with a one run lead, let's leave him in until the game is lost...after all he has been duly dubbed "the closer".

[Ennder]

Roenicke is pretty much correct, pretty rare that a closer gets yanked when they come in with a 1 run lead on the road. Hard to be so bad you have to get removed when 2 runs and the game is over.

[brewmann04]

I Hope AX works as hard on his control as much as he on Twitter.

[Thurston Fluff]

I'm generally concerned with the concept of one relief pitcher in a bullpen that is blessed with magical powers that grant him and only him the power to pitch in specific situations. I'm equally concerned that his magical powers are only to be used when it will result in a "save" that inexplicably makes his value skyrocket.

 

I think most relievers do better when given a specific role. That isn't just for closers but each reliever should have his job defined as much as such an unpredictable job allows. I agree with you guys who get saves are considered more valuable than they should be.

[FVBrewerFan]

I think most relievers do better when given a specific role. That isn't just for closers but each reliever should have his job defined as much as such an unpredictable job allows. I agree with you guys who get saves are considered more valuable than they should be.

I agree, but I think those roles can be changed during a series, or even a game. The key is to explain this to the bullpen beforehand. For example, before the series at home, RRR could go to Loe (or Whomever) and let him know he could be used in a save situation.

 

I was concerned about Axford coming into the season. Probably my #3 concern after defense and Betancourt. Not because I didn't trust Axford, it's that I don't really trust many closers- especially one who's only done it for less than one season.

 

 

[RockCoCougars]

The shelf life for a successful Brewers closer is usually .5-1.5 seasons before Plan B takes over and pitches lights out only to falter or be traded during/after the next season.

I think you just described the vast majority of closers in baseball. There are very few guys who are very good from year-to-year.

 

That's not to say we shouldn't worry about Axford a bit (especially with his minor league history), but it isn't like what we've seen through 6 innings this year is normal for Axford, either. There are a lot of things out of whack with his numbers so far (less first pitch strikes, less swinging strikes, more pitches in the zone in hitter's counts, more contact made by opponents, etc.), but most of it goes back to fastball location. If he can get the ball down regularly again, he'll be fine.

 

I wouldn't worry about him becoming "the next Turnbow." Turnbow had control problems, too, but they were mostly psychological towards the end. Axford's are more mechanical. That's a lot easier to remedy.

True, but it is odd that the Brewers haven't really had an in house closer for more than 2 years in ages (since Mike Fetters I forgot about him). It's been a big time revolving door, but from memory, the Brewers have had good success with guys stepping in after the pre-season favorite for closer flamed out early in the season. I'd bet that their closers have well outperformed the MLB average during this time with guys like Doug Henry, Doug Jones, Kolb, Turnbow, Torres, Axford and the like coming from no where to pitch lights out (only to flame out as quickly as they came onto the scene).

[chuckiehacks]

Interesting take on Axford from Jayson Stark, who was on the D-List earlier this year. He says that scouts have noticed that Axford completely changed his delivery in the offseason and is throwing from a different arm slot than he was last year. That would explaing the control issues. The question is, how long does it take him to figure out how to get control with the new slot or go back to the old slot.

[jazzytrav]

I'm generally concerned with the concept of one relief pitcher in a bullpen that is blessed with magical powers that grant him and only him the power to pitch in specific situations. I'm equally concerned that his magical powers are only to be used when it will result in a "save" that inexplicably makes his value skyrocket.

 

I think most relievers do better when given a specific role. That isn't just for closers but each reliever should have his job defined as much as such an unpredictable job allows. I agree with you guys who get saves are considered more valuable than they should be.

I understand defining it to an extent, but if you're up by a run and have two lefties coming up in the 9th, I see no reason why Axford gets the call just because he's "the closer." Same with the 8th and the "setup man." (sorry, bit of leftover Yost rage...I haven't been around here in awhile)

 

Defined roles are fine as long as everyone understands that those roles can be tweaked at any time for the betterment of the team and depending on the situation. Then it requires a manager with the guts to make an intelligent bullpen decision rather than the "accepted" one.

 

And the "save" statistic just needs to go away...far, far away.

 

 

[logan82]

[quote author=jazzytrav wrote:

[/b]I understand defining it to an extent, but if you're up by a run and have two lefties coming up in the 9th, I see no reason why Axford gets the call just because he's "the closer." Same with the 8th and the "setup man." (sorry, bit of leftover Yost rage...I haven't been around here in awhile)

 

Defined roles are fine as long as everyone understands that those roles can be tweaked at any time for the betterment of the team and depending on the situation. Then it requires a manager with the guts to make an intelligent bullpen decision rather than the "accepted" one.

 

And the "save" statistic just needs to go away...far, far away.

 

Almost every manager does it. There are very few managers who don't have a designated closer. Getting upset with a manager about it is like getting upset with snow in Wisconsin in January. It is just the way it is.

 

 

[Oxy]

jazzytrav]And the "save" statistic just needs to go away...far, far away.

For that matter, the concept of crediting an individual with either a "win" or a "save" has been bad for winning individual baseball games. On the whole though, part of the reason that baseball has such a rich history is because of individual counting statistics. They create drama and stars and a reason to get fans excited. Unfortunately they also create psychological hurdles which drastically alter the common sense strategical moves of winning an individual baseball game.

[Baldkin]

I'm generally concerned with the concept of one relief pitcher in a bullpen that is blessed with magical powers that grant him and only him the power to pitch in specific situations. I'm equally concerned that his magical powers are only to be used when it will result in a "save" that inexplicably makes his value skyrocket.

 

I think most relievers do better when given a specific role. That isn't just for closers but each reliever should have his job defined as much as such an unpredictable job allows. I agree with you guys who get saves are considered more valuable than they should be.

I can't believe that these guys made it to pro baseball and are now that mentally fragile that they can't handle pitching outside of their specific designated inning. "Oh gosh. I just vomited all over myself because Coach asked me to pitch in the 11th and I'm only the 7th inning guy!"

If its something that is handled properly from the beginning, then it shouldn't be a problem. The reason it isn't handled this way is because then the blame falls on the player for not performing if it doesn't work, not on the Manager for doing something out of the ordinary (even if it is statistically better).

[bobskube]

Guys, he scares me to death. His arm slot is not consistent at all. I am not at all a Ken Rosenthal fan, but I actually agree with him. He mentioned that scouts said Axford was awful in spring training and he looked lost. I agree with him. He looks like he has no confidence. Mark me down as being beyond worried.

On the other note, kudos to Brewers for Braun deal. Fantastic!

[joepepsi]

I'm generally concerned with the concept of one relief pitcher in a bullpen that is blessed with magical powers that grant him and only him the power to pitch in specific situations. I'm equally concerned that his magical powers are only to be used when it will result in a "save" that inexplicably makes his value skyrocket.

 

I think most relievers do better when given a specific role. That isn't just for closers but each reliever should have his job defined as much as such an unpredictable job allows. I agree with you guys who get saves are considered more valuable than they should be.

From here:http://danagonistes.blogs...04/wisdom-of-weaver.html

 

"Earl Weaver's Second Law: If you don't make any promises to your players you won't have to break them

Weaver

mentions that ideally he wouldn't have to talk to any of his players

all season. He also notes that players, for example relief pitchers, who

have to be told what their "role" is just don't get it. When asked such

a question he would often retort "Your role is to warmup when I tell

you and come in the game and pitch when I tell you." "