Am I allowed to be critical after a 16-7 victory?

[goonys evil twin]

But given the lead we had it's going a bit too far to crucify Dusty here. If it's a close game, and he blows it big time (which we all know will happen), then I'll take it the next step.

 

The size of the lead is what led me to lodge my complaint in the first place. It's not just about strategy in this game. If he leaves Zambrano in to throw 150 pitches in a game they win 15-3, the result doesn't negate the stupidity of the move.

[Diffusion]

That's a very interesting and persuasive argument, and you're right that I did overlook it. However, on the flip side, I think an argument can be made that getting all your pitchers into a game just to get a feel for proper competitive baseball again is worth something. Also, Jerome Williams doesn't deal with who should be pitching the bottom of the sixth (or would you bring him in there maybe?),

 

Williamson and Eyre pitched the 6th. Williams goes 7-9. Wuertz, Howry and Dempster are available in case Jerome implodes.

 

If you take the blowout long reliever strategy, is the difference between Williams going three innings spotted to a six run lead and him going four with a seven run lead big enough that it's worth burning Williamson and Eyre then? I mean, you seem to be taking the argument that it was unnecessary that Eyre pitch another inning, Howry and Dempster pitch at all, give those frames to Williams. Why draw the line there? Why have Williamson and Eyre pitch at all? Also, if Williams goes three/four innings on Monday, what do you do if there's a blowout Wednesday? I think your argument is reasonably sound, but I'm playing devil's advocate here.

 

There's absolutely no justification for extending an important short-man coming off years where there was already concern that he was overused.

 

And there's no justification for completely overreacting either.

It's one outing, a bit early to start talking about systematic pitcher abuse or whatever it is you're worried about.

 

Who is completely overreacting? When I noted the problem yesterday I acknowledged that it was nitpicky in nature.

 

You're overreacting, and don't try and play if down by retroactively talking about "nitpicking". You were the one in this thread using the "absolutely no justification" absolutes. But, for all you know, Williams wasn't even available to pitch yesterday. Yes, it's not ideal that Eyre threw 37 pitches yesterday, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Dusty's going to overextend and overuse Eyre all the time regardless. Given the exceptional nature of what happened yesterday, with the Cubs having burnt two pitchers through the first five innings, Dusty's very poor track record isn't necessarily applicable. In the spirit of Opening Day, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. You may very well be right, that he's going to "abuse" Eyre, but right now, on the basis of just one appearance, it's far too early to say.

[goonys evil twin]

If you take the blowout long reliever strategy, is the difference between Williams going three innings spotted to a six run lead and him going four with a seven run lead big enough that it's worth burning Williamson and Eyre then? I mean, you seem to be taking the argument that it was unnecessary that Eyre pitch another inning, Howry and Dempster pitch at all, give those frames to Williams. Why draw the line there?

 

You draw the line where it makes sense. I'm not worried about burning through relievers in short stints. I just don't see the point in extending Eyre unnecessarily.

 

You're overreacting, and don't try and play if down by retroactively talking about "nitpicking". You were the one in this thread using the "absolutely no justification" absolutes.

 

Oh give me a freaking break. When I first brought this up yesterday I said, I know it sounds nitpicky. I've added that nitpicky footnote in several of my posts in regard to this situation. Don't freaking tell me I'm talking about it retroactively. That's BS.

 

There was absolutely no justification. There still is no justification. It's not the worst sin Dusty will commit, nor would he be the only manager to do it. But it's still a stupid and pointless decision.

 

 

But, for all you know, Williams wasn't available to pitch yesterday.

 

Oh, the ever popular fallback. Dusty himself uses this one a lot, usually when he burned through a guy unnecessarily a day before. Williams has been slotted as the long man for over a week now. If he wasn't ready to go yesterday, then he shouldn't have been on the roster.

 

 

Dusty's very poor track record isn't necessarily applicable. In the spirit of Opening Day, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. You may very well be right, that he's going to "abuse" Eyre, but right now, on the basis of just one appearance, it's far too early to say.

 

Why is his track record not applicable? Who cares about the spirit of opening day. How about the spirit of not making the same mistakes you've made in the past? This is similar to all the "well it's still early, let's not worry" talk from the past couple years when the team looked sloppy, ill--prepared and uninspired. They talked all spring about being focused and sharp right from the start. Foolish managerial decisions are not justified because of the pomp and circumstance of opening day.

[Diffusion]

If you take the blowout long reliever strategy, is the difference between Williams going three innings spotted to a six run lead and him going four with a seven run lead big enough that it's worth burning Williamson and Eyre then? I mean, you seem to be taking the argument that it was unnecessary that Eyre pitch another inning, Howry and Dempster pitch at all, give those frames to Williams. Why draw the line there?

 

You draw the line where it makes sense. I'm not worried about burning through relievers in short stints. I just don't see the point in extending Eyre unnecessarily.

 

And where does it make sense? You're seeing this as a completely black and white issue, as if Dusty plainly intended to have Eyre go out there and throw an excessive number of pitches, and as if what's an excessive number of pitches is a matter of objective fact.

 

But the fact of the matter is that Eyre came in with the bases loaded and no outs in the sixth inning, and within nine pitches he'd succeeded in retiring the side, allowing just the one run to score. At that point, Dusty had three innings left to pitch, and four relievers to do it with, plus Jerome Williams. Due up in the seventh, Hatteberg, Kearns and Valentin (a lefty that had already homered, a righty with somewhat dangerous power and a switch-hitter that bats better from the left-hand side). The decision then to stick with Eyre, meaning that he didn't have to effectively commit to using all of his relievers in the game, preserving some flexibility in case someone just didn't have it that day, can easily be defended.

 

And then the inning went from there. Eyre allowed the first two hitters to reach, before retiring Valentin. That required of him 12 pitches, taking him to 21 on the night, and that point the Reds brought in Ryan Freel, a right-hander, to pinch hit. Certainly, Dusty could have made a switch there and then, or after Eyre had walked Freel on another eight pitches, bringing in either Wuertz or Howry to get the final two outs, but he didn't. And that he didn't quite frankly isn't that big a deal, and certainly isn't definitive evidence that he's a Scott Eyre abuser. Far more likely the decision was tactical, Baker wanting to keep a reliever in hand in case the game suddenly got close again, and who on earth are you to fault him for that? All I know is you'd be the first to jump all over him for bullpen mismanagement if he ran out of relievers, or if he put Jerome Williams in there and he blew things. Then he should have known that Williams is a starter with two bullpen appearances in his life who needs his four days of rest and his two hour warmup and so on. The term for what you've got with Dusty is an agenda.

 

You're overreacting, and don't try and play if down by retroactively talking about "nitpicking". You were the one in this thread using the "absolutely no justification" absolutes.

 

Oh give me a freaking break. When I first brought this up yesterday I said, I know it sounds nitpicky. I've added that nitpicky footnote in several of my posts in regard to this situation. Don't freaking tell me I'm talking about it retroactively. That's BS.

 

You can play it whichever way you want. I've only seen your comments in this thread, but none of them were prefaced with nitpicking qualifiers. Even if they were, the very definition of nit-picking involves small and inconsequential matters, so quite where you're getting so hot under the collar here with your freakings over someone debating your nitpick I really don't know. Unless, of course, it wasn't the nitpick you're now very unconvincingly trying to dress it up as. Either way, if you weren't overreacting before, you sure are right now.

 

There was absolutely no justification. There still is no justification. It's not the worst sin Dusty will commit, nor would he be the only manager to do it. But it's still a stupid and pointless decision.

 

Uh huh. Again, for something so trivial and inconsequential, which is what nitpicking's all about, these are very strong terms you're using. Stupid. Pointless. Absolutely no justification. Let's just say I'm glad you're in possession of all the facts, including every bit of information that Dusty had available to him yesterday as he made all his decisions, and that you're clever enough to have deduced so undisputedly and unquestionably what would have been exactly the right way to handle the bullpen yesterday that you can tell us all it with this much conviction. Strangely, just about every other single person in the universe thinks that bullpen management isn't an exact science.

 

But, for all you know, Williams wasn't even available to pitch yesterday.

 

Oh, the ever popular fallback. Dusty himself uses this one a lot, usually when he burned through a guy unnecessarily a day before.

 

I love the ever so juicy implication that Dusty and I walk alike talk alike.

 

Williams has been slotted as the long man for over a week now. If he wasn't ready to go yesterday, then he shouldn't have been on the roster.

 

Yes, because it's absolutely impossible that anything could happen to anyone that might might make them day-to-day as opposed to requiring them going to the disabled list, especially when the club is a little short on starting pitchers. Which is, for the record, what Jerome Williams is, with all of two bullpen appearances in his entire professional career, as I pointed out above. Now, personally, I agree that it's much more likely that Dusty didn't think of using Jerome Williams, because he views him as a starter, as opposed to Williams never being a viable option for a reason beyond Dusty's control, but let's not pretend we know things when what we're actually both trying to do is nothing more than make the best educated guesses we can.

 

Dusty's very poor track record isn't necessarily applicable. In the spirit of Opening Day, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. You may very well be right, that he's going to "abuse" Eyre, but right now, on the basis of just one appearance, it's far too early to say.

 

Why is his track record not applicable? Who cares about the spirit of opening day. How about the spirit of not making the same mistakes you've made in the past? This is similar to all the "well it's still early, let's not worry" talk from the past couple years when the team looked sloppy, ill--prepared and uninspired. They talked all spring about being focused and sharp right from the start. Foolish managerial decisions are not justified because of the pomp and circumstance of opening day.

 

It's not applicable because, as I've already explained, the situation yesterday was somewhat exceptional. We're not talking about a run of a mill situation when six relievers to get 13 outs unforeseeably turns into four relievers to get 12 outs. You can mock giving him the benefit of the doubt as much as you want to, you can parody my argument as you see fit, you can even talk about the pomp and circumstance of Opening Day if you're really off your rocker, but none of that's going to get you anywhere. What might is opening your mind to the possibility that, once in a blue moon, Dusty Baker might not necessarily have made completely the wrong decision and therefore, in that single instance, he wasn't the stupid, pointless fool you unfailingly take him for.

[goonys evil twin]

What might is opening your mind to the possibility that, once in a blue moon, Dusty Baker might not necessarily have made completely the wrong decision and therefore, in that single instance, he wasn't the stupid, pointless fool you unfailingly take him for.

 

He didn't make the wrong decision at other times in this game, but he clearly did here.

 

 

If Dusty thinks of Williams as a starter, and can't bear to use him as a reliever in a blowout when the bullpen is already getting used early, then what is the point in putting him on the roster as the longman when he's said he won't use him as a starter until April 15?

 

I didn't get hot under the collar until people started making ridiculous justifications for not using a longman in the quintessential longman situation.

[Diffusion]

What might is opening your mind to the possibility that, once in a blue moon, Dusty Baker might not necessarily have made completely the wrong decision and therefore, in that single instance, he wasn't the stupid, pointless fool you unfailingly take him for.

 

He didn't make the wrong decision at other times in this game, but he clearly did here.

 

Which decision are you even talking about? The decision to bring in Williamson for the bottom of the sixth? The decision to bring in Eyre to replace Williamson? The decision to bring Eyre out to start the seventh having already thrown nine pitches? The decision to leave Eyre in after Hatteberg reached? After Kearns reached too? After Narron pinch-hit with Freel, a right-hander? After he walked Freel? There's nothing clearly about it. Bullpen management isn't an exact science, and so it's reasonably rare even with Dusty that you can say he flat out made the wrong decision. This isn't one of those rare occasions, unless you can successfully argue that a) Jerome Williams was definately available last night, that b) Dusty wanting to get as many pitchers as possible into a proper competitive game but with the pressure somewhat off was definately wrong AND that c) Dusty wanting to keep one reliever in hand (Wuertz, as it turns out) for flexibility in case of injury/meltdown was definately wrong. Go for it.

 

If Dusty thinks of Williams as a starter, and can't bear to use him as a reliever in a blowout when the bullpen is already getting used early, then what is the point in putting him on the roster as the longman when he's said he won't use him as a starter until April 15?

 

Maybe there's not a better option that's healthy? Maybe it's better to have an eleventh pitcher even if you'd rather not use him than to go with ten pitchers? Maybe it had nothing to do with not wanting to use Williams and more to do with wanting other guys to get into the game? Maybe Jerome Williams wasn't feeling well yesterday? Maybe he's working on his mechanics or something and isn't quite ready for games yet? A little imagination really wouldn't go amiss.

[BigbadB]

Maybe their expecting Rusch to get knocked out early on Wednesday, therefore the need to save Williams for that game. :wink:

[Sosa21MVP]

Is there a reason or a need to be critical after a 16-7 victory on opening day?

 

I think there is always a need to evaluate each game in a careful manner because if there are some negative things that happen I don't think you want to let the win gloss over aspects of the game that could have been done better or need to improve.

 

Yeah, it is opening day but I don't mind seeing people analyze both the good and the bad. The key is to make sure the same negatives do not continue to duplicate themselves over the course of the season and become trends which could hurt the team at critical junctures during the stretch run.

 

And yes, I know my username is outdated. :lol: Haven't been here much since 2003.

[CubinNY]

And yes, I know my username is outdated. :lol: Haven't been here much since 2003.

 

Don't change it. We must never forget the joy Sammy brought us.

[bobbyd20]

I guess my only point was that I've seen Dusty apply the double switch incorrectly in the past and felt like he did it again yesterday. It took him two switches (one between the top and bottom half of the sixth and one during the bottom of the sixth) to get the batting order in place.

 

I think yesterday was a great day to get everyone on the bench an at-bat. I have absolutely no problem at all with that. I just don't like seeing Dusty completely waste a substitution in doing so (and that's what I felt he did with the situation I originally brought up).

 

If this were the first time I've seen Baker make a questionable double switch, I would have let it slide. But this type of stuff has happened time and time again during his 3+ years in Chicago. This isn't a complicated concept and I would think that a major league manager or at least some member of the coaching staff should be able to properly pull off a double switch. These things shouldn't be happening in the big leagues.

 

And to me, whether the score is 2-1 or 12-5, playing the game the right way is the most important thing. In my mind, this was not an example of playing the game the right way.

[biittner77]

Maybe their expecting Rusch to get knocked out early on Wednesday, therefore the need to save Williams for that game. :wink:

 

Or perhaps they are planning on having Rusch go 5 then bringing in Williams for 3. Teams do that sort of thing early in the season a lot more than they would later on.

[NCCubFan]

Or perhaps they are planning on having Rusch go 5 then bringing in Williams for 3. Teams do that sort of thing early in the season a lot more than they would later on.

More like Rusch going 4, then Williams coming in. :D

 

For those who were saying that Williams should have pitched the other day, I think we now see why Dusty saved him.

[Diffusion]

For those who were saying that Williams should have pitched the other day, I think we now see why Dusty saved him.

 

He knew he'd pitch like this?

[BigbadB]

Goony did. :D

[NCCubFan]

For those who were saying that Williams should have pitched the other day, I think we now see why Dusty saved him.

 

He knew he'd pitch like this?

No, of course he didn't KNOW it, but he knew the possibility existed. And, as we saw, that in fact happened.