Baker upset that Barrett told the truth

[Blueheart05]

I don't believe it was an attempt to hide an injury but the fact that Barrett basically said he was unavailable (to even pinch hit). We all know he is day to day, so at least let them go under the assumption that you may be available to pinch hit. The injury was not hidden they just didn't want the fact that he was unavailable to pinch hit known, I think that is a pretty smart move.

 

Bingo! I think this is the real point. Barrett removed the idea that he was available at all which potentially changes how the Brewers will use their bullpen late in the game.

 

This could be a valid argument, for one AB. However the first time Barrett DOESN'T come on to pinch hit in a likely situation the cover's blown anyway. I wouldn't think 1 "phantom" AB would make that much of a difference in the greater scheme of things, though strenger things have happened.

 

I disagree. Teams decoy all the time with hitters they really don't intend to bat. I remember last year, Kenny Williams was upset with Frank Thomas because he didn't conceal his foot injury during the Cubs series. He wanted Thomas to stand on deck and help alter the manger's decision. Anyway, the Cubs have a short bench to start with so if teams know that Barrett is unavailable it will affect more than just one AB. Having the threat of power off the bench is big.

Apparently, the Cubs aren't the only team in MLB to have this policy...

 

mlb.com[/url]"]Brewers manager Ned Yost, whose bullpen was already stretched thin at that time, stayed mum about the fact Kolb was unavailable to pitch in a series at Shea Stadium against the Mets.

 

"There's times when the information is pertinent, and there's times when it ain't," Yost said.

 

Injuries are pertinent, according to Yost, when they are "obvious" -- a player leaves a game, for example -- or are serious enough to send a player to the DL. Day-to-day issues like Barrett's thumb and Kolb's elbow should be kept in-house, the way the Brewers treated Rickie Weeks' thumb injury during the second half of last season.

 

"People knew he had some thumb problems, but not that it was serious enough that it needed surgery," said Yost of Weeks, who did have surgery after the season to repair a torn ligament at the base of his left thumb. "That's nothing new -- everybody does that. Why tell the other team about every little thing?"

Can we say, "mountain out of a molehill" with this thread?

 

 

Teams do this all the time. Yost, like Baker and other managers, wants it kept in-house because he knows other teams will capitalize if they know one of his players is unavailable.

[CubinNY]

I don't believe it was an attempt to hide an injury but the fact that Barrett basically said he was unavailable (to even pinch hit). We all know he is day to day, so at least let them go under the assumption that you may be available to pinch hit. The injury was not hidden they just didn't want the fact that he was unavailable to pinch hit known, I think that is a pretty smart move.

 

Bingo! I think this is the real point. Barrett removed the idea that he was available at all which potentially changes how the Brewers will use their bullpen late in the game.

 

This could be a valid argument, for one AB. However the first time Barrett DOESN'T come on to pinch hit in a likely situation the cover's blown anyway. I wouldn't think 1 "phantom" AB would make that much of a difference in the greater scheme of things, though strenger things have happened.

 

I disagree. Teams decoy all the time with hitters they really don't intend to bat. I remember last year, Kenny Williams was upset with Frank Thomas because he didn't conceal his foot injury during the Cubs series. He wanted Thomas to stand on deck and help alter the manger's decision. Anyway, the Cubs have a short bench to start with so if teams know that Barrett is unavailable it will affect more than just one AB. Having the threat of power off the bench is big.

Apparently, the Cubs aren't the only team in MLB to have this policy...

 

mlb.com[/url]"]Brewers manager Ned Yost, whose bullpen was already stretched thin at that time, stayed mum about the fact Kolb was unavailable to pitch in a series at Shea Stadium against the Mets.

 

"There's times when the information is pertinent, and there's times when it ain't," Yost said.

 

Injuries are pertinent, according to Yost, when they are "obvious" -- a player leaves a game, for example -- or are serious enough to send a player to the DL. Day-to-day issues like Barrett's thumb and Kolb's elbow should be kept in-house, the way the Brewers treated Rickie Weeks' thumb injury during the second half of last season.

 

"People knew he had some thumb problems, but not that it was serious enough that it needed surgery," said Yost of Weeks, who did have surgery after the season to repair a torn ligament at the base of his left thumb. "That's nothing new -- everybody does that. Why tell the other team about every little thing?"

Can we say, "mountain out of a molehill" with this thread?

 

 

Teams do this all the time. Yost, like Baker and other managers, wants it kept in-house because he knows other teams will capitalize if they know one of his players is unavailable.

 

This is completely ridicilous. This isn't football or some other sport where you have a game plan toward stopping some great running back or shooting guard. Hiding an injury baseball is just stupid.

 

So Dusty puts Barrett on deck and the team puts in a RH reliever then he throws Marby in. Big whoop-te-do. The chances are overwhealming that it won't matter one iota.

 

The entire righty/lefty matchup thing is way overblown in most cases. Why not just put him on deck anyway as a double bluff, that would be brilliant?!!!

 

In addition, why not just put another right handed batter up there if the other manager is going to over-manage that much.

 

This baseball.

Edited May 1, 2006 by CubinNY

[CubsWin]

he is the second-worst hitter of ALL TIME. if he gets enough playing time this year, he will move into first. what more do you need? no amount of defense makes up for the amount of playing time he's gotten.

 

I knew Neifi was bad but not THAT bad!

 

By what measurement is he the 2nd worst of all time? OPB, SLG?

 

looks like i was a bit off. he's only the third worst hitter of all time at the moment.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-real-chase/

I found that article, The Real Chase, entertaining, sardonic and unfortunately unbalanced. He didn't say it in his article, but what the stat RCAA really shows is how good of a defensive player Neifi must have been over his 11 seasons to continue to get ABs despite being the poor hitter that he freely admits he is. It also shows how hard it must be to find a SS that can both field and hit well in a league of 30 teams. The article attempted to ridicule Neifi has the worst hitter in all of baseball, but the author used the wrong stat, and it missed the mark.

There are plenty of other stats that make a much stronger case for Neifi being a bad hitter. His use of EqA in the "worst doctor in the world" article, I felt, was far more persuasive. But trying to label Neifi Perez as the worst hitter, or 3rd worst, in all of baseball just doesn't hold up to intelligent scrutiny. It certainly isn't supported by the use of the RCAA stat.

 

In fact, since most of us, I think, are already aware that Neifi isn't a good hitter, using the RCAA stat doesn't really put him in a negative light at all. Its actually flattering (of a his defensive abilities and longevity) to head this -300 list.

 

Weak-hitting middle infielders have been a reality of major league baseball for a very long time. Usually they are bench players, as in the case of Neifi as a Cub. But occasionally, a team will find themselves in a bad way and will have to sacrifice offense for a good defensive SS. So it is somewhat of an honor to have been the SS with the good enough glove to be the guy teams turn to when they miss out on a good offensive shortstop.

 

Its either that or every GM who has ever employed Neifi Perez is an idiot, which, unfortunately, is what this guy chose to imply in his article.