Lous a freaking idiot Part 2 2009 season

[dew1679666265]

No, the good decision was taking your starter out and allowing the guy you called up specifically to eat some innings for the bullpen to pitch. Leaving Dempster in when he was clearly gassed and not really all that great anyway was a bad decision. If you are willing to start backup position players and have your better relievers unavailable, you are admitting that it is more important to win the war than any one battle. It is then stupid to try and overextend a starting pitcher (a highly compensated one with a longterm guaranteed contract, injury history and a lack of history of consistent quality 200 IP seasons) who was clearly gassed just to avoid using the guys you specifically brought up for short-term help in the bullpen. Hart was going to pitch.

 

The likelihood of Hart throwing 2-3 scoreless innings was pretty low. I do agree that it was a bit risky to leave Demp in because of health questions, but the chances of a run or runs scoring in that situation were fairly high no matter which decision Lou made.

 

Hart was brought up to eat innings, but not in the late innings of a 1-run game. As gassed as Dempster was, the better choice likely would have been to pull him and get an extra inning out of Hart, but runs were likely to score no matter which decision Lou made.

[SouthSideRyan]

No, the good decision was taking your starter out and allowing the guy you called up specifically to eat some innings for the bullpen to pitch. Leaving Dempster in when he was clearly gassed and not really all that great anyway was a bad decision. If you are willing to start backup position players and have your better relievers unavailable, you are admitting that it is more important to win the war than any one battle. It is then stupid to try and overextend a starting pitcher (a highly compensated one with a longterm guaranteed contract, injury history and a lack of history of consistent quality 200 IP seasons) who was clearly gassed just to avoid using the guys you specifically brought up for short-term help in the bullpen. Hart was going to pitch.

 

The likelihood of Hart throwing 2-3 scoreless innings was pretty low. I do agree that it was a bit risky to leave Demp in because of health questions, but the chances of a run or runs scoring in that situation were fairly high no matter which decision Lou made.

 

Hart was brought up to eat innings, but not in the late innings of a 1-run game. As gassed as Dempster was, the better choice likely would have been to pull him and get an extra inning out of Hart, but runs were likely to score no matter which decision Lou made.

 

So if it was likely both pitchers were going to give up a run, perhaps he shouldn't have let a pitcher(a bad hitting one at that) bat for himself.

[dew1679666265]

No, the good decision was taking your starter out and allowing the guy you called up specifically to eat some innings for the bullpen to pitch. Leaving Dempster in when he was clearly gassed and not really all that great anyway was a bad decision. If you are willing to start backup position players and have your better relievers unavailable, you are admitting that it is more important to win the war than any one battle. It is then stupid to try and overextend a starting pitcher (a highly compensated one with a longterm guaranteed contract, injury history and a lack of history of consistent quality 200 IP seasons) who was clearly gassed just to avoid using the guys you specifically brought up for short-term help in the bullpen. Hart was going to pitch.

 

The likelihood of Hart throwing 2-3 scoreless innings was pretty low. I do agree that it was a bit risky to leave Demp in because of health questions, but the chances of a run or runs scoring in that situation were fairly high no matter which decision Lou made.

 

Hart was brought up to eat innings, but not in the late innings of a 1-run game. As gassed as Dempster was, the better choice likely would have been to pull him and get an extra inning out of Hart, but runs were likely to score no matter which decision Lou made.

 

So if it was likely both pitchers were going to give up a run, perhaps he shouldn't have let a pitcher(a bad hitting one at that) bat for himself.

 

I already said the better choice was to pull Dempster. I can understand the decision Lou made, though, even if I disagree with it.

[jersey cubs fan]

No, the good decision was taking your starter out and allowing the guy you called up specifically to eat some innings for the bullpen to pitch. Leaving Dempster in when he was clearly gassed and not really all that great anyway was a bad decision. If you are willing to start backup position players and have your better relievers unavailable, you are admitting that it is more important to win the war than any one battle. It is then stupid to try and overextend a starting pitcher (a highly compensated one with a longterm guaranteed contract, injury history and a lack of history of consistent quality 200 IP seasons) who was clearly gassed just to avoid using the guys you specifically brought up for short-term help in the bullpen. Hart was going to pitch.

 

The likelihood of Hart throwing 2-3 scoreless innings was pretty low. I do agree that it was a bit risky to leave Demp in because of health questions, but the chances of a run or runs scoring in that situation were fairly high no matter which decision Lou made.

 

Hart was brought up to eat innings, but not in the late innings of a 1-run game. As gassed as Dempster was, the better choice likely would have been to pull him and get an extra inning out of Hart, but runs were likely to score no matter which decision Lou made.

 

So be it. You were already down on the road, so 3 innings was not a guarantee. Hart was going to pitch, regardless. He's a starter, used to pitching multiple innings. The point is you were prepared to lose the battle while trying to win the war, then all of a sudden you foolishly throw your starting pitcher another inning because you just can't risk the guy you brought up specifically to pitch in relief of a taxed bullpen to throw 2 innings? It's nonsensical.

[dew1679666265]

No, the good decision was taking your starter out and allowing the guy you called up specifically to eat some innings for the bullpen to pitch. Leaving Dempster in when he was clearly gassed and not really all that great anyway was a bad decision. If you are willing to start backup position players and have your better relievers unavailable, you are admitting that it is more important to win the war than any one battle. It is then stupid to try and overextend a starting pitcher (a highly compensated one with a longterm guaranteed contract, injury history and a lack of history of consistent quality 200 IP seasons) who was clearly gassed just to avoid using the guys you specifically brought up for short-term help in the bullpen. Hart was going to pitch.

 

The likelihood of Hart throwing 2-3 scoreless innings was pretty low. I do agree that it was a bit risky to leave Demp in because of health questions, but the chances of a run or runs scoring in that situation were fairly high no matter which decision Lou made.

 

Hart was brought up to eat innings, but not in the late innings of a 1-run game. As gassed as Dempster was, the better choice likely would have been to pull him and get an extra inning out of Hart, but runs were likely to score no matter which decision Lou made.

 

So be it. You were already down on the road, so 3 innings was not a guarantee. Hart was going to pitch, regardless. He's a starter, used to pitching multiple innings. The point is you were prepared to lose the battle while trying to win the war, then all of a sudden you foolishly throw your starting pitcher another inning because you just can't risk the guy you brought up specifically to pitch in relief of a taxed bullpen to throw 2 innings? It's nonsensical.

 

And if Lou brings in Hart in a one-run game to pitch 2 innings, he gets roasted by other people for bringing in a AAAA roster filler down a run. He was going to get criticized either way. I think he made the wrong choice, but I can understand why he tried to get one more inning from Dempster.

[SouthSideRyan]

If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.

[dew1679666265]

If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.

 

Dempster being due up definitely hurts the argument, I'll agree.

[fasttrack21]

If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.

The only problem with that is that he was going to have Aaron Miles bat in that situation. So it's more or less giving up an out either way.

[Keener98]

If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.

The only problem with that is that he was going to have Aaron Miles bat in that situation. So it's more or less giving up an out either way.

 

 

Miles is still a better hitter than Dempster, and did just have a bloop single on Sat. Also the fact that Miles is the 1st ph off the bench is a completely different discussion.

[Tracer Bullet]

If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.

The only problem with that is that he was going to have Aaron Miles bat in that situation. So it's more or less giving up an out either way.

 

 

Miles is still a better hitter than Dempster, and did just have a bloop single on Sat. Also the fact that Miles is the 1st ph off the bench is a completely different discussion.

 

That's exactly right. It's not like Miles is the only guy on the bench who could swing a bat. The fact that Lou was going to PH with Miles instead of any of his several other options doesn't justify the bad decision.

[Guest]

If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.

 

Dempster being due up definitely hurts the argument, I'll agree.

 

I think that's the key here. If it was just choosing to let Dempster pitch over bringing in Hart, then I would understand Lou's choice.

 

But the Cubs were down 1 after six innings with the pitcher's spot leading off. You know you need to score so it doesn't make any sense to let the pitcher bat. If the Cubs were up 1 and Lou had faith in Dempster, then sure, let him bat. But all things considered, I agree with you that it was a bad choice.

[dew1679666265]

If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.

 

Dempster being due up definitely hurts the argument, I'll agree.

 

I think that's the key here. If it was just choosing to let Dempster pitch over bringing in Hart, then I would understand Lou's choice.

 

But the Cubs were down 1 after six innings with the pitcher's spot leading off. You know you need to score so it doesn't make any sense to let the pitcher bat. If the Cubs were up 1 and Lou had faith in Dempster, then sure, let him bat. But all things considered, I agree with you that it was a bad choice.

 

I can see that.

[Keener98]

Sac bunt in the 1st inning, and a hit and run that failed miserably in the 4th inning. QUIT GIVING UP OUTS MORON!

[dew1679666265]

Sac bunt in the 1st inning, and a hit and run that failed miserably in the 4th inning. QUIT GIVING UP OUTS MORON!

 

Could that have been an attempt at a bunt for a hit? I wasn't sure when I saw it, but he didn't seem to square up as if he were just sacrificing.

[E.J.]

Sac bunt in the 1st inning, and a hit and run that failed miserably in the 4th inning. QUIT GIVING UP OUTS MORON!

 

Could that have been an attempt at a bunt for a hit? I wasn't sure when I saw it, but he didn't seem to square up as if he were just sacrificing.

 

That was most definitely a sac bunt attempt.

[soapy]

there aren't many things i hate more than a 1st inning sac bunt. then Lee hits the HR and i just start wondering if they not only gave up an out, but possibly a run. it's not a certainty, of course, but it's annoying.

[dew1679666265]

Sac bunt in the 1st inning, and a hit and run that failed miserably in the 4th inning. QUIT GIVING UP OUTS MORON!

 

Could that have been an attempt at a bunt for a hit? I wasn't sure when I saw it, but he didn't seem to square up as if he were just sacrificing.

 

That was most definitely a sac bunt attempt.

 

Eh, maybe I wasn't watching close enough. I don't like any kind of bunt there, though.

[biggers car]

Sac bunt in the 1st inning, and a hit and run that failed miserably in the 4th inning. QUIT GIVING UP OUTS MORON!

 

Players bunt on their own all the time it might be on the player and not the manager :thumbsup:

[Tyrant]

there aren't many things i hate more than a 1st inning sac bunt. then Lee hits the HR and i just start wondering if they not only gave up an out, but possibly a run. it's not a certainty, of course, but it's annoying.

 

Theriot could have grounded into a double play, too. Maybe the bunt gave the Cubs a run.

[Outshined_One]

there aren't many things i hate more than a 1st inning sac bunt. then Lee hits the HR and i just start wondering if they not only gave up an out, but possibly a run. it's not a certainty, of course, but it's annoying.

 

Theriot could have grounded into a double play, too. Maybe the bunt gave the Cubs a run.

 

Or he could have flied out. Maybe the bunt did neither.

 

You can speculate all you want (butterfly effect and all that), but the bottom line was that Theriot gave up an out in the first inning, despite being a halfway decent hitter and despite it only being the first inning. It's not a good practice.

[17 Seconds]

there aren't many things i hate more than a 1st inning sac bunt. then Lee hits the HR and i just start wondering if they not only gave up an out, but possibly a run. it's not a certainty, of course, but it's annoying.

 

Theriot could have grounded into a double play, too. Maybe the bunt gave the Cubs a run.

 

the odds of theriot getting on base are much much higher than him gidp

[SouthSideRyan]

Soooo nobody's gonna mention Wells getting Dustied out of the game after his AB?

[Keener98]

Soooo nobody's gonna mention Wells getting Dustied out of the game after his AB?

 

Yea we brought it up int he game thread, but I figured 2 complaints were enough since we actually won the game.

[Tracer Bullet]

Soooo nobody's gonna mention Wells getting Dustied out of the game after his AB?

 

Why waste a pinch-hitter? There's no way our bullpen gives up 2 runs in 3 IP.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Soooo nobody's gonna mention Wells getting Dustied out of the game after his AB?

 

Why waste a pinch-hitter? There's no way our bullpen gives up 2 runs in 3 IP.

 

fixed.