Harang: Dusty ruined my career

[XZero771679666304]

If the Cubs are locked up in some 16 inning regular season game and the relievers have all been used up, I'd rather put a position player in there and let it go rather than run Garza or someone out there for 50+ pitches.

 

Unless you have an extra off day or two, or it's an absolutely do or die game, I'm not running s starter out there. Especially not your best starter, which is what Harang was.

 

Dusty just can't make prudent decisions like this. He lives in the moment with no regard for the future, and he repeatedly demonstrates this.

[Tracer Bullet]

i'm confused. if we're all ok with forfeiting a game after a few extra innings (and I certainly prefer that to using a starter), why is there something wrong with me again?

 

why don't we just change extra inning games? it's not like anyone actually likes sitting through 10 scoreless innings to see a run finally scored against the 15th pitcher used in the 7th hour of a game. give the teams like 2-3 extra innings and if they don't have a winner by then, it's a tie.

 

What the [expletive] is wrong with you?

 

seeing a second basemen pitch in a game we're willing to effectively forfeit is sufficiently fun to risk having a moron like Baker use a SP in the 15th inning after almost every fan has gone to sleep? i'm trying to reconcile all of this.

[mike2482]

Why did Dusty pick Harang? Wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to use the next days starting pitcher? You know, since hes the most rested non reliever? Then the next day you have a minor league callup start in place of him, and then you dont ruin Aaron Harangs career. Na, that makes too much since and we are just here to bash Dusty

 

I was just going to post this. Should have woke up earlier.

[Sammy Sofa]

i'm confused. if we're all ok with forfeiting a game after a few extra innings (and I certainly prefer that to using a starter), why is there something wrong with me again?

 

why don't we just change extra inning games? it's not like anyone actually likes sitting through 10 scoreless innings to see a run finally scored against the 15th pitcher used in the 7th hour of a game. give the teams like 2-3 extra innings and if they don't have a winner by then, it's a tie.

 

What the [expletive] is wrong with you?

 

seeing a second basemen pitch in a game we're willing to effectively forfeit is sufficiently fun to risk having a moron like Baker use a SP in the 15th inning after almost every fan has gone to sleep? i'm trying to reconcile all of this.

 

What is there to reconcile? Who here is talking about just giving up on a game once it hits a certain number of innings besides you? Those of us talking about effectively forfeiting game are talking about preferring the Cubs to do that if it's essentially a meaningless game and the bullpen has been used up, not just "oh, it's the 14th inning and we still have a couple of relievers left...let's pack it in!!!"

[davearm2]

dude, tony larussa used two position players in a game last year without resorting to using another starting pitcher. there are a number of managers who are good, smart managers and understand that winning one regular season is less important than the health and effectiveness of one of their best starting pitchers.

 

let's also remember that josh fogg - not exactly a guy with a great arm and a bright future - threw eight pitches during extra innings. they ran into this problem because dusty managed the game like a complete spaz without a backup option, and then ended up boxing himself into a corner.

 

davearm, you may want to skip this part because it involves some math - let's make the rudimentary assumption that using harang gave the reds a win expectancy of 50%. if they don't use him, i'll be generous to your side and say there's no chance they win (which obviously isn't true - whatever position player the reds hypothetically used could allow no runs, or their offense could score more runs in the top of their inning than the padres score in the bottom). so under this generous assumption, the reds expect to have an extra half win for the year. what's more likely, that the extra half win would be the difference between the reds - who at the time the game was played (late may) were already 4 games under .500 and 6 games behind the cubs - making and missing the playoffs? or that one of the starting pitchers they used in extra innings would suffer negative effects from it and either become less effective or injured (or both)?

It's more likely that the game matters than the pitcher gets injured.

 

The dangers inherent in pitching are what they are. Assuming Harang got a proper warmup that night, there's no viable reason to expect that outing was likely to ruin his career, any more than his next scheduled start could've ruined his career. If there is any difference in the level of risk in the two scenarios, it'd be infinitesimally small.

 

If you want to forfeit a game versus assume an injury risk that is hardly at all any different than throwing a guy out there in normal circumstances, then that's your prerogative. Seems pretty ridiculous to me, but to each his own.

 

And we haven't even gotten into the message it sends to the team when your manager quits trying to win a tie game, assumes that the team is dead in the water in May, etc.

[Sammy Sofa]

Man, you are all about messages.

[SouthSideRyan]

Man, you are all about messages.

 

Look, when Timmy Abarmowitz's dad taught them how to bunt in 2nd grade it changed him, man

[treebird]

Man, you are all about messages.

 

maybe his name is davearm2 because he REALLY wants us to think he has two arms

 

because he is j. walter weatherman, kind of conveying important messages

[Tracer Bullet]

i'm confused. if we're all ok with forfeiting a game after a few extra innings (and I certainly prefer that to using a starter), why is there something wrong with me again?

 

why don't we just change extra inning games? it's not like anyone actually likes sitting through 10 scoreless innings to see a run finally scored against the 15th pitcher used in the 7th hour of a game. give the teams like 2-3 extra innings and if they don't have a winner by then, it's a tie.

 

What the [expletive] is wrong with you?

 

seeing a second basemen pitch in a game we're willing to effectively forfeit is sufficiently fun to risk having a moron like Baker use a SP in the 15th inning after almost every fan has gone to sleep? i'm trying to reconcile all of this.

 

What is there to reconcile? Who here is talking about just giving up on a game once it hits a certain number of innings besides you? Those of us talking about effectively forfeiting game are talking about preferring the Cubs to do that if it's essentially a meaningless game and the bullpen has been used up, not just "oh, it's the 14th inning and we still have a couple of relievers left...let's pack it in!!!"

 

the difference between "games that last longer than 14 innings" and "games that last longer than 14 innings in which both teams have multiple relievers left" is what, would you say, in an average year? 1? maybe 2? It seems that we all agree that they're of little value b/c they're 1 meaningless game out of 162. So you think having the 2nd baseman throw a couple of innings makes more sense then considering alternatives.

 

i'm not really suggesting the only alternative is to end the game after X number of innings. I'm just thought it was interesting to look at re-working extra inning games that go beyond a certain point b/c they're of so little value and the risk of long-term injury to players greatly outweighs what little benefit they have.

[javy knows my name]

Man, you are all about messages.

 

maybe his name is davearm2 because he REALLY wants us to think he has two arms

 

because he is j. walter weatherman, kind of conveying important messages

 

The answer to this post is YES

[daske17]

Man, you are all about messages.

 

maybe his name is davearm2 because he REALLY wants us to think he has two arms

 

because he is j. walter weatherman, kind of conveying important messages

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_peLg3xECO5g/SIs_b3I1kII/AAAAAAAAAK4/8ppnYKyqg9Y/s320/Pier_Pressure59.jpg

And that's why you don't put a position player in to pitch.

[javy knows my name]

Man, you are all about messages.

 

maybe his name is davearm2 because he REALLY wants us to think he has two arms

 

because he is j. walter weatherman, kind of conveying important messages

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_peLg3xECO5g/SIs_b3I1kII/AAAAAAAAAK4/8ppnYKyqg9Y/s320/Pier_Pressure59.jpg

And that's why you don't put a position player in to pitch.

 

Hahahahahaha

[TruffleShuffle]

What about the message that the manager cares more about winning a nearly meaningless game for his bad baseball team than he does about the health of one of his top players?

[davearm2]

What about the message that the manager cares more about winning a nearly meaningless game for his bad baseball team than he does about the health of one of his top players?

A) You saying the game was "nearly meaningless" doesn't make it true.

B) Some position player who hasn't pitched in a game, maybe ever, is at a far greater risk of injury than is a starter filling in on short rest.

 

Anyone stop to think that just maybe Harang's issues stem less from an emergency relief outing in 2008 than from three straight years in the top 5 in pitcher abuse points 2005-2007?

[Guest]

What about the message that the manager cares more about winning a nearly meaningless game for his bad baseball team than he does about the health of one of his top players?

A) You saying the game was "nearly meaningless" doesn't make it true.

B) Some position player who hasn't pitched in a game, maybe ever, is at a far greater risk of injury than is a starter filling in on short rest.

 

Anyone stop to think that just maybe Harang's issues stem less from an emergency relief outing in 2008 than from three straight years in the top 5 in pitcher abuse points 2005-2007?

1) I agree that the three years of consistent abuse is a bigger factor.

2) It was still an astonishingly stupid choice for Dusty to make as opposed to:

• using the next day's starter on one day's short rest, then calling up a minor leaguer to pitch the next day
  
• using Harang (it was likely his throwing day), but for far fewer pitches
  
• using some random bench guy

[TruffleShuffle]

no, the fact that they finished 23.5 games behind the cubs made that game meaningless.

 

2008 stats going into that game: 3.50 ERA, .736 OPS against

stats after that game: 5.88 ERA, .919 OPS against

 

and the pitcher said that he felt different after that game.

[TruffleShuffle]

Just curious if any of the Dusty bashers here would like to dissect the game and tell us what Dusty should have done differently that night.

 

From what I can see, the bullpen was taxed early that night when the starter (Belisle) couldn't get through the 5th inning.

 

Dusty brought in his closer (Cordero) to start the 9th with a 1-run lead, and he blew the save. Cordero then came back out for the 10th. That was the 5th reliever used.

 

In the 11th, the Reds scored twice, so Dusty brought in reliever #6 (Fogg) to finish it out. He couldn't, so he had to bring in his last reliever to get the last out (Bray). Bray then served up the tying run. Bray came back to pitch the 12th.

 

So now when you come to the 13th, you can a) send your LOOGY (Bray) out there for his third inning (and send him up to bat in the top of the inning), b) PH for Bray then turn to a starter like Harang, or c) concede the game by having some infielder pitch.

 

NO manager would choose c). Very few would choose a). And once you choose b), then your subsequent options are to stick with that starter, or to stress yet another starter.

 

The game went 18 innings people. The manager is going to have to do some things he'd much rather not do in that situation.

 

just to review this post. like half of NSBB has suggested good alternatives to your options (which was faulty - bray pitched fewer than 2 innings), like not blowing through the bullpen like a complete spaz, using a utility infielder (who isn't valuable) to pitch, not managing the game like it's a must-win since the team is already 6.5 games behind and that extra win is very unlikely to matter at the end of the year, and using the next day's starter rather than your best starter who happens two nights removed from throwing 100+ pitches. yet you continue to insist that dusty went with his only real option available.

[javy knows my name]

Just curious if any of the Dusty bashers here would like to dissect the game and tell us what Dusty should have done differently that night.

 

From what I can see, the bullpen was taxed early that night when the starter (Belisle) couldn't get through the 5th inning.

 

Dusty brought in his closer (Cordero) to start the 9th with a 1-run lead, and he blew the save. Cordero then came back out for the 10th. That was the 5th reliever used.

 

In the 11th, the Reds scored twice, so Dusty brought in reliever #6 (Fogg) to finish it out. He couldn't, so he had to bring in his last reliever to get the last out (Bray). Bray then served up the tying run. Bray came back to pitch the 12th.

 

So now when you come to the 13th, you can a) send your LOOGY (Bray) out there for his third inning (and send him up to bat in the top of the inning), b) PH for Bray then turn to a starter like Harang, or c) concede the game by having some infielder pitch.

 

NO manager would choose c). Very few would choose a). And once you choose b), then your subsequent options are to stick with that starter, or to stress yet another starter.

 

The game went 18 innings people. The manager is going to have to do some things he'd much rather not do in that situation.

 

just to review this post. like half of NSBB has suggested good alternatives to your options (which was faulty - bray pitched fewer than 2 innings), like not blowing through the bullpen like a complete spaz, using a utility infielder (who isn't valuable) to pitch, not managing the game like it's a must-win since the team is already 6.5 games behind and that extra win is very unlikely to matter at the end of the year, and using the next day's starter rather than your best starter who happens two nights removed from throwing 100+ pitches. yet you continue to insist that dusty went with his only real option available.

 

And just because "NO manager would choose c)" doesn't mean that c) isn't the best option

[TruffleShuffle]

plus a manager (tony larussa) chose option c) LAST YEAR, and his team looked to have a much better chance at the division than dusty's crappy reds against the very good 2008 cubs.

[TruffleShuffle]

Man, you are all about messages.

 

maybe his name is davearm2 because he REALLY wants us to think he has two arms

 

because he is j. walter weatherman, kind of conveying important messages

 

if i were an approved joke-rater, this post would have gotten a very high score.

[Guest]

What about the message that the manager cares more about winning a nearly meaningless game for his bad baseball team than he does about the health of one of his top players?

A) You saying the game was "nearly meaningless" doesn't make it true.

B) Some position player who hasn't pitched in a game, maybe ever, is at a far greater risk of injury than is a starter filling in on short rest.

 

Anyone stop to think that just maybe Harang's issues stem less from an emergency relief outing in 2008 than from three straight years in the top 5 in pitcher abuse points 2005-2007?

 

Why exactly was the game not meaningless? You had the 23-28 Reds, 6 1/2 games back, against the 19-33 Padres, 12 games back. The Reds finished 74-88, 23 1/2 games back in the division and 16 back in the wild card while the Padres went 63-99, 21 games out of a wild card spot.

 

All signs point to meaningless on that one.

[davearm2]

no, the fact that they finished 23.5 games behind the cubs made that game meaningless.

 

2008 stats going into that game: 3.50 ERA, .736 OPS against

stats after that game: 5.88 ERA, .919 OPS against

 

and the pitcher said that he felt different after that game.

This is 100% 20/20 hindsight, and thus completely worthless to the discussion.

 

Any manager should be fired on the spot for assuming a game in May is meaningless with his team 6 games back, and conceding winnable games based on that fatalistic perspective. Frankly I'm astonished that someone with the baseball knowledge you have would even consider arguing this line of reasoning. It's complete nonsense.

 

Harang's history with the Reds prior to this game suggested the guy was pretty much impervious to abuse. Running him out there was one of, if not THE best option, given the extreme circumstances. Using the next day's starter instead of Harang is a very valid alternative, for sure.

[TruffleShuffle]

lol yeah statistics before and after the game in question are completely worthless to the discussion. let's stick to tangible things like what lessons the team will learn from the manager's actions.

[davearm2]

lol yeah statistics before and after the game in question are completely worthless to the discussion.

They are. Nobody's arguing that the outing didn't wind up adversely impacting Harang.

 

The issues are, a) was this reasonably foreseeable, and b) were there better options available.

 

The answer to a) is, basically no.

 

The answer to b) is, using the next day's starter is the only real viable one IMO, and even then it's a highly debatable point.

[TruffleShuffle]

lol yeah statistics before and after the game in question are completely worthless to the discussion.

They are. Nobody's arguing that the outing didn't wind up adversely impacting Harang.

 

The issues are, a) was this reasonably foreseeable, and b) were there better options available.

 

The answer to a) is, basically no.

 

The answer to b) is, using the next day's starter is the only real viable one IMO, and even then it's a highly debatable point.

 

oh i see, it was not reasonably foreseeable to think that having a guy throw 62 pitches on two days' rest after throwing 100+ pitches in his last outing might be rendered injured or less effective in subsequent starts.