I mean, think of it this way, when was the last time anyone on here liked a manager? They're all pretty much the same. Speaking of terrible decision makers, we once had Fredi Gonzalez too.

 

 

I liked McKeon (both times) for what it's worth. Regardless, there's always a lesser of the evils. People might not have liked Fredi or Ozzie, but that doesn't mean that one can't be noticeably worse than the other.

 

 

You liked McKeon because he won.

 

The reality is that McKeon did none of the things that you said a good manager does. He did not use defensive shifts, his lineups were better because he did not have this pile of crap as his team, and he often didn't even care for bullpen matchups because he went with his gut. He even said so himself that he often went with his gut to make decisions. He was an old-school manager who would scream at his players because he was the old-school tough guy. He was likable because he won. Winning cures everything.

Can you cite specific examples of things that Mike Redmond is doing wrong with this team that is having a negative impact on the outcome of games? I can't.

 

 

Come on now. Weren't you the guy bashing Redmond a few weeks ago for sending Cishek out for a second inning? That move certainly impacted the outcome of the game.

 

 

That's also one move. I'd say that's been his worst one. I also didn't necessarily disagree with letting him pitch a 2nd inning, but rather the extent of pitches he let him throw in that game when he was clearly struggling at the time.

 

Either way, it's one move.

 

I also don't think he's the worst in-game manager we've had since Girardi considering we had Ozzie Guillen just last year.

 

 

 

 

I never said it was the only move. I used that example because you are saying now that you can't think of instances where Redmond's poor decisions have influenced the outcome of the game.

 

I am in no position to recall the circumstances of every bad decision Redmond has made. Another example that comes to mind was one of the games in the Mets series. The Marlins were down 5-3 in the 6th inning and had a runner on second with one out. Redmond left Turner in to bat (he made the second out without advancing the runner). However, Redmond then pulled Turner immediately after facing only one batter (who recorded an out) in the top of the 7th. It's completely idiotic to leave the pitcher to bat with RISP when you ultimately planned to only use him against one batter in the next inning.

 

There's plenty of other examples of this stuff happening but you can't expect me to recall them all.

 

Also, for what it's worth, Redmond has frustrated me more than Ozzie has.

 

 

 

 

Considering you called him the worst decision maker since Girardi and he frustrates you so much, I'd expect you to recall more than a couple of things.

 

It's pretty difficult to manage a team that's been one of the worst offenses in the history of baseball.

 

Also, I don't understand how he's been more frustrating than Ozzie considering that Ozzie had the same stupid mentality that Redmond has. Ozzie, too, loved Solano and hit him 2nd every day. Ozzie would hit Carlos Lee and Austin Kearns in the cleanup spot. Ozzie would let Heath Bell close all year because he's "his closer." At the very least, they were both equally frustrating.

 

 

 

 

Come on now. Just because the team is bad doesn't mean that really dumb mistakes are excused. Having the worst offense in baseball has nothing to do with the two examples I've already provided. He has a pretty decent bullpen and yet does dumb things like leaving Cishek in for a second inning.

 

In Ozzie's case, the Heath Bell situation might be the most aggravating but we don't know to what extent that Loria intervened to save face on his $30 million blunder. Don't get me wrong, Ozzie was terrible too. He and Redmond basically have the same managerial philosophy by the latter seems more prone to the ill-conceived strategic moves like the one I outlined above.

I mean, think of it this way, when was the last time anyone on here liked a manager? They're all pretty much the same. Speaking of terrible decision makers, we once had Fredi Gonzalez too.

 

 

I liked McKeon (both times) for what it's worth. Regardless, there's always a lesser of the evils. People might not have liked Fredi or Ozzie, but that doesn't mean that one can't be noticeably worse than the other.

 

 

You liked McKeon because he won.

 

The reality is that McKeon did none of the things that you said a good manager does. He did not use defensive shifts, his lineups were better because he did not have this pile of crap as his team, and he often didn't even care for bullpen matchups because he went with his gut. He even said so himself that he often went with his gut to make decisions. He was an old-school manager who would scream at his players because he was the old-school tough guy. He was likable because he won. Winning cures everything.

 

 

 

 

That's a dumb accusation to make. He didn't "win" in 2004, 2005, and 2011. I liked him because he seemed to read my mind when it came to strategic moves.

 

And I don't know what McKeon you saw, but he didn't neglect bullpen match-ups or defensive alignment.

Again though, the Cishek thing happened once. I just don't see all of these stupid things he's done that's threadworthy. Maybe he's using Cishek for 2 innings sometimes in tied games because Cishek is easily the best reliever on the team.

 

Is there one consistent thing that Redmond does that's really stupid considering the team he has? This thread is about the order of the lineup, and I feel as though it's not fair. Solano is hitting 2nd because he's one of the better hitters on the team, sadly. Ed Lucas plays every day because the infield is that terribly bad.

 

Hechavarria and Marisnick aren't hitting higher in the order because they can't hit. They're fortunate to even be in the big leagues playing every day. The fact that those two are playing every day is a testament to how bad Mike Redmond's team is.

 

I'm not saying that I think Redmond is some sort of great manager. I'm just saying that he's rather irrelevant to the outcome of these games as is the case with most managers. Giving Hechavarria and Marisnick more AB's is not going to change anything.

I mean, think of it this way, when was the last time anyone on here liked a manager? They're all pretty much the same. Speaking of terrible decision makers, we once had Fredi Gonzalez too.

 

 

I liked McKeon (both times) for what it's worth. Regardless, there's always a lesser of the evils. People might not have liked Fredi or Ozzie, but that doesn't mean that one can't be noticeably worse than the other.

 

 

You liked McKeon because he won.

 

The reality is that McKeon did none of the things that you said a good manager does. He did not use defensive shifts, his lineups were better because he did not have this pile of crap as his team, and he often didn't even care for bullpen matchups because he went with his gut. He even said so himself that he often went with his gut to make decisions. He was an old-school manager who would scream at his players because he was the old-school tough guy. He was likable because he won. Winning cures everything.

 

 

 

 

That's a dumb accusation to make. He didn't "win" in 2004, 2005, and 2011. I liked him because he seemed to read my mind when it came to strategic moves.

 

And I don't know what McKeon you saw, but he didn't neglect bullpen match-ups or defensive alignment.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that McKeon shifted, etc.? Perhaps I do not recall that.

 

As for the bullpen thing, he definitely did not play by the book a lot of times. He's even admitted that during his managerial career. He didn't totally ignore the matchups, but there were times when he did things that were unorthodox. He was not some sort of trend-setting manager. The difference between McKeon and the other managers is that McKeon won one year. Care to cite examples of things he did on the field that made him so much better than these other guys we're talking about in a negative manner?

After just briefly looking over the game log, I think that Redmond has used Cishek for more than 1 inning a total of 4 times that have not ended well. Saying that he's the "best reliever" doesn't overshadow that poor track record. It's bad situational management.

 

As far as batting order goes, I thought it was completely idiotic when he was starting Pierre frequently earlier in the season over guys like Ruggiano. It almost seemed like he was starting Pierre because he was the only traditional lead-off hitter on the roster. Yes, it's a bad offense, but he still had choices.

I mean, think of it this way, when was the last time anyone on here liked a manager? They're all pretty much the same. Speaking of terrible decision makers, we once had Fredi Gonzalez too.

 

 

I liked McKeon (both times) for what it's worth. Regardless, there's always a lesser of the evils. People might not have liked Fredi or Ozzie, but that doesn't mean that one can't be noticeably worse than the other.

 

 

You liked McKeon because he won.

 

The reality is that McKeon did none of the things that you said a good manager does. He did not use defensive shifts, his lineups were better because he did not have this pile of crap as his team, and he often didn't even care for bullpen matchups because he went with his gut. He even said so himself that he often went with his gut to make decisions. He was an old-school manager who would scream at his players because he was the old-school tough guy. He was likable because he won. Winning cures everything.

 

 

 

 

That's a dumb accusation to make. He didn't "win" in 2004, 2005, and 2011. I liked him because he seemed to read my mind when it came to strategic moves.

 

And I don't know what McKeon you saw, but he didn't neglect bullpen match-ups or defensive alignment.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that McKeon shifted, etc.? Perhaps I do not recall that.

 

As for the bullpen thing, he definitely did not play by the book a lot of times. He's even admitted that during his managerial career. He didn't totally ignore the matchups, but there were times when he did things that were unorthodox. He was not some sort of trend-setting manager. The difference between McKeon and the other managers is that McKeon won one year. Care to cite examples of things he did on the field that made him so much better than these other guys we're talking about in a negative manner?

 

 

 

 

Proper defensive alignment isn't entirely about Ryan Howard-esque shifts (which I recall McKeon using).

 

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "not playing by the book." His match-ups seemed calculated to me based upon LHB/RHB and past match-ups, regardless of whether or not he says that his gut was also at play. He also wasn't afraid to yank relievers (even in the middle of ABs) when they clearly went throwing strikes. I don't recall many instances of McKeon leaving a pitcher in for "too long."

 

Also remember that McKeon had some pretty lousy pens to work with in 2004 and 2005.

Also, is "not playing by the book" a bad thing? Based on how most people manage, I'd count that as a positive.

Leaving Cishek in for 40 pitches was inexcusable imo as that's a good way to injure one of the best RPs in the game right now.

 

The rest of his stupid moves are just that, stupid moves and while annoying, I think how he handles the team and how the team respects him etc are what's more important going forward.

Considering how many moves are almost foregone conclusions for most managers (ie: bringing in ur loogy when the big lefty bat comes up) I'd say the true difference between a good manager and a bad one is his relationship with his players and how much he gets out of them on a consistent basis.

After just briefly looking over the game log, I think that Redmond has used Cishek for more than 1 inning a total of 4 times that have not ended well. Saying that he's the "best reliever" doesn't overshadow that poor track record. It's bad situational management.

 

As far as batting order goes, I thought it was completely idiotic when he was starting Pierre frequently earlier in the season over guys like Ruggiano. It almost seemed like he was starting Pierre because he was the only traditional lead-off hitter on the roster. Yes, it's a bad offense, but he still had choices.

 

 

It's a track record of four appearances. That's a small sample.

 

As for the Pierre thing, if we're giving Ozzie a pass for Heath Bell, it's only fair to say that the FO had input at the beginning of the season with the Pierre/Polanco situations, as well.

Considering how many moves are almost foregone conclusions for most managers (ie: bringing in ur loogy when the big lefty bat comes up) I'd say the true difference between a good manager and a bad one is his relationship with his players and how much he gets out of them on a consistent basis.

 

 

I agree with this.

Also, is "not playing by the book" a bad thing? Based on how most people manage, I'd count that as a positive.

 

 

"Not playing by the book" meaning that he didn't follow the right matchups at times when making his decisions. He went with his "gut."

 

Also, for all the Redmond bashing at times this year in relation to bunting, he probably picked that up from his old manager, Jack McKeon. McKeon loved to not play for the big inning by bunting way too many times with better teams. His theory was basically to score one every inning. Any other manager would've gotten criticized for that, but he wasn't because he won.

After just briefly looking over the game log, I think that Redmond has used Cishek for more than 1 inning a total of 4 times that have not ended well. Saying that he's the "best reliever" doesn't overshadow that poor track record. It's bad situational management.

 

As far as batting order goes, I thought it was completely idiotic when he was starting Pierre frequently earlier in the season over guys like Ruggiano. It almost seemed like he was starting Pierre because he was the only traditional lead-off hitter on the roster. Yes, it's a bad offense, but he still had choices.

 

 

It's a track record of four appearances. That's a small sample.

 

As for the Pierre thing, if we're giving Ozzie a pass for Heath Bell, it's only fair to say that the FO had input at the beginning of the season with the Pierre/Polanco situations, as well.

 

 

He had given up runs in 3 of the 4 prior stints of more than one inning pitched. That's a large enough sample size over the course of one season where he should have known better. And that's not even addressing the high pitch count. It amuses me that you are seemingly trying to justify Redmond's decisionmaking there when you had the exact opposite tone right after the move was made.

 

And secondly, the Pierre/Polanco signings are not similar at all to the Bell signing. Those were one year deal deals of relatively low dollar amounts. They were basically stopgaps. Bell was a high profile contract.

Also, is "not playing by the book" a bad thing? Based on how most people manage, I'd count that as a positive.

 

 

"Not playing by the book" meaning that he didn't follow the right matchups at times when making his decisions. He went with his "gut."

 

Also, for all the Redmond bashing at times this year in relation to bunting, he probably picked that up from his old manager, Jack McKeon. McKeon loved to not play for the big inning by bunting way too many times with better teams. His theory was basically to score one every inning. Any other manager would've gotten criticized for that, but he wasn't because he won.

 

 

I don't recall him habitually neglecting to make the "right" match-up. In fact, more often than not, I recall the opposite being the case. I think he managed the pen just fine. I do recall him saying on more than one instance that statistics did in fact weigh into his decisions. It's misleading to say his decisions were merely instinctual.

 

And I never bashed Redmond for bunting so I don't know where you are getting that from. That isn't one area where I would emphasize his faults. Jack did bunt more than I would have preferred but that doesn't mean that I can't have an overall positive impression of his other strong points.

 

And again, McKeon didn't really "win" after 2003. It's dumb for you to keep saying otherwise. 2004 and especially 2005 were massive disappointments. He would have been shitcanned after the 2005 season if the Marlins hadn't extended him a courtesy after the World Series win. He also didn't provide the 2011 team with any real boost. He went 206-208 after 2003. I wouldn't call that "winning."

Key word "ALMOST". They haven't had a decent line up in years.

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't we judge Red during a season that means anything at all?

 

Because he's getting paid for this year, as well.

 

Yea, I get that, but I doubt any manager on the verge of a 100 loss season is using the most sound strategies to win rather than just figuring certain things out to try and win next year.

 

BTW, really nice to see Lucas not batting fifth today. It almost looks like a real lineup.

 

 

Why don't we judge Red during a season that means anything at all?

 

 

Because he's getting paid for this year, as well.

 

Yea, I get that, but I doubt any manager on the verge of a 100 loss season is using the most sound strategies to win rather than just figuring certain things out to try and win next year.

 

BTW, really nice to see Lucas not batting fifth today. It almost looks like a real lineup.

After just briefly looking over the game log, I think that Redmond has used Cishek for more than 1 inning a total of 4 times that have not ended well. Saying that he's the "best reliever" doesn't overshadow that poor track record. It's bad situational management.

 

As far as batting order goes, I thought it was completely idiotic when he was starting Pierre frequently earlier in the season over guys like Ruggiano. It almost seemed like he was starting Pierre because he was the only traditional lead-off hitter on the roster. Yes, it's a bad offense, but he still had choices.

 

 

It's a track record of four appearances. That's a small sample.

 

As for the Pierre thing, if we're giving Ozzie a pass for Heath Bell, it's only fair to say that the FO had input at the beginning of the season with the Pierre/Polanco situations, as well.

 

 

He had given up runs in 3 of the 4 prior stints of more than one inning pitched. That's a large enough sample size over the course of one season where he should have known better. And that's not even addressing the high pitch count. It amuses me that you are seemingly trying to justify Redmond's decisionmaking there when you had the exact opposite tone right after the move was made.

 

And secondly, the Pierre/Polanco signings are not similar at all to the Bell signing. Those were one year deal deals of relatively low dollar amounts. They were basically stopgaps. Bell was a high profile contract.

 

 

 

 

4 games is a small sample. Do you think Cishek is incapable of going 2 innings? It's been tried with success before, as well. It was tried July 8th of this year with plenty of success. He was sent out for a second inning at times last year and succeeded. He even had an outing last year in San Diego where he threw 3 scoreless innings.

 

I never had a problem with Redmond sending the best reliever on the team back out for a 2nd inning in a tied game. I had a problem with Redmond making him throw 40+ pitches that night. In that second inning, David Wright and Marlon Byrd were the first two hitters due up and I liked the idea of Cishek facing those two guys. When those two reached base, Redmond left Cishek out there which was what I had a problem with, especially considering the fact that he has multiple lefties in the pen and Ike Davis was due up after that.

 

As for the Pierre/Polanco thing, they were/are still making a salary that makes up a good % of the 2013 payroll/the Marlins roster. I'm pretty sure the goal of the organization was for Pierre to repeat what he did last year in hopes of getting something at the trade deadline. I agree that Ruggiano should've gotten more playing time although it's not as if Ruggiano hasn't been complete garbage this year, as well.

Also, is "not playing by the book" a bad thing? Based on how most people manage, I'd count that as a positive.

 

 

"Not playing by the book" meaning that he didn't follow the right matchups at times when making his decisions. He went with his "gut."

 

Also, for all the Redmond bashing at times this year in relation to bunting, he probably picked that up from his old manager, Jack McKeon. McKeon loved to not play for the big inning by bunting way too many times with better teams. His theory was basically to score one every inning. Any other manager would've gotten criticized for that, but he wasn't because he won.

 

 

I don't recall him habitually neglecting to make the "right" match-up. In fact, more often than not, I recall the opposite being the case. I think he managed the pen just fine. I do recall him saying on more than one instance that statistics did in fact weigh into his decisions. It's misleading to say his decisions were merely instinctual.

 

And I never bashed Redmond for bunting so I don't know where you are getting that from. That isn't one area where I would emphasize his faults. Jack did bunt more than I would have preferred but that doesn't mean that I can't have an overall positive impression of his other strong points.

 

And again, McKeon didn't really "win" after 2003. It's dumb for you to keep saying otherwise. 2004 and especially 2005 were massive disappointments. He would have been shitcanned after the 2005 season if the Marlins hadn't extended him a courtesy after the World Series win. He also didn't provide the 2011 team with any real boost. He went 206-208 after 2003. I wouldn't call that "winning."

 

 

 

 

I never said that you bashed Redmond for bunting. My point is that McKeon's infatuation with bunting and playing small ball was stupid.

 

And McKeon will forever be remembered for 2003, not the years after that. He gets a pass among the fanbase that other managers wouldn't get for their awful decisions.

 

McKeon won a World Series and got a lot of credit for that even though he had very little to do with it. My point here is that managers are overrated. Get better players and I'm sure Redmond will look like a genius too even though he's not.

After just briefly looking over the game log, I think that Redmond has used Cishek for more than 1 inning a total of 4 times that have not ended well. Saying that he's the "best reliever" doesn't overshadow that poor track record. It's bad situational management.

 

As far as batting order goes, I thought it was completely idiotic when he was starting Pierre frequently earlier in the season over guys like Ruggiano. It almost seemed like he was starting Pierre because he was the only traditional lead-off hitter on the roster. Yes, it's a bad offense, but he still had choices.

 

 

It's a track record of four appearances. That's a small sample.

 

As for the Pierre thing, if we're giving Ozzie a pass for Heath Bell, it's only fair to say that the FO had input at the beginning of the season with the Pierre/Polanco situations, as well.

 

 

He had given up runs in 3 of the 4 prior stints of more than one inning pitched. That's a large enough sample size over the course of one season where he should have known better. And that's not even addressing the high pitch count. It amuses me that you are seemingly trying to justify Redmond's decisionmaking there when you had the exact opposite tone right after the move was made.

 

And secondly, the Pierre/Polanco signings are not similar at all to the Bell signing. Those were one year deal deals of relatively low dollar amounts. They were basically stopgaps. Bell was a high profile contract.

 

 

 

 

4 games is a small sample. Do you think Cishek is incapable of going 2 innings? It's been tried with success before, as well. It was tried July 8th of this year with plenty of success. He was sent out for a second inning at times last year and succeeded. He even had an outing last year in San Diego where he threw 3 scoreless innings.

 

I never had a problem with Redmond sending the best reliever on the team back out for a 2nd inning in a tied game. I had a problem with Redmond making him throw 40+ pitches that night. In that second inning, David Wright and Marlon Byrd were the first two hitters due up and I liked the idea of Cishek facing those two guys. When those two reached base, Redmond left Cishek out there which was what I had a problem with, especially considering the fact that he has multiple lefties in the pen and Ike Davis was due up after that.

 

As for the Pierre/Polanco thing, they were/are still making a salary that makes up a good % of the 2013 payroll/the Marlins roster. I'm pretty sure the goal of the organization was for Pierre to repeat what he did last year in hopes of getting something at the trade deadline. I agree that Ruggiano should've gotten more playing time although it's not as if Ruggiano hasn't been complete garbage this year, as well.

 

 

 

 

Considering that almost half of Cishek's ERs given up on the season occurred in those three games where he pitched beyond the 1st inning, I definitely would have thought twice about sending him out on the mound again regardless of what he might have done in previous seasons. Relievers are volatile and trends can emerge from season to season. Considering that Cishek had already thrown close to 100 pitches in less than a week, it never should have been considered.

 

I still don't understand who you think that the Pierre and Polanco signings are remotely similar to the Bell signing, but whatever. Combined they made a fraction of what Bell did regardless of whether or not they were the highest paid players on a team made up of almost all rookies and pre-arbitration players. Greg Dobbs makes only 100k less than Pierre does. By your logic shouldn't he be starting more?

Also, is "not playing by the book" a bad thing? Based on how most people manage, I'd count that as a positive.

 

 

"Not playing by the book" meaning that he didn't follow the right matchups at times when making his decisions. He went with his "gut."

 

Also, for all the Redmond bashing at times this year in relation to bunting, he probably picked that up from his old manager, Jack McKeon. McKeon loved to not play for the big inning by bunting way too many times with better teams. His theory was basically to score one every inning. Any other manager would've gotten criticized for that, but he wasn't because he won.

 

 

I don't recall him habitually neglecting to make the "right" match-up. In fact, more often than not, I recall the opposite being the case. I think he managed the pen just fine. I do recall him saying on more than one instance that statistics did in fact weigh into his decisions. It's misleading to say his decisions were merely instinctual.

 

And I never bashed Redmond for bunting so I don't know where you are getting that from. That isn't one area where I would emphasize his faults. Jack did bunt more than I would have preferred but that doesn't mean that I can't have an overall positive impression of his other strong points.

 

And again, McKeon didn't really "win" after 2003. It's dumb for you to keep saying otherwise. 2004 and especially 2005 were massive disappointments. He would have been shitcanned after the 2005 season if the Marlins hadn't extended him a courtesy after the World Series win. He also didn't provide the 2011 team with any real boost. He went 206-208 after 2003. I wouldn't call that "winning."

 

 

 

 

I never said that you bashed Redmond for bunting. My point is that McKeon's infatuation with bunting and playing small ball was stupid.

 

And McKeon will forever be remembered for 2003, not the years after that. He gets a pass among the fanbase that other managers wouldn't get for their awful decisions.

 

McKeon won a World Series and got a lot of credit for that even though he had very little to do with it. My point here is that managers are overrated. Get better players and I'm sure Redmond will look like a genius too even though he's not.

 

 

 

 

McKeon's desire to bunt with certain types of hitters was stupid, yes, but that doesn't make him a bad manager overall. He showed a lot of other virtues in other areas.

 

You were accusing me, though, not the fanbase, of liking him only because he won. I'm trying to show you that I was for the most part pleased with how he managed the pen despite clearly not producing winning teams. I am emphasizing 2011 here too because that is the most fresh in my mind. He played that match-ups well.

 

I don't think that the team's performance is the best indicator of the manager's performance. I hated Girardi's in game management despite the 2006 making him look enough like a genius to get the manager of the year award. Even if Redmond gets better players, he will still likely do idiotic things like send Cishek out for 40 pitches and I will still call him out on it.

when you are forced to start guys like Donovan solano and ed Lucas, you could be the greatest baseball mind in history and still struggle

Isn't he a very inexperienced manager? Maybe he'll improve with more experience and a team of better quality.

After just briefly looking over the game log, I think that Redmond has used Cishek for more than 1 inning a total of 4 times that have not ended well. Saying that he's the "best reliever" doesn't overshadow that poor track record. It's bad situational management.

 

As far as batting order goes, I thought it was completely idiotic when he was starting Pierre frequently earlier in the season over guys like Ruggiano. It almost seemed like he was starting Pierre because he was the only traditional lead-off hitter on the roster. Yes, it's a bad offense, but he still had choices.

 

 

It's a track record of four appearances. That's a small sample.

 

As for the Pierre thing, if we're giving Ozzie a pass for Heath Bell, it's only fair to say that the FO had input at the beginning of the season with the Pierre/Polanco situations, as well.

 

 

He had given up runs in 3 of the 4 prior stints of more than one inning pitched. That's a large enough sample size over the course of one season where he should have known better. And that's not even addressing the high pitch count. It amuses me that you are seemingly trying to justify Redmond's decisionmaking there when you had the exact opposite tone right after the move was made.

 

And secondly, the Pierre/Polanco signings are not similar at all to the Bell signing. Those were one year deal deals of relatively low dollar amounts. They were basically stopgaps. Bell was a high profile contract.

 

 

 

 

4 games is a small sample. Do you think Cishek is incapable of going 2 innings? It's been tried with success before, as well. It was tried July 8th of this year with plenty of success. He was sent out for a second inning at times last year and succeeded. He even had an outing last year in San Diego where he threw 3 scoreless innings.

 

I never had a problem with Redmond sending the best reliever on the team back out for a 2nd inning in a tied game. I had a problem with Redmond making him throw 40+ pitches that night. In that second inning, David Wright and Marlon Byrd were the first two hitters due up and I liked the idea of Cishek facing those two guys. When those two reached base, Redmond left Cishek out there which was what I had a problem with, especially considering the fact that he has multiple lefties in the pen and Ike Davis was due up after that.

 

As for the Pierre/Polanco thing, they were/are still making a salary that makes up a good % of the 2013 payroll/the Marlins roster. I'm pretty sure the goal of the organization was for Pierre to repeat what he did last year in hopes of getting something at the trade deadline. I agree that Ruggiano should've gotten more playing time although it's not as if Ruggiano hasn't been complete garbage this year, as well.

 

 

 

 

Considering that almost half of Cishek's ERs given up on the season occurred in those three games where he pitched beyond the 1st inning, I definitely would have thought twice about sending him out on the mound again regardless of what he might have done in previous seasons. Relievers are volatile and trends can emerge from season to season. Considering that Cishek had already thrown close to 100 pitches in less than a week, it never should have been considered.

 

I still don't understand who you think that the Pierre and Polanco signings are remotely similar to the Bell signing, but whatever. Combined they made a fraction of what Bell did regardless of whether or not they were the highest paid players on a team made up of almost all rookies and pre-arbitration players. Greg Dobbs makes only 100k less than Pierre does. By your logic shouldn't he be starting more?

 

 

 

 

The Marlins signed Pierre and Polanco with the intentions of having them start. They always valued Dobbs in the PH role. The Marlins front office loves veterans with a professional approach who don't really have a professional approach to be pinch-hitters on the team. Dobbs is their new Helms.

Also, is "not playing by the book" a bad thing? Based on how most people manage, I'd count that as a positive.

 

 

"Not playing by the book" meaning that he didn't follow the right matchups at times when making his decisions. He went with his "gut."

 

Also, for all the Redmond bashing at times this year in relation to bunting, he probably picked that up from his old manager, Jack McKeon. McKeon loved to not play for the big inning by bunting way too many times with better teams. His theory was basically to score one every inning. Any other manager would've gotten criticized for that, but he wasn't because he won.

 

 

I don't recall him habitually neglecting to make the "right" match-up. In fact, more often than not, I recall the opposite being the case. I think he managed the pen just fine. I do recall him saying on more than one instance that statistics did in fact weigh into his decisions. It's misleading to say his decisions were merely instinctual.

 

And I never bashed Redmond for bunting so I don't know where you are getting that from. That isn't one area where I would emphasize his faults. Jack did bunt more than I would have preferred but that doesn't mean that I can't have an overall positive impression of his other strong points.

 

And again, McKeon didn't really "win" after 2003. It's dumb for you to keep saying otherwise. 2004 and especially 2005 were massive disappointments. He would have been shitcanned after the 2005 season if the Marlins hadn't extended him a courtesy after the World Series win. He also didn't provide the 2011 team with any real boost. He went 206-208 after 2003. I wouldn't call that "winning."

 

 

 

 

I never said that you bashed Redmond for bunting. My point is that McKeon's infatuation with bunting and playing small ball was stupid.

 

And McKeon will forever be remembered for 2003, not the years after that. He gets a pass among the fanbase that other managers wouldn't get for their awful decisions.

 

McKeon won a World Series and got a lot of credit for that even though he had very little to do with it. My point here is that managers are overrated. Get better players and I'm sure Redmond will look like a genius too even though he's not.

 

 

 

 

McKeon's desire to bunt with certain types of hitters was stupid, yes, but that doesn't make him a bad manager overall. He showed a lot of other virtues in other areas.

 

You were accusing me, though, not the fanbase, of liking him only because he won. I'm trying to show you that I was for the most part pleased with how he managed the pen despite clearly not producing winning teams. I am emphasizing 2011 here too because that is the most fresh in my mind. He played that match-ups well.

 

I don't think that the team's performance is the best indicator of the manager's performance. I hated Girardi's in game management despite the 2006 making him look enough like a genius to get the manager of the year award. Even if Redmond gets better players, he will still likely do idiotic things like send Cishek out for 40 pitches and I will still call him out on it.

 

 

 

 

You haven't really stated specific reasons as to why you thought McKeon was a good/better manager than Redmond, etc. You've just said that you were pleased with his decisions and usage of the bullpen without really mentioning specific events that made you feel that way.

 

So far, we've established that his tendencies to use the bunt play was rather stupid.

 

How was his bullpen usage any different than Redmond's? You keep bringing up Cishek's 40-pitch outing which is fair. But that's also only one game, not a consistent habit. I'm sure if we go back to McKeon's days, he had a game or two (or a lot more than two) in which he made a decision that could've easily been second-guessed. It happens to every manager.

 

For what it's worth, I still don't recall McKeon using defensive shifts other than shifting for the Ryan Howard's of the world which every manager does now. Was that you making that up or did McKeon really do such things for every hitter? Based on his managerial mindset, I'm going to guess he didn't.

When Loria has put extra bucks or even extra effort into signing veterans for specific roles, it's clear that every one of his past managers, and now Red, has been told to keep using them, even after the idea has clearly failed. Bell, Helms, Lee, Pierre, Polanco, ... I'm sure we could think of other past examples. That's one reason for some of the questionable lineups, past and present.