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.

 

 

What makes you say that the Marlins considered Pierre and Polanco to be everyday starters this season? I don't think that's true at all. They needed some stopgap veterans because they were lacking some depth. The financial commitment to those players is not even in the same order of magnitude of the Bell signing.

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.

 

 

 

I don't think that it's a reasonable request to have me cite specific instances of McKeon using his bullpen, especially considering the nature of the discussion we are having. If you think otherwise perhaps you should provide several examples of McKeon going purely by his "gut" or whatever it is you are trying to argue.

 

Virtually all managers make adjustments to the defensive alignment depending upon the situation at hand. I never professed that I found McKeon to be elite in this respect, but your insinuation that this was completely outside of his philosophy is purely ignorant.

Cite specific examples. You need > 200 to have a large enough sample size. Go.

 

 

Tell me about it.

I'm not going to continue this debate, but my main point is that it's all pretty subjective.

 

You can say you liked Jack McKeon, which is fine. But the reality is that you're not really supporting that opinion with any type of evidence. It's just an opinion and it's obviously difficult to support because it's now been years since he last managed.

 

If your opinion of a good manager is one who uses shifts, creates proper lineups, etc., I do not think Jack McKeon was really any better than most managers who have managed here or anywhere else for that matter.

 

They all basically do much of the same things. It's the very reason why the closer's role even exist. There was one trend-setter with that and they all followed like robots. They're all also rather stubborn, too. You can make a list of your favorite managers in baseball right now, and you'd probably find things that they do that are incredibly stupid.

 

Most of them aren't any different and there is really not one fanbase that thinks that their manager is good. As a fan, when you follow your team for 162 games, you notice all of the flaws that maybe someone else would never notice.

 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6784739/florida-marlins-reliever-randy-choate-miffed-jack-mckeon-move

 

There's a somewhat recent example of a McKeon gut move where his reasoning is once again that he's interested in winning with no real explanation as to how taking Randy Choate out against a lefty increases his probability of winning. He never really provided appropriate explanations for a lot of his dumb moves, but everyone liked him because he had a history of winning, he was 80, and he wore high socks. He had better teams.

 

 

Also, as for Pierre/Polanco, they were definitely brought in to start. Polanco isn't even debatable. The Marlins didn't even have another 3B on the roster capable of starting on Opening Day and they gave him about 3 million dollars this year. You don't do that if you don't plan on starting him.

Pierre hit .307/.351/.371 in 130 games last year starting for a team that wasn't expected to be one of the worst of all-time in Philadelphia (much more that can be said for this year's Marlins team).

 

Both of those guys were expected to start. Just because they weren't making Heath Bell's salary doesn't mean that the front office doesn't have expectations for each and every guy on the roster. It's also worth noting that Mike Redmond probably has less say-so than other managers like Ozzie Guillen, etc. since the Marlins aren't as financially committed to him. This has already been made public once this year when Loria went over Redmond's authority in a Minnesota doubleheader that led tp Ricky Nolasco becoming pretty pissed. The veteran, Nolasco, didn't get a choice in regards to which game he'd start. That wasn't Redmond's decision, but he still had to give the puppet-like answers to the media. Just because these players aren't making a ton of money doesn't mean that there probably hasn't been a ton of that going on this year. (Loria has even made decisions with lesser guys like Brett Hayes who he personally wanted demoted one time...he's a control freak, regardless of salary)

I've never said anything other than that I was forming a subjective opinion. I watch a lot of Marlins games and thus I am able to formulate an overall impression of how each manager's moves reflect my own philosophy of the game. Redmond has been exceptionally weak in that area whereas McKeon had been strong.

 

I also think that you are understating the differences between certain managers. Yes, most adhere to the same overall philosophies (using a closer is one), but if you even only pay half-attention to baseball games you notice trends emerge that are specific to certain managers. One example is that I've noticed is that Redmond has a habit of warming up his bullpen arms for an extended period of time (often for more than once during a game) and ultimately not using them. Fredi Gonzalez did this too. I recall this less being the case with McKeon and Edwin Rodriguez.

 

It's just silly to suggest that all managers are the same. McKeon would be more likely to bunt with his middle of the order hitters (which I don't approve of), but other managers would never think about doing that.

As for the Choate thing, I can't really say it's a dumb move (if that was your point). It's unorthodox, but I don't think that it was purely motivated by his gut. Choate already given up a hit to one lefty, walked a RHB, and fell behind another lefty 2-0. McKeon didn't think that the control was there (even against LHB), so he made a switch.

 

I recall him making a similar move in 2004 against the Phillies. I believe the bases were loaded in a tight game in the 8th, a reliever fell behind in the count, and Jack pulled the guy for Benitez who got out of the inning.

 

I mean, if you are trying to say that pulling relievers in the middle of an AB is always a bad thing, then I can't agree. I would give more credence to McKeon's post-game comments if Choate hadn't given up a single to a lefty, walked a guy, and fallen behind another.

 

I think you are being a little unfair. McKeon played the match-up by putting Choate in the game in the first place. Despite his track record, he wasn't getting it done that game. Perhaps McKeon shouldn't have let him face Duda at all.

Also, as for Pierre/Polanco, they were definitely brought in to start. Polanco isn't even debatable. The Marlins didn't even have another 3B on the roster capable of starting on Opening Day and they gave him about 3 million dollars this year. You don't do that if you don't plan on starting him.

Pierre hit .307/.351/.371 in 130 games last year starting for a team that wasn't expected to be one of the worst of all-time in Philadelphia (much more that can be said for this year's Marlins team).

 

Both of those guys were expected to start. Just because they weren't making Heath Bell's salary doesn't mean that the front office doesn't have expectations for each and every guy on the roster. It's also worth noting that Mike Redmond probably has less say-so than other managers like Ozzie Guillen, etc. since the Marlins aren't as financially committed to him. This has already been made public once this year when Loria went over Redmond's authority in a Minnesota doubleheader that led tp Ricky Nolasco becoming pretty pissed. The veteran, Nolasco, didn't get a choice in regards to which game he'd start. That wasn't Redmond's decision, but he still had to give the puppet-like answers to the media. Just because these players aren't making a ton of money doesn't mean that there probably hasn't been a ton of that going on this year. (Loria has even made decisions with lesser guys like Brett Hayes who he personally wanted demoted one time...he's a control freak, regardless of salary)

 

 

The Marlins might have wanted Pierre and Polanco to start in the very early part of the season because they had nobody else but that doesn't mean that they intended it to stay that way beyond the first couple of weeks. They were likely waiting to see how guys like Ozuna and Yelich were performing in the minors before calling them up.

 

The point is that the Marlins had nothing invested in Pierre and Polanco. They wanted them on the opening day roster because the younger talent wasn't deemed to be ready. That's nothing like the Heath Bell situation--they actually had money invested in Bell.

 

If the Marlins intended Polanco to be the starting 3B for the season (akin to a Heath Bell commitment), wouldn't the FO have intervened when Lucas started playing almost everyday?

 

Nothing about Redmond's usage of Pierre and Polanco suggests to me that the FO was pressuring him to put them in the line-up. The FO knows that those guys were just filler and placeholders until alternatives emerged within the minor league system.

I also think that you are understating the differences between certain managers. Yes, most adhere to the same overall philosophies (using a closer is one), but if you even only pay half-attention to baseball games you notice trends emerge that are specific to certain managers. One example is that I've noticed is that Redmond has a habit of warming up his bullpen arms for an extended period of time (often for more than once during a game) and ultimately not using them. Fredi Gonzalez did this too. I recall this less being the case with McKeon and Edwin Rodriguez.

 

 

 

 

I haven't really noticed that being some sort of trend this year. As a matter of fact, he brought in Cishek just last night despite it not being a save situation because he had already warmed up. He's probably done it a couple of times (like many other managers), but I think you're exaggerating the fact (if it's even a fact because I honestly can't recall a game recently in which this has happened).

As for the Choate thing, I can't really say it's a dumb move (if that was your point). It's unorthodox, but I don't think that it was purely motivated by his gut. Choate already given up a hit to one lefty, walked a RHB, and fell behind another lefty 2-0. McKeon didn't think that the control was there (even against LHB), so he made a switch.

 

I recall him making a similar move in 2004 against the Phillies. I believe the bases were loaded in a tight game in the 8th, a reliever fell behind in the count, and Jack pulled the guy for Benitez who got out of the inning.

 

I mean, if you are trying to say that pulling relievers in the middle of an AB is always a bad thing, then I can't agree. I would give more credence to McKeon's post-game comments if Choate hadn't given up a single to a lefty, walked a guy, and fallen behind another.

 

I think you are being a little unfair. McKeon played the match-up by putting Choate in the game in the first place. Despite his track record, he wasn't getting it done that game. Perhaps McKeon shouldn't have let him face Duda at all.

 

 

We must have different managerial styles then.

 

I think it's pretty stupid to just yank a great lefty specialist in the middle of an AB because he allowed a hit to one lefty and then threw two balls to another. I'll take a long track record over an incredibly small sample any day of the week.

I also think that you are understating the differences between certain managers. Yes, most adhere to the same overall philosophies (using a closer is one), but if you even only pay half-attention to baseball games you notice trends emerge that are specific to certain managers. One example is that I've noticed is that Redmond has a habit of warming up his bullpen arms for an extended period of time (often for more than once during a game) and ultimately not using them. Fredi Gonzalez did this too. I recall this less being the case with McKeon and Edwin Rodriguez.

 

 

 

 

I haven't really noticed that being some sort of trend this year. As a matter of fact, he brought in Cishek just last night despite it not being a save situation because he had already warmed up. He's probably done it a couple of times (like many other managers), but I think you're exaggerating the fact (if it's even a fact because I honestly can't recall a game recently in which this has happened).

 

 

He does it a bunch with the less specialized relievers. Ramos and Qualls perhaps the most. He did it several times with Ames before he was sent down.

As for the Choate thing, I can't really say it's a dumb move (if that was your point). It's unorthodox, but I don't think that it was purely motivated by his gut. Choate already given up a hit to one lefty, walked a RHB, and fell behind another lefty 2-0. McKeon didn't think that the control was there (even against LHB), so he made a switch.

 

I recall him making a similar move in 2004 against the Phillies. I believe the bases were loaded in a tight game in the 8th, a reliever fell behind in the count, and Jack pulled the guy for Benitez who got out of the inning.

 

I mean, if you are trying to say that pulling relievers in the middle of an AB is always a bad thing, then I can't agree. I would give more credence to McKeon's post-game comments if Choate hadn't given up a single to a lefty, walked a guy, and fallen behind another.

 

I think you are being a little unfair. McKeon played the match-up by putting Choate in the game in the first place. Despite his track record, he wasn't getting it done that game. Perhaps McKeon shouldn't have let him face Duda at all.

 

 

We must have different managerial styles then.

 

I think it's pretty stupid to just yank a great lefty specialist in the middle of an AB because he allowed a hit to one lefty and then threw two balls to another. I'll take a long track record over an incredibly small sample any day of the week.

 

 

It's not what I would call a "sample size" in any respect. It's "current performance." It's close to the same logic followed when you pull a dominant reliever in the middle of an inning despite him having impeccable stats on the season. Some games they simply aren't getting it done.

 

Or are you just fixating on the "middle of the AB" angle?

 

I don't believe in leaving in a struggling reliever just because the match-up stats are in his favor. In fact, I don't even believe that is an anti-stat position to take.

I also think that you are understating the differences between certain managers. Yes, most adhere to the same overall philosophies (using a closer is one), but if you even only pay half-attention to baseball games you notice trends emerge that are specific to certain managers. One example is that I've noticed is that Redmond has a habit of warming up his bullpen arms for an extended period of time (often for more than once during a game) and ultimately not using them. Fredi Gonzalez did this too. I recall this less being the case with McKeon and Edwin Rodriguez.

 

 

 

 

I haven't really noticed that being some sort of trend this year. As a matter of fact, he brought in Cishek just last night despite it not being a save situation because he had already warmed up. He's probably done it a couple of times (like many other managers), but I think you're exaggerating the fact (if it's even a fact because I honestly can't recall a game recently in which this has happened).

 

 

He does it a bunch with the less specialized relievers. Ramos and Qualls perhaps the most. He did it several times with Ames before he was sent down.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I haven't noticed that.

 

For what it's worth, Ames kinda sucks and that tends to happen more with long relievers/guys who kinda suck. Qualls has no future with the team. I doubt that's happening with Ramos much unless if Ramos is basically warming up every game. Based on the fact that he's appeared in 52 games and thrown 65 innings, I'd say Ramos comes into the game just about every time he warms up. How many times has this happened with each pitcher...like once?

As for the Choate thing, I can't really say it's a dumb move (if that was your point). It's unorthodox, but I don't think that it was purely motivated by his gut. Choate already given up a hit to one lefty, walked a RHB, and fell behind another lefty 2-0. McKeon didn't think that the control was there (even against LHB), so he made a switch.

 

I recall him making a similar move in 2004 against the Phillies. I believe the bases were loaded in a tight game in the 8th, a reliever fell behind in the count, and Jack pulled the guy for Benitez who got out of the inning.

 

I mean, if you are trying to say that pulling relievers in the middle of an AB is always a bad thing, then I can't agree. I would give more credence to McKeon's post-game comments if Choate hadn't given up a single to a lefty, walked a guy, and fallen behind another.

 

I think you are being a little unfair. McKeon played the match-up by putting Choate in the game in the first place. Despite his track record, he wasn't getting it done that game. Perhaps McKeon shouldn't have let him face Duda at all.

 

 

We must have different managerial styles then.

 

I think it's pretty stupid to just yank a great lefty specialist in the middle of an AB because he allowed a hit to one lefty and then threw two balls to another. I'll take a long track record over an incredibly small sample any day of the week.

 

 

It's not what I would call a "sample size" in any respect. It's "current performance." It's close to the same logic followed when you pull a dominant reliever despite him having impeccable stats on the season. Some games they simply aren't getting it done.

 

I don't believe in leaving in a struggling reliever just because the match-up stats are in his favor. In fact, I don't even believe that is an anti-stat position to take.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. I disagree. I also don't buy the "current performance" thing. Anyone can allow a hit and anyone can throw two balls after said hit. If the guy is great at what he does, he's earned the right to get that out.

 

I don't think it's logical to take a guy out like that because he's struggled for a handful of pitches. The "current performance" logic makes no sense to me especially when you're taking out the superior pitcher. How do you know the lesser reliever you're bringing out of the bullpen is going to have it that day? It seems like over-managing to me. Now if you run out of relievers in the game for whatever reason, you look like an idiot later on because there's really no logical reason for such a move. It's a knee-jerk move.

Ames does suck, but I'm not sure that makes it justifiable. Not only does it increase injury risk, but it also taxes the arms too much for cases when they DO need to enter the game. So even if you think these guys have no future with the team, I'd say it could also potentially hurt the pen's effectiveness. The arms need to be used regardless.

As for the Choate thing, I can't really say it's a dumb move (if that was your point). It's unorthodox, but I don't think that it was purely motivated by his gut. Choate already given up a hit to one lefty, walked a RHB, and fell behind another lefty 2-0. McKeon didn't think that the control was there (even against LHB), so he made a switch.

 

I recall him making a similar move in 2004 against the Phillies. I believe the bases were loaded in a tight game in the 8th, a reliever fell behind in the count, and Jack pulled the guy for Benitez who got out of the inning.

 

I mean, if you are trying to say that pulling relievers in the middle of an AB is always a bad thing, then I can't agree. I would give more credence to McKeon's post-game comments if Choate hadn't given up a single to a lefty, walked a guy, and fallen behind another.

 

I think you are being a little unfair. McKeon played the match-up by putting Choate in the game in the first place. Despite his track record, he wasn't getting it done that game. Perhaps McKeon shouldn't have let him face Duda at all.

 

 

We must have different managerial styles then.

 

I think it's pretty stupid to just yank a great lefty specialist in the middle of an AB because he allowed a hit to one lefty and then threw two balls to another. I'll take a long track record over an incredibly small sample any day of the week.

 

 

It's not what I would call a "sample size" in any respect. It's "current performance." It's close to the same logic followed when you pull a dominant reliever despite him having impeccable stats on the season. Some games they simply aren't getting it done.

 

I don't believe in leaving in a struggling reliever just because the match-up stats are in his favor. In fact, I don't even believe that is an anti-stat position to take.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. I disagree. I also don't buy the "current performance" thing. Anyone can allow a hit and anyone can throw two balls after said hit. If the guy is great at what he does, he's earned the right to get that out.

 

I don't think it's logical to take a guy out like that because he's struggled for a handful of pitches. The "current performance" logic makes no sense to me especially when you're taking out the superior pitcher. How do you know the lesser reliever you're bringing out of the bullpen is going to have it that day? It seems like over-managing to me. Now if you run out of relievers in the game for whatever reason, you look like an idiot later on because there's really no logical reason for such a move. It's a knee-jerk move.

 

 

 

 

So let's say your best reliever has given up two hits and walked a guy (in that order). Wouldn't you consider pulling him even for a lesser reliever (not necessarily in the middle of an AB)?

 

That's basically the logic that Jack was following, I believe, but he did so in an unorthodox manner.

Ames does suck, but I'm not sure that makes it justifiable. Not only does it increase injury risk, but it also taxes the arms too much for cases when they DO need to enter the game. So even if you think these guys have no future with the team, I'd say it could also potentially hurt the pen's effectiveness. The arms need to be used regardless.

 

 

I wasn't saying it as "Ames sucks so I don't care." It's just that these type of things happen more to guys who are 6th, 7th, etc. on a bullpen depth chart.

 

If you're in a mop-up duty role, this is going to happen sometimes. I would guess it's happened to Kevin Slowey more than anyone else in the pen.

 

Guys like Ames, Slowey, etc. are brought in to pitch (more often than not) in situations that are rather irrelevant. If a starting pitcher struggles in a game, guys like this are asked to warm up only to not be brought in if the starting pitcher figures it out in the middle of the game.

 

Also, if this happened to Ames, it must have happened like one time. He was only here for a couple of weeks so it wasn't some sort of consistent trend.

 

I honestly don't recall this happening with the more important pitchers in the pen as you say. For the most part, the roles have been pretty defined especially since Cishek began his run of consecutive saves a couple of months ago. When the guys warm up, they pretty much know that they're coming in the next inning.

 

Sometimes this also happens because managers are pretty stupid (all of them) with the closer's role. So like the other day, Redmond had Dunn warming up alongside Cishek with a 5-2 lead in the 9th just in case the Marlins scored another run and it wasn't a save situation. I, too, think that that's rather silly, but I've also seen just about every manager do the same thing.

As for the Choate thing, I can't really say it's a dumb move (if that was your point). It's unorthodox, but I don't think that it was purely motivated by his gut. Choate already given up a hit to one lefty, walked a RHB, and fell behind another lefty 2-0. McKeon didn't think that the control was there (even against LHB), so he made a switch.

 

I recall him making a similar move in 2004 against the Phillies. I believe the bases were loaded in a tight game in the 8th, a reliever fell behind in the count, and Jack pulled the guy for Benitez who got out of the inning.

 

I mean, if you are trying to say that pulling relievers in the middle of an AB is always a bad thing, then I can't agree. I would give more credence to McKeon's post-game comments if Choate hadn't given up a single to a lefty, walked a guy, and fallen behind another.

 

I think you are being a little unfair. McKeon played the match-up by putting Choate in the game in the first place. Despite his track record, he wasn't getting it done that game. Perhaps McKeon shouldn't have let him face Duda at all.

 

 

We must have different managerial styles then.

 

I think it's pretty stupid to just yank a great lefty specialist in the middle of an AB because he allowed a hit to one lefty and then threw two balls to another. I'll take a long track record over an incredibly small sample any day of the week.

 

 

It's not what I would call a "sample size" in any respect. It's "current performance." It's close to the same logic followed when you pull a dominant reliever despite him having impeccable stats on the season. Some games they simply aren't getting it done.

 

I don't believe in leaving in a struggling reliever just because the match-up stats are in his favor. In fact, I don't even believe that is an anti-stat position to take.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. I disagree. I also don't buy the "current performance" thing. Anyone can allow a hit and anyone can throw two balls after said hit. If the guy is great at what he does, he's earned the right to get that out.

 

I don't think it's logical to take a guy out like that because he's struggled for a handful of pitches. The "current performance" logic makes no sense to me especially when you're taking out the superior pitcher. How do you know the lesser reliever you're bringing out of the bullpen is going to have it that day? It seems like over-managing to me. Now if you run out of relievers in the game for whatever reason, you look like an idiot later on because there's really no logical reason for such a move. It's a knee-jerk move.

 

 

 

 

So let's say your best reliever has given up two hits and walked a guy (in that order). Wouldn't you consider pulling him even for a lesser reliever (not necessarily in the middle of an AB)?

 

That's basically the logic that Jack was following, I believe, but he did so in an unorthodox manner.

 

 

 

 

No. The only way I'd do this is if I were managing this year's Houston Astros. Other than that, every best pitcher in a big league bullpen is the best because he either: a) can get a strikeout or b) is an extreme groundball pitcher. I'm not going to take a chance with a guy who has a lesser track record when I know the guy on the mound can get me a K or a double play in that situation.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if you're managing the Braves and Craig Kimbrel loads the bases in the 9th with a lefty coming up, do you bring in Scott Downs because Kimbrel doesn't have it in terms of "current performance?"

Ames does suck, but I'm not sure that makes it justifiable. Not only does it increase injury risk, but it also taxes the arms too much for cases when they DO need to enter the game. So even if you think these guys have no future with the team, I'd say it could also potentially hurt the pen's effectiveness. The arms need to be used regardless.

 

 

I wasn't saying it as "Ames sucks so I don't care." It's just that these type of things happen more to guys who are 6th, 7th, etc. on a bullpen depth chart.

 

If you're in a mop-up duty role, this is going to happen sometimes. I would guess it's happened to Kevin Slowey more than anyone else in the pen.

 

Guys like Ames, Slowey, etc. are brought in to pitch (more often than not) in situations that are rather irrelevant. If a starting pitcher struggles in a game, guys like this are asked to warm up only to not be brought in if the starting pitcher figures it out in the middle of the game.

 

Also, if this happened to Ames, it must have happened like one time. He was only here for a couple of weeks so it wasn't some sort of consistent trend.

 

I honestly don't recall this happening with the more important pitchers in the pen as you say. For the most part, the roles have been pretty defined especially since Cishek began his run of consecutive saves a couple of months ago. When the guys warm up, they pretty much know that they're coming in the next inning.

 

Sometimes this also happens because managers are pretty stupid (all of them) with the closer's role. So like the other day, Redmond had Dunn warming up alongside Cishek with a 5-2 lead in the 9th just in case the Marlins scored another run and it wasn't a save situation. I, too, think that that's rather silly, but I've also seen just about every manager do the same thing.

 

 

Outside of Dunn and Cishek, I'd say Redmond has done it more than a handful of times with everyone else in the pen. Of course this is going to happen to some relievers in instances where the manager is debating whether or not to lift the starter. However, from my observation, Redmond does this far more than the average manager does.

No. The only way I'd do this is if I were managing this year's Houston Astros. Other than that, every best pitcher in a big league bullpen is the best because he either: a) can get a strikeout or b) is an extreme groundball pitcher. I'm not going to take a chance with a guy who has a lesser track record when I know the guy on the mound can get me a K or a double play in that situation.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if you're managing the Braves and Craig Kimbrel loads the bases in the 9th with a lefty coming up, do you bring in Scott Downs because Kimbrel doesn't have it in terms of "current performance?"

 

 

 

In that case, I'd say this is discussion is no longer about McKeon or Redmond then. I would presume that almost every manager in baseball would lift the best reliever in a situation where he is visibly struggling. Even the best relievers have instances where the command or velocity simply isn't there (it could be for a variety of reasons) and is less likely to give you that strikeout or ground ball. Part of the manager's job is to identify when these things are occurring and respond appropriately.

 

So, yes, if Kimbrel loaded the bases (implying that his command clearly isn't there), I'd lift him if there were an alternative that made sense. I can say with confidence that most managers in the game would do that too.

No. The only way I'd do this is if I were managing this year's Houston Astros. Other than that, every best pitcher in a big league bullpen is the best because he either: a) can get a strikeout or b) is an extreme groundball pitcher. I'm not going to take a chance with a guy who has a lesser track record when I know the guy on the mound can get me a K or a double play in that situation.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if you're managing the Braves and Craig Kimbrel loads the bases in the 9th with a lefty coming up, do you bring in Scott Downs because Kimbrel doesn't have it in terms of "current performance?"

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, if Kimbrel loaded the bases (implying that his command clearly isn't there), I'd lift him if there were an alternative that made sense. I can say with confidence that most managers in the game would do that too.

 

 

I can say with confidence that you're delusional if you truly believe that.

 

There is not a single manager in the game today who would take their closer out if he, for whatever reason, loaded the bases. Every single manager has the "he's my guy" mentality. And, for what it's worth, absolutely none of them would take out Kimbrel who's been the most dominant reliever in baseball over the past couple of years.

 

You can pick whichever managers are your favorite in the game today, and I guarantee you that none of them would do that. There's also a valid reason for it (at least in most cases there's a valid reason...a lot of managers stick with their closer even when their closer is not that good).

I don't think that would be the case if the manager feels that the reliever's command simply isn't where it should be based on previous performances. That was basically McKeon's argument with regard to Choate. He had thrown 13 pitches up until that point and only 5 were strikes.

 

Choate matches well obviously against LHB but in his career numbers against hitters after falling 2-0 in the account he has a .534 OBP. Now you can argue that most MLB pitchers would have similar numbers, but if Choate was clearly missing his marks compared to other outings, I can understand why Jack would consider making that move. In other words, McKeon assumed that the probability of Choate walking the hitter at that point was pretty high and he simply didn't want to see the walk happen.

 

Disagree with the move all you want, but I don't see how you can argue that the decision was purely motivated by his "gut" there.

Some of Redmonds decisions aren't evn his, if he's over ruled on roster selections as indicated by this story in the Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/20/3573475/miami-marlins-roster-move-considered.html

Some of Redmonds decisions aren't evn his, if he's over ruled on roster selections as indicated by this story in the Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/20/3573475/miami-marlins-roster-move-considered.html

 

 

The circus continues.

 

Funny thing is they mention Chris Valaika "is on a tear." He's 3 for his last 20 and OPSing at .636 on the year. Huh?

 

Edit: just noticed this article was from 2 days ago (I thought it was today).. I guess he was on a "mini-tear" at that time

Some of Redmonds decisions aren't evn his, if he's over ruled on roster selections as indicated by this story in the Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/20/3573475/miami-marlins-roster-move-considered.html

 

 

I'd say that most people don't think that Redmond (or any other manager) make those kinds of decisions.

That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.