Author Topic: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1  (Read 3824 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33586
  • Lets go to work
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #925: June 28, 2011, 10:34:17 AM »
Either that... or what Phil Wood said was true... and that Rizzo wants Stairs on the roster... so Johnson wanted to at least give him some work if he's going to be stuck with him.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7332
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #926: June 28, 2011, 11:22:15 AM »
Either that... or what Phil Wood said was true... and that Rizzo wants Stairs on the roster... so Johnson wanted to at least give him some work if he's going to be stuck with him.

If Stairs can't DH, then he has no business being on the team. Obviously, I think he is done and shouldn't be on the team, but this is the time when it makes sense to give him a game or two with multiple PAs to convince everyone involved that he's done. These lineups are organizational decisions not simply based on the whim of the manager.

The only real issue I had with Davey last night was leaving Lannan in, but that's a pure judgement call. At some point, you have to stop coddling the pitchers and let them battle through situations and show what they can do. Lannan only gave up singles the whole game, and he was getting groudn balls that were getting through. I can see the coaches thinking that he had just as good a chance of getting an out. Personally, I would have taken him out at least two batters before. I'm not a fan of HRod, but again, the organization seems to want to give him as much work as possible and is committed to letting him develop. In the end, while I can't stand having his control problems on the mound, he ended up being effective over several innings and in a game that went to the 10th inning, we only used 4 pitchers.

I remember being at a game in the late 90s when Davey went to the bullpen for a rookie debut very early in the game when the team got behind. It seemed he was content to concede the game in order to preserve arms for the next series. I'll never be that surprised by his decisions because he manages for the season not for a game. The difference between Riggleman and Johnson is that Johnson has earned the benefit of the doubt. Riggleman has earned the doubt.

I suspect for the near term, Davey will be doing some things based on the Rizzo directives and the input of the coaches. His strength will be with the players in the clubhouse and the overall development not necessarily the in-game moves. A big priority he should have at this point is to work with Eckstein to get Werth sorted out. That's a big black hole right now.

As frustrating as last night's game was, the flipside from Riggleman would have been no bench left and 6 pitchers burned by the end of that game.

Offline Strasburg37

  • Posts: 398
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #927: June 28, 2011, 12:48:31 PM »
If Rizzo is insisting on Stairs being on the roster that is absolutely pathetic and embarrassing on his part.  The guy can't even play baseball!  I continue to question Rizzo's judgment and management skills.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 10893
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #928: June 28, 2011, 01:12:57 PM »
Great post, SSB.

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 24788
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #929: June 28, 2011, 01:17:46 PM »
If Stairs can't DH, then he has no business being on the team. Obviously, I think he is done and shouldn't be on the team, but this is the time when it makes sense to give him a game or two with multiple PAs to convince everyone involved that he's done. These lineups are organizational decisions not simply based on the whim of the manager.

The only real issue I had with Davey last night was leaving Lannan in, but that's a pure judgement call. At some point, you have to stop coddling the pitchers and let them battle through situations and show what they can do. Lannan only gave up singles the whole game, and he was getting groudn balls that were getting through. I can see the coaches thinking that he had just as good a chance of getting an out. Personally, I would have taken him out at least two batters before. I'm not a fan of HRod, but again, the organization seems to want to give him as much work as possible and is committed to letting him develop. In the end, while I can't stand having his control problems on the mound, he ended up being effective over several innings and in a game that went to the 10th inning, we only used 4 pitchers.

I remember being at a game in the late 90s when Davey went to the bullpen for a rookie debut very early in the game when the team got behind. It seemed he was content to concede the game in order to preserve arms for the next series. I'll never be that surprised by his decisions because he manages for the season not for a game. The difference between Riggleman and Johnson is that Johnson has earned the benefit of the doubt. Riggleman has earned the doubt.

I suspect for the near term, Davey will be doing some things based on the Rizzo directives and the input of the coaches. His strength will be with the players in the clubhouse and the overall development not necessarily the in-game moves. A big priority he should have at this point is to work with Eckstein to get Werth sorted out. That's a big black hole right now.

As frustrating as last night's game was, the flipside from Riggleman would have been no bench left and 6 pitchers burned by the end of that game.

As usual, nice post.     Davey has a plan.   He's sorting through the weeds right now ... maybe up 'til the AS break.   By then, he'll know who is and who ain't.   I got the feeling last night that he may have doubts about Lannan.   He wanted to push him and see what he's made of (having a short bull pen may have contributed as well).   I think the same can be said of Stairs.   Johnson will give him a chance to prove that he can hit.   I believe if Stairs continues to struggle up to the AS break, he'll be gone.

Online ronnynat

  • Posts: 23222
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #930: June 28, 2011, 01:24:37 PM »
I got the feeling last night that he may have doubts about Lannan.   He wanted to push him and see what he's made of (having a short bull pen may have contributed as well).

I think it was actually McCatty's call. Johnson kept asking him questions during that inning and it looked to me like McCatty was telling him to leave Lannan in. It was Johnson's first game, so it's not surprising that he was getting some help.

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 24788
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #931: June 28, 2011, 01:26:58 PM »
I think it was actually McCatty's call. Johnson kept asking him questions during that inning and it looked to me like McCatty was telling him to leave Lannan in. It was Johnson's first game, so it's not surprising that he was getting some help.

IMHO  Davey already knows what he wants to know about everyone on the team.    He didn't take this job unprepared.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7332
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #932: June 28, 2011, 01:42:33 PM »
IMHO  Davey already knows what he wants to know about everyone on the team.    He didn't take this job unprepared.

I agree that he isn't clueless about the players on the team, but he hasn't really been around them during actual games, so the input of the coaches who have a first-hand day-to-day experience with them is going to be factored in. Also, I would imagine Davey's not stupid enough to simply blow off the opinions of the assistants he inherited day one. I do think Davey's tendency would be to push Lannan, especially with a taxed bullpen. But to ronnynat's point, during Lannan's last inning, it did appear to me at the time that Davey was on his way up and out of the dugout when McCatty started to weigh in and he stepped back. The combination of needing one out and the taxed bullpen had something to do with it too.

In the end, Lannan needs to learn to do what he has to do to keep control of his mechanics and battle out of those situations. So, it isn't the worst thing to push the guy. I think in terms of just trying to win every game, most of us have gotten used to seeing the managers yank the pitchers one or two batters too late.

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 24788
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #933: June 28, 2011, 01:46:57 PM »
...   most of us have gotten used to seeing the managers yank the pitchers one or two batters too late.

Yep

Offline chemist

  • Posts: 1099
  • Cheering All Zimmermen
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #934: June 28, 2011, 02:18:11 PM »
most of us have gotten used to seeing the managers yank the pitchers one or two batters too late.

I'm not sure, but isn't this some sort of confirmation bias thing? Like, no one ever remembers when a pitcher is yanked right before he would have thrown a meatball that homered to left-center. Because he didn't throw the pitch if he got yanked.

Also, the times when a starter is left in too long form definite events (blowing a lead) that tend to stick in our head, while a 5.2-inning start might be more easily forgotten?

Not sure if I actually believe this, just saying.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 53229
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #935: June 28, 2011, 02:32:38 PM »

Also, the times when a starter is left in too long form definite events (blowing a lead) that tend to stick in our head, while a 5.2-inning start might be more easily forgotten?



+1

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #936: June 28, 2011, 03:07:40 PM »
I'm not sure, but isn't this some sort of confirmation bias thing? Like, no one ever remembers when a pitcher is yanked right before he would have thrown a meatball that homered to left-center. Because he didn't throw the pitch if he got yanked.

Also, the times when a starter is left in too long form definite events (blowing a lead) that tend to stick in our head, while a 5.2-inning start might be more easily forgotten?

Not sure if I actually believe this, just saying.
Riggleman actually had a pretty quick hook most of the time.  We had the opposite problem with him... playing matchups and burning up relievers and bench guys so quickly that we'd often have nothing left for extra-inning games.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7332
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals @ Angels, Game 1
« Reply #937: June 28, 2011, 03:11:39 PM »
I'm not sure, but isn't this some sort of confirmation bias thing? Like, no one ever remembers when a pitcher is yanked right before he would have thrown a meatball that homered to left-center. Because he didn't throw the pitch if he got yanked.

Also, the times when a starter is left in too long form definite events (blowing a lead) that tend to stick in our head, while a 5.2-inning start might be more easily forgotten?

Not sure if I actually believe this, just saying.


I think that is very true. But the point is that people rarely question the removal of a pitcher unless he is cruising and seemingly in complete command. It is easier to tell when a pitcher is starting to leave things up in the zone and starting to get hit solidly by the opposition the 3rd time through the lineup. So when a batter is left in a batter or two longer than most would like to see, you're not surprised when things go bad. You can be excused for not anticipating when the pitcher is suddenly going to lose it.