Not to slight the matter at hand, but Andy LaRoche boosters (include myself, sure) should be over the moon w/ his September: 338 / 390 / 620 in 71 ABs. Granted, it's by far his best month of the year (tho the 869 OPS he compiled in May wasn't too shabby), and it was done against expanded rosters, and he grabbed nearly one-fifth of his total bases for the month w/ his 5-for-5 yesterday, and even Neifi Perez turned into Hercules for 100 ABs once, but it's, um, something.

So Duke's lawyer can bring this game up, tell the arbitrator the team chose to yank him even though they didn't have to and he could easily have finished it, hand him a printout of this article with the relevant quotes highlighted, and that's the end of it. It's extremely unlikely the Pirates and Duke are even going to go to the arbitrator. That they didn't trade him two months ago in all probability indicates they intend to sign him long-term this winter.

I don't know about an arbitration-influenced conspiracy, but the writer was dead on: last home game of the year, pitcher one out from a complete game, and the manager removes him after 103 pitches with a 10-run lead.

That's really weak from Russell. He wanted to get Veal "some work"? He threw three pitches, for crying out loud!!!!!

Duke is second-time eligible for salary in the coming offseason, and a fourth complete game would have bolstered his bargaining position, tying him for the league lead with San Francisco’s twin aces, Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain.

Given that the league leading total for complete games is so incredibly sad, would this really be of any influence to an arbitrator? It's not like this is anything approaching a major statistical category.

There's no conspiracy. John Russell is just not an intelligent man. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Tying the NL lead in complete games is weak. This game tied Duke for the Major League lead in eight-and-two-thirds-inning starts.

Two of Duke's three CG's were only eight innings. He leads MLB in eight-innings CG's.

People are missing the real conspiracy. Russell is in a fantasy league where CGs count, and his main competition owns Duke. When the papers get ahold of this, they're going to blow the lid off of it, baby!

Duke not getting the complete game was extremely key in my fantasy league championship.

It's actually the opposite. Manager would normally give someone else an inning except he had a shot at a shutout which might really look good on his stats. Once that was gone he puts in the other guy who was probably warming up the previous inning except the SHO was intact.

he wanted Donald Veal to get a bit of work

Need to keep him fresh for the playoffs.

would this really be of any influence to an arbitrator?

No. Wouldn't even come up in the discussion.

Bill James has often said that arbitration is all about finding comparable players. If Duke's agent tries to use Lincecum or Cain as a comp in any way ... well he won't outright lose the case because almost all cases are decided by the numbers filed, but it sure won't help.

There's no conspiracy. John Russell is just not an intelligent man. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If the reported explanation is true, it's adequately explained by brain damage, not mere stupidity. (1) Is there some problem with ovations after getting the last out of the game? (2) He wanted to get a pitcher one BF?

This is Donnie Veal we're talking about. There was no guarantee that he'd face only one batter, or even single-digit batters, before getting that out.

The explanation that J-Russ was only keeping Duke in the game because of the shutout made sense. After that, obviously as part of a conspiracy to keep Duke's stats looking good, he should take Duke out. What if he'd gotten the complete game but given up six runs?

[edited as per #14]

What if he'd gotten the shutout but given up six runs?

I'm going to assume you meant to type "complete game."

It's a slightly odd decision by Russell, but not like something I've never seen happen before. Even with a big lead, there are managers who would tell a young pitcher (hey, sometimes an old pitcher), "the first base runner (or perhaps the first run) of the 9th inning and I'm bringing in another pitcher." Maybe Russell told that to Duke. Duke has had arm problems in the past, and maybe Russell is ultra-protective of him after 100 pitches; I've heard managers give explanations for similar decisions, like "I was afraid he would struggle and put stress on his arm to get that last out for a complete game." I'm not saying this is a good way for a manager to make decisions, but it is more likely this kind of thinking is the reason for taking Duke out, rather than an arb related conspiracy.

I've seen exactly one 9-inning shutout in my life (accomplished by one Zachary T. Duke), and three games where the starting pitcher was taken out after 8 2/3 innings followed by a home run. Those games were all a lot closer than 11-1, and the fans still booed. Such an anticlimax!

"This is Donnie Veal we're talking about. There was no guarantee that he'd face only one batter, or even single-digit batters, before getting that out."

He had ten runs to play with, and only needed one out. I think that sooner or later, he'd get it done.

That out lowered Veal's ERA by .12. That will come back to haunt the Pirates at Veal's arbitration hearing in a few years.

It's a slightly odd decision by Russell, but not like something I've never seen happen before. Even with a big lead, there are managers who would tell a young pitcher (hey, sometimes an old pitcher), "the first base runner (or perhaps the first run) of the 9th inning and I'm bringing in another pitcher." Maybe Russell told that to Duke. Duke has had arm problems in the past, and maybe Russell is ultra-protective of him after 100 pitches; I've heard managers give explanations for similar decisions, like "I was afraid he would struggle and put stress on his arm to get that last out for a complete game." I'm not saying this is a good way for a manager to make decisions, but it is more likely this kind of thinking is the reason for taking Duke out, rather than an arb related conspiracy.

Tricky: I would disagree with that decision, but it's not completely irrational. The problem is, that's not the explanation that was given. He could easily have said "pitch count" or "tired arm" or whatever, and other than the grumblings from the get-off-my-lawn crowd about how in their day pitchers were expected to finish games even if they were dead, nobody would have remarked on it.

If only a slightly different outcome happened, we'd have this typical BBTF thread:

HE LET A YOUNG PITCHER THROW 109 PITCHES WITH A 10 RUN LEAD!!!! IF I WERE DUKE, I WOULD SUE FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE!!!!!

it does strike me as an effort to complain about team managment under the accepted current narrative (they are cheap and in it for profit and not spending enough on the team); it really is a force to make this out to be about that, and the writer 9and any editor who let that pass0 should be ashamed. That just isn't the story of the game, even it is the writer's agenda.

I had the same thought BLB. I mean, managers can't win. If they leave a guy out there, they're abusing him. If they take him out they're cheating him. If the don't talk to the press they're arrogant. If they do, they're stupid.


Either way, I figured the story was the Dodgers gagging another potential clincher.

I had the same thought BLB. I mean, managers can't win. If they leave a guy out there, they're abusing him. If they take him out they're cheating him. If the don't talk to the press they're arrogant. If they do, they're stupid.

Why can't Russell be wrong on both counts? The point of this Duke thing is that there's usually not much difference between throwing 8.2 and 9 innings, but there is a difference between either of those and not bringing him out for the 9th inning at all.

Why can't Russell be wrong on both counts? The point of this Duke thing is that there's usually not much difference between throwing 8.2 and 9 innings, but there is a difference between either of those and not bringing him out for the 9th inning at all.

Because he wanted to let him get the shutout, which presumably Duke wanted as well. Once that was gone, he took him out. Only the explanation is weird, but I figure managers often lie about their motivations. But BLB is right: whatever their reasoning, they'll get criticized by somebody.

I'm not saying Russell was right or wrong. What I'm saying is that it's not a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

"Either way, I figured the story was the Dodgers gagging another potential clincher."

The Post-Gazette is part of the East Coast Media, and as such prohibited from acknowledging the existence of a West Coast team like the Dodgers if at all possible.

This is like ..well, it couldn't be more obvious than jumping into a volcano brings some heat. There is a TON of difference between 4 COMPLETE games, TIED with the CAIN and LIINNCENUUUM and well, 3 BUT 8 2/3 is al-

All need to know is the manager hauled some porkbeef to get that sonuvgun off the mound.. cheap team can pay him for 3 years what would have been for 3 months. heck yea

Because he wanted to let him get the shutout, which presumably Duke wanted as well. Once that was gone, he took him out.

I'm all for pitch counts and not overworking your stud pitchers in pointless situations. But the first thing I saw when I read the boxscore is, couldn't a lot have been gained by letting him finish? Just as a confidence builder - being able to say you went the distance and shut down a team trying to clinch their division. Especially after giving up a run - I just think it's pussifying to let a guy throw 8 2/3 and then yank him after 1 run.