Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 09, 2005 at 02:29 AM (#1322543)

If you read the game thread, there was not a peep from anyone about the wisdom of bringing him into the game.


This was my post kevin, it was dripping with sarcasm.

# Posted by Something Phil Coorey Learned Today. on May 08, 2005 at 07:11 PM (#1322216)

Nice low level situation to kick off for Cla…
   2. Darren Posted: May 09, 2005 at 02:31 AM (#1322547)
I wasn't in the game thread at the time, so it's not second guessing for me. Putting a guy who has never thrown a ML pitch in a tie game, with a runner on 2nd, in pouring rain, with the heart of the order up, after having passed up repeated low pressure opportunities to use him, is very, very, very hard to understand.

As far as those who were in Game Chatter: Josh questioned the move, so that would probably constitute a peep.
   3. Darren Posted: May 09, 2005 at 02:38 AM (#1322560)
Sure, we all had desire to see how he would do. But we didn't have to throw away a game to find out.

Francona managed the first game like it was the only game that mattered, because, as we know by now, he will use as many relievers as possible in any game where he has a lead. When he got to the 2nd game, which he knew would require a deep pen because of Miller, he found himself short of arms. Having already screwed up badly, he does so again by not using Cla when they trailed and then not waiting until he's the last result before using him.
   4. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 09, 2005 at 02:39 AM (#1322561)
I have to admit I had a desire to see how he would do.

Me too, like Darren said, it would have been logical with a low leverage 3 run lead.

I'd like to see him stick around, but man it will eat him up for a while. What a crappy debut.
   5. Mikαεl Posted: May 09, 2005 at 03:10 AM (#1322614)
Here's the thing for me.

I'm pretty sure Meredith will be a solid pitcher. As such, with a burned-out pen and Halama throwing meatballs, he would be a pretty good choice, all else being equal.

Problem is, it isn't. Cla Meredith is a 21-year-old kid. Some kids come to the majors ready to handle everything and anything, some need time to acclimate to the pressure. It could not have been clearer from his awful command that Meredith is of the second group. He was not mentally ready for a high-lev outing.

I didn't first-guess the move because I figured that if they were calling on Cla, they believed he was ready for such a trial by fire. They were obviously wrong, which makes it a bad call. It's a situation where we, as fans, have only the result to judge the move by.

I would add that Francona got himself into the situation by burning his three best RH relievers in the first game with a 3-run lead. Mantei and Timlin combined for 18 pitches. Foulke pitched a +3 9th. It was a two-pitcher job, and not a particularly important one at that, handled by three of the four best pitchers in the bullpen.
   6. Mikαεl Posted: May 09, 2005 at 03:15 AM (#1322620)
I'll add that the subtext of Darren's intro - which was funny, keep 'em coming - is that Francona is a ludicrously poor manager. In the context of MLB, I tend to think he's about average. I want my team to have a better than average manager, and so I'm very displeased when he falls short of the mark. But I don't think we could replace him with a random jagoff from AAA and see improvement.
   7. Darren Posted: May 09, 2005 at 03:18 AM (#1322626)
So maybe a comparison to Lenny or Carl would have been more appropriate?
   8. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 09, 2005 at 03:26 AM (#1322635)
What sh!ts me as well, is that Fenway was giving up no homers all day. Ortiz had to crush his to creep over the monster.
   9. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: May 09, 2005 at 03:51 AM (#1322659)
But I don't think we could replace him with a random jagoff from AAA and see improvement.

So I guess he's above replacement value.
   10. Mikαεl Posted: May 09, 2005 at 01:24 PM (#1322913)
kevin - Cla walked the first two batters to put himself in that position against Sexson.

Also, as I said before, I'm not arguing against Francona's general competence. I'm arguing that in this situation, he screwed up.
   11. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 09, 2005 at 01:56 PM (#1322955)
Also, Francona is the first Boston manager to win a WS in 86 years. He is also the first manager to win any series after falling behind 3-0.

Bingo. I think the 5 year free pass has to be in effect for me. While Tito didn't make a great move in choosing a good situation for Meredith to come in, I'm not going after the guy at all.

Tito screwed up, but only in that Meredith has been a closer this year and has usually come into games at the beginning of an inning with no men on base. He might have been better off using Cla in a situation like that than in the one he used him in yesterday.

He wasn't going to use Mantei in the second game after using him in the first because the guy's coming off an injury.

Tito to his credit managed the postseason much differenly than he did in the regular season in terms of reliever usage. He probably feels that using his relievers in well-defined pre set roles most of the time is the best way to get good performances out of them. And who knows, mayeb he's right. Maybe he's got a better handle on the psychological aspect of his bullpen guys than we do.
   12. cal Posted: May 09, 2005 at 01:58 PM (#1322961)
I thought the home run pitch was Cla's first quality one. It was down and away at the target Tek had set. Sexson hit it, poorly, and it hooked around the pole.

That being said, I thought it was odd to pitch Cla there. I have never likef Francona's bullpen management, but it doesn't seem to hurt them that much. I hope that's the way it stays.

Also, I really want to see Cla pitch aghain. His stuff looked OK, but not great. Plus, does he even thrown a breaking pitch?
   13. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 09, 2005 at 01:59 PM (#1322962)
What sh!ts me as well, is that Fenway was giving up no homers all day. Ortiz had to crush his to creep over the monster.

And while Meredith didn't pitch well at all, the home run is a flyout nearly every other day of the year. The wind was strongly blowing from left to right field and carried that ball just around the Pesky Pole.

Hey, feces occurs.

I am encouraged by Miller's appearance. Much higher velocity than he had on his rehab assignments, and he had the slider working very well. He looked sharp.
   14. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 09, 2005 at 02:00 PM (#1322969)
Also, I really want to see Cla pitch aghain. His stuff looked OK, but not great. Plus, does he even thrown a breaking pitch?

I believe he threw only one breaking pitch yesterday. It appeared Tek was working with him to get the location of his fastball accurate.
   15. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: May 09, 2005 at 02:55 PM (#1323055)
Of course Tito HAD to use Foulke in game 1. He shoulda used Dinardo or Meredith in game 1 pitching to get that "save"
   16. Josh Posted: May 09, 2005 at 03:01 PM (#1323067)
Cla fell behind 2-0 to both Winn and Beltre, while in the rain, with the heart of the lineup up/coming up, in the 7th, in his first ML game . . . blah, blah, blah. (The more I think about it, the more I get mad.)

It makes sense that a sidearmer goes to his FB exclusively there.
   17. cal Posted: May 09, 2005 at 05:00 PM (#1323305)
I didn't mean to know the idea of throwing fast balls in that spot. I just don't know much about Cla's stuff and am genuinely interested in what he's got. The only thing I've seen of him is the stat line.
   18. cal Posted: May 09, 2005 at 05:01 PM (#1323309)
that should be knock the idea
   19. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: May 09, 2005 at 08:14 PM (#1323750)
Isn't this second-guessing?

If you read the game thread, there was not a peep from anyone about the wisdom of bringing him into the game. In fact, there were some expressions of enthusiasm.


Actually, Josh questioned bringing the rookie in for that situation is post 30-something, and in 318, Phil made a comment about it being a "nice low-level situation" to bring him in then, so there were a couple of peeps.
   20. Fridas Boss Posted: May 09, 2005 at 11:43 PM (#1324243)
I think the decision to "leave him in" after his striggles was more egregious than bringing him in in the first place..
   21. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 10, 2005 at 02:37 AM (#1325024)
I am encouraged by Miller's appearance. Much higher velocity than he had on his rehab assignments, and he had the slider working very well. He looked sharp.

Agree, shame we couldn't focus on it more.
   22. Darren Posted: May 10, 2005 at 04:16 AM (#1325445)
At least the bad outing doesn't seem to have carried over at all. Ugh.
   23. Bob Loblaw Posted: May 10, 2005 at 04:19 AM (#1325460)
Hey, he's working his way down. Next time, he'll only allow one run. Then half a run...
   24. Mikαεl Posted: May 10, 2005 at 11:47 AM (#1325771)
Last night, Cla was throwing 84-87 from a weird angle, ineffectively, with no command of his breaking pitch. Plus wearing 51, that was freakin' me out.

I think he got squeezed a bit last night. A number of his pitches looked right on the black to me. He'll need pinpoint control to get outs with that stuff, but I thought I saw a few signs of it last night, even if he didn't get the calls.
   25. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: May 10, 2005 at 11:58 AM (#1325773)
Plus wearing 51, that was freakin' me out.


What, does he remind of Ichiro or something?

(I think I've read somewhere Ichiro in Koshien (Japanese High School league.)) I'm not sure.
   26. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 10, 2005 at 02:04 PM (#1325883)
51 was Kim's number.
   27. villageidiom Posted: May 10, 2005 at 02:04 PM (#1325884)
1. The decision to use Cla on Sunday was made prior to the game. This is a separate issue than what everyone brings up above, but it's related. The question is whether there's room for leverage-independent personnel decisions such as this. I'm interested in everyone's thoughts.

2. If he's being brought up to contribute, or for them to evaluate him, bringing him in to face the better hitters is what you have to do. He can already get minor leaguers out, so having him face Wiki Gonzalez isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know. Likewise for a "pressure" situation: bring him in for the ninth, down ten, and all you've learned is that he can handle garbage time. And you're going to wait a long time for that opportunity.

3. On Sunday they brought him into a decent situation: get one stinkin' guy out. That's it; do that and the inning is over. I don't think you throw someone with a high K/BB ratio and low HR totals into a get-one-out situation thinking you're going to see two walks and a HR. (Yeah, there's the chance that he's not mentally ready for this stuff. See 2.)

4. No free passes for Francona, please. Gratitude, sure. But, like most managers, Francona's contribution to winning has more to do with not screwing up an otherwise good thing.

5. Darren, in your first post you said they brought in Cla "after having passed up repeated low pressure opportunities". If the pressure came from never having thrown a ML pitch, and the pouring rain, and the close game, there weren't any. If it came from the runner on second and facing the heart of the order, I count one situation (start the 7th) where neither of those conditions apply, but then it's a tie game - and anything other than a 1-2-3 inning (including Ichiro!) results in his facing the heart of the order with runners on.

In short, I don't see a true low pressure opportunity, other than the one he created.
   28. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 10, 2005 at 02:05 PM (#1325885)
At least the bad outing doesn't seem to have carried over at all. Ugh

He was just in there to get some work. At least it was a much better situation for him than on Sunday.

He wasn't good at all, but if he snags that grounder over the mound he's out of the inning without any damage.
   29. Mikαεl Posted: May 10, 2005 at 02:20 PM (#1325915)
the decision to use Cla on Sunday was made prior to the game.

No, it wasn't.

If Gonzalez and Miller had been more efficient and gone 7/8 innings, Cla wouldn't have pitched.

He pitched because Terry didn't think that a tied 7th was high enough leverage to bring out one of his pitchers from the previous game, and in turn because he had used his three good RH relievers to get just eight outs with a three-run lead in the previous game.

Further, he pitched because management decided it would not be difficult for him, psychologically, to handle a very rough first MLB assignment. In that, I submit they were probably wrong, as Meredith displayed all the signs of a rattled kid.

The idea that they can't learn from his getting Wiki Gonzalez out is basically correct, but beside the point. My argument is that it appears Cla's first outing was likely to be a bit shaky as he adjusted to MLB pressure and MLB hitters. In the interest of winning games, it's best that those first appearances occur in situations where his struggles won't cause us to lose games.
   30. Mister High Standards Posted: May 10, 2005 at 02:21 PM (#1325922)
I didn't mind Cla ussage on Sunday. None what so ever.
   31. Mattbert Posted: May 10, 2005 at 08:56 PM (#1326734)
Mikael's last paragraph is an important point. Hopefully, management places more emphasis on winning games than breaking in its young pitchers. Managing the game to make it about Cla would be a mistake. He should be viewed as just another asset, the fourth RH arm out of the pen.

If it had been predetermined that Cla was going to pitch in the doubleheader no matter what, he should've been in the first game on a short leash with the three-run cushion. That's when you use your back end guys.
   32. villageidiom Posted: May 10, 2005 at 08:57 PM (#1326738)
the decision to use Cla on Sunday was made prior to the game.

No, it wasn't.


According to the pregame interviews I'd heard on WEEI on Sunday just prior to game 2, yes it was. I'd walked into Fenway that afternoon with the expectation that I'd see two Sox pitchers I'd never seen in person - Miller AND Meredith - based on that info.

Further, he pitched because management decided it would not be difficult for him, psychologically, to handle a very rough first MLB assignment. In that, I submit they were probably wrong, as Meredith displayed all the signs of a rattled kid.

They were probably wrong, in hindsight. Granted, you could make a pretty good guess in advance that he would be a little rattled. But if you want to see what he can handle, there's only one way to find out. (The urgency of doing so is questionable, though I suppose an early season rainy doubleheader against Seattle, featuring an ex-Devil-Ray callup and a injury risk as the starters, isn't a bad time.)

In the interest of winning games, it's best that those first appearances occur in situations where his struggles won't cause us to lose games.

You can't prevent that and effectively manage a pitching staff that includes him. Effectively the same argument could be made for not using about half of the current bullpen in any situation that could impact the outcome. That's the Torre 2004™ model. How'd that work out for his bullpen?
   33. Mikαεl Posted: May 10, 2005 at 09:59 PM (#1326901)
vi,

I don't think we're all that far apart on this. My only real difference is with these two sentences in your last two paragraphs:

But if you want to see what he can handle, there's only one way to find out.
...
Effectively the same argument could be made for not using about half of the current bullpen in any situation that could impact the outcome.

I'm not arguing for never using Meredith in a high-leverage sitation. I'm not arguing for never using mediocre pitchers in those situations, or anything nearly so macro.

All's I'm saying is that Meredith's first couple of outings should have been low-leverage. Once he's acclimated a bit more, once he feels comfortable throwing strikes to big leaguers, then test him out.

I think Francona generally does a pretty good job with the management side of his job - recognizing what his players are and are not ready to do, and motivating them as such. In this case, I think he (and the rest of the org, whoever) misjudged Cla Meredith, and that effectively cost the game.
   34. Darren Posted: May 11, 2005 at 12:24 AM (#1327374)
Sorry, Vi, but I need more than "I thought I heard something about them wanting to use him that day." That's not particularly definitive and no one else here seems to have heard that.

If he's being brought up to contribute, or for them to evaluate him, bringing him in to face the better hitters is what you have to do.

That's foolishness. Hanley Ramirez is in the organization so that he can help the big team win. He will attempt to climb the ladder step by step, and hopefully eventually contribute as fulltime player in the bigs. We do not need to have him on the ML roster, batting 4th right now, though.

What's more, having him face teh bottom of the order is a huge step up for Cla. He's not faced that quality of batter in AA.

Darren, in your first post you said they brought in Cla "after having passed up repeated low pressure opportunities". If the pressure came from never having thrown a ML pitch, and the pouring rain, and the close game, there weren't any. If it came from the runner on second and facing the heart of the order, I count one situation (start the 7th) where neither of those conditions apply, but then it's a tie game - and anything other than a 1-2-3 inning (including Ichiro!) results in his facing the heart of the order with runners on.

The pressure comes from all of those factors. Eliminating a couple of those would be preferable. For example, he could have started the top of the 6th of game one, he'd face the top of the order, but he'd have a 5 run lead. Or top 7 of game 1, he had a 3 run lead and the bottom of the order. Or top 7 game 2, bottom of the order + Ichiro, and down a run.
   35. Josh Posted: May 11, 2005 at 03:53 AM (#1328099)
Just for perspective, Huston Street (who I have fresh in mind after tonight) wasn't used in a situation with any real leverage until his 4th outing this year, and coming after a really nice looking 2 inning show.

Of course, he screwed up when he came into the game with a 1 run lead.
   36. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 11, 2005 at 08:50 AM (#1328285)
I liked Huston Street, is he a potential starter down the line?
   37. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 11, 2005 at 09:01 AM (#1328287)
Disregard #39. I looked up Athletics Nation. They wont him as the closer now.
   38. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 11, 2005 at 08:23 PM (#1330226)
Athletics Nation is going to want him as the closer even more after today's game.
   39. Mikαεl Posted: May 11, 2005 at 10:37 PM (#1330886)
This all makes our crusade to maximize Foulke's leverage seem a bit misplaced, don't it? I guess if all of your relievers suck, you might as well quit worrying your pretty little head about all those complex Win Probabilities and Indexes and numerologies.

The Sox, by the way, are now 6-5 in games decided by one run. Yes. 6-5. More wins than losses.

It's hard for me to believe, too.
   40. Mattbert Posted: May 11, 2005 at 11:06 PM (#1330937)
This all makes our crusade to maximize Foulke's leverage seem a bit misplaced, don't it?

That was a real bummer today. Foulke looked awesome against the first two hitters, and then he started screwing around with breaking balls and completely lost the handle on the changeup. I'd blame El Capitan for the game-calling, but he sort of made up for it, I guess.

How long before Timlin starts getting/keeping the ball in a few of these low-leverage save situations?
   41. Mattbert Posted: May 12, 2005 at 12:08 AM (#1331040)
Is it possible he developed a blister or something throwing the breaking pitch? His command went right out the window all of a sudden.

I have to think there was something out of the ordinary going on. He threw, I think, three consecutive changeups to Kotsay after the Byrnes homer, and he was rushing his delivery badly and leaving the ball way high. But he'd get it back and throw it up there again like he wasn't thinking about it or just didn't even care. That was what concerned me the most because it was noticeably different from simply not having his best stuff. He looked like a scared, lost Little Leaguer facing Kotsay and Kendall.
   42. Darren Posted: May 12, 2005 at 02:51 AM (#1331315)
I blame Francona for putting him in a low leverage situation. :)
   43. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 12, 2005 at 01:07 PM (#1331692)
Foulke's set position is much different this year than the one he was using last year. Last year, he had his glove up near his face and leaned slightly back in the set position. This year, he's holding his glove lower, around the letters, and standing straighter in his set position.

If you have the Red Sox Nation membership, check out the video clips there from the World Series. The differences will be apparent.

His results this year have been awful, and they've been related to a loss of control. One would think Dave Wallace would be able to notice such an obvious change in set position and work with him to get back to where he was last year. I also wonder if using that new slider is screwing up his other pitches.
   44. philly Posted: May 12, 2005 at 01:35 PM (#1331735)
I'm not sure the set position difference is all that significant. He might be ending his delivery at the same release point with the same force behind the ball despite the different start positions.

Here's a negative thought about that that just popped into my head. Foulke has always suffered from recurring back spasms. I suppose the lower set position could be an attempt to accomodate more serious and more persistent back pain. If you think about it - hands up and leaning back would seem to be harder on the back than hands down and upright.

Nobody's mentioned back pain at all, but backs are a #####. It could help to explain his loss of velocity and command.

Yup, the day Schilling comes of the DL, Foulke will go on with a herniated disk.
   45. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: May 12, 2005 at 02:08 PM (#1331774)
Philly, one immediate difference I can think of is that it's much harder for Foulke to hide the ball in his cobra-strike delivery with his hands lower instead of high around his face.
   46. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: May 12, 2005 at 02:53 PM (#1331851)
I was sitting in the bleachers just above the bullpen at the game, and during his warm-up, Foulke's command on his breaking pitches looked pretty bad. I didn't think much of it since he went in and retired the first 2 hitters pretty quickly.

I seem to remember Foulke saying that he always had trouble with his mechanics and keeping them correct.
   47. tfbg9 Posted: May 12, 2005 at 03:03 PM (#1331865)
Remy said that the pitch that Byrnes creamed was a slider. Did Keith use a slider last year? Foulke said in a spring interview that he was adding a "cutter" this year to his pitch selection. I didn't see him throw anything besides (usually) well-placed 87-90 MPH fastballs and that killer change last year. Worked OK. Maybe he should just stay with what got him a WS win. Of course, there's the missing velocity on the FB to deal with also-I have EE again this year, I my totally unscientific personal MLB eyeball survey tells me that loads of pitchers have reduced velocity this season. Tons of them...
   48. tfbg9 Posted: May 12, 2005 at 03:08 PM (#1331876)
I just watched a VCR tape of the top of the 9th yesterday, and it DID look like a slider-different grip from the change and lots of spin.
   49. tfbg9 Posted: May 12, 2005 at 03:24 PM (#1331907)
Fair enough, but he was great last year with two pitches, was he not? And this year he stinks with three (four?). As I said, he's also not throwing as hard...blame it on a broad Keith baby!
   50. Mattbert Posted: May 12, 2005 at 04:30 PM (#1332033)
It definitely looked like a slider on TV. It broke just like a slider.

I think the problem was it *didn't* break like a slider. It didn't break like anything. The spin was really loose which is why it just hung up there like a pinata at Eric Byrnes' birthday party. Once that ball left his hand, the only prayer Foulke had was that Mr. Hyper-Hypo would overswing and yank the thing foul. It was one of those pitches that makes me feel sick before it even gets to the plate. Awful.

Foulke is starting to remind me more and more of this dude I played with in college who we nicknamed Chico. I don't know why, that was just his name. Chico was a good pitcher; mid-80s fastball, superb change, terrific control. And then there was The Chico Slider. The thing about The Chico Slider was it was *always* devastating, one way or the other. It was never just pretty good or a little off. It was either utterly filthy and unhittable, or it was a nothing slopball. And since Chico was always around the plate, when he hung The Chico Slider, it got punished. Despite countless 0-2 homers surrendured by The Chico Slider, nobody could ever get him to stop throwing it. He loved the pitch, and when it was good there was no sight so pitiful as a hapless batter waving at it, expecting one of the other pitches. Inevitably, though, Chico would throw a few good ones and then decide, tragically, to get cute and spin it up there to the other team's #9 hitter in a sequence much like this:

(1) Changeup running back over the outside corner at the knees. Strike 1.

(2) Fastball on the hands, either freezes the batter or popped foul. Strike 2.

(3) The Chico Slider ambling languidly through the hitter's wheelhouse, pausing briefly to pull its skirt up and flash a little leg to make sure it has his attention, and getting walloped about 420 feet by some kid who probably tipped the scales at about 145 lbs with his pockets full of change.

So in the popular parlance of our time...

Dear Keith,

Please stop throwing the slider. You're only going to hurt yourself. Or others.

Signed,
Everyone
   51. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 13, 2005 at 12:47 AM (#1332830)
So we can rename his attempted slider the 'Chico Slider'?
   52. tfbg9 Posted: May 13, 2005 at 03:30 PM (#1333611)
Foulke's weekly interview coming up at around noon EDT Friday on WEEI.com-might be semi-innerestin'. Maybe they'll bring up Chico.
   53. Mattbert Posted: May 13, 2005 at 03:32 PM (#1333618)
Be my guest, Phil. Although there might be some copyright issues, and I don't want to become any more like a Yankee chatterer than I already am.
   54. tfbg9 Posted: May 13, 2005 at 05:06 PM (#1333893)
Keith said he needs to pitch more-and would like to throw 100 innings every season if they'd let him. He's on a pace for 77.
   55. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 14, 2005 at 10:11 AM (#1335998)
And first baseman Roberto Petagine, who had knee surgery during Spring Training, made his debut for Triple-A Pawtucket on Friday.

How did we miss this!!!
   56. Darren Posted: May 14, 2005 at 02:52 PM (#1336111)
yeah, that's something. He was 0-3 with 2 BBs, so he could be our answer to Giambi!
   57. Josh Posted: May 15, 2005 at 06:35 PM (#1338511)
And, a HR on Saturday. Line after two games

1/7, 3 BBs, 0 SO, 1 HR -- .143/.400/.571.
   58. Phil Coorey. Posted: May 16, 2005 at 02:39 AM (#1339543)
A good thread in honour of Manny might be the article in the globe, that talks about his sick mother.
   59. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: May 16, 2005 at 04:32 PM (#1340352)
Sorry to put this here, but there's nowhere else on Sox T for it to go. Today's Picture of the Week over at Batter's Box (actually, Picture of the Day these days, since Aaron's trying to burn off a huge series of pictures) is <a href="http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20050516114851745">a nice shot of David Ortiz</i>.

We have this weird "POtD mojo" going, incidentally, where the Picture of the Day subject seems to have a great night every night. So if Cookie Monster has a killer night tonight in Oakland, you know who to thank.
   60. Mattbert Posted: May 16, 2005 at 05:37 PM (#1340495)
Another bit of random news: Trot to have offseason surgery on mysterious leg ailment.
   61. villageidiom Posted: May 16, 2005 at 06:01 PM (#1340536)
All's I'm saying is that Meredith's first couple of outings should have been low-leverage. Once he's acclimated a bit more, once he feels comfortable throwing strikes to big leaguers, then test him out.

I agree, partly. (And you're right, we're not that far apart.) To the extent you have a roster spot reserved for players you don't intend to use, you can simply put him there and wait until such an opportunity. Of course, by holding him aside until he can do no damage, they're pretty much telling him they don't trust him for important stuff; and if they do that, then he potentially faces the same confidence issues when they do give him such an opportunity.

And, again, the more you depend on leverage to determine your relievers' workload, the less you depend on how rested or ready they are... and, in theory, the more you Quantrillize the pen. Taking two pitchers - Meredith and Halama - and setting both aside for a five-run lead (or deficit) is effectively wasting roster spots, unless you can guarantee a steady diet of such situations.

Hanley Ramirez is in the organization so that he can help the big team win. He will attempt to climb the ladder step by step, and hopefully eventually contribute as fulltime player in the bigs. We do not need to have him on the ML roster, batting 4th right now, though.

Ah, overstating the case. If I'd said that Cla should start instead of Clement, then I guess your comment would be relevant.

Let me make it a little more user-friendly: If Hanley is promoted to the ML roster, you'd certainly use him. And you likely wouldn't have him face only bad pitchers. You're more likely to use him in, say, part of one game of a doubleheader against a last-place team.

For example, he could have started the top of the 6th of game one, he'd face the top of the order, but he'd have a 5 run lead. Or top 7 of game 1, he had a 3 run lead and the bottom of the order. Or top 7 game 2, bottom of the order + Ichiro, and down a run.

He wasn't on the roster for Game 1, presumably so they could keep Dinardo handy in case the starter didn't make it out of the first inning.

That leaves one opportunity - and at that, you're asking him to get 3 outs, not 1, late in a close game.
   62. covelli chris p Posted: May 16, 2005 at 06:28 PM (#1340593)
He wasn't on the roster for Game 1, presumably so they could keep Dinardo handy in case the starter didn't make it out of the first inning.

i'm pretty sure he was. they added miller to the roster for Game 2.
   63. villageidiom Posted: May 17, 2005 at 12:34 PM (#1342788)
i'm pretty sure he was. they added miller to the roster for Game 2.

I've been trying, and failing, to get confirmation of the timing of the Meredith transaction. I thought they added him before Game 2, but yeah he might have been added before Game 1. OK, let's assume it was Game 1, in which case I take back all the stuff about not passing up better opportunities.
   64. Mikαεl Posted: May 18, 2005 at 12:52 PM (#1345042)
Cla optioned back to Pawtucket.

That really served a purpose.
   65. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: May 18, 2005 at 03:44 PM (#1345363)
The Cla Meredith experiment didn't go quite as well as I'd hoped.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4412 seconds
37 querie(s) executed