Since I haven't mentioned it in a while, Bruce is not a CF and he's not a #1 hitter...

Since I haven't mentioned it in a while, Bruce is not a CF and he's not a #1 hitter...

 

Two very good points.

So what do you call the following:

 

closer comes in and blows the lead (blown save). Top of next inning his team goes up. Bottom of that same inning, he allows the team to once again tie it up.

 

He doesn't get a loss since it was only tied. Is it simply ignored? Is it a blown save to the team but not the pitcher?

 

I'm going to have to find some rulings on this.

 

Yes, it is simply ignored. The second inning was not a save situation for the team since they did not insert another relief pitcher. The pitcher in the game was no longer eligible for a save, therefore the team is not eligible for a save and you can't blow a save in a non-save situation. However, if the team inserts a different reliever that gives up the second lead then he would also get a blown save and the team would have 2 for the game.

I don't really have a big problem batting Janish second. Who else are you going to put there..Votto? Then you have three left handers in a row. Phillips? Then who do you bat fourth?

It shows Dusty is a by-the-book manager and his book is not a best seller. Why not hit three left handers in a row. Votto bats .296 against lefties. Dunn bats slighty lower against left handers. Bruce is hitting .304 vs. lefrt handers. It's not like they are Corey Patterson up there.

Yes, it is simply ignored. The second inning was not a save situation for the team since they did not insert another relief pitcher. The pitcher in the game was no longer eligible for a save, therefore the team is not eligible for a save and you can't blow a save in a non-save situation. However, if the team inserts a different reliever that gives up the second lead then he would also get a blown save and the team would have 2 for the game.

Basically you can't get a save as the pitcher of record...

It shows Dusty is a by-the-book manager and his book is not a best seller. Why not hit three left handers in a row. Votto bats .296 against lefties. Dunn bats slighty lower against left handers. Bruce is hitting .304 vs. lefrt handers. It's not like they are Corey Patterson up there.

I'll give you today. With Wakefield on the hill you could go lefty heavy at any point knowing that and that Paps is a righty...

It shows Dusty is a by-the-book manager and his book is not a best seller. Why not hit three left handers in a row. Votto bats .296 against lefties. Dunn bats slighty lower against left handers. Bruce is hitting .304 vs. lefrt handers. It's not like they are Corey Patterson up there.

 

As mentioned before, who bats 3 left handers in a row. Don't say the Braves because that isn't the same thing. I hope Bruce and Votto continue to hit left handers well because that would set up well for a potential 2-3, 3-4 combo for years to come. But Bruce has only been up for what 2 weeks. Thats a pretty small sample size. Votto's is a small sample size as well. You don't want the oposing manager to have the upper hand by being able to bring in a lefty specialist to face 3 left handers in a row. Simple as that. I don't understand why you dont get that. Even your beloved manager of the Red Sox doesnt do that.

All of the rookies just look awful today against the knuckleball. Bruce, Votto and Janish didn't stand a chance with Wakefield in the game.

And it's not just Dusty. I just don't understand why managers are so stuck on rightie/leftie matchups, especially when they have a track record of success such as right handers getting lefties out or lefties hitting lefties. Wasn't that what caused Baker to blow through the bullpen in San Diego when he had to pitch two starters in extra innings?

The reasoning behind that is this: The runner on base does not matter (this is usually only done in the 9th inning). Even if their run scores the team at bat still has to score more runs. If the team in the field holds the runner on to prevent the steal it gives the team at bat more "holes" in the infield. Since the runner on base isn't the tying run there is no point in allowing more runners to reach base by allowing a batter to hit the ball into a hole vactated by a player covering 2nd or a hole created by the firstbaseman holding him on. You try to keep the tying run off base.

 

 

Here's the problem with your logic (and not just yours but many others).

 

Unless the game rules get changed in the 9th and its no longer based on getting 3 outs, why not try to get the runner stealing? Ex: 2 outs today and Carbera (a 36 year old by the way)for the Reds gets on first with the Reds down 2 runs. He steals second. What's the harm in trying to throw him out? By your own response there is no downside. If you throw him out, game over. If the throw sails to the outfield, his run doesn't matter,right? The Sox TWICE today made no attempt to end the game when Cabrera stole 2nd AND 3rd.

 

You mention not wanting to open up a hole. If I've got a good catcher behind the plate, the chances of my catcher throwing out the runner are MUCH higher than this batter on this pitch hitting it in the one spot I don't have a fielder. Instead, you prolong the inning and take a chance that a bopper takes you deep. Classic old-school cliche logic by baseball folks.

And it's not just Dusty. I just don't understand why managers are so stuck on rightie/leftie matchups, especially when they have a track record of success such as right handers getting lefties out or lefties hitting lefties. Wasn't that what caused Baker to blow through the bullpen in San Diego when he had to pitch two starters in extra innings?

 

You don't exactly plan for a game to go 18 innings. The Reds needed that win, and Dusty was trying to get it. People are stuck on using lefties against left handed hitters becuase history says they are more likely to get them out. While that may or may not be the case today, more often than not people are going to go by the numbers when it comes to matchups.

But Bruce has only been up for what 2 weeks. Thats a pretty small sample size. Votto's is a small sample size as well.

.304 is .304 whether it's 20 at bats or 200 at bats. According to that logic, Bruce should sit every road game because he hits just .274 away from home in a small sample size.

And it's not just Dusty. I just don't understand why managers are so stuck on rightie/leftie matchups, especially when they have a track record of success such as right handers getting lefties out or lefties hitting lefties. Wasn't that what caused Baker to blow through the bullpen in San Diego when he had to pitch two starters in extra innings?

Using a long reliever over a short guy in a save situation created the SD mess...

Here's the problem with your logic (and not just yours but many others).

 

Unless the game rules get changed in the 9th and its no longer based on getting 3 outs, why not try to get the runner stealing? Ex: 2 outs today and Carbera (a 36 year old by the way)for the Reds gets on first with the Reds down 2 runs. He steals second. What's the harm in trying to throw him out? By your own response there is no downside. If you throw him out, game over. If the throw sails to the outfield, his run doesn't matter,right? The Sox TWICE today made no attempt to end the game when Cabrera stole 2nd AND 3rd.

 

You mention not wanting to open up a hole. If I've got a good catcher behind the plate, the chances of my catcher throwing out the runner are MUCH higher than this batter on this pitch hitting it in the one spot I don't have a fielder. Instead, you prolong the inning and take a chance that a bopper takes you deep. Classic old-school cliche logic by baseball folks.

 

If they are holding him on, then he doesn't even consider stealing. Therefore it open's a big hole on the right side for no reason.

You don't exactly plan for a game to go 18 innings. The Reds needed that win, and Dusty was trying to get it. People are stuck on using lefties against left handed hitters becuase history says they are more likely to get them out. While that may or may not be the case today, more often than not people are going to go by the numbers when it comes to matchups.

Why was a road game in San Diego in May significant?