PDA

View Full Version : Narron acknowledges mistakes.



Wheelhouse
05-12-2006, 09:26 AM
From todays Enquirer:

But thankfully, Griffey was around for the Reds. Narron had considered pinch-running for him when he doubled in the eighth.

"That might have been the only right decision I made all night," Narron said.

*****

I like Narron. I think he's a solid manager that is clear to the players and puts them in good positions to perform. By the way, there is no way egomaniac and Stanford grad Bob Boone could have ever made a comment like that.

dabvu2498
05-12-2006, 09:30 AM
I imagine he regretted the double switch that took Dunn out of the lineup.

Overall, I agree with your point. Narron seems to be able to approach most things from an analytical and objective standpoint. I don't think he "plays favorites" or "goes with his gut" the way alot of managers do and then stand by every decision (good or bad) like it's the 10 Commandments. Narron seems more flexible.

smith288
05-12-2006, 09:40 AM
I think the biggest mistake is not putting a pink slip on Rick Whites locker.

flyer85
05-12-2006, 10:01 AM
"That might have been the only right decision I made all night," Narron said.Well hopefully he learns from it and doesn't screw up that royally again.

Hap
05-12-2006, 10:25 AM
Pinch running and double switching are over-rated and over-used.

Larry Bowa always says that a manager should only double switch if he intends for the reliever to pitch more than one inning. Otherwise, it is an advantage to have the pitcher's spot come up in the late innings if you have solid pinch hitters, because the opposing manager never knows who exactly is coming up.

I say that pinch running should only be used in stealing situations. Why waste a player when he might just score on a base hit or a home run anyway?

oneupper
05-12-2006, 10:25 AM
From todays Enquirer:

But thankfully, Griffey was around for the Reds. Narron had considered pinch-running for him when he doubled in the eighth.

"That might have been the only right decision I made all night," Narron said.

*****

I like Narron. I think he's a solid manager that is clear to the players and puts them in good positions to perform. By the way, there is no way egomaniac and Stanford grad Bob Boone could have ever made a comment like that.


Now I like him a lot more, too.

Narron>Miley>Boone and probably better than a lot of guys out there who make big bucks (Baker comes to mind).

Doesn't mean he's good though.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 10:34 AM
It should never have come down to being an issue of removing Dunn from the game to begin with.

The field should have been messy with Day-gore way earlier. No other high-powered offense in MLB would have been so severely handcuffed by that junkballer.

That's the lesson I hope the team took away from last night's game--never overlook any pitcher. I honestly believe that the Nats wanted that game much more than the Reds, played a better game, but the Reds simply out-talented them. I'd rather be like the Cards: out-talent AND outplay the opponent.

CySeymour
05-12-2006, 10:36 AM
Larry Bowa always says that a manager should only double switch if he intends for the reliever to pitch more than one inning.

Larry Bowa?

dabvu2498
05-12-2006, 10:43 AM
Thankfully, they're going to be able to do that every once in a while this year. In years past, they haven't been. They would have lost that game 7-1 in 9.


It should never have come down to being an issue of removing Dunn from the game to begin with.

The field should have been messy with Day-gore way earlier. No other high-powered offense in MLB would have been so severely handcuffed by that junkballer.

That's the lesson I hope the team took away from last night's game--never overlook any pitcher. I honestly believe that the Nats wanted that game much more than the Reds, played a better game, but the Reds simply out-talented them. I'd rather be like the Cards: out-talent AND outplay the opponent.

flyer85
05-12-2006, 10:55 AM
Larry Bowa?from a strategy standpoint I never had any issues with Bowa as a manager, his problem seemed to be that nobody could stand to be around him.

Two managers that I always have thought were outstanding from a strategy standpoint were Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine (I realize he has other issues).

Johnny Footstool
05-12-2006, 11:04 AM
Narron's biggest screw-ups were 1) Keeping Dave Ross in the game and letting him hit in the 9th, and 2) Having Dave Ross sacrifice bunt.

The team is carrying *three* friggin' catchers. Get a decent Pinch Hitter up there instead of wasting an out.

traderumor
05-12-2006, 11:06 AM
It should never have come down to being an issue of removing Dunn from the game to begin with.

The field should have been messy with Day-gore way earlier. No other high-powered offense in MLB would have been so severely handcuffed by that junkballer.

That's the lesson I hope the team took away from last night's game--never overlook any pitcher. I honestly believe that the Nats wanted that game much more than the Reds, played a better game, but the Reds simply out-talented them. I'd rather be like the Cards: out-talent AND outplay the opponent.You make it sound so easy. Any pitcher on any given night can have a good game, and I think Day pitched well. It is ok to give the opponent credit and not always blame inability on the Reds to perform.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:10 AM
You make it sound so easy. Any pitcher on any given night can have a good game, and I think Day pitched well. It is ok to give the opponent credit and not always blame inability on the Reds to perform.

Zach Day shouldn't be in the majors.

westofyou
05-12-2006, 11:11 AM
It is ok to give the opponent credit and not always blame inability on the Reds to perform.Gawd I hope so, the game is harder than it looks, a good team loses 1/3rd of it's games, you can see something different in the game every day, yet so many people act like they are surprised when that occurs.

westofyou
05-12-2006, 11:12 AM
Zach Day shouldn't be in the majors.
And yet there he was... BTW the Nats changed his arm angle when they got him back.

On the above note Tom Browning should not have been in MLB.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:16 AM
Gawd I hope so, the game is harder than it looks, a good team loses 1/3rd of it's games, you can see something different in the game every day, yet so many people act like they are surprised when that occurs.

No way do the Cards get shut down by someone like Day. Not a chance in hell.

I don't mind getting shut down by Armas. He's always had stuff if not results. I don't even mind getting shut down by V. Santos or C. Vargas. Heck, even Phelps (at least we can use the excuse of never having seen the guy before). But Day?

The game is hard--and it should be harder for total losers like Day.

RedsNeck
05-12-2006, 11:16 AM
I really like the way Narron has managed this year but not using Shack, Ken-Kevin-Kent Mercker, or even Hammond to face Nick Johnson in the tenth was a less than stellar move. I also would of loved to seen the squeeze with Phillips and Freel in the ninth but that takes he would have to have some "gianormous fortitudes" to put that play on.

All in all though I'm glad it worked out the way it did and that I stayed for the walk-off shot. My son sitting in "vacated" seats behind the first base dugout even got in the MLB.com hightlight reel. A night we won't soon forget.

traderumor
05-12-2006, 11:24 AM
Zach Day shouldn't be in the majors.Why, oh why do fans, even sophisticated fans such as yourself, make claims that their team overlooked another team, or in this case an individual, as an explanation for inability to perform? We see bad pitchers in our own organization go out and have good games here and there, but I cannot recall charges that the other team overlooked our guy as the explanation for the good game. It is attributed to a good effort, or overachieving, or suddenty we start talking about a guy turning the corner...

I'm sure you can recall many a time when some mediocre junkballer who was getting lit up by the league came in and shut down the Big Red Machine. I'm sure it was simply lollygagging overconfidence that caused it.

NDRed
05-12-2006, 11:24 AM
No way do the Cards get shut down by someone like Day. Not a chance in hell.

I don't mind getting shut down by Armas. He's always had stuff if not results. I don't even mind getting shut down by V. Santos or C. Vargas. Heck, even Phelps (at least we can use the excuse of never having seen the guy before). But Day?

The game is hard--and it should be harder for total losers like Day.

Day has only pitched twice vs. St Louis, this was his 1st outing, as a rookie in 2003.


07/31 MON STL W 3-2 1.50 era 6.0 inn. 5 hits 1 er

westofyou
05-12-2006, 11:25 AM
No way do the Cards get shut down by someone like Day. Not a chance in hell.

And Jimmy Haynes will never win 15 games either.

traderumor
05-12-2006, 11:26 AM
No way do the Cards get shut down by someone like Day. Not a chance in hell.

I don't mind getting shut down by Armas. He's always had stuff if not results. I don't even mind getting shut down by V. Santos or C. Vargas. Heck, even Phelps (at least we can use the excuse of never having seen the guy before). But Day?

The game is hard--and it should be harder for total losers like Day.That's just not rational.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:26 AM
Day has only pitched twice vs. St Louis, this was his 1st outing, as a rookie in 2003.


07/31 MON STL W 3-2 1.50 era 6.0 inn. 5 hits 1 er

Look at his numbers since 2004. They are some of the worst I've ever seen.

traderumor
05-12-2006, 11:28 AM
Look at his numbers since 2004. They are some of the worst I've ever seen.Did you lose a bet on this game or something?

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:33 AM
That's just not rational.

It's perfectly rational. Losing to pitchers with upside is okay; losing to AAA pitchers is poor.

Someone last night said they were more frustrated by the Claussen blowup and Bush shut down in Milwaukee. That makes no sense to me: Bush was absolutely dealing; he threw a great, great game. I don't mind losses like that. Why get mad about a guy with great stuff making great pitches?

Losing to one of the most pathetic pitchers in baseball, with this offense, is enough to make me sick. It's total underachieving.

I'm not making a blanket statement about the offense, as it has incredible potential and ability. And it's going to ultimately be the pitching that undoes the team (3 out of the 5 pitchers in this rotation shouldn't be in the majors). But the offense sucked last night. Plain and simple.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:34 AM
Did you lose a bet on this game or something?

I'm not getting nasty with you. Just argue the points.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:35 AM
And Jimmy Haynes will never win 15 games either.

Yeah, I was ultimately so wrong about Jimmy Haynes' ability.

Cooper
05-12-2006, 11:36 AM
They are currently under achieving based on the number of runners that get and the situation....but i think that kind of thing tends to even out.

westofyou
05-12-2006, 11:37 AM
Yeah, I was ultimately so wrong about Jimmy Haynes' ability.
No you were wrong about making blanket statements.

You might think Zach Day has no place in the game, I say blanket statements have no place in the game.

PuffyPig
05-12-2006, 11:37 AM
No way do the Cards get shut down by someone like Day. Not a chance in hell.



THe Crads, like all teams, get handcuffed by the lesser pitchers and rookies (especially LH junkballers) all the time.

Just ask MattyMo.

Day was actually hit hard by the Reds all night, but they had many, many line drives hit right at fielders. It happens in baseball all the time.

RedsManRick
05-12-2006, 11:39 AM
Pinch running and double switching are over-rated and over-used.

Larry Bowa always says that a manager should only double switch if he intends for the reliever to pitch more than one inning. Otherwise, it is an advantage to have the pitcher's spot come up in the late innings if you have solid pinch hitters, because the opposing manager never knows who exactly is coming up.

I say that pinch running should only be used in stealing situations. Why waste a player when he might just score on a base hit or a home run anyway?

I agree. I think managers frequently overvalue the marginal gain in the specific situation, with the assumption that it will play out the way they hope, and overlook the marginal loss of not having that player in a future situation.

That said, I was surprised Narron sac'd Phillips over with Ross in the 8th. Phillips has good speed and is already in scoring position. A hit will drive him in. If you aren't going to squeeze (in a perfect squeeze situation), the only advantage you gain by having Phillips on 3rd is for the sac fly or passed ball. Freel is on deck and has virtually no power, so I'm not sure if we want to give up an out just to be in the position to take advantage of an unlikely deep fly. This wasn't avoiding a double play, or the pitcher bunting because he's a horrible batter. It was giving up an out and actually decreasing the chances of scoring that run. Even if Ross strikes out, a single by Freel or Lopez still scores Phillips.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:40 AM
THe Crads, like all teams, get handcuffed by the lesser pitchers and rookies (especially LH junkballers) all the time.

.

No they don't. Not the team of the last handful of years. They might have one or two games all season long where they get shut down by lesser pitchers. Far from all the time.

traderumor
05-12-2006, 11:41 AM
I'm not getting nasty with you. Just argue the points.
Nasty? I just know you understand the game better and am trying to understand the emotional plea in your points. I don't care how good our offense is, a scrub can toss a good game against them just as easy as an ace and it is not likely due to lack of effort or mental preparation. You know that, and if it happened with every scrub pitcher that the Reds faced, then your point might have some merit. But it doesn't and the hyperbole just isn't convincing me that your points are rational.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:45 AM
No you were wrong about making blanket statements.

You might think Zach Day has no place in the game, I say blanket statements have no place in the game.

You know, Day will get rocked in his next start, no one will say anything about it, and life will go on. But I'll remember games like this because they're the kind of games that separate winning teams from losing teams. It's great the Reds won, no one is happier than I am that Griffey saved everyone's bacon. But this team's cracks are showing and they simply can't afford to play "get-away game" style baseball with the offense if they want to maintain the interest of fans and get the ship of this team righted.

What I don't understand is how people get their panties in a bunch about this offense facing the Jeff Francises, Roy Oswalts, and Andy Pettittes of the world in one week's time, but give the offense a pass for last night's performance (and I'm not including you among them woy, just generally).

westofyou
05-12-2006, 11:47 AM
You know, Day will get rocked in his next start, no one will say anything about it, and life will go on. But I'll remember games like this because they're the kind of games that separate winning teams from losing teams.
So now you can tell the future?

Frankly I'll live with the win and leave the rest to those who can't enjoy it.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 11:50 AM
So now you can tell the future?



No. I can look at a career stat line.

traderumor
05-12-2006, 11:56 AM
You know, Day will get rocked in his next start, no one will say anything about it, and life will go on. But I'll remember games like this because they're the kind of games that separate winning teams from losing teams. It's great the Reds won, no one is happier than I am that Griffey saved everyone's bacon. But this team's cracks are showing and they simply can't afford to play "get-away game" style baseball with the offense if they want to maintain the interest of fans and get the ship of this team righted.

What I don't understand is how people get their panties in a bunch about this offense facing the Jeff Francises, Roy Oswalts, and Andy Pettittes of the world in one week's time, but give the offense a pass for last night's performance (and I'm not including you among them woy, just generally).

Since I didn't get an exception, it is because I do not have the ability to assess lack of effort or mental preparation. Perhaps you think that the lack of runs is evidence of that, but I'm not sure that is much of a leg to stand on. They were not swinging at bad balls, there were some at 'em balls as someone already pointed out, and Day was not walking folks like he normally does to get himself in trouble. In fact, Day was not nibbling as his custom, but was aggressive and putting the ball in good spots in the zone. But more than anything, that is just the nature of this game.

You should certainly know by now, FCB, that looking at a pitching matchup and trying to predict "we should kill this guy" is setting oneself up to be disappointed in a daily game such as baseball. It just isn't that easy to create such expectations. That is small sample size 101 thinking, and I know you know better than that.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 12:01 PM
Since I didn't get an exception, it is because I do not have the ability to assess lack of effort or mental preparation. Perhaps you think that the lack of runs is evidence of that, but I'm not sure that is much of a leg to stand on. They were not swinging at bad balls, there were some at 'em balls as someone already pointed out, and Day was not walking folks like he normally does to get himself in trouble. In fact, Day was not nibbling as his custom, but was aggressive and putting the ball in good spots in the zone. But more than anything, that is just the nature of this game.

You should certainly know by now, FCB, that looking at a pitching matchup and trying to predict "we should kill this guy" is setting oneself up to be disappointed in a daily game such as baseball. It just isn't that easy to create such expectations. That is small sample size 101 thinking, and I know you know better than that.

There are some guys that are so bad that there is no excuse. 98% of major leaguers should be pitching in the major leagues because on any given day they can retire major league hitters. 2% have no business here. Zach Day is in that 2%. This is the first game all season long where I've said, "what on earth happened with this offense?"

I have tremendous hope for this offense. I think it's marvelous. Let's just hope they learned a thing or two from last night's debacle.

Dunner44
05-12-2006, 12:15 PM
Here's Day's first start recap after he made his mechanical change. He was playing against, you guessed it, the cards.


It was the bullpen that spoiled an encouraging outing from starter Zach Day. Day and pitching coach Randy St. Claire came up with a plan on Friday to help limit any more shoulder problems for the right-hander. They are making sure that Day's arm angle is a little lower in order to take pressure off the shoulder. Day had muscle spasms in the back of the shoulder, but he didn't feel any pain on Sunday.

It worked at least during the first four innings, as he gave up one run and threw just 47 pitches. In the past, he might have been in the 80-pitch range by then.

"We still have some work to do, "Day said. "We are still trying to get my arm slot down to take some stress off my shoulder. I found myself fighting to do that, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I made some good quality pitches and, for the most part, stayed ahead of the hitters."

Day gave up three runs in the fifth inning, but those runs could have been avoided.

With two out and runners on first and second, David Eckstein hit a groundball to shortstop Royce Clayton, who backhanded the ball, but couldn't throw out Eckstein in time.

"It was one of those bang-bang plays, but that's the way it comes and goes," Clayton said. "I couldn't tell myself to shade even more."

The play loaded the bases, and that's when the game started to turn against the Nationals.

Day allowed an RBI single to John Rodriguez to tie the score at 2, while Jim Edmonds gave St. Louis the lead with a two-run single.

Day gave up four runs on six hits in five innings, walking three batters and striking out one. He threw 65 pitches, 37 for strikes.

"I was trying to get away with just giving up one and keeping the game close. I felt like I made some good pitches in that inning," Day said. "Rodriguez was actually off the plate and he did a good job of going [to left field]. Sometimes, you have to tip your cap to the guy."

Robinson was encouraged by what he saw from Day.

"He had a long layoff because of the shoulder problems, but he threw the ball pretty good," Robinson said. "It was encouraging, very encouraging."

That was the first time he;d used his new mechanics in a game, and he looked pretty good against them Cards until the wheels fell off.

His next start was against the Pirates, so take it with a grain of salt, but he went 7 innings, 4 hits, no runs, with 5 Ks.


Day, who returned to the Nationals last week after the Rockies designated him for assignment, was a totally different pitcher than the one they saw last year. He pitched seven shutout innings and helped the Nationals blank the Pirates, 6-0, in front of 21,059 fans.

The victory snapped the Nationals' modest two-game losing streak, improved their record to 10-20 and came a day after manager Frank Robinson scolded his team for embarrassing themselves against the young and inexperienced Marlins.

Day gave up four hits, struck out five batters and walked one. The Pirates had runners in scoring position only twice in the game against the right-hander.

Day's effort on Friday is further proof that the mechanical change he made in his delivery is working. Day and pitching coach Randy St. Claire came up with a plan last week to help limit any more shoulder problems for the right-hander. They are making sure that Day's arm angle is a little lower in order to take pressure off the shoulder. Day had muscle spasms in the back of the shoulder, but he didn't feel any pain on Friday.

"[The mechanics] were solid. It's good to know what you are doing when you are out there. We just keep it simple and that has been the approach," Day said. "[The mechanics] allow me not to wear down and pitch late in the game."

Catcher Matt LeCroy said Day relied heavily on his sinker, his No. 1 pitch, and occasionally threw sliders to keep the hitters off balance. It allowed Day to get nine groundball outs.

"He just kept the ball down and the umpire was giving him that pitch [the sinker]. When you can do that and get groundball outs and let the defense play, [it means success]," LeCroy said.

Small sample size as well, but it looks like the mechanics change is really helping him, and he is attacking the strike zone more.

savafan
05-12-2006, 12:23 PM
No. I can look at a career stat line.

Then you should be able to see that, with the exception of last year when he split time between Washington and Colorado, Day has posted a better than league average ERA in every season he's been in the majors.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-12-2006, 12:26 PM
No way do the Cards get shut down by someone like Day. Not a chance in hell.

Jimmy Haynes or Jimmy Anderson would have shut down the lineup the Cards trotted out against us on May 2nd.

Our offense has scored and will score mucho runs this year. There will be nights, however, that they won't. Especially early season rainy cold nights. There will even be hot summer days and nights where the wind is carrying balls out and they'll still get shut down by the likes of a Zach Day. Sometimes, the BABIP thing is not on your side. It happens.

What's important is that they win a few of those stinkers and they did just that last night.

westofyou
05-12-2006, 12:31 PM
No. I can look at a career stat line.
Major league baseball is made up of performing above expectations, along expectations and below expectations. The Reds have been performing above expectations all year long, why the surprise?

flyer85
05-12-2006, 12:35 PM
from BP


Pleasantly Surprised

by Joe Sheehan

John Gibbons might be onto something.

Gibbons called on closer B.J. Ryan with one out and the tying run at the plate in the eighth inning of last night’s game against the A’s. Ryan got the final five outs for his eighth save, striking out three in the ninth inning.

I took particular note of the Ryan’s appearance, because it came on the heels of my piece yesterday that again called for a more aggressive approach in using top relief pitchers. As a matter of fact, Gibbons stands out from the pack as far as his willingness to do that. Yesterday’s five-out save was Ryan’s third of at least that length this season, on the heels of another Sunday and a six-out save on April 28 against the Yankees. To give you an idea of how unusual this is, just two other established closers have saves of that length this season (Brad Lidge and Chris Reitsma, each with one).

This may not be a fluke. Keith Woolner checked it out and found that last year, Gibbons’ used his closer, Miguel Batista, for more five-out or longer saves than any other manager in the game. While many notable closers had at least one appearance of this length, Batista had four, all from June 22 onward. So in the last 125 games or so, Gibbons has used his closer to get at least a five-out save seven times. That seems like a small number, but it’s more often than any other two managers have done in that timeframe.

Some of this is circumstance: the Jays have a lot of relievers on the roster, but very few who have been pitching well enough to be trusted in high-leverage situations. Last year’s bullpen was even worse. But innovation comes at the intersection of circumstance and original thought. Gibbons went to Batista in non-traditional closing situations last year because Batista was his best reliever. It helped that Batista was coming off being a starter for a few years, which made it more likely that he could handle the higher workload. Batista finished the season with 31 saves in 74 2/3 innings, the latter figure fourth among pitchers with at least 30 saves.

Using Ryan aggressively may make even more sense than using Batista that way. He’s a strikeout pitcher--good for getting out of jams--who is effective against right-handed hitters. Batista didn’t have a comparable strikeout rate and was generally susceptible to left-handed batters. Ryan, of course, is in the first season of a five-year contract that pays him nearly $10 million a year. That’s not Gibbons’ concern, but I’ve argued that if a team is going to pay a reliever that much money, you need to make sure he’s getting the opportunity to have a high impact on your season. Gibbons’ use of Ryan has done that.

Will Gibbons continue using Ryan this way? I think, like all managers, he’d prefer to have a stable bullpen. The inability of Jays’ starters outside of Roy Halladay to work deep into games has prevented this, over and above the ineffectiveness of everyone but Ryan and Justin Speier. As long as he’s willing to maximize his use of Ryan--who is fourth among closers with 16 2/3 innings pitched--he can work around these problems and give the Jays a leg up on the competition late in games.

Gibbons’ use of Ryan stands out because it’s both different and likely to have a positive effect on his team’s chances of success. I was talking about managers with someone yesterday, and it occurred to me how few good ones there are today. The position of manager seems to have become primarily about hewing as close to the line of established practices as possible, while making sure you don’t make anyone mad. It’s a job that people strive to keep, rather than to do. (I think I owe Aaron Sorkin a dollar for that.)

There are good managers out there. Mike Scioscia’s use of his bullpen, willingness to give significant roles to unproven players, and implementation of an offensive approach built on contact and baserunning have been significant parts of the Angels’ run of success. I can’t say I agree with all the things Tony La Russa has done, but there’s very clearly a mind at work there. You can see where Terry Francona’s been willing to innovate (Kevin Youkilis leadoff, for example), or acknowledge Bobby Cox’s ability to break in young players.

But beyond a few examples, what characteristics do the vast majority of managers have? There’s virtually no innovation coming from the dugout any longer. What does Buddy Bell do that makes him qualified for his job? How does Eric Wedge or Mike Hargrove or Charlie Manuel or Bruce Bochy make the team better, add value to the organization in a way that shows up in the win column?

I don’t mean to single out these guys. My argument isn’t that they’re bad managers, it’s that the standards for what makes a good or bad one aren’t clear beyond, “winning good, losing bad.” That’s not the worst evaluation tactic, but the confounding effects of varying talent levels--I’m looking at you, Mr. Baker--can muddle the issue.

So when a John Gibbons does something that his peers don’t do, it stands out, because so few managers take that kind of risk. Hopefully Gibbons will continue to stretch B.J. Ryan out, not just because it’s best for the Jays, but because his willingness to do something different should be rewarded and emulated.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 01:24 PM
Here's Day's first start recap after he made his mechanical change. He was playing against, you guessed it, the cards.
.

So in other words, the Cards saw through Day's little wrinkle-gimmick and started to kick his skull in by the 5th inning, something the Reds were incapable of doing last night through 7. The Reds results were Pirate-ish I daresay. Not the kind of company you want to keep on a lasting basis.

Like I said, one game. Let's learn from it. And like the Cards make the necessary in-game adjustments to mash the slop-throwers. Figure out what the guy's doing and dispatch him.

flyer85
05-12-2006, 01:36 PM
So in other words, the Cards saw through Day's little wrinkle-gimmick and started to kick his skull in by the 5th inning, something the Reds were incapable of doing last night through 7. The Reds results were Pirate-ish I daresay. Not the kind of company you want to keep on a lasting basis.

Like I said, one game. Let's learn from it. And like the Cards make the necessary in-game adjustments to mash the slop-throwers. Figure out what the guy's doing and dispatch him.some nights a pitcher just pitches well however bad he may be overall. The Reds did make a lot of hard outs last night the only things that Day did well were limiting walks and HRs. Other than that it was good fortune and defense that kept the Reds off the board.

Any season has a lot of peaks and valleys and some nights you get shut down by a bad pitcher having a good night and others its nothing more than bad luck.

For the 2nd time in three games the home plate ump had a very big and wide strike zone and that always has a profound impact on the game.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 01:38 PM
some nights a pitcher just pitches well however bad he may be overall. The Reds did make a lot of hard outs last night the only things that Day did well were limiting walks and HRs. Other than that it was good fortune and defense that kept the Reds off the board.

Any season has a lot of peaks and valleys and some nights you get shut down by a bad pitcher having a good night and others its nothing more than bad luck.

For the 2nd time in three games the home plate ump had a very big and wide strike zone and that always has a profound impact on the game.

True. But winners limit those fluke events to the tiniest sliver of games possible, say, no more than two a season.

Losers look back after the game and say, "What happened?"

Winners watch the game unfold and say, "Okay, what is happening?"

I guess I just get a bit frustrated when people point to the most isolated pressure-filled elements like dropped balls or coaching moves like player substitutions as the "cause" of problems. When I see that an offense like the Reds do absolute nothing against Zach Day for 21 outs, I say, "Yep, that's the problem."

flyer85
05-12-2006, 01:41 PM
True. But winners limit those fluke events to the tiniest sliver of games possible, say, no more than two a season.

Losers look back after the game and say, "What happened?"

Winners watch the game unfold and say, "Okay, what is happening?"The Reds won. I honestly am not worried about the offense.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 01:45 PM
I honestly am not worried about the offense.

Nor am I. But I'm not going to use a Reds victory as a reasoning to let them off the hook when they clearly sucked.

westofyou
05-12-2006, 01:49 PM
Nor am I. But I'm not going to use a Reds victory as a reasoning to let them off the hook when they clearly sucked.
Of course that would mean giving credit to the opponent, that can't ever happen here unless it's the Cardinals.

flyer85
05-12-2006, 01:49 PM
when they clearly sucked.it happens over the course of 162 games. :beerme:

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 01:50 PM
Of course that would mean giving credit to the opponent, that can't ever happen here unless it's the Cardinals.

That's a total misrepresentation of my position.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 01:51 PM
it happens over the course of 162 games. :beerme:

And so do dropped baseballs and double-switches we don't like.

flyer85
05-12-2006, 01:53 PM
And so do dropped baseballs and double-switches we don't like.let's hope it doesn't become a habit. :help:

KoryMac5
05-12-2006, 01:57 PM
Nor am I. But I'm not going to use a Reds victory as a reasoning to let them off the hook when they clearly sucked.


Good teams find a way to win even when they clearly aren't playing their best ball. These are the games you have to win and they did, let's move on.

westofyou
05-12-2006, 02:12 PM
That's a total misrepresentation of my position.
Really? Then blow some sunshine up the skirts of your team every now and then.

flyer85
05-12-2006, 02:14 PM
Really? Then blow some sunshine up the skirts of your team every now and then.If he did that he wouldn't be FCB. :D

TeamBoone
05-12-2006, 06:17 PM
But winners limit those fluke events to the tiniest sliver of games possible, say, no more than two a season.

Losers look back after the game and say, "What happened?"

Winners watch the game unfold and say, "Okay, what is happening?"

I guess I just get a bit frustrated when people point to the most isolated pressure-filled elements like dropped balls or coaching moves like player substitutions as the "cause" of problems. When I see that an offense like the Reds do absolute nothing against Zach Day for 21 outs, I say, "Yep, that's the problem."

So the Reds' offense stinks and they are "losers" because they're incapable of performing every single game and Zach Day personally is also "a loser" (which is a crappy thing to say).

We get it.

reds44
05-12-2006, 06:19 PM
No way do the Cards get shut down by someone like Day. Not a chance in hell.

I will take getting shut down, but getting a W any day of the week.

KronoRed
05-12-2006, 06:20 PM
I think we all need to hug

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 07:09 PM
So the Reds' offense stinks and they are "losers" because they're incapable of performing every single game and Zach Day personally is also "a loser" (which is a crappy thing to say).

We get it.


Oh please. He makes nearly a million dollars to be a bottom 5% performer in MLB. I think he can handle being called a "loser" by someone he'll never meet in his life.

The Reds' offense stunk last night. That's all. I'll drop it.

PuffyPig
05-12-2006, 07:35 PM
Like I said, one game. Let's learn from it. And like the Cards make the necessary in-game adjustments to mash the slop-throwers. Figure out what the guy's doing and dispatch him.

So if the Cards are so much better at figuring out the pitchers than we are, how come we are leading the league in runs scored? Just like last year?

You may think we get hadcuffed by the slop throwers all the time, but our league leading numbers suggest otherwise.

We hit Day hard all night, only to see line drive after line drive hit right at people.

It was one of those nights.

WHich our offense eventually won for us.

Falls City Beer
05-12-2006, 07:41 PM
You may think we get hadcuffed by the slop throwers all the time,.

I didn't say that. I said the Cardinals virtually never get handcuffed by slopthrowers. And by extension that the Reds fail more often than the Cards in that; not that it happens all the time. More often than not the Reds beat up on the slop throwers.

westofyou
05-12-2006, 07:46 PM
I didn't say that. I said the Cardinals virtually never get handcuffed by slopthrowers.Perhaps it has something to do with the makeup of the team? The Reds have been slop victims for quite some time, they also are a power based team with a heavty collection of guys who don't put the ball in play all the time. Where as there is always a Mike Gallego or So Taguchi type on a LaRussa team, or Carney Lansford, or a Mabry.

Maybe their kryponite is another color?

TeamBoone
05-12-2006, 07:52 PM
Personally, last night I think the Reds did exactly what good teams do... they battled after a blown save and came back to win when their backs were against the wall.

Hap
05-12-2006, 09:03 PM
I sure as heck didn't complain when they had to come from behind to win Game 2 of the 1990 World Series in extra innings by a final score of 5-4.