PDA

View Full Version : Why we lost today



DTCromer
05-26-2008, 01:19 AM
First, let me say that SD is an awful team. We didn't face Chris Young or Jake Peavy and we still split the series.

But seriously, I see many posts blaming Corey Patterson and Dusty and others.

BUT, we pay a closer 14+ mil. a year to win ballgames in the 9th and he doesn't close it out.

Thanks CoCo. It's a good thing we spent some money on you. We should've just kept Weathers in the closer role and saved ourselves 46 million.

HeatherC1212
05-26-2008, 01:38 AM
You're giving a guy grief after only his SECOND blown save of the year?! Wow. Tough crowd this evening. :eek: Cordero has been pretty lights out when he's had opportunities to close and the two blown saves he's had have come after he was used multiple days in a row with a lot of pitches in each one. IMO he should have never been in the game last night (I know he was all ready warmed up but someone else could have closed out the game last night when we added onto the run total at the top of the ninth inning) and then he would have been fresh today which could have had this game over in the 9th inning. I'm not going to give Cordero a hard time for only his second blown save of the entire season but I will give grief to the rest of the team for not getting any runs between the 10th and 18th innings even though guys kept getting on base. This game was just ugly all the way around and I'd rather forget it and move onto the next series. :eek:

Blue
05-26-2008, 02:18 AM
A team shouldn't be forced to overcome the incompetence of its manager on a daily basis. That's what the Reds are trying to do day in and day out. The game probably would have been over after 9 innings if Bruce was playing and Patterson wasn't making automatic first pitch outs at the top of the lineup all day. Freel probably would have been sufficient.

It also probably would have been over before 18 innings had the offense not had to go 9 entire innings without its biggest contributor.

jmac
05-26-2008, 02:53 AM
You're giving a guy grief after only his SECOND blown save of the year?! Wow. Tough crowd this evening. :eek: Cordero has been pretty lights out when he's had opportunities to close and the two blown saves he's had have come after he was used multiple days in a row with a lot of pitches in each one. IMO he should have never been in the game last night (I know he was all ready warmed up but someone else could have closed out the game last night when we added onto the run total at the top of the ninth inning) and then he would have been fresh today which could have had this game over in the 9th inning. I'm not going to give Cordero a hard time for only his second blown save of the entire season but I will give grief to the rest of the team for not getting any runs between the 10th and 18th innings even though guys kept getting on base. This game was just ugly all the way around and I'd rather forget it and move onto the next series. :eek:
You're right concerning Codero.
Two blown saves and each one while pitching 3 days in a row.
He shouldnt have been used in the saturday game. The rest of the BP worries me some.
Weathers/Lincoln seem to get hit on a consistent basis. Burton is consistently inconsistent. Fogg, well Dusty shows no faith in him at all. The BP does need some attention as does that CF position.(Calling Bruce)

jhiller21
05-26-2008, 06:34 AM
Weathers gives me about as much confidence these days as Danny Graves as far as closers go.

Cordero is wild, but he gets the job done.

There was no reason to pitch him on Saturday with that lead, that's for sure.

texasdave
05-26-2008, 09:51 AM
It is simple really. The Reds lost because Matt Belisle got 'unlucky'. Again. It is hard to believe that one pitcher could be so 'unlucky'. I mean check out his DIPS or FIPS or xFIPS or whatever. He is really good pitcher. Honest. And when he regresses up to the mean he will probably rip off about 15 wins in a row. Matt Belisle - Mister Unlucky.

ChatterRed
05-26-2008, 11:52 AM
I don't blame Cordero. He had two straight saves with 2 K's in each 9th inning before last night. He has been lights out when used correctly. 2 blown saves? Give the guy a break.

Hondo
05-26-2008, 11:55 AM
I don't blame Cordero. He had two straight saves with 2 K's in each 9th inning before last night. He has been lights out when used correctly. 2 blown saves? Give the guy a break.

I think some people are saying he is run out there for no reason what so ever... I think the first time he gave up a run as a Red was a game in which he was not needed. They were way out in front...

Dudepick is just incompetent

Orodle
05-26-2008, 12:34 PM
First, let me say that SD is an awful team. We didn't face Chris Young or Jake Peavy and we still split the series.

But seriously, I see many posts blaming Corey Patterson and Dusty and others.

BUT, we pay a closer 14+ mil. a year to win ballgames in the 9th and he doesn't close it out.

Thanks CoCo. It's a good thing we spent some money on you. We should've just kept Weathers in the closer role and saved ourselves 46 million.

CoCo isn't Rivera and should'nt be expected to never blow a save. However, comparing him to Weathers is pretty rediculous. Using the arguement that we pay him 14mill to get the job done is pretty out there. Lets pay you 14mill and see how many saves you blow.

scounts22
05-26-2008, 12:37 PM
Bringing in Fogg was, I feel, the stupidest move of all. Why in God's name would you bring HIM in with only a 2 run lead???

CesarGeronimo
05-26-2008, 03:31 PM
Bringing in Fogg was, I feel, the stupidest move of all. Why in God's name would you bring HIM in with only a 2 run lead???

I agree completely. I expected to see Bray, but out came Josh Fogg. Dusty threw away a win with that move.

Hondo
05-26-2008, 03:34 PM
What was the reasoning even behind brining Fogg in? I really do not get that. There is absolutley no reason for it? None. I mean, what was he thinking?

Hondo
05-26-2008, 03:37 PM
I want to Add something... The moves made yesterday were almost made to Lose the game...

Anyone thought of that?

yab1112
05-26-2008, 03:41 PM
I want to Add something... The moves made yesterday were almost made to Lose the game...

Anyone thought of that?

No.

757690
05-26-2008, 04:07 PM
I want to Add something... The moves made yesterday were almost made to Lose the game...

Anyone thought of that?

While I disagree with the removal of Dunn, and bringing in Fogg to get the save, even those were rational, wrong, but rational.

What it seems no one on this board understands is that a manager makes over 100 decisions a game, and they are all interwoven. There are many reasons why every decision is made, many are the result of circumstance. Anyone who has managed even one game understands how easy it is to be second guessed.

Again, Baker clearly made some mistakes, but those mistakes did not lose the game by themselves. There were so many mistakes made by both teams, that it is ridiculous to say that any one or two of them cost the game.

Dusty was right to bring in Weathers, but Weathers did not perform. Same for Coco. Same for Bray. Same for Votto (error). Baker was right to start Valentin, and he did perform. He was right to bring in Burton and Affeldt, and they performed.

The point is, Votto's error did not lose the game, nor did Coco giving up a HR, nor Weathers dong the same, nor Bray not getting Giles, nor Dunn being taken out, nor Fogg not doing his job....
It was a combination of a whole mess of mistakes, made by nearly everyone.

Hondo
05-26-2008, 04:16 PM
While I disagree with the removal of Dunn, and bringing in Fogg to get the save, even those were rational, wrong, but rational.

What it seems no one on this board understands is that a manager makes over 100 decisions a game, and they are all interwoven. There are many reasons why every decision is made, many are the result of circumstance. Anyone who has managed even one game understands how easy it is to be second guessed.

Again, Baker clearly made some mistakes, but those mistakes did not lose the game by themselves. There were so many mistakes made by both teams, that it is ridiculous to say that any one or two of them cost the game.

Dusty was right to bring in Weathers, but Weathers did not perform. Same for Coco. Same for Bray. Same for Votto (error). Baker was right to start Valentin, and he did perform. He was right to bring in Burton and Affeldt, and they performed.

The point is, Votto's error did not lose the game, nor did Coco giving up a HR, nor Weathers dong the same, nor Bray not getting Giles, nor Dunn being taken out, nor Fogg not doing his job....
It was a combination of a whole mess of mistakes, made by nearly everyone.

While I understand your overall point, some of Dustys moves were totally illogical.

Also... Valentin starting? I understand his stats were good against the pitcher... But he could have Caught the game, and Votto (Coming off a great game) should have been starting at 1st...

Using Fogg to close the game out was Illogical the most....

Taking Dunn out at that point is understandable but Fogg Closing? come on

CySeymour
05-27-2008, 11:33 AM
I agree completely. I expected to see Bray, but out came Josh Fogg. Dusty threw away a win with that move.

I second this. Plus, then it forced Dusty to use a two starters. Yeah, I don't like Fogg, either, but in extra innings, when you bring your long man in, you bring him in to pitch a long time, not just 2/3 of an inning. Yeah, they would have lost with him in, but they lost anyway and could have really screwed up Harang and Voltron. Dusty, you mean after all these years of managing, you still have no idea how to use your bullpen?

BLEEDS
05-27-2008, 12:58 PM
Fogg's only purpose should be to come in for mop-up duty in blow-outs - that WE'RE being blown out in. No lead is safe with that guy.

I don't know what happened to him, he had a good couple seasons in Colorado as a starter. I don't think he's any good out of the pen either, so he's regulated to scrub time.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

levydl
05-27-2008, 01:14 PM
Vis-a-vis not scoring any runs fromthe 10th on despite having runners on several times: how about we stop with the sac bunt once someone gets on first? It's statistically insane.

BLEEDS
05-27-2008, 01:31 PM
Vis-a-vis not scoring any runs fromthe 10th on despite having runners on several times: how about we stop with the sac bunt once someone gets on first? It's statistically insane.

Well that's simple - because that's the ONLY statistics Duhsty pays attention to!!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Trackman20
05-27-2008, 03:56 PM
I blame David Weathers...............:)

757690
05-27-2008, 05:01 PM
Vis-a-vis not scoring any runs fromthe 10th on despite having runners on several times: how about we stop with the sac bunt once someone gets on first? It's statistically insane.

While in the abstract, statistically you have a slightly better chance of scoring a run from first with no outs than you do from second with one out, the difference is so small I would not call it "insane". The difference is .436 to .421, basically 1.5 times every hundred times tried.

And that is in the abstract. Factor in actual batters, pitchers, matchups, and there are times where it makes sense to bunt. Not saying all the times the Reds did were smart, but theoretically speaking, bunting with a runner on first and no outs can be advantageous.

levydl
05-27-2008, 06:04 PM
While in the abstract, statistically you have a slightly better chance of scoring a run from first with no outs than you do from second with one out, the difference is so small I would not call it "insane". The difference is .436 to .421, basically 1.5 times every hundred times tried.

And that is in the abstract. Factor in actual batters, pitchers, matchups, and there are times where it makes sense to bunt. Not saying all the times the Reds did were smart, but theoretically speaking, bunting with a runner on first and no outs can be advantageous.

I believe the difference is more than that. Last year, for instance, a runner on 1st and 0 outs = .925 expected runs (according to Baseball Prospectus), whereas a runner on 2nd with 1 out = .728 expected runs (I'm not sure how that translates to chance of scoring runs, so you could be correct about that). That also assumes that the sacrifice works, which clearly there is not a 100% chance of, so it would seem your chances of scoring runs when deciding to sac bunt with a guy on 1st and 0 outs goes down even further. You also have a significantly greater chance to score runs when you don't have any outs. By giving up an out, you signficantly decrease your chances of scoring more than one run, and you give away your best chance to score runs period.

You are correct. There are a few times when sacrificing the guy over is the right call, depending upon who's up, who's on, who's on deck, the score, the inning, etc. Dusty doesn't seem to take any of this into account. He sacrificed in the first inning last week at least once!