PDA

View Full Version : Baker on Leake Hitting for himself...



nemesis
06-30-2010, 01:47 PM
[QUOTE]I was trying to save Scottie because I knew they were going to use (J.C.) Romero at some point in time. I know how Charlie (Manuel’s) been using his bullpen. I know he’s been stretching his starters to not go to his bullpen.

“Plus, that fact (Leake) can hit. Why would I waste Scott Rolen, my top pinch-hitter, in the sixth inning when I still have three innings to go?

“If Ramon had walked or just hit a single, then it’s a different situation. The fact that first base was open he wasn’t going to throw Scottie anything. I wouldn’t throw Scottie anything.[QUOTE]


http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/06/30/baker-explains-why-he-
let-leake-hit/


Man... I swear he is dead set against letting his players walk. Freaking basecloggers. What would have been wrong with letting another player reach base? Isn't that the whole reason you send players to the plate? So would he have been upset if Rolen had walked on his own merit?

Rolen walking would have, turned the line up over, got the top of the order additional AB's and brought Phillips to bat with 2 on. Phillips singled to start the 7th BTW. Phillips is an RBI man according to Dusty, why wouldn't he want him AB with 2 on?

I swear Dusty out thinks himself. Bakermetrics at it's finest. I know he has done an overall decent job this year, but not to use Nix at least is just silly.

Brutus
06-30-2010, 01:49 PM
Leake was 11-for-28 so far this season at the time he was allowed to hit. That's enough confidence for me not to use a pinch hitter.

redsfan30
06-30-2010, 01:50 PM
I thought it was absolutely the right move.

bucksfan2
06-30-2010, 02:14 PM
I was trying to save Scottie because I knew they were going to use (J.C.) Romero at some point in time. I know how Charlie (Manuel’s) been using his bullpen. I know he’s been stretching his starters to not go to his bullpen.

“Plus, that fact (Leake) can hit. Why would I waste Scott Rolen, my top pinch-hitter, in the sixth inning when I still have three innings to go?

“If Ramon had walked or just hit a single, then it’s a different situation. The fact that first base was open he wasn’t going to throw Scottie anything. I wouldn’t throw Scottie anything.


http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/06/30/baker-explains-why-he-
let-leake-hit/


Man... I swear he is dead set against letting his players walk. Freaking basecloggers. What would have been wrong with letting another player reach base? Isn't that the whole reason you send players to the plate? So would he have been upset if Rolen had walked on his own merit?

Rolen walking would have, turned the line up over, got the top of the order additional AB's and brought Phillips to bat with 2 on. Phillips singled to start the 7th BTW. Phillips is an RBI man according to Dusty, why wouldn't he want him AB with 2 on?

I swear Dusty out thinks himself. Bakermetrics at it's finest. I know he has done an overall decent job this year, but not to use Nix at least is just silly.

Huh???? It makes perfect sense. You don't want to use your best PH in a low leverage situation.

I have no issue with him allowing Leake to hit. Leake has proven himself to be a pretty decent hitter. Some people just disagree with everything that Dusty does.

nemesis
06-30-2010, 02:26 PM
I don't disagree with everything Dusty does. I think he dies a "decent" job most the time. There is no such thing as a low leverage situation. Any runs you can get at any point in the game is a high leverage situation. Especially when you are losing. You need base runners. I don't care that Leake is hitting .379, he is still a pitcher. Leake hasn't been used as a pinch hitter all year, why would you leave him in in a situation? You have a bench for a reason.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, he manages for the what if vs the what's now. So Leake got an extra AB and Rolen didn't even get one in a tight game. Does that strike you as right?

redsfan30
06-30-2010, 02:42 PM
I have said it before and I'll say it again, he manages for the what if vs the what's now. So Leake got an extra AB and Rolen didn't even get one in a tight game. Does that strike you as right?

So you think it would have been a smart move to use your biggest bullet off the bench in a situation where he would not have been pitched to? In the sixth inning to boot.

Had he allowed Rolen to go to the plate in that situation, I think that would have been bad managing.

I've got more confidence in Mike Leake getting a base knock than I do Paul Janish, Laynce Nix, Corky Miller or anyone else on the bench right now.

RedsManRick
06-30-2010, 02:54 PM
So you think it would have been a smart move to use your biggest bullet off the bench in a situation where he would not have been pitched to? In the sixth inning to boot.

Had he allowed Rolen to go to the plate in that situation, I think that would have been bad managing.

I've got more confidence in Mike Leake getting a base knock than I do Paul Janish, Laynce Nix, Corky Miller or anyone else on the bench right now.

If Rolen isn't pitched to, it brings Phillips to the plate with two runners on base. I'd say that's a very positive outcome for the situation.

Dusty's line of reasoning, as is typical, comes from a myopic perspective in which he pursues a single, specific outcome, rather than the best set of possible outcomes.

Did Rolen end up getting to hit against JC Romero with runners on base?

TheNext44
06-30-2010, 04:42 PM
If Rolen isn't pitched to, it brings Phillips to the plate with two runners on base. I'd say that's a very positive outcome for the situation.

Dusty's line of reasoning, as is typical, comes from a myopic perspective in which he pursues a single, specific outcome, rather than the best set of possible outcomes.

Did Rolen end up getting to hit against JC Romero with runners on base?

Philiips with runners on first and second is a double play waiting to happen, or at least a force at three bases.

Besides, it's all about leverage. A higher leverage situation to use Rolen did not present itself later in the game but that doesn't mean that this one in the sixth was high enough to warrant wasting Rolen. Odds were high that a higher leverage situation would have presented itself over the next 3 innings.

And yes, sending Rolen up to walk in that situation is wasting him. He will get one shot to affect the outcome of this game with his power. Sending him up knowing he will walk is a waste of your best power bullet. The fact that everyone knows that the Phillies would wallk Rolen in that situation says it all. They probably don't walk Nix or Cairo or nearly anyone else in the Reds lineup.

If I have a bat like Rolen on the bench, I absolutely don't waste in a spot where I know he will be walked. It's a waste of my best bullet, and weakens my bench for a higher leverage situation that most likely will occur later in the game.

Ghosts of 1990
06-30-2010, 04:55 PM
Right or wrong, I didn't like the move. And despite what even a Paul Janish is hitting and what Mike Leake is hitting, I think Janish is a better hitter--along with anyone on our bench over any pitcher we employ on our roster.

RedsManRick
06-30-2010, 05:02 PM
Philiips with runners on first and second is a double play waiting to happen, or at least a force at three bases.

There were 2 outs. A double play doesn't matter. Getting a good hitter to the plate with runners on base does.


Besides, it's all about leverage. A higher leverage situation to use Rolen did not present itself later in the game but that doesn't mean that this one in the sixth was high enough to warrant wasting Rolen. Odds were high that a higher leverage situation would have presented itself over the next 3 innings.

And yes, sending Rolen up to walk in that situation is wasting him. He will get one shot to affect the outcome of this game with his power. Sending him up knowing he will walk is a waste of your best power bullet. The fact that everyone knows that the Phillies would wallk Rolen in that situation says it all. They probably don't walk Nix or Cairo or nearly anyone else in the Reds lineup.

I agree, it's about it leverage. How likely was is that the next time a crappy hitter came up that there would be a runner on 2B? Using him is not wasting him; It's using him. The leverage index of that situation was 1.13. The next time the pitcher's spot came up, the leverage index was 0.50. Who else are you going to PH Rolen for?

You say that Rolen is only going to get 1 chance to impact the game with his power, well guess what? He got 0 chances. The walk was not a sure thing and even if it was, there is significant value in getting Phillips to the plate there rather than letting Leake hit.



If I have a bat like Rolen on the bench, I absolutely don't waste in a spot where I know he will be walked. It's a waste of my best bullet, and weakens my bench for a higher leverage situation that most likely will occur later in the game.

I think you greatly overestimate the likelihood that a higher leverage situation will not just occur, but that it will occur when the PH represents such a significant improvement.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CIN/CIN201006290.shtml

You talking about wasting a bullet. Well Nix PH for Heisey in the 8th and then Stubbs PH for Smith in the 9th. You never fired that bullet; you got gunned down with that bullet in the chamber.

You never know if you're going to get a better shot. When you have a good one, you take it and let the chips fall where they may. We were down 3 runs and needed base-runners. If PHing Rolen guaranteed another runner on base and Phillips batting instead of Leake, I'll take that upgrade 8 days a week. And if it means Rolen hitting instead of Leake, I'll take that upgrade too.

Which is worse?
a) Using Rolen there and then not having him later when another opportunity comes up
b) Letting Leake hit for himself and not using Rolen at all

I say b is worse considering you know 100% that you have this opportunity and the better one is not even close to guaranteed. That possible opportunity needs be either MUCH better or very likely -- and it was neither. Besides, Rolen isn't your only bullet. Use Stubbs instead and get more benefit from the defensive upgrade to boot.

TheNext44
06-30-2010, 07:28 PM
There were 2 outs. A double play doesn't matter. Getting a good hitter to the plate with runners on base does.


I agree, it's about it leverage. How likely was is that the next time a crappy hitter came up that there would be a runner on 2B? Using him is not wasting him; It's using him. The leverage index of that situation was 1.13. The next time the pitcher's spot came up, the leverage index was 0.50. Who else are you going to PH Rolen for?

You say that Rolen is only going to get 1 chance to impact the game with his power, well guess what? He got 0 chances. The walk was not a sure thing and even if it was, there is significant value in getting Phillips to the plate there rather than letting Leake hit.



I think you greatly overestimate the likelihood that a higher leverage situation will not just occur, but that it will occur when the PH represents such a significant improvement.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CIN/CIN201006290.shtml

You talking about wasting a bullet. Well Nix PH for Heisey in the 8th and then Stubbs PH for Smith in the 9th. You never fired that bullet; you got gunned down with that bullet in the chamber.

You never know if you're going to get a better shot. When you have a good one, you take it and let the chips fall where they may. We were down 3 runs and needed base-runners. If PHing Rolen guaranteed another runner on base and Phillips batting instead of Leake, I'll take that upgrade 8 days a week. And if it means Rolen hitting instead of Leake, I'll take that upgrade too.

Which is worse?
a) Using Rolen there and then not having him later when another opportunity comes up
b) Letting Leake hit for himself and not using Rolen at all

I say b is worse considering you know 100% that you have this opportunity and the better one is not even close to guaranteed. That possible opportunity needs be either MUCH better or very likely -- and it was neither. Besides, Rolen isn't your only bullet. Use Stubbs instead and get more benefit from the defensive upgrade to boot.

It was the 6th inning! The Reds were just unlucky that the highest leverage situation occurred in the 6th inning. Most of the time, especially being three runs down, there will be higher leverage situations to use Rolen. And Rolen is such an impact bat, that he should have been used, situation permiting, to hit for any hitter other than Votto, Phillips or Bruce.

Not only was there no way to predict that this woud have been the highest leverage position, the odds are high that there would have been another higher lever situation in the next three innings. A situation where Rolen's power could have tied the game or put them in the lead. Now that situation did happen, only Votto was batting, so no need to use Rolen there.

You always say that when Dusty bunts where the odds say he shouldn't and he ends up scoring runs, that we shouldn't reward him for making "hitting on a 17 and getting a 4." Well, he shouldn't be penalized because he made a high percentage move (wait for a higher leverage situation to use Rolen) that didn't pay off.

Dusty played the percentage right there, they just didn't pay off.

BTW, I have a feeling that if he did hit Rolen there, and he walked, that just as many, if different, posters would have been all over him for wasting Rolen's power there.

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 07:31 PM
Its kinda like saving your closer for the 9th inning. Sure the argument is there that a closer should go in earlier if necessary...but thats not the way things work. Wrong decision?...debatable. Is Dusty an idiot for doing it?...absolutely not.

nate
06-30-2010, 07:38 PM
Its kinda like saving your closer for the 9th inning. Sure the argument is there that a closer should go in earlier if necessary...but thats not the way things work. Wrong decision?...debatable. Is Dusty an idiot for doing it?...absolutely not.

Why is the choice "Dusty is an idiot" vs. "Dusty was right" instead of "Dusty could've made a better move and here's my reason for thinking that" vs. "Dusty was right?"

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 07:39 PM
Why is the choice "Dusty is an idiot" vs. "Dusty was right" instead of "Dusty could've made a better move and here's my reason for thinking that" vs. "Dusty was right?"

I hear you. Ask the guy talking about Bakermetrics and who called the move silly.

TheNext44
06-30-2010, 07:53 PM
Its kinda like saving your closer for the 9th inning. Sure the argument is there that a closer should go in earlier if necessary...but thats not the way things work. Wrong decision?...debatable. Is Dusty an idiot for doing it?...absolutely not.

That's a great way of looking at it. :thumbup:

cincrazy
06-30-2010, 10:26 PM
There's no way Dusty can use Rolen in that spot. And with that being said, who was a better option than Leake to bat at that point in time? Stubbs? Corky Miller? Nix? I go with Leake every time.

smith288
06-30-2010, 10:37 PM
Putting Rolen in there simply to walk would be like pointing your .44 with one bullet in the air and shooting hoping to scare away looters rather than point it directly at them.

Leake's a good hitting pitcher. He's better than Janish or Miller and even Nix at the current moment...

RedsManRick
06-30-2010, 10:57 PM
Putting Rolen in there simply to walk would be like pointing your .44 with one bullet in the air and shooting hoping to scare away looters rather than point it directly at them.

Leake's a good hitting pitcher. He's better than Janish or Miller and even Nix at the current moment...

It seems like the opposite to me. You point the .44 at them. If they run away and you don't have to fire it, it still did it's job.

But if you holster it just in case bigger badder looters come along and let them steal your stuff anyways, who cares.

I honestly don't understand how not using Rolen in that situation is somehow better than not using him at all.

kaldaniels
06-30-2010, 11:08 PM
It seems like the opposite to me. You point the .44 at them. If they run away and you don't have to fire it, it still did it's job.

But if you holster it just in case bigger badder looters come along and let them steal your stuff anyways, who cares.

I honestly don't understand how not using Rolen in that situation is somehow better than not using him at all.

The job that was to be done was to score the runners on base. That means the batter at the plate has to execute. If Rolen comes up, they walk him and move on to the next guy. It was better to save Rolen and roll the dice with Leake. Rolen may have been needed later on...why, gulp, just bring him in to clog the bases. :D

So the choice was either

1) Leake or your choice of PH other than Rolen comes to the plate. But Rolen could PH later.

or

2) Rolen comes in, walks, and it is up to BP. But now Rolen is not available later.

Take a moment and think about this. It makes sense. Debatable, sure.

Edit...and in your scenairo you have to account for the fact that once you point the 44 at them, it disappears into thin air.

CaiGuy
07-01-2010, 12:58 AM
Rolen may have been needed later on...

But he WAS need then...and I thought not getting out was a good thing.

TheNext44
07-01-2010, 01:46 AM
Since it"s impossible to see into the future, no one really knows whether Dusty made the best move possible or not. But I think it's clear that we will never reach agreement on this. Some people are convinced that there was a good enough chance that Rolen could have been used laster, in a more meaningful situation, and there are those that are convinced that there was not a good enough chance that Rolen could have been used later, in a more meaningful situation.

We will never know whose right.

However, I love analogies, so I would like to clean up the one presented in this thread.

The real analogy should be that the Reds are thying to steal something (the lead) from the Phillies. Under wraps they have a .44. They have until 9 pm to get it. They can launch an attack every hour. The question is when to best use that .44. If they use the .44 in the 6th hour, it will not help them get "the lead", but will get them closer to it, and continue the attack. But if they wait, there could be a situation where they just need to use the .44 and "the lead" is theirs. However, there is no guarantee that this situation will ever happen. The situation in the 6th hour, may be the best situation to use the .44.

Anyway, that 's how I see the it.

Personally, I might have used Stubbs, and I can see how people could consider what Dusty did was wrong. But I just don't see it being a clear cut move, one way or the other. There is too much we didn't know at that time.

Captain Hook
07-01-2010, 02:16 AM
I'm all for giving Rolen some games off but at some point he's going to have to PH early if the team has a good threat going and are down, then stay in.Maybe that point is still a month away but unless he's nursing a sore back or having some other problem he should come in and finish games like the one last night.Two Rolen ABs could've made a big difference.I'm not saying he should come in every game the Reds are loosing but if he's getting a game off every week what I'm suggesting is going to have to be the case.

Before anyone jumps on me about wanting to run one of our best players in the ground I admit that I know nothing about how Rolen is feeling this year.He looks like he's feeling pretty good but that's obviously not an expert opinion.If he needs these days to recover then I'd change my opinion but if he just needs time as a precautionary measure then I stand by my opinion.

mth123
07-01-2010, 05:01 AM
This is probably off topic, but what I find most interesting in this whole debate is that there is a thread filled with poeple who say Stubbs does enough offensively to be the starting CF, but many of those same people believe that he's not a better choice to hit for a pitcher in the 6th inning of a game that the pitcher is being removed from anyway.

So he's good enough to be the starting CF but not good enough to PH for a pitcher who is done for the day? Even more incredible is that the Manager seemingly agrees based on the decision he actually made.

I don't get that at all.