PDA

View Full Version : One thing about Leake



malcontent
07-10-2010, 01:11 AM
Independent of pitch count. He hits. He was on base four times tonite.

That should have been factored into the equation when deciding how long to let him go, IMO. Especially on a hot, humid night.

Baker was asleep at the wheel. Again.

couch_manager
07-10-2010, 01:26 AM
I really thought they'd pull him after eight. They were up 6-1 at the end of six and he had only thrown like 59 pitches. I thought they were concerned about the number of innings he goes. :confused:

6-1 is a pretty decent lead and I thought at the time that they should have pulled him after six. I know they played an extra inning game the previous night so they wanted to rest the bullpen. But my logic says you pull the guy on the innings count that has only thrown 59 pitches through six and you end up getting more innings out of him later in the year.

The Voice of IH
07-10-2010, 02:57 AM
I disagree with this, Leake was in massive control the entire game. the last three outs seemed all but finished before the inning even started. to question Dusty about keeping him in is putting your aggravation towards the wrong lion. players lost this one, not coaching.

couch_manager
07-10-2010, 03:31 AM
I disagree with this, Leake was in massive control the entire game. the last three outs seemed all but finished before the inning even started. to question Dusty about keeping him in is putting your aggravation towards the wrong lion. players lost this one, not coaching.

Massive control? Define that. He wasn't exactly missing bats. He's also a rookie pitcher that had never gone more than 7 innings in a game. You're marching into unknown territory any further than that. I can see letting him go eight because his pitch count was so low, but he was up to 90 or so when the 9th started. The 100 mark is where they've pulled him all year.

The players have to play, but the manager has to know HOW to manage! Sure, Baker didn't give up the home run that tied it, but the game should have been wrapped up before it got to that point.

Vottomatic
07-10-2010, 03:32 AM
Massive control? Define that. He wasn't exactly missing bats. He's also a rookie pitcher that had never gone more than 7 innings in a game. You're marching into unknown territory any further than that. I can see letting him go eight because his pitch count was so low, but he was up to 90 or so when the 9th started. The 100 mark is where they've pulled him all year.

The players have to play, but the manager has to know HOW to manage! Sure, Baker didn't give up the home run that tied it, but the game should have been wrapped up before it got to that point.

Good post. :beerme:

The Voice of IH
07-10-2010, 04:57 AM
Massive control? Define that. He wasn't exactly missing bats. He's also a rookie pitcher that had never gone more than 7 innings in a game. You're marching into unknown territory any further than that. I can see letting him go eight because his pitch count was so low, but he was up to 90 or so when the 9th started. The 100 mark is where they've pulled him all year.

The players have to play, but the manager has to know HOW to manage! Sure, Baker didn't give up the home run that tied it, but the game should have been wrapped up before it got to that point.

Massive Control- 8IP 5H 1R 0BB 3K and 4 "123" innings.
The guy was on fire the entire night, and with the extra rest due to the all star break just around the corner, The kid deserved a chance to go for the gold. it back fired, it happens. its called Baseball.

sabometrics
07-10-2010, 05:11 AM
Massive control? Define that. He wasn't exactly missing bats. He's also a rookie pitcher that had never gone more than 7 innings in a game. You're marching into unknown territory any further than that. I can see letting him go eight because his pitch count was so low, but he was up to 90 or so when the 9th started. The 100 mark is where they've pulled him all year.

The players have to play, but the manager has to know HOW to manage! Sure, Baker didn't give up the home run that tied it, but the game should have been wrapped up before it got to that point.

He was hit hard in the first. Took him a few batters to settle in. Gave up a few hits and a sac fly in the 4th. After that he was absolute nails. Cruising all the way into the 9th inning. Massive control just about defines what he did in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th.

And he was at 83 (maybe 84 - not sure) pitches when he went into the 9th. Definitely not 90. And he was averaging like 11 pitches an inning before that.

The Voice of IH
07-10-2010, 05:17 AM
He was hit hard in the first. Took him a few batters to settle in. Gave up a few hits and a sac fly in the 4th. After that he was absolute nails. Cruising all the way into the 9th inning. Massive control just about defines what he did in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th.

And he was at 83 (maybe 84 - not sure) pitches when he went into the 9th. Definitely not 90. And he was averaging like 11 pitches an inning before that.

*cough* *cough* massive control

couch_manager
07-10-2010, 05:49 AM
Massive Control- 8IP 5H 1R 0BB 3K and 4 "123" innings.
The guy was on fire the entire night, and with the extra rest due to the all star break just around the corner, The kid deserved a chance to go for the gold. it back fired, it happens. its called Baseball.

The stats do look great to that point. Did you watch the game? He was not befuddling hitters. He hasn't in more than a month. They were getting solid wood on the ball. The last time he looked like he was in "massive control" was his May 20th start. Since then, he's been lazy with spotting pitches and getting the ball up as well.

But this really isn't about Mike Leake. I'm a Mike Leake fan. This is about Baker once again managing them into a loss...and turning what could of been a positive turnaround for a young pitcher that's had a string of bad starts back into a negative.

BigJohn
07-10-2010, 07:56 AM
No matter what else, Coco did not do his job and blew the save. PERIOD.

Vottomatic
07-10-2010, 08:15 AM
No matter what else, Coco did not do his job and blew the save. PERIOD.

.......and other than his salary, why is still closing?

I blame management and Dusty. Cordero is a risk every time he goes out there. I predicted the implosion last night. It's really not hard to do. You can see it coming a mile away.

And if I can see it coming a mile away, why can't he? :confused:

Girevik
07-10-2010, 08:39 AM
.......and other than his salary, why is still closing?


Other than his salary? No reason whatsoever. Unless maybe the Reds still think they can trade him and don't want to hurt his value by moving him out of the closer role.

bshall2105
07-10-2010, 10:03 AM
The stats do look great to that point. Did you watch the game? He was not befuddling hitters. He hasn't in more than a month. They were getting solid wood on the ball. The last time he looked like he was in "massive control" was his May 20th start. Since then, he's been lazy with spotting pitches and getting the ball up as well.

But this really isn't about Mike Leake. I'm a Mike Leake fan. This is about Baker once again managing them into a loss...and turning what could of been a positive turnaround for a young pitcher that's had a string of bad starts back into a negative.

Mike Leake is not Stephen Strasburg. He will not ever befuddle opposing hitters. He made his defense work behind him, but for the most part wasn't hit very hard. There is absolutely no reason to make a pitching change in the beginning of the inning. If 84 pitches through 8 is not in control I don't know what is.

The Voice of IH
07-10-2010, 11:19 AM
The stats do look great to that point. Did you watch the game? He was not befuddling hitters. He hasn't in more than a month. They were getting solid wood on the ball. The last time he looked like he was in "massive control" was his May 20th start. Since then, he's been lazy with spotting pitches and getting the ball up as well.

But this really isn't about Mike Leake. I'm a Mike Leake fan. This is about Baker once again managing them into a loss...and turning what could of been a positive turnaround for a young pitcher that's had a string of bad starts back into a negative.

that lazy spotting of pitches have not only worked for him this year..but also Cueto. the Phillies where getting contact on the ball....but they where being hit right to fielders/ or high pop ups that fielders where able to reach. Leake was in control, Baker rightfully gave his starter a chance...which did not work. then put in his closer for a save opportunity....did not work. then he had the 'meat' of the order up....which went 1,2,3. then he put in his best reliever to get the job done....it did not work either.

Baker did everything right...players lost.

RedsFanInBama
07-10-2010, 11:26 AM
The guy was at 85 pitches. He had gone 95+ 11 times during the season. He absolutely should have gone back out for the 9th. He was pitching very, very well by anyone's definition.