PDA

View Full Version : Nix in for Bruce



brm7675
07-21-2010, 09:55 AM
Did Bruce get hurt last night? I saw where Dusty subbed Nix in for Bruce and the only logical baseball sense for that move would be Bruce got hurt, any reports on how Bruce got hurt?

jmbraun773
07-21-2010, 10:01 AM
Bruce made the second out in the last inning, Cairo made the final out. Couldn't take out Cairo because there was no one to take over third. By making the double switch that puts the pitcher in Bruce's spot in the lineup, the eighth batter up. Nix then takes over the 9th spot in the batting order.

The Voice of IH
07-21-2010, 10:15 AM
very nice explanation, if there is anything lacking in my well rounded baseball mind, it is the substitution jargon.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 10:24 AM
So we removed Bruce and replaced him instead of with Heisey but with Nix a worse hitting, worse fielding player on the ole double switch. Gee Chris Heisey must be feeling good about himself today...

GIDP
07-21-2010, 10:25 AM
So we removed Bruce and replaced him instead of with Heisey but with Nix a worse hitting, worse fielding player on the ole double switch. Gee Chris Heisey must be feeling good about himself today...

Because Nix is a lefty and Dusty is of the opinion that lefties always hit righties better than righties hit righties.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 10:30 AM
Because Nix is a lefty and Dusty is of the opinion that lefties always hit righties better than righties hit righties.

Could it also be Dusty values vets over rookies even though it's clear the rookie is performaning better?

GIDP
07-21-2010, 10:36 AM
Could it also be Dusty values vets over rookies even though it's clear the rookie is performaning better?

They have basically played the same amount of time since Heisey was called up.

RedsFanInBama
07-21-2010, 10:42 AM
Nix did hit a double in his one at-bat.

The Voice of IH
07-21-2010, 10:45 AM
Shhhhhhh, just because it worked does not mean it was a good decision Redsfaninbama

TheBigLebowski
07-21-2010, 10:46 AM
Pedestrian Bakermetrics. It worked, as it always does.

RedsFanInBama
07-21-2010, 10:49 AM
I would rather see Heisey in the game than Nix every single time, but I have to give credit when on the rare occasion a strategical in-game move Dusty makes results in something positive.

GIDP
07-21-2010, 10:54 AM
I'm not sure Nix hits RH pitching better than Heisey does.
Nix has a career .725 OPS against right handers for his career and .689 this season

Heisey's career OPS against them in the minors was .799, with it being .874 in 09.

RedsFanInBama
07-21-2010, 11:02 AM
I'm not sure Nix hits RH pitching better than Heisey does.


It doesn't matter, dude. Nix is left-handed, Heisey is right-handed.

GIDP
07-21-2010, 11:06 AM
It doesn't matter, dude. Nix is left-handed, Heisey is right-handed.

Sadly thats probably very much the case.

TheBigLebowski
07-21-2010, 11:33 AM
Sadly thats probably very much the case.

::cough::Bakermetrics::cough::

Hey Meat
07-21-2010, 11:39 AM
Hey, Nix got a hit didn't he?

GIDP
07-21-2010, 11:52 AM
Hey, Nix got a hit didn't he?

Yes he now has 10 more hits than Mike Leake in 2.5 times more plate apperances. He also 2 more walks, and 4 more runs. Hes having a good season.

texasdave
07-21-2010, 12:07 PM
It was a confusing move at best. But if there is one thing that comes anywhere close to Dusty's love for VC (Veteran Creaminess) it is his love for DS ( Double Switches). Let's take a closer look.

Here was the exact situation:
Relevant fact # 1 - Miguel Cairo batting in the 6th spot had made the last out for the Reds in the bottom of the 7th. They would be sending up the 7-8-9 spots in the 8th.
Relevant fact #2 - Nick Masset had retired the first batter in the top of the 8th. The Gnats had their 8-9 spots coming up with one out and nobody on.
Relevant fact # 3 - The Reds were already playing a man short on the roster (which they seem to do an awful lot of).

What Dusty did. He brings on Sir Arthur Rhodes. And I don't think anyone can quibble with that decision. And this is where it gets curious. He also makes a double switch at the same time. Nix slides into RF batting 9th, Rhodes slips into the 5-spot and Bruce takes a seat next to Dusty. SAY WHAT?

The only way this move makes any sense is if Rhodes comes back out to start the 9th. Yes, that is the only way.

Why do i say this (besides the obvious fact that it is true)? This move only accomplished two things. First, it weakened the Reds defense from that point on. Nix may be a capable outfielder, but he is no Jay Bruce. There is nobody, IMO, that the Reds can put in RF that plays it any better than Bruce. Second, it pre-commits a PH in the bottom of the 8th, when there really is no need to,in a game the Reds are playing short-handed. And, since Nix can't be viewed as a defensive replacement because he wasn't improving the defense, that is basically what he was, a pre-committed PH. So in one move Dusty worsened his defense and shortened his bench in a game that the team already started one person short.

Let's play it out. Rhodes retires the pesky Gnats and the game heads into the bottom of the 8th. Since the move was made the Reds are committed sending up 7-8-Nix. The 7 and 8 hitters are retired and Nix is coming up with two outs and nobody on. Odds are long that a run gets scored in that situation. Is that a place where a short-handed team would normally waste a player in a one-run game? No. Rhodes, should have been sent up to hit. The odds of scoring with two outs and nobody on are long and not worth using a player in that situation. Save your shortened bench. If the Reds don't score, which they didn't, the situation is a one-run lead with Cordero going for the save. I would think the odds are greater that Cordero gives up a run to tie things up rather than the Reds scoring from a nobody on, two outs situation. Once again save your shortened bench.

Another consideration is that if Dusty had already had in his mind that Coco was pitching the 9th, he was the 6th pitcher on the night. You probably would want to try to get more than one inning out of him. Additionally, if the Reds moved a runner into scoring position, if I were the Washington manager, I would have walked however batters necessary to bring Cordero up and force Dusty to let Cordero to either hit or be lifted for still another PH, further shortening both the Reds bench and bullpen. One run loses the game so who cares if additional men are put on base. And it increases the chances of a double play. So the Gnats have nothing to lose and everything to gain. This move would have given Washington a further advantage if the game went into extra innings.

Now what happened is Nix doubled. Yay! Cordero closed the deal. Yay! The Reds win. Yay! But no matter how hard and long you shine the light of Bakermetrics on that double switch it was a dumb move.

GIDP
07-21-2010, 12:14 PM
Yea now that I think about it making a double switch really did nothing. Pitcher was due up 3rd in the inning. Basically he took out Bruce to use a PHer that he was going to use anyways, and then moved the pitcher to 5th in the order, effectively moving the pitchers spot closer to batting than if he didn't make the double switch.

That didnt even cross my mind until you pointed that out :laugh:.

Jefferson24
07-21-2010, 12:33 PM
Yea now that I think about it making a double switch really did nothing. Pitcher was due up 3rd in the inning. Basically he took out Bruce to use a PHer that he was going to use anyways, and then moved the pitcher to 5th in the order, effectively moving the pitchers spot closer to batting than if he didn't make the double switch.



The proper play would have been to let Nix PH when the pitchers spot came up, that way you keep you best defense on the field and keep the pitcher's spot in the 9 hole. It's not a complicated game even though Dusty plays it that way. Sometime I think he makes moves like it is a chess game, he should stick to checkers.

Orodle
07-21-2010, 12:41 PM
It was just another example of Dusty being Dusty. Nix could have still hit for the pitchers spot and they could have kept Bruce in RF who is about as good as it comes defensively in RF.

texasdave
07-21-2010, 12:48 PM
It was just another example of Dusty being Dusty. Nix could have still hit for the pitchers spot and they could have kept Bruce in RF who is about as good as it comes defensively in RF.

Exactly. The insertion of Nix into the game at that time was both premature and ill-conceived. But Dusty loves him some double-switching.

Red Rover
07-21-2010, 03:31 PM
What if Rhodes gives up a run and Dusty wanted to use Rhodes for another inning. Without the double switch Rhodes would of either had to hit or be taken out.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 03:34 PM
What if Rhodes gives up a run and Dusty wanted to use Rhodes for another inning. Without the double switch Rhodes would of either had to hit or be taken out.


How many times this season has Rhodes pitched more then 1 inning? What like once or twice tops?

RedsLvr
07-21-2010, 03:36 PM
Yes he now has 10 more hits than Mike Leake in 2.5 times more plate apperances. He also 2 more walks, and 4 more runs. Hes having a good season.

Hey Leake is almost hitting .400. So it's not like Nix is doing that bad in comparison. :p:

GIDP
07-21-2010, 03:40 PM
Hey Leake is almost hitting .400. So it's not like Nix is doing that bad in comparison. :p:

it is when Leake has had 45 or something PA and Nix has had over 110 :) I know you are kidding though.

markymark69
07-21-2010, 03:45 PM
This is just more unecessary nit-picking, IMO. It really had no bearing on the outcome, which was a win and that's all that anyone will remember in two weeks. It could have an had outcome, but it didn't. A pointless thread.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 03:48 PM
This is just more unecessary nit-picking, IMO. It really had no bearing on the outcome, which was a win and that's all that anyone will remember in two weeks. It could have an had outcome, but it didn't. A pointless thread.

not true, it again shows a lack of knowledge by our manager. If you can't see that then that is a problem also. To remove Bruce is bad enough, but to do it with Nix when you have Heisey on the bench is just another example of a manager with no clue.:thumbdown

markymark69
07-21-2010, 03:58 PM
not true, it again shows a lack of knowledge by our manager. If you can't see that then that is a problem also. To remove Bruce is bad enough, but to do it with Nix when you have Heisey on the bench is just another example of a manager with no clue.:thumbdown

What difference does it make? The move did not impact the game and the Reds won. If it had an impact on the game and the Reds had lost, you would have a point, but it didn't, who cares? A win is a win is a win is a win - and that is what counts.

texasdave
07-21-2010, 03:59 PM
What difference does it make? The move did not impact the game and the Reds won. If it had an impact on the game and the Reds had lost, you would have a point, but it didn't, who cares? A win is a win is a win is a win - and that is what counts.

You should try to learn from your mistakes even if your mistakes did not cost you.

markymark69
07-21-2010, 04:03 PM
You should try to learn from your mistakes even if your mistakes did not cost you.

Explain to me how it was a mistake? It was a non-factor.

texasdave
07-21-2010, 04:06 PM
Explain to me how it was a mistake? It was a non-factor.

I already did in detail. But if you believe the Reds won so it wasn't a mistake there is no sense in rehashing the details. You win. Dusty for manager of the year.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 04:06 PM
What difference does it make? The move did not impact the game and the Reds won. If it had an impact on the game and the Reds had lost, you would have a point, but it didn't, who cares? A win is a win is a win is a win - and that is what counts.

If you can't see the importance then you never will. This man (Dusty) has no grasp on talent or in game moves and such. Yes this time it worked, but the chances that it would be successful more times then not are slim to none, and if he did it, then he must think it's the right move. You have to look big picture, which many seem not to want to do.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 04:06 PM
I already did in detail. But if you believe the Reds won so it wasn't a mistake there is no sense in rehashing the details. You win. Dusty for manager of the year.


:thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown

GIDP
07-21-2010, 04:08 PM
Explain to me how it was a mistake? It was a non-factor.

3 things

1) the pitcher was up 3rd in the inning so likely nix was going to PH anyways
2) Bruce was removed from the game and now the pitcher spot was 5th instead of 9th meaning he would have to use yet another PH if the reds got to that point.
3) it only makes sense if he was worried that Rhodes would let a run score and Rhodes or the next pitcher were going to have to go out to start the next inning.

Its not a major mistake but it did seem a little pointless.

texasdave
07-21-2010, 04:08 PM
:thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown

There comes a point where people have to agree to disagree. This is that point.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 04:09 PM
Explain to me how it was a mistake? It was a non-factor.


let me try to relate it to something you might be able to understand. Lets say you are standing along the side of a very busy freeway, and you run across it 'just" missing getting hit by a very large, fast moving semi truck. Would try it again since you made it, or would you attempt to find a safer way to cross next time? Just because you made it this one time, doesn't mean it was a smart move.:thumbup:

markymark69
07-21-2010, 04:13 PM
If you can't see the importance then you never will. This man (Dusty) has no grasp on talent or in game moves and such. Yes this time it worked, but the chances that it would be successful more times then not are slim to none, and if he did it, then he must think it's the right move. You have to look big picture, which many seem not to want to do.

It doesn't matter what Dusty does you aren't going to with it. Just because he did it this time doesn't mean he'll do it the next time. Again, the bottom line the Reds won, the move didn't impact the game - move on it's a new day.

Maker_84
07-21-2010, 04:15 PM
i would take anyone over strikeout Bruce right now

markymark69
07-21-2010, 04:15 PM
I already did in detail. But if you believe the Reds won so it wasn't a mistake there is no sense in rehashing the details. You win. Dusty for manager of the year.

I'm not saying that Dusty should be manager of the year. That's not the point, we're talking one move that had zero impact on the game? Did anyone even hit the ball to Nix? Agree to disagree. Move on - it's a new day.

markymark69
07-21-2010, 04:18 PM
let me try to relate it to something you might be able to understand. Lets say you are standing along the side of a very busy freeway, and you run across it 'just" missing getting hit by a very large, fast moving semi truck. Would try it again since you made it, or would you attempt to find a safer way to cross next time? Just because you made it this one time, doesn't mean it was a smart move.:thumbup:

C'mon really? You're going comparing a move in a baseball game to something that could cause great bodily harm or even death? Very, very sad.

brm7675
07-21-2010, 04:21 PM
I'm not saying that Dusty should be manager of the year. That's not the point, we're talking one move that had zero impact on the game? Did anyone even hit the ball to Nix? Agree to disagree. Move on - it's a new day.

Okay so when Dusty does it again, what will be your view? Managers don't do something just once and not again, they are creature of habit, they have a mentality of how the game should be played. Bad in game management is a major factor why we are chasing the Cards and not being the team chased.

GIDP
07-21-2010, 04:22 PM
I'm not saying that Dusty should be manager of the year. That's not the point, we're talking one move that had zero impact on the game? Did anyone even hit the ball to Nix? Agree to disagree. Move on - it's a new day.

Not that it matters but yes someone did hit a ball to Nix :)

brm7675
07-21-2010, 04:22 PM
C'mon really? You're going comparing a move in a baseball game to something that could cause great bodily harm or even death? Very, very sad.

What, if you made it across without getting hurt, are you saying you wouldn't do it again?

1990REDS
07-21-2010, 04:27 PM
It was a confusing move at best. But if there is one thing that comes anywhere close to Dusty's love for VC (Veteran Creaminess) it is his love for DS ( Double Switches). Let's take a closer look.

Here was the exact situation:
Relevant fact # 1 - Miguel Cairo batting in the 6th spot had made the last out for the Reds in the bottom of the 7th. They would be sending up the 7-8-9 spots in the 8th.
Relevant fact #2 - Nick Masset had retired the first batter in the top of the 8th. The Gnats had their 8-9 spots coming up with one out and nobody on.
Relevant fact # 3 - The Reds were already playing a man short on the roster (which they seem to do an awful lot of).

What Dusty did. He brings on Sir Arthur Rhodes. And I don't think anyone can quibble with that decision. And this is where it gets curious. He also makes a double switch at the same time. Nix slides into RF batting 9th, Rhodes slips into the 5-spot and Bruce takes a seat next to Dusty. SAY WHAT?

The only way this move makes any sense is if Rhodes comes back out to start the 9th. Yes, that is the only way.

Why do i say this (besides the obvious fact that it is true)? This move only accomplished two things. First, it weakened the Reds defense from that point on. Nix may be a capable outfielder, but he is no Jay Bruce. There is nobody, IMO, that the Reds can put in RF that plays it any better than Bruce. Second, it pre-commits a PH in the bottom of the 8th, when there really is no need to,in a game the Reds are playing short-handed. And, since Nix can't be viewed as a defensive replacement because he wasn't improving the defense, that is basically what he was, a pre-committed PH. So in one move Dusty worsened his defense and shortened his bench in a game that the team already started one person short.

Let's play it out. Rhodes retires the pesky Gnats and the game heads into the bottom of the 8th. Since the move was made the Reds are committed sending up 7-8-Nix. The 7 and 8 hitters are retired and Nix is coming up with two outs and nobody on. Odds are long that a run gets scored in that situation. Is that a place where a short-handed team would normally waste a player in a one-run game? No. Rhodes, should have been sent up to hit. The odds of scoring with two outs and nobody on are long and not worth using a player in that situation. Save your shortened bench. If the Reds don't score, which they didn't, the situation is a one-run lead with Cordero going for the save. I would think the odds are greater that Cordero gives up a run to tie things up rather than the Reds scoring from a nobody on, two outs situation. Once again save your shortened bench.

Another consideration is that if Dusty had already had in his mind that Coco was pitching the 9th, he was the 6th pitcher on the night. You probably would want to try to get more than one inning out of him. Additionally, if the Reds moved a runner into scoring position, if I were the Washington manager, I would have walked however batters necessary to bring Cordero up and force Dusty to let Cordero to either hit or be lifted for still another PH, further shortening both the Reds bench and bullpen. One run loses the game so who cares if additional men are put on base. And it increases the chances of a double play. So the Gnats have nothing to lose and everything to gain. This move would have given Washington a further advantage if the game went into extra innings.

Now what happened is Nix doubled. Yay! Cordero closed the deal. Yay! The Reds win. Yay! But no matter how hard and long you shine the light of Bakermetrics on that double switch it was a dumb move.

nice post:thumbup: that didnt even cross my mind during the game. I guess thats my mistake for assuming the manager is making the best decisions for our team. It didnt hurt us at the time but it really makes ya second guess what dusty doin.

markymark69
07-21-2010, 04:31 PM
What, if you made it across without getting hurt, are you saying you wouldn't do it again?

Talk about clueless. How do you get that from what I wrote? There is no comparison. Making a move in a baseball and running across the street and just avoid being killed by a semi. No I would not do that. But making a move in a baseball game won't harm me and when the move has no impact in the game it really won't harm me.

You're comparing something that could alter or end my life to some obscure move in a baseball game? Unbelieveable.

markymark69
07-21-2010, 04:32 PM
Not that it matters but yes someone did hit a ball to Nix :)

Hey thanks, I was fading in and out because of how late is was. Of course, Nix missed the ball and two runs scored and the Reds actually lost the game?

brm7675
07-21-2010, 04:36 PM
Talk about clueless. How do you get that from what I wrote? There is no comparison. Making a move in a baseball and running across the street and just avoid being killed by a semi. No I would not do that. But making a move in a baseball game won't harm me and when the move has no impact in the game it really won't harm me.

You're comparing something that could alter or end my life to some obscure move in a baseball game? Unbelieveable.

They both require decision making at a high level and with stress involved. Which we are seeing Dusty struggles at.