Originally Posted by ervinsm84
Completely different example, but same process is we don't really think hitting with 20 in blackjack is the right decision if we happen to hit an ace?
Very poor analogy.
Dusty's choice was to use Chapman on Sunday for a save (albeit a 3 run save) or not use Chapman "just in case" there was a higher leverage situation on Monday.
Think about it.. in a normal year, a good closer gets about 40 saves.. That's roughly 1 in 4 games. I could make the argument that on any given game, it's more likely there's not a save situation for the Reds than there is.
Also, Broxton was available. The media was ASSUMING he wasn't. Looks like Dusty preferred to rest Brox and Chapman, but was willing to use them if he had to.
No offense, but this happens a lot on this board. Someone on the Reds is second guessed for a decision. It all works out fine, and people still cling to a flawed blackjack example to justify themselves. I can understand when you made your post, it was based on incorrect information (the false report that Brox was unavailable).. however, that doesn't change the fact that Dusty did make the right decision.
Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2012 AND 2013!
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!