Why we lost today

[Hondo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I blame David Weathers...............

[757690]

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]

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!