|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 24, 2021 14:39:48 GMT -5
Agree, Reed. And signing Bauer is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of front office personnel who THINK they understand how the game works on the field.
They have no clue about chemistry, personnel management, what makes people mesh and what doesn't.
Likely they ONLY see the numbers and no further.
I agree!
They got what their arrogance deserved.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 24, 2021 14:45:53 GMT -5
The playoffs are simply a different beast. The Dodgers' pitching would have been even more taxed if it were the regular season and the staff didn't get as much rest. The Dodgers are likely the best team in baseball, but they have been badly hurt by the loss of Muncy, Chokeshaw and Bauer. Even with all the money the Dodgers spent, they didn't have enough depth to survive the loss of pitching in particular. If all five Dodgers starters had been available, it's likely that Urias -- merely baseball's only 21-game winner -- would have pitched in relief. Instead, their rotation got overtaxed with relief appearances and short rest. As Reed asks, was it smart to use Scherzer? As it turned out, it wasn't. Could or even should that have been foreseen? No way for us to know. But Scherzer is 37 years old, and this could impact his future seasons with the Dodgers if they re-sign him. It might impact his free agency. He's overcome a dead arm before -- but he wasn't 37 years old either. I've never considered Dave Roberts a great manager, but I don't really have enough information to know. I don't follow the Dodgers very closely. The Dodgers are a very smart organization though, so he's probably a good manager, or he likely wouldn't be there. I agree, Rog, I don't consider him a particularly a good manager either.
He's...okay.
But honestly, when he admitted, I don't think he was joking, that he was ordered by the front office to use an opener in our game 5, if he doesn't walk, I will have lost a ton of respect for him.
I've said this before, I'll say it again:
1-Front offices should suggest, not dictate. When they think they are smarter than people who played the game, that's the time to walk out the door.
No stats, front office geek who NEVER played at the ML level should EVER think that just because he can crunch numbers he knows more about the game than the on field manager.
We saw that in the Movie Major League.
That was fantasy but the principal holds true; they have no clue what they are doing when it comes to in game/line up management.
2-If I were Roberts, I would walk. And I'd bet the farm I'd have a number of job offers within a week.
When a manager rolls over and takes it up the wally-wally like that, he's unfit to run the team from the dugout because he ISN'T running the team.
Let them get away with it once and they think they can always move their fingers, pull the strings attached and make you dance like the puppet you are.
The Giants do that too though bit I get the impression that Kapler has input and what he says carries weight. The difference with Roberts is that I think their FO considers him an underling and he does what they says.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 24, 2021 15:00:32 GMT -5
Agree, Reed. And signing Bauer is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of front office personnel who THINK they understand how the game works on the field.
They have no clue about chemistry, personnel management, what makes people mesh and what doesn't.
Likely they ONLY see the numbers and no further.
I agree!
They got what their arrogance deserved. The upcoming WS should be interesting. Oldest of old school manager against another old school guy who is starting to use sabermetrics. I haven't paid attention to the Astros but I thought they were at the forefront of sabermetrics when they last went to the WS. Baker has a history of personnel management so how much will he incorporate the new stuff?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 24, 2021 15:17:38 GMT -5
I disagree with you, Boly, when you say that the Dodgers have no clue about chemistry, personnel management and what makes people mesh and what doesn't. If they have no clue, how have they been the most successful team in the majors the past several years?
You are either saying that a team can be hugely successful WITHOUT a clue about chemistry, personnel management and what makes people mesh and what doesn't, or you are underestimating how much they know. I believe it is the latter.
And, yeah, their ability to spend has helped them a lot too. But the Giants spent a lot of money in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and were still lousy.
I don't believe we'll see the Giants outspend the Dodgers, but I do believe the Giants have the better organization with the exception of major league players, where the Dodgers still hold the edge. But the Giants' front office has caught up, and I don't believe the Giants have ever had a better combination of field manager and coaches. Not to mention they now have a good deal of minor league talent.
I think we should be elated about how far the Giants have come the past three years -- especially when some didn't believe in Farhan to begin with.
Remember back in the first half of 2016 when some here thought the Giants had their best team in SF history? Clearly that was a large over-evaluation, as the next three and a half seasons demonstrated. But has any GM type done as much to improve the Giants' organization in three years as Farhan has? He improved the team at both the major and minor league levels, he kept them strong in field management when Bruce Bochy retired, and he built one of the most innovative coaching staffs in sports.
When Farhan was hired, some liked the combination of how well respected he was in the A's and Dodgers' organizations for whom he had worked combined with an intellect that had him at one time pegged as potentially one of the world's top economists. Others looked at other factors which were far less important to success in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 24, 2021 15:21:22 GMT -5
IMO to say the Dodgers see only numbers and no further shows as little insight as the Dodgers are accused of with the statement. I'm excited though that I believe the Giants have surpassed them as an organization, which is good, since the Dodgers will likely be able to outspend anyone, and they also have a better organization than almost anyone. That's a formidable combination.
Considering that three years ago the Dodgers were pretty much at the top, and the Giants were pretty close to the bottom, we've come a long way, baby!
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 24, 2021 15:24:47 GMT -5
How do we know that the Dodgers are arrogant? Perhaps they are. I just don't know enough about them to know if they are or not. I pay attention to the prospects they are developing, and it's hard to ignore the talent they acquire through trades and free agency, but aside from that, I pay them little mind.
Anyone here know enough about them to know if they are truly arrogant or not? If they are arrogant, perhaps that will prove an Achilles heel that could work to the Giants' advantage.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 24, 2021 18:07:27 GMT -5
How do we know that the Dodgers are arrogant? Perhaps they are. I just don't know enough about them to know if they are or not. I pay attention to the prospects they are developing, and it's hard to ignore the talent they acquire through trades and free agency, but aside from that, I pay them little mind. Anyone here know enough about them to know if they are truly arrogant or not? If they are arrogant, perhaps that will prove an Achilles heel that could work to the Giants' advantage. In the playoffs, they make a lot of unconventional moves. This has been the case ever since 2014 when Mad Bum had his special relief appearance. After that, it seems like teams would do it for the sake of doing it, not necessarily if the pitcher is built for it. I get that teams want to have their best on the mound for key situations but I don't believe you do that in a game 2. As I mentioned before, Urias was handled carefully and all of a sudden *bam* 185 IP and jerked around from starter to reliever. Ok if it works but at that point, they still had to win 8 more games. That's arrogant strategy. Also, the signing of Bauer was arrogant and unnecessary. Fans are bandwagon types that expect championships and entitled to wins. This extends to Lakers, USC, UCLA, too. When I was in school, the LA people I lived with were cocky and arrogant like that.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 24, 2021 19:29:57 GMT -5
Agree, Reed. And signing Bauer is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of front office personnel who THINK they understand how the game works on the field.
They have no clue about chemistry, personnel management, what makes people mesh and what doesn't.
Likely they ONLY see the numbers and no further.
I agree!
They got what their arrogance deserved. Bauer, Bradley, Manny, Puig, for starters the show why Dodgers have no clue about team chemistry. There was a book that came out about the Dodgers in 2015 that said that the guy that was not a part of team chemistry was Clayton K. He was a guy that is shy and kept to himself, did not really engage with teammates, especially on game days. Dodgers would assume that the days he pitches were a win and perhaps too much so. The team would lose focus on days he pitched. As such, a guy many expect would be a team leader is just another guy. Even though Kershw has been one of the premier pitchers of the last ten years, I'm beginning to see why he often fails in big situations . The team might not necessarily rally around him all the time and he is unable to pitch well in high leverage relief appearances and in the playoffs, the highest level of competition. The organizational arrogance comes out when the team tries to do something that is unconventional, looks clever because they follow the numbers. If it works, they look like geniuses. If it doesn't work, well it wasn't supposed to work anyway. I respect that Kershw has been one of the best pitchers of our generation but where the Dodgers may have missed the boat is treating his work like sabermetric data. Maybe they should not have attempted to use him so much in relief appearances in playoffs. Another consideration they should have subtly help develop his social skills and have him duct tape his uniform. At any rate, now that he is 33 he is past his prime, it is too late for Kershw. There's no way of knowing, of course, but I get the feeling that the Dodgers' arrogance in spending money to solve problems and treating their players like plug and play may have kept them winning more champioships than one.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 25, 2021 9:50:36 GMT -5
Rodger, you and I have argued about chemistry for years, years, and years. We are never going to agree.
From 1980 through May of 2019, I live behind the blue curtain
I observed firsthand the arrogance of the Dodger fans, and the arrogance of management.
I agree with Reed, that Dodger management sees Dave Roberts as an underlay, not as an equal.
I just like Gabe kapler when the Giants first hired him as you know, but I have grown to realize he has changed, and because of that change he has become an outstanding manager in my mind.
I still prefer Rodger Craig, over all the managers we have ever had, but Gabe kapler is a darned good!
Where I'm going with that is this; giant management views Gabe kapler and his input as an equal, not as an underling as Reed appropriately put it.
Many of us oh, and that would include Duane Kuiper in my Kruk, are big on team chemistry. You are not, and that's fine.
I'm not going to try to change your mind I will only say that you don't understand team chemistry since it can't be measured in numbers, and if you've never been a part of a team with Team chemistry, you can't possibly understand. Let's leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 25, 2021 14:36:15 GMT -5
Some possible good points about a potential mishandling of Urias by the Dodgers. His 130 inning increase in 2021 was very large. Perhaps given the shortness of the 2020 season, teams should have been more careful about innings in 2021. That might have been particularly true with Urias, who had never thrown more than 80 major league innings. I don't think using him after an opener against the Giants affected that much though.
I think Dodgers' health problems with Kershaw and Scherzer shows that the signing of Bauer probably wasn't unnecessary, and I don't think signing a really good 31-year-old pitcher to a relatively short-term contract was arrogant. The point about the Dodgers not doing their due diligence may or may not have been correct. If teams knew about Bauer's personal issued, I doubt there would have been too much interest. Teams likely didn't know about the issues or at least how volatile they might become.
It's tough to feel sorry for the Dodgers for signing him though.
Good points about the Dodgers signing players who don't appear to have been good for chemistry. The Giants have been quite careful about chemistry, although they not only signed Aubrey Huff but re-signed him, and I doubt he was idea for team chemistry. Sometimes too there are players you hate when they 're on the other team but love when they're on your team.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 25, 2021 15:14:52 GMT -5
Clayton Kershaw has been THE best pitcher of his generation and probably the best regular season pitcher in Dodgers history. I hadn't read anything about his teammates not liking him and thought the opposite was true. When they show him in the dugout, he seems to be getting along well with his teammates.
Excellent point that he may have been overused. While he has been a good September pitcher, he's struggled much more in October than one would expect from such a great pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 25, 2021 15:18:39 GMT -5
Some possible good points about a potential mishandling of Urias by the Dodgers. His 130 inning increase in 2021 was very large. Perhaps given the shortness of the 2020 season, teams should have been more careful about innings in 2021. That might have been particularly true with Urias, who had never thrown more than 80 major league innings. I don't think using him after an opener against the Giants affected that much though. I think Dodgers' health problems with Chokeshaw and Scherzer shows that the signing of Bauer probably wasn't unnecessary, and I don't think signing a really good 31-year-old pitcher to a relatively short-term contract was arrogant. The point about the Dodgers not doing their due diligence may or may not have been correct. If teams knew about Bauer's personal issued, I doubt there would have been too much interest. Teams likely didn't know about the issues or at least how volatile they might become. It's tough to feel sorry for the Dodgers for signing him though. Good points about the Dodgers signing players who don't appear to have been good for chemistry. The Giants have been quite careful about chemistry, although they not only signed Aubrey Huff but re-signed him, and I doubt he was idea for team chemistry. Sometimes too there are players you hate when they 're on the other team but love when they're on your team. At the time the Bauer signing was done, it was in response to some San Diego acquisitions. As such, they did not develop Gonselin. Bauer's social media incidents were well known at the time as well as his episode with the drone but not the rough sex. I think the Dodgers signed a lot of these guys with an eye on their market. I know for sure that they have an action plan targeting certain ethnicities so that might be a part of why they go after certain players and certain players who have demonstrated a particular attitude. As for Aubrey Huff, he was okay in 2010 but a major drag on the team in 2011 and 2012. Maybe that first red flag was when he was playing with his underwear in public.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 25, 2021 15:59:32 GMT -5
Clayton Chokeshaw has been THE best pitcher of his generation and probably the best regular season pitcher in Dodgers history. I hadn't read anything about his teammates not liking him and thought the opposite was true. When they show him in the dugout, he seems to be getting along well with his teammates. Excellent point that he may have been overused. While he has been a good September pitcher, he's struggled much more in October than one would expect from such a great pitcher. The book was "the Best Team Money Can Buy" and the word on Kershw was that he was so locked in on game days that no one would talk with him. Organization would expect an automatic "W" and the rest of the team could relax. One example they gave was Kershw and Kemp being teammates for many years but really didn't know each other at all. Maybe if Kershw had a little more Kirk Reuter in him .... Anyway, no sympathy from me.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 25, 2021 16:05:39 GMT -5
The thing about it, Boly, that for the most part you and I (and the Giants) DO agree about team chemistry. I have never said it doesn't exist. To the contrary, there is evidence that it does exist, and despite their increased emphasis on analytics, the Giants themselves believe in it. Kapler has spoken directly to it.
As for me, I began studying -- along with a friend with whom I worked -- team chemistry all the way back in 1975 when the Warriors won the NBA championship in great part because of their team chemistry. Through a trade, free agency and an expansion draft, the Warriors lost Hall of Famer Nate Thurmond, college Hall of Famer Cazzie Russell, and future Warriors announcer Jim Barnett. Yet they went from not making the playoffs to winning the World Championship. What I've said about team chemistry isn't that it doesn't exist, but that it isn't quantifiable, making it difficult to identify how important it was to a particular situation.
I've posted all this here before, so I am unsure why say I can't possibly understand team chemistry. I certainly don't know all there is to know about it, but I've played on many teams and have studied team chemistry for the better part of five decades. How does someone study something for over 45 years and not know anything about it?
I'm not sure which manager I think was the Giants' best. I long liked Al Dark, but he had racial issues that didn't help him. I loved Roger Craig and might go along with you in choosing him as the best. I thought all along -- as in even before he became successful with the Giants -- that Bruce Bochy was a good manager, although because of his three world championships he may be overrated. He has to show it over a much longer period, but Gabe Kapler has shown the potential to become the best. I thought he did an exceptional job this past season, and I suspect he'll win Manager of the Year honors.
I do need to point out something though from your praise of Craig. You have made two conflicting statements here.
First, you said that it is always wrong to bunt with two strikes unless it is with a pitcher. Then you said that Craig is the best manager the SF Giants have had. Yet Craig -- and Don Zimmer too -- bunted with two strikes. When we discussed Javier Baez's failed two-strike bunt in the 2016 World Series, I mentioned that Craig had had his batters bunt with two strikes, but you apparently already had your mind made up.
One of the most exciting things about Craig's teams is that they were unorthodox -- especially when it came to the suicide squeeze. You also weren't swayed when a year later in the postseason Manny Machado reached base with a two-strike bunt.
Regarding Baez's bunt, I gave a detailed explanation of how once he got two strikes on him that postseason, he almost always struck out and how vulnerable he was to breaking pitches way out of the strike zone. I explained that one of the reasons it might have made sense to try a bunt in that situation was that Baez might have been more likely to lay off the breaking ball outside the zone, which would have given him a walk and brought to the plate someone who with no strikes was far more likely to drive in the runner from third than Baez was with two strikes.
I also noted that the play was discussed by the Cubs before it happened, and Baez agreed with the call. I didn't go so far as to say the bunt was the RIGHT thing to do; merely that without knowing how good a bunter Baez was and considering his abject failure with two strikes that postseason, I couldn't say out of hand that it was WRONG.
But you said that it was wrong because it just wasn't done. Ignoring that it had been done by Craig, Zimmer and at least one other manager.
Perhaps you are saying that it is always wrong but that Craig was the Giants' best manager even though he was wrong when he used the two-strike bunt (fairly successfully IIRC). Otherwise, your two statements are contradictory.
My personal belief is that bunting with two strikes is almost always wrong, but very little in life is always wrong or always right. The argument I made that the two-strike bunt wasn't automatically wrong was picked up by Google, the only time I am aware anything I wrote was picked up. I later read an article by someone far more knowledgeable than I which said much the same as I wrote but backed it up better.
But I don't think I've ever convinced you of anything. I don't always change my mind either, but I changed it on Donald Trump, and I've actually changed my mind quite a few times in my life.
And I've certainly learned a lot of things as I've gone along. One of the most important things in life that I've learned is how much I don't know. But I do study hard on some of the things I think are important, and with all the falsehoods there are out there today, I often work hard to follow news from as many perspectives as I can get it.
I can't remember a time when there have been so many falsehoods out there, but I have found that if one tries to get his news from non-biased sources and sometimes biased sources from both sides for balance, the truth is usually out there. And I have heard that the truth can set us free.
I'm glad we agree that Roger Craig was a good manager. As well as Bruce Bochy and Gabe Kapler. Although he's not particularly popular here, I heard on KNBR this morning that even Dusty Baker might be building a surprise case for the Hall of Fame. Certainly he's had success in a lot of different locations. He's not my favorite manager, but perhaps he's better than we give him credit for here.
Or he may be an example of if we put a decent manager in the right spots, he'll fare well.
As an aside, ironic, isn't it, that Bruce Bochy seems a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame -- despite a career losing record (barely)?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 25, 2021 16:23:01 GMT -5
I find Kirk Rueter to be one of the most intriguing people in baseball. Kirk was an average-ish pitcher, but he had a big-time winning record because his teams supported him so well. Did they support him so well because he was so competitive? Because he pitched so quickly and kept their boredom level low? Because he was by all accounts a great teammate?
And how did he suddenly seem to lose it? Compared to league average, he didn't pitch much worse from 2004 to 2005 than he had in 1998 through 2003, yet his record fell from an excellent 80-53 in the earlier period to just 11-18 in the later two seasons. And suddenly he was out of the league.
Incidentally, Kirk did most of his best pitching from 1993 through 1997, yet his won-loss record of 45-28(.616) wasn't much better than his .602 over the next six seasons when he didn't pitch nearly as well. His final two seasons he fell off a little more, and his winning percentage dropped all the way down to .379, causing his final career mark to fall to .586 after he had been clearly above .600 until his final two seasons.
For me, Kirk was about as hard to figure out as any player I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Oct 25, 2021 18:47:12 GMT -5
Rueter wasn't the best hitting pitcher, but he could get bunts down and he could put the ball in play, plus he was very good defensively. While he had the benefit of a great offense, his skills in the field and at the plate also contributed to wins.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 25, 2021 19:46:29 GMT -5
Very good points about Kirk, Matt. There was something about him. He was a great game player, and apparently even won games of pure chance far more than the odds would have dictated.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 26, 2021 8:37:33 GMT -5
I find Kirk Rueter to be one of the most intriguing people in baseball. Kirk was an average-ish pitcher, but he had a big-time winning record because his teams supported him so well. Did they support him so well because he was so competitive? Because he pitched so quickly and kept their boredom level low? Because he was by all accounts a great teammate? And how did he suddenly seem to lose it? Compared to league average, he didn't pitch much worse from 2004 to 2005 than he had in 1998 through 2003, yet his record fell from an excellent 80-53 in the earlier period to just 11-18 in the later two seasons. And suddenly he was out of the league. Incidentally, Kirk did most of his best pitching from 1993 through 1997, yet his won-loss record of 45-28(.616) wasn't much better than his .602 over the next six seasons when he didn't pitch nearly as well. His final two seasons he fell off a little more, and his winning percentage dropped all the way down to .379, causing his final career mark to fall to .586 after he had been clearly above .600 until his final two seasons. For me, Kirk was about as hard to figure out as any player I've seen. On his wikipedia article, they said that Rueter became less effective when they implemented the Sportrac umpiring system. As a result of the system, the strike zone tightened up and he lost the corners.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 26, 2021 9:46:42 GMT -5
The thing about it, Boly, that for the most part you and I (and the Giants) DO agree about team chemistry. I have never said it doesn't exist. To the contrary, there is evidence that it does exist, and despite their increased emphasis on analytics, the Giants themselves believe in it. Kapler has spoken directly to it. As for me, I began studying -- along with a friend with whom I worked -- team chemistry all the way back in 1975 when the Warriors won the NBA championship in great part because of their team chemistry. Through a trade, free agency and an expansion draft, the Warriors lost Hall of Famer Nate Thurmond, college Hall of Famer Cazzie Russell, and future Warriors announcer Jim Barnett. Yet they went from not making the playoffs to winning the World Championship. What I've said about team chemistry isn't that it doesn't exist, but that it isn't quantifiable, making it difficult to identify how important it was to a particular situation. I've posted all this here before, so I am unsure why say I can't possibly understand team chemistry. I certainly don't know all there is to know about it, but I've played on many teams and have studied team chemistry for the better part of five decades. How does someone study something for over 45 years and not know anything about it? I'm not sure which manager I think was the Giants' best. I long liked Al Dark, but he had racial issues that didn't help him. I loved Roger Craig and might go along with you in choosing him as the best. I thought all along -- as in even before he became successful with the Giants -- that Bruce Bochy was a good manager, although because of his three world championships he may be overrated. He has to show it over a much longer period, but Gabe Kapler has shown the potential to become the best. I thought he did an exceptional job this past season, and I suspect he'll win Manager of the Year honors. I do need to point out something though from your praise of Craig. You have made two conflicting statements here. First, you said that it is always wrong to bunt with two strikes unless it is with a pitcher. Then you said that Craig is the best manager the SF Giants have had. Yet Craig -- and Don Zimmer too -- bunted with two strikes. When we discussed Javier Baez's failed two-strike bunt in the 2016 World Series, I mentioned that Craig had had his batters bunt with two strikes, but you apparently already had your mind made up. One of the most exciting things about Craig's teams is that they were unorthodox -- especially when it came to the suicide squeeze. You also weren't swayed when a year later in the postseason Manny Machado reached base with a two-strike bunt. Regarding Baez's bunt, I gave a detailed explanation of how once he got two strikes on him that postseason, he almost always struck out and how vulnerable he was to breaking pitches way out of the strike zone. I explained that one of the reasons it might have made sense to try a bunt in that situation was that Baez might have been more likely to lay off the breaking ball outside the zone, which would have given him a walk and brought to the plate someone who with no strikes was far more likely to drive in the runner from third than Baez was with two strikes. I also noted that the play was discussed by the Cubs before it happened, and Baez agreed with the call. I didn't go so far as to say the bunt was the RIGHT thing to do; merely that without knowing how good a bunter Baez was and considering his abject failure with two strikes that postseason, I couldn't say out of hand that it was WRONG. But you said that it was wrong because it just wasn't done. Ignoring that it had been done by Craig, Zimmer and at least one other manager. Perhaps you are saying that it is always wrong but that Craig was the Giants' best manager even though he was wrong when he used the two-strike bunt (fairly successfully IIRC). Otherwise, your two statements are contradictory. My personal belief is that bunting with two strikes is almost always wrong, but very little in life is always wrong or always right. The argument I made that the two-strike bunt wasn't automatically wrong was picked up by Google, the only time I am aware anything I wrote was picked up. I later read an article by someone far more knowledgeable than I which said much the same as I wrote but backed it up better. But I don't think I've ever convinced you of anything. I don't always change my mind either, but I changed it on Donald Trump, and I've actually changed my mind quite a few times in my life. And I've certainly learned a lot of things as I've gone along. One of the most important things in life that I've learned is how much I don't know. But I do study hard on some of the things I think are important, and with all the falsehoods there are out there today, I often work hard to follow news from as many perspectives as I can get it. I can't remember a time when there have been so many falsehoods out there, but I have found that if one tries to get his news from non-biased sources and sometimes biased sources from both sides for balance, the truth is usually out there. And I have heard that the truth can set us free. I'm glad we agree that Roger Craig was a good manager. As well as Bruce Bochy and Gabe Kapler. Although he's not particularly popular here, I heard on KNBR this morning that even Dusty Baker might be building a surprise case for the Hall of Fame. Certainly he's had success in a lot of different locations. He's not my favorite manager, but perhaps he's better than we give him credit for here. Or he may be an example of if we put a decent manager in the right spots, he'll fare well. As an aside, ironic, isn't it, that Bruce Bochy seems a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame -- despite a career losing record (barely)? Actually, Roger, years ago you DID say it didn't exist.
If you've changed you mind, that's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 26, 2021 10:27:06 GMT -5
Great point, Reed! If I had been Urias, I'd have been ticked beyond belief!
To me, what Roberts did, on orders from the front office I think I heard Roberts say, was incredibly disrespectful to a guy who won 20 games AND, bested the Giants almost every time he faced them!
What a slap in the face!
And if I was Roberts, no way on God's Green Earth I let the front office dictate strategy.
No freaking way.
I would walk first, and in Robert's case, he'd get another job mosh scosh. Krukow was saying today that we were not in the Dodger clubhouse so we cannot question who was ready to go or who wasn't so the assumption is that they went with their best guess in the Atlanta series. Probably everyone was asked if they could go and they all probably said yes. However, using Buehler on short rest and Urias out of the bullpen were things Krukow felt messed them up. He knows that pitchers like a routine and its almost unfair to place them in a situation like that knowing that they've had four day rest cycles through the regular season and all of a sudden be asked to do short rest or relieve. He brought up Rod Beck in 1993 who had nothing left, yet wanted the ball. All the other pitchers saw what was going on and they could not refuse if Rod Beck did not opt out with nothing left. So, for the Dodgers, the summation is that the organization wanted it, the pitchers all signed off on it. The Dodgers may have beaten the Giants but the Dodgers-Giants series beat the Dodgers.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 26, 2021 17:09:25 GMT -5
Great point, Reed! If I had been Urias, I'd have been ticked beyond belief!
To me, what Roberts did, on orders from the front office I think I heard Roberts say, was incredibly disrespectful to a guy who won 20 games AND, bested the Giants almost every time he faced them!
What a slap in the face!
And if I was Roberts, no way on God's Green Earth I let the front office dictate strategy.
No freaking way.
I would walk first, and in Robert's case, he'd get another job mosh scosh. Krukow was saying today that we were not in the Dodger clubhouse so we cannot question who was ready to go or who wasn't so the assumption is that they went with their best guess in the Atlanta series. Probably everyone was asked if they could go and they all probably said yes. However, using Buehler on short rest and Urias out of the bullpen were things Krukow felt messed them up. He knows that pitchers like a routine and its almost unfair to place them in a situation like that knowing that they've had four day rest cycles through the regular season and all of a sudden be asked to do short rest or relieve. He brought up Rod Beck in 1993 who had nothing left, yet wanted the ball. All the other pitchers saw what was going on and they could not refuse if Rod Beck did not opt out with nothing left. So, for the Dodgers, the summation is that the organization wanted it, the pitchers all signed off on it. The Dodgers may have beaten the Giants but the Dodgers-Giants series beat the Dodgers. I totally agree with Kruk's assessment.
Today's pitchers are not like the pitchers of the 50's and 60's and likely the 70's where they were used to going on short rest.
Their "pyschi's" were not distressed when their routine was messed up.
Krukow would know, because even though he pitched mostly in the 80's he was schooled by old timers who taught him well.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2021 17:59:27 GMT -5
Who is the child who has changed Kershaw here to Chokeshaw? And what is your psychological problem that led you to do it?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2021 18:03:43 GMT -5
Great insight about a possible factor in Kirk's decline, Reed. That could make sense. Kirk's walk rate in his final four years grew from 2.4 to 2.9 to 3.1 to 3.9, although his home run rate remained flat at his career average of 1.0.
But what ultimately changed Kirk from a winning pitcher to a losing one, more so than his own pitching, was that his run support dried up. Did I mention that his is one of the strangest cases I've seen?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2021 18:05:14 GMT -5
Just one question, Boly: If I said team chemistry didn't exist, why have I been studying it for over 46 years? I believe you misinterpreted -- or simply thought I believed the opposite of you.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2021 18:06:32 GMT -5
I see that when writes out K,e,r,s,h,a,w here, it become Chokeshaw. Someone here has a psychological problem and far too much control of the board.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2021 18:12:32 GMT -5
IIRC I saw a study many years ago that showed that overall, starting pitchers didn't perform well on short rest. There have been notable exceptions, of course, but when one thinks of it, if a manager has two elimination games, he should come up with the strategy that gives him the best chance to win BOTH games -- not simply the next one with the idea that he'll let tomorrow take care of itself.
I have mentioned that the postseason is much different than the regular season and that because it is about eight times longer, the regular season is usually a much better test of a team than the tournament. The Dodgers were probably the best team in the majors this year, and the Giants might have been -- yet neither made it even into the World Series, let alone won it.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2021 18:13:15 GMT -5
When we say stupid stuff like "Chokeshaw," we merely make Giants fan look bad.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Oct 26, 2021 20:55:06 GMT -5
IIRC I saw a study many years ago that showed that overall, starting pitchers didn't perform well on short rest. There have been notable exceptions, of course, but when one thinks of it, if a manager has two elimination games, he should come up with the strategy that gives him the best chance to win BOTH games -- not simply the next one with the idea that he'll let tomorrow take care of itself. I have mentioned that the postseason is much different than the regular season and that because it is about eight times longer, the regular season is usually a much better test of a team than the tournament. The Dodgers were probably the best team in the majors this year, and the Giants might have been -- yet neither made it even into the World Series, let alone won it. The post that sums up the Dodgers is that the Giants killed the Dodgers, it just took them a week to die. “the Dodgers loss to Atlanta was like a mercy killing of a mortally wounded animal.” The Dodgers needed to win 12 games in the post season and expended Urias to get that 5th win but that one was not was important as wins #1, 4, 8, or 12 and it wasn't an elimination game. Bochy knew he had to get to 11 or 12.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 26, 2021 21:11:50 GMT -5
Bruce had to get only to 11, although I guess it would have been 12 in 2016.
I still wish the Giants had brought in Will Smith to begin the 9th inning of game 4, and I would loved to have seen Cueto against Lester in game 5. Until this season, that was the last serious thing we truly had to root for.
Then again, Smith had a similar end to the 2016 season as Doval had to the end of this season, and Doval didn't fare well in the elimination game. Smith would have had a lot more rope though. But I've never seen anything that indicated the Giants even considered using Smith in that spot. Instead, they went with Derek Law of all people.
Matt Moore didn't have much of a Giants career, but he could have been a hero in that one.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 26, 2021 22:11:50 GMT -5
Just one question, Boly: If I said team chemistry didn't exist, why have I been studying it for over 46 years? I believe you misinterpreted -- or simply thought I believed the opposite of you. Rodger, about six or seven years when I first put forth the idea of chemistry you said it doesn't exist. Almost everybody on the board disagreed with you. You very well may have been studying it for all this time, I'm just telling you what you said
|
|