Friday, May 14, 2010

You Don't Know What You've Got Till It's Gone

This might sound somewhat familiar:

I'm probably the wrong guy to ask since I endorsed [Fired Manager] because I read an article about how he liked the big inning and didn't like to bunt or give away outs. That's the problem. We don't really know what these guys are like. There are precious few articles asking managers about strategy, and even fewer for guys that have never managed in the big leagues. I just did a huge write up at [a blog] on potential candidates, but the truth is, it's hard to know how any of them will be as managers. All the fired managers have the exact same criticism from their fans - they mishandle the pen, they play vets too much, they bunt too much, they bunt too little. And all the guys that haven't gotten chances yet are pretty much blank slates.

But all might not be sackcloth and ashes for the deposed:

It’s funny, I think he would probably make for a pretty good managerial candidate NOW that he has been through all this. He still has all of the positives he always had as a baseball man — smart, loyal, committed and so on — and now he has a much better understanding of what the job is all about.

There are no new stories, only new actors.

PS: At least Manny didn't sport a mullet.


  • reminds me of my opinion on the message board opinions of college coaches.

    A bad college coach is a bad recruiter and a bad in-game coach.

    A good college coach is a good recruiter a bad in-game coach.

    There is no such thing as a good in-game coach.

    By Blogger Harper, at 5/14/2010 10:25 AM  

  • Hard to tell for sure from a photo with his cap on, but it's doubtful that Trey Hillman is sporting a mullet. You're probably one of those guys who accused Joe Beimel of having a mullet last year too. You need to learn what a mullet is. It's not just having longish hair in the back. It's having short hair in the front, top and sides and long hair in the back - like all those bozo country singers do. That's why the mullet's motto is "business in the front, party in the back." You probably think Jerry Seinfeld was sporting a mullet back in the day of his famous sitcom. You'd be wrong there too.

    Here, educate yourself.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5/14/2010 10:30 AM  

  • Since this post deals with managerial decision-making, I guess this is as good a place as any to rant that Riggleman doesn't understand the double switch. It only makes sense if (1) your pitcher is going to pitch more than the current inning, or (2) you are ahead and replace a poor fielder with a good fielder.

    In Wednesday's game against the Mets, Rigs put in Tyler Walker and did a double switch that put Taveras in left instead of Harris, and put Taveras in the 9-hole. But then when the 9-hole came up the next inning, Rigs pinch-hit for Taveras and didn't have Walker pitch again. The effect was actually to mvoe the pitcher's spot UP in the order AND to burn Taveras for no reason. If he had left the pitcher batting ninth, and pinch hit forn the spot (which is what he did anyway) Rigs would have had the pitcher's spot come up again three places later (ninth instead of sixth) and could have left a perfectly-good-fielding harris in left.

    By Blogger John O'Connor, at 5/14/2010 2:02 PM  

  • Riggleman understands the double switch. You don't understand that everything that's going to happen in the game after a double switch can be pre-ordained when you make the switch. A double switch is a precaution, and not every time do the things you take precautions against actually occur. So sometimes it very well may end up looking like you shouldn't have made the switch. But just as often if not more if you don't make the switch events will conspire to make you wish you had.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5/14/2010 2:54 PM  

  • I know it's unrelated to the post, but the Nats would be a wild card team if the playoffs were to start today:

    By Blogger OleShu, at 5/14/2010 3:19 PM  

  • Actually, Mrs. Riggleman, it was obvious at the time that the double-switch made no sense UNLESS your husband intended to use Walker for a second inning, which he clearly did not (indeed, Walker had pitched the day before).

    By Blogger John O'Connor, at 5/14/2010 7:39 PM  

  • Actually, Mike O'Connor's much less intelligent little brother, the intent of a double switch is to move the pitcher's slot as far away as possible, so that you don't have to burn a pinch hitter when the original pitcher's slot comes up. A double switch in no way binds you to use the same pitcher you put in clear up until the new pitcher's slot comes up in the order. In other words, the double switch is to save you from having to pinch hit, not to save you from switching pitchers. Any major league manager knows that. You clearly don't.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5/14/2010 9:10 PM  

  • How about Thrs night's move: bases loaded, two puts -- Riggs puts in Taveras (which has me screaming), then the Rockies bring in a left-hander, and then, Taveras gets called back and he puts in Guzy (who's batting >.300 against lefties). Guzy hits a bases clearing double.

    Frankly, I think Riggs suckered the Rockies on that one.

    By Anonymous A DC Wonk, at 5/16/2010 11:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home