Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What would you have done in a case like this?
#1
Talk about total frustration, and working on a no-hitter on his very first out.

Manager Pulls Rookie Pitcher Throwing No-Hitter in His Major League Debut With Just 5 Outs to Go — Bet You Can’t Guess What the Next Batter Does

[Image: stripling-e1460177548314.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
I'd say the Dodgers deserved to lose that game. The manager who pulled the rookie pitcher working on a no-hitter at 7 1/3 innings, deserves to be sent down to manage a AA team, until he learns a little humility and isn't so full of himself. Unless the pitcher was in severe physical distress, I would have left him in until he gave up a hit or two.
Reply
#3
My thinking is that a good manager would have called a timeout and personally gone out to talk with the rookie.  I would have asked him how he felt about his arm, and ability to continue on.  If the rookie said he was fine, I would have taken him at his word and let him continue.  A good manager, while intent on winning, will also take his players into consideration.  

Its what good managers do.  And what the next player up to bat proved to him is that trying to play safe and not use sound judgment can come crashing down almost immediately.  

Incidentally, the Giants won in the 10th inning, 3 - 2.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#4
The only thing I wonder about is this, did the team have a pitch limit for a pitcher, especially a rookie?

Just wondering, it could have been that and not a bad judgment call by the skipper.
Reply
#5
Quote:Manager Dave Roberts removed Stripling after 100 pitches ...

Yep, sounds reasonable to me, especially not knowing the Pitcher's physical condition history.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#6
(04-09-2016, 10:59 PM)JohnWho Wrote:
Quote:Manager Dave Roberts removed Stripling after 100 pitches ...

Yep, sounds reasonable to me, especially not knowing the Pitcher's physical condition history.

That's why the best managers almost always head out to the mound personally, in order to get the real scoop.  The fact that the current manager did not, states a great deal.   If you are a true baseball aficionado you will have no trouble remembering their well worn path to the pitcher's mound.  

Besides, that elicits a time-out, where the pitcher can take a breather and regain more strength, both mentally and physically.  Obviously the sport is not what it used to be in the Stengle, Mack days.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
Pitchers were not paid $10-20 million bucks back then either and arm injuries didn't cost a franchise so much, the investment in the modern arm is dramatic, they have pitch counts now days John, especially for younger pitchers early in a season.

Maybe it was just a dufus move, but, this is part of the modern game, too.
Reply
#8
And they are paying the price, aren't they?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
The upside of taking him out at the pre-arranged pitch count is possibly prolonging his career and taking pressure off him and other pitchers in the future. The downside if he was kept in past the charted number it was considered safe for him, was for the pitcher to go beyond his capacity and injure his arm, just at the point where his career was starting. Losing a possible key player would cause the Manager as much heartache as the player. Every Manager and Owner in the MLB would brand him as a disaster waiting to happen.

In the pre-90's baseball would have kept him going until he either got the no-hitter, or lost it. In the "good old days", a manager played hunches and thought getting a no-hitter would help everyone and increase team revenue in the long run. Then, along came the computer, and stats started to become important. No one ever thought of pulling Satchel Paige out of the game because he pitched a mere 200 pitches or three or four games in a week, but Paige was really special. His durability was off the charts. However, after enough pitchers were shown to be negatively affected after a certain number of pitches, most pitching decisions were taken out of the hands of the Manager and given over to the bean counters. Radar guns also added its strength to the argument. The manager now knows exactly what the drop in speed is from inning to inning. Only a Manager who used to be a catcher is given the leeway to decide if accuracy and "stuff" can trump the drop in velocity. Even catcher/managers like Tigers' Manager Brad Ausmus err on the side of pre-arranged pitch counts, except in rare occasions.
Reply
#10
Agree with this. The manager wouldn't do this in the past.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)