654845545342551516270 wrote: Which is weird because he has brought him in before the ninth before.
Whatever you think of that though, it should have never have come to that because we should have had a roster with 25 guys on it. ESPECIALLY considering we were cobbling together two games in a row where we'd be lucky to get 4-5 innings out of a starter.
Though knowing we didn't, the manager should have adjusted the guys leading up to the 9th. I think I've more an issue with the innings leading up to the meltdown one than after.
that is why I think Liriano should have gone 2. The game was poorly managed from a player resource standpoint. Clint was counting on each pitcher that he had available doing the job. Two didn't and he didn't have a response.
Someone on another board said maybe Clint was sending a message to management that he didn't have enough pitchers on the roster.
I think that is BS because managers talk to gm's all the time. Sending a signal by losing a game is ludicrous.
Yeah I think you're on the right track. You can argue back and forth about the closer philosophy (or if maybe he didn't really want to pitch him but would) and we don't know how well the guys yet to come in were looking. I tend to yield to "insiders" who say a certain pitcher shouldn't go today. But Liriano was already out there and is a former starter and had thrown very few pitches.
I think roster management was the bigger issue but they're both things.
It made no sense to me either. Liriano started 26 games last year. But in Hurdle's "rest is the most important thing" philosophy, he can't throw more than 36 pitches over 2 days following a day off. This is an example of Hurdle's formula managing getting in the way of common sense. He believes players should get as much rest as possible. He believes relievers should rarely go more than 1 inning. He believes a closer should only be used for saves. But the situation called for some flexible thinking. He just had 2 spot starters go 4 innings each on consecutive days. At least it followed an off day so everyone recently had rest. And he was a man short in the BP with Kela out. So to put his team in the best position to win, it was necessary to stray from his formula. But he refused. Nope, Liriano was not going to go more than 1 inning. Nope, Crick was going to rest after throwing 16 pitches the day before and having the day off the day before that. Nope, Vazquez was only going to pitch if he could get a save. The formula is the formula. So the only way they were going to win was if Feliz and Lyons could hold the lead. And even when it became apparent they couldn't, Hurdle refused to change the formula. SMH
But would you have started warming up Vasquez up 6-2 with two outs and one guy on? That whole disaster felt like slow motion but probably took like two minutes to unfold. One more guy in the BP and it's easier move because you probably already have a guy up. You can do with that with a roster move before the game, or with Liriano still pitching and Feliz still in the pen.
I think I would have someone up after walk#2.
Of course after that, you could have the closer come out in the 9th with the game tied. No reason not to.
Pirates vs Rangers 5/8 12:35
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Pirates vs Rangers 5/8 12:35
44767A7A6E5C7F767B7E7176170 wrote: Which is weird because he has brought him in before the ninth before.
Whatever you think of that though, it should have never have come to that because we should have had a roster with 25 guys on it. ESPECIALLY considering we were cobbling together two games in a row where we'd be lucky to get 4-5 innings out of a starter.
Though knowing we didn't, the manager should have adjusted the guys leading up to the 9th. I think I've more an issue with the innings leading up to the meltdown one than after.
that is why I think Liriano should have gone 2. The game was poorly managed from a player resource standpoint. Clint was counting on each pitcher that he had available doing the job. Two didn't and he didn't have a response.
Someone on another board said maybe Clint was sending a message to management that he didn't have enough pitchers on the roster.
I think that is BS because managers talk to gm's all the time. Sending a signal by losing a game is ludicrous.
Yeah I think you're on the right track. You can argue back and forth about the closer philosophy (or if maybe he didn't really want to pitch him but would) and we don't know how well the guys yet to come in were looking. I tend to yield to "insiders" who say a certain pitcher shouldn't go today. But Liriano was already out there and is a former starter and had thrown very few pitches.
I think roster management was the bigger issue but they're both things.
It made no sense to me either. Liriano started 26 games last year. But in Hurdle's "rest is the most important thing" philosophy, he can't throw more than 36 pitches over 2 days following a day off. This is an example of Hurdle's formula managing getting in the way of common sense. He believes players should get as much rest as possible. He believes relievers should rarely go more than 1 inning. He believes a closer should only be used for saves. But the situation called for some flexible thinking. He just had 2 spot starters go 4 innings each on consecutive days. At least it followed an off day so everyone recently had rest. And he was a man short in the BP with Kela out. So to put his team in the best position to win, it was necessary to stray from his formula. But he refused. Nope, Liriano was not going to go more than 1 inning. Nope, Crick was going to rest after throwing 16 pitches the day before and having the day off the day before that. Nope, Vazquez was only going to pitch if he could get a save. The formula is the formula. So the only way they were going to win was if Feliz and Lyons could hold the lead. And even when it became apparent they couldn't, Hurdle refused to change the formula. SMH
But would you have started warming up Vasquez up 6-2 with two outs and one guy on? That whole disaster felt like slow motion but probably took like two minutes to unfold. One more guy in the BP and it's easier move because you probably already have a guy up. You can do with that with a roster move before the game, or with Liriano still pitching and Feliz still in the pen.
I think I would have someone up after walk#2.
Of course after that, you could have the closer come out in the 9th with the game tied. No reason not to.
I agree. There was no way to know that the first walk was the beginning of a total meltdown. But after walk 2, the tie run is on deck and you have to get someone else ready. I went back and looked at the 8th inning. From the time of the force out putting 1 on and 2 outs, 8 minutes elapsed until the bases became loaded with the third walk. Just from the second walk to the third walk there were 5 minutes to get someone ready in the BP. And if they had decided to remove Feliz, they could have stalled with a mound visit so there was time to warm Vazquez up. I should add that I think the problem began the day before when Brault went only 4 innings. Knowing the BP had to cover 5 innings and the team had not played the day before, it only made sense to get multiple innings out of a couple relievers. Instead, Hurdle used 6 relievers as no one went more than 1 inning and then complained that he didn't have enough relievers for the following game (unless there was a save to be had in which case then, yes, he had enough). I'm flummoxed.
Whatever you think of that though, it should have never have come to that because we should have had a roster with 25 guys on it. ESPECIALLY considering we were cobbling together two games in a row where we'd be lucky to get 4-5 innings out of a starter.
Though knowing we didn't, the manager should have adjusted the guys leading up to the 9th. I think I've more an issue with the innings leading up to the meltdown one than after.
that is why I think Liriano should have gone 2. The game was poorly managed from a player resource standpoint. Clint was counting on each pitcher that he had available doing the job. Two didn't and he didn't have a response.
Someone on another board said maybe Clint was sending a message to management that he didn't have enough pitchers on the roster.
I think that is BS because managers talk to gm's all the time. Sending a signal by losing a game is ludicrous.
Yeah I think you're on the right track. You can argue back and forth about the closer philosophy (or if maybe he didn't really want to pitch him but would) and we don't know how well the guys yet to come in were looking. I tend to yield to "insiders" who say a certain pitcher shouldn't go today. But Liriano was already out there and is a former starter and had thrown very few pitches.
I think roster management was the bigger issue but they're both things.
It made no sense to me either. Liriano started 26 games last year. But in Hurdle's "rest is the most important thing" philosophy, he can't throw more than 36 pitches over 2 days following a day off. This is an example of Hurdle's formula managing getting in the way of common sense. He believes players should get as much rest as possible. He believes relievers should rarely go more than 1 inning. He believes a closer should only be used for saves. But the situation called for some flexible thinking. He just had 2 spot starters go 4 innings each on consecutive days. At least it followed an off day so everyone recently had rest. And he was a man short in the BP with Kela out. So to put his team in the best position to win, it was necessary to stray from his formula. But he refused. Nope, Liriano was not going to go more than 1 inning. Nope, Crick was going to rest after throwing 16 pitches the day before and having the day off the day before that. Nope, Vazquez was only going to pitch if he could get a save. The formula is the formula. So the only way they were going to win was if Feliz and Lyons could hold the lead. And even when it became apparent they couldn't, Hurdle refused to change the formula. SMH
But would you have started warming up Vasquez up 6-2 with two outs and one guy on? That whole disaster felt like slow motion but probably took like two minutes to unfold. One more guy in the BP and it's easier move because you probably already have a guy up. You can do with that with a roster move before the game, or with Liriano still pitching and Feliz still in the pen.
I think I would have someone up after walk#2.
Of course after that, you could have the closer come out in the 9th with the game tied. No reason not to.
I agree. There was no way to know that the first walk was the beginning of a total meltdown. But after walk 2, the tie run is on deck and you have to get someone else ready. I went back and looked at the 8th inning. From the time of the force out putting 1 on and 2 outs, 8 minutes elapsed until the bases became loaded with the third walk. Just from the second walk to the third walk there were 5 minutes to get someone ready in the BP. And if they had decided to remove Feliz, they could have stalled with a mound visit so there was time to warm Vazquez up. I should add that I think the problem began the day before when Brault went only 4 innings. Knowing the BP had to cover 5 innings and the team had not played the day before, it only made sense to get multiple innings out of a couple relievers. Instead, Hurdle used 6 relievers as no one went more than 1 inning and then complained that he didn't have enough relievers for the following game (unless there was a save to be had in which case then, yes, he had enough). I'm flummoxed.
Pirates vs Rangers 5/8 12:35
I can understand why Clint wants to go into a game and say so and so isn't available.
However, circumstances change during the game and everybody should be available to some degree.
Its like going into extra innings, you don't want to use all your position players but some times you have to do it.
He could easily have changed and put Crick in for an inning and say that your rest is being delayed until tomorrow.
Now watch the Bucs get blown out the next couple games and there will be no need for Crick or Nightmare to pitch.
However, circumstances change during the game and everybody should be available to some degree.
Its like going into extra innings, you don't want to use all your position players but some times you have to do it.
He could easily have changed and put Crick in for an inning and say that your rest is being delayed until tomorrow.
Now watch the Bucs get blown out the next couple games and there will be no need for Crick or Nightmare to pitch.
-
Bobster21
Pirates vs Rangers 5/8 12:35
557372657363100 wrote: I can understand why Clint wants to go into a game and say so and so isn't available.
However, circumstances change during the game and everybody should be available to some degree.
Its like going into extra innings, you don't want to use all your position players but some times you have to do it.
He could easily have changed and put Crick in for an inning and say that your rest is being delayed until tomorrow.
Now watch the Bucs get blown out the next couple games and there will be no need for Crick or Nightmare to pitch.
That's the problem. Unforeseen circumstances occur but Hurdle is rigidly locked into his formulas and would rather lose than change his plans. He's always managing for the next game and not the game he's in. He may not even need Crick or Vazquez tonight. You never know how a game will turn out. So when a game is very winnable as late as the 8th winning, you have to lock that one down. Not lose it with your subpar relievers while keeping your best on the sidelines just in case they might possibly be needed tomorrow.
However, circumstances change during the game and everybody should be available to some degree.
Its like going into extra innings, you don't want to use all your position players but some times you have to do it.
He could easily have changed and put Crick in for an inning and say that your rest is being delayed until tomorrow.
Now watch the Bucs get blown out the next couple games and there will be no need for Crick or Nightmare to pitch.
That's the problem. Unforeseen circumstances occur but Hurdle is rigidly locked into his formulas and would rather lose than change his plans. He's always managing for the next game and not the game he's in. He may not even need Crick or Vazquez tonight. You never know how a game will turn out. So when a game is very winnable as late as the 8th winning, you have to lock that one down. Not lose it with your subpar relievers while keeping your best on the sidelines just in case they might possibly be needed tomorrow.