I'm slow to judge, but Trembley officially lost me tonight

[Mad Mark]

I hope AM is on the phone with Bobby Valentine or Davey Johnson.

I'm sure the Nationals won't consider that to be bad form or anything...

[Frobby]

Dave Trembley seems to be the kind of guy who won't save the pen in a 30-3 loss by using Chad Moeller to pitch the last two innings, because that's not respecting the game. He's the kind of guy who probably wouldn't have ended up with Lenn Sakata catching (and subsequently hitting the game winning homer), because that's not playing the game right. He wouldn't play Jon Knott in left because his defense was below average, but he was fine with Jay Payton because everyone strikes out but Major Leaguers aren't supposed to look lost in the field.

That's the kind of thing I meant. Dave is a conventional manager, one who seems like he'd rather be at a disadvantage while managing conventionally, than take a chance on winning while also increasing his odds of being embarrassed.

OK, I get that. I'm not sure I agree with the Jon Knott example, but I get your drift.

[DuffMan]

Yea. All that.

I really think they need to follow (a part of) the 1980s Steinbrenner model. Obviously not the wacko firing and hiring of Billy Martin every six months, but the willingness to inject a spark by hiring the anti-manager. Big Stein would fire Martin, who was an obsessive, controlling, out-of-control jerk, and replace him with somebody like Dick Howser, who was kind of like your nice uncle Fred who gives kids lollypops. The Yanks would win, but when the nice guy routine got old and the millionaires started ruling the clubhouse he'd dump the manager and hire Martin, or some other drill sargent.

This is an oversimplification, but the O's need the anti-Trembley now.

What's that? I guess it's an experienced major league manager who has no problem taking guys to task in a public, open way, and someone who just doesn't care about "playing the game right" when it might conflict with winning.

I'm not sure who that is, but that's my recommendation.

Sounds alot like Lou Pinella to me.

[section18]

Commenting in a similar way on this post is not a change of position for me. I caused a stir for a few days at the end of the season last October when I said AM should make an appearance and do a Q & A with season ticket holders to explain bringing DT back after finishing 39 games out of first. It still seems hard to believe an Oriole team finished 39 games out.

On a post last season I asked for followers to discuss the number of games DT had won based on his in-game strategy. Very few responded. We only discuss things similar to what happened in last nights game. We continue to dwell on a player not running to first or our failure to move runners up to get them in scoring postion. If you look at tapes of previous games or went to a lot of games at OP you would see the same things almost every game and I'm not exaggerating.

DT sometimes is pretty quick with his answers and sometimes he appears slow for some unknown reason. Most of us know he needs to be replaced. The losing has to stop. This team is not as bad as it looks right now. If Leyland or LaRussa were the manager of this team I think we would have at least 7 wins by now and 7-8 would look a lot better than 2-13 which is embarrassing. The injuries have not helped things and it's disappointing to everyone. Someone mentioned our trainers on another post and maybe we need to take a look at things. Why are all of these players getting hurt running or throwing? Too much weight lifting or not enough?

DT does not want to face the Red Sox and Yankees 12 straight games and it appears he is hoping to be replaced. Spare him AM. Make the change tonight and announce the replacement on our off day Thursday. If you bring in someone and don't replace Crowley you are wasting your time. We have 147 games to play in the 2010 season. Our failure to bring in runners from scoring position continues to be embarrassing. Valentine, Melvin, Garner, Komminsk, whoever it is, would probably explode after 4 or 5 games if this continued under their watch.

The Orioles will probably keep all of the coaches if DT is replaced because it's what they've always done in the past. It's wrong and hopefully AM realizes this and cleans house.

[murrayfan420]

Yep. Bringing Trembley back was a horrible decision.

They players needed a breath of fresh air and a new voice and strategy.

Instead they got the same stench of losing...

You catch a lot of flack on here (deservedly so for a lot of it) but this was one thing you had pegged in the offseason. Even if we all thought Trembley was a decent manager, I don't think many people thought he would be the one in the dugout when(if) we were contending for the playoffs. So why renew his contract?

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm only talking short term here, Drungo. If the O's were hitting .250 in RISP situations I wouldn't be advocating this. Also, scoring one run at a time isn't so bad when you are losing 2-1 and you can sense that the pitchers are in control of the game.

Like I said, if this helps the confidence of the team maybe it's a good thing. But if you bunt a guy over to scoring position and the team's hitting .084 with RISP is that really gonna work?

[JourneyFan]

This is an oversimplification, but the O's need the anti-Trembley now.

What's that? I guess it's an experienced major league manager who has no problem taking guys to task in a public, open way, and someone who just doesn't care about "playing the game right" when it might conflict with winning.

I'm not sure who that is, but that's my recommendation.

While I know he'd never come back, nor would I want him to, I'm fairly confident that Mike Hargrove would never have put up with a lot of the stuff we've seen from the club since last August.

[Old#5fan]

There is no question that the team's hitting slump is blowing everything else out of proportion. I get that. But what bothers me is, at a time when the clutch hits and 3-run homers simply aren't coming, we aren't doing what we can to manufacture a run here and there. By which I mean, moving runners over, sacrifice bunting (or bunting for a hit), attemoting a stolen base -- anything to put a little pressure on the opponent. Would it work? I have no idea. But I know what's not working, and I'd like to see the team show it's committed to trying something different.

By the way, how did our game-winning rally start on Sunday? With a surprise bunt hit by Tejada. There's a guy who almost never bunts, and he did something to shake things up. And he woke up the team. That's what I want to see. I'm tired of seeing the O's sit around waiting for an inning where they string together a bunch of hits.

Probably many posters here don't recall Johnny Oates when he managed the Orioles but he used to bunt guys over when the team was in a run scoring drought. The reason I state this is I have already had a poster try to chastise me for suggesting DT should have had NM do that yesterday by claiming that Earl Weaver thought that strategy was stupid.

That may be so, but Earl didn't have many teams that were this pathetic in scoring runs, but Oates did, and you have to tailor your strategy to the team and how it is performing at the time.

[nadecir]

Like I said, if this helps the confidence of the team maybe it's a good thing. But if you bunt a guy over to scoring position and the team's hitting .084 with RISP is that really gonna work?

There you go. You've hit on the innovative in-game strategy that will turn the season around. In future games, unless an Orioles player hits a home run, he should stop at first base on any hit. That way there are no runners in scoring position, and our poor hitting with RISP doesn't come in to play. I nominate Drungo for the new manager!

[Old#5fan]

I'm only talking short term here, Drungo. If the O's were hitting .250 in RISP situations I wouldn't be advocating this. Also, scoring one run at a time isn't so bad when you are losing 2-1 and you can sense that the pitchers are in control of the game.

Right, every game and team strategy is different and you have to tailor it to what is necessary to win that particular game. DT doesn't do well in that aspect of managing at all.

[WiredinBmore]

Yeah, I just got finished watching that as well. And I agree 100%.

The expression on Palmer's face when it came back to the booth was priceless.

[Old#5fan]

Like I said, if this helps the confidence of the team maybe it's a good thing. But if you bunt a guy over to scoring position and the team's hitting .084 with RISP is that really gonna work?

Possibility of a sac fly, error, WP or PB. None of which have anything to do with hitting with RISP, but could generate the all important and precious run that we are not getting in far too many tight games.

[Old#5fan]

While I know he'd never come back, nor would I want him to, I'm fairly confident that Mike Hargrove would never have put up with a lot of the stuff we've seen from the club since last August.

Not so sure, his Orioles team one season quit on him and went 4-32 after hitting 500 in August.

[Frobby]

Probably many posters here don't recall Johnny Oates when he managed the Orioles but he used to bunt guys over when the team was in a run scoring drought. The reason I state this is I have already had a poster try to chastise me for suggesting DT should have had NM do that yesterday by claiming that Earl Weaver thought that strategy was stupid.

That may be so, but Earl didn't have many teams that were this pathetic in scoring runs, but Oates did, and you have to tailor your strategy to the team and how it is performing at the time.

Weaver's '72 team was pretty pathetic at scoring runs -- .229/.302/.339, 3.37 runs scored per game. Fortunately, they were amazing at preventing runs -- 2.79 runs allowed per game (yes, you read that right, and that includes unearned runs). That team had a very poor record in one-run games (26-32) so this supports your thought that Weaver's philosophy wasn't really adaptable for a team that can't hit much and has very little power (only Boog Powell had more than 8 home runs that year).

[SilentJames]

Weaver's '72 team was pretty pathetic at scoring runs -- .229/.302/.339, 3.37 runs scored per game. Fortunately, they were amazing at preventing runs -- 2.79 runs allowed per game (yes, you read that right, and that includes unearned runs). That team had a very poor record in one-run games (26-32) so this supports your thought that Weaver's philosophy wasn't really adaptable for a team that can't hit much and has very little power (only Boog Powell had more than 8 home runs that year).

that is amazing.

I have been the biggest DT supporter here, but 13 losses, even if the root problems aren't his fault something has to change now. Lugo needed to be sat for a week for that display.