Jump to content
Aristotelian

Is This the Bottom?

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, murph said:

Personally for me as a fan, turning on the game just to see if the Orioles were actually still playing and seeing that we had made it into the 12th up by one run and then watching a pitcher I had no idea was even on the roster walk in a run and then give up and walk off grand slam is pretty much rock bottom.    

I know we have a long way to go and one game is meaningless but that was just depressing    

 

I have been reluctant to criticize Hyde's in-game decisions, or have tried to be, because I appreciate that he is trying to juggle two objectives: putting players in game situations where their potential future value to the Orioles can be evaluated, and trying to win ballgames. Pursuing one or the other of those goals often will lead to different lineup and in-game decisions. I get that.

But putting Eades in Saturday's game (most of which I didn't see, but I was there at the end), and sticking with him until the game was lost once he was obviously ineffective, seemed idiotic. If I were an Oriole player, I would be pissed off at Hyde's willingness to give that game away after the Orioles had battled back from behind. I don't see how it can be justified as providing a useful test of the pitching talents of Ryan Eades and his future value to the Orioles. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I have been reluctant to criticize Hyde's in-game decisions, or have tried to be, because I appreciate that he is trying to juggle two objectives: putting players in game situations where their potential future value to the Orioles can be evaluated, and trying to win ballgames. Pursuing one or the other of those goals often will lead to different lineup and in-game decisions. I get that.

But putting Eades in Saturday's game (most of which I didn't see, but I was there at the end), and sticking with him until the game was lost once he was obviously ineffective, seemed idiotic. If I were an Oriole player, I would be pissed off at Hyde's willingness to give that game away after the Orioles had battled back from behind. I don't see how it can be justified as providing a useful test of the pitching talents of Ryan Eades and his future value to the Orioles. 

Inclined to agree here, though I don't know who else he had left instead of Eades.  I was late to the game too but didn't understand why he was brought in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Inclined to agree here, though I don't know who else he had left instead of Eades.  I was late to the game too but didn't understand why he was brought in.

Wilkerson, Davis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Inclined to agree here, though I don't know who else he had left instead of Eades.  I was late to the game too but didn't understand why he was brought in.

Eades was our 10th pitcher that night, our 9th reliever.

Other relievers available were:


Harvey -- had pitched the night before and they said they weren't going to use him back to back

Evan Phillips

Tayler Scott -- had just been recalled from Bowie after they lost Friday night and had just joined the team in Detroit

Both Phillips and Tayler Scott have been pretty bad this year.   I bet if either of them had come in and had given up a walk and a grand slam, the complaints would have been there too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

 Nowhere to go but up.

I just watched a very sad movie on the Kursk, the pride of the Russian submarine fleet at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Eades was our 10th pitcher that night, our 9th reliever.

Other relievers available were:


Harvey -- had pitched the night before and they said they weren't going to use him back to back

Evan Phillips

Tayler Scott -- had just been recalled from Bowie after they lost Friday night and had just joined the team in Detroit

Both Phillips and Tayler Scott have been pretty bad this year.   I bet if either of them had come in and had given up a walk and a grand slam, the complaints would have been there too.

 

It was interesting to see how few pitches some of the relievers threw:

Tanner Scott 12; Tate 15; Bleier 18; Castro 7; Givens 22 (gives up game-tying HR in the 9th); Armstrong 9; Kline 10; Fry 17; Eades 10 (yields game-ending HR).

The night before: Armstrong 14; Fry 17; Harvey 11; Givens 19.

That leaves Tanner Scott, Tate, Bleier, Castro, and Kline as pitchers Hyde did not feel good about sticking with even though they had not pitched the night before. Pulling Castro was in obeisance to the idea that Givens is a normal closer, which is debatable. But using Kline for only 10 pitches to bring in Fry is interesting.

Maybe he was saving Tanner and Tate for today: Phillips 21; Tanner Scott 14; Tate 16; Tay Scott 20.

I'm sure Hyde is grateful that Phillips and Tay Scott were ready today. It was a day game after an extra-inning game the night before and Fry, Armstrong, and Givens had pitched two games in a row and Eades was probably still traumatized and we were only a few runs ahead of the Tigers. It would seem that Bleier, Castro, Kline, Harvey (closer-role) is the preferred pack in the Monday game, if needed, with Eades, Armstrong, Fry, and Givens as the next line, and Tate, Phillips, and Tay Scott out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LA2 said:

It was interesting to see how few pitches some of the relievers threw:

Tanner Scott 12; Tate 15; Bleier 18; Castro 7; Givens 22 (gives up game-tying HR in the 9th); Armstrong 9; Kline 10; Fry 17; Eades 10 (yields game-ending HR).

The night before: Armstrong 14; Fry 17; Harvey 11; Givens 19.

That leaves Tanner Scott, Tate, Bleier, Castro, and Kline as pitchers Hyde did not feel good about sticking with even though they had not pitched the night before. Pulling Castro was in obeisance to the idea that Givens is a normal closer, which is debatable. But using Kline for only 10 pitches to bring in Fry is interesting.

Maybe he was saving Tanner and Tate for today: Phillips 21; Tanner Scott 14; Tate 16; Tay Scott 20.

I'm sure Hyde is grateful that Phillips and Tay Scott were ready today. It was a day game after an extra-inning game the night before and Fry, Armstrong, and Givens had pitched two games in a row and Eades was probably still traumatized and we were only a few runs ahead of the Tigers. It would seem that Bleier, Castro, Kline, Harvey (closer-role) is the preferred pack in the Monday game, if needed, with Eades, Armstrong, Fry, and Givens as the next line, and Tate, Phillips, and Tay Scott out.

It's Hunter Harvey Day!   😍  (That is unless the biceps barks!)  🐕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LA2 said:

It was interesting to see how few pitches some of the relievers threw:

Tanner Scott 12; Tate 15; Bleier 18; Castro 7; Givens 22 (gives up game-tying HR in the 9th); Armstrong 9; Kline 10; Fry 17; Eades 10 (yields game-ending HR).

The night before: Armstrong 14; Fry 17; Harvey 11; Givens 19.

That leaves Tanner Scott, Tate, Bleier, Castro, and Kline as pitchers Hyde did not feel good about sticking with even though they had not pitched the night before. Pulling Castro was in obeisance to the idea that Givens is a normal closer, which is debatable. But using Kline for only 10 pitches to bring in Fry is interesting.

Maybe he was saving Tanner and Tate for today: Phillips 21; Tanner Scott 14; Tate 16; Tay Scott 20.

I'm sure Hyde is grateful that Phillips and Tay Scott were ready today. It was a day game after an extra-inning game the night before and Fry, Armstrong, and Givens had pitched two games in a row and Eades was probably still traumatized and we were only a few runs ahead of the Tigers. It would seem that Bleier, Castro, Kline, Harvey (closer-role) is the preferred pack in the Monday game, if needed, with Eades, Armstrong, Fry, and Givens as the next line, and Tate, Phillips, and Tay Scott out.

Next year with the 26 man roster I expect to see more pitching changes than even this year.  I am not sure why the league is increasing the size of the roster. I am sure the Orioles will go with a 3 man bench most of the year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, atomic said:

Next year with the 26 man roster I expect to see more pitching changes than even this year.  I am not sure why the league is increasing the size of the roster. I am sure the Orioles will go with a 3 man bench most of the year.  

There is different rules going into next season with the additional player. I think you're only allowed 13 pitchers. I also believe they have a minimum batters faced rule next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maybenxtyr said:

There is different rules going into next season with the additional player. I think you're only allowed 13 pitchers. I also believe they have a minimum batters faced rule next season.

What's the new rule say about non-pitchers pitching?  Are they effectively banned?

That would be disappointing.  It's a lot more fun watching Stevie Wilkerson pitch than anybody's 13th-best pitcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I’m not sure of the Ravens plans but I have to think that dragging it out longer either costs more money or encourages Stanley to wait and test free agency 
    • There was no binding deal made in March. If there was the players would be suing the league.  You have chosen to ignore facts and logic to fit your preconceived notions.  I am not sure what you have to gain by putting forth an illogical untruthful narrative.
    • Ok, I really am not going to read any more until tomorrow but I couldn't let this stand. I know I am just a small country lawyer and you are a noted labor law expert, but please advise me as to the total lack of logic into my argument. That is great news about teams not having to honor the CBA, I assume that goes for the players too. I guess all the players are free agents now, I hope we sign Mike Trout! Glad that Davis contract albatross is no longer hanging around the Orioles necks! The bottom line is that the owners made a lousy deal in March. It happens. The players have made many missteps in previous CBA negotiations, from not foreseeing the collapse in the free market for mid-range players to not trying to stake a claim early on into MLBAM and other ancillary rights. My belief is that the owners were unrealistically optimistic about the thought of things returning to normal faster than the experts said. Their thought process was likely something along the lines of, "We will be playing by June 1st, and we sell fewer tickets in April and May so getting the players on a one-third discount will be a great deal, maybe we can even increase the number of games played in the summer and make more money off split gate double headers!". They also likely were overly focused on shortening the draft to achieve their long-term goal of cutting minor league teams and saving a few million dollars on the margin.  Unfortunately, actions have consequences, MLB made a bad deal and have to live with the consequences. Maybe they should fire some of the yes-men who assured them that the season will start with fans in mid-May. Maybe they should fire the lawyers that they paid $800+ an hour to negotiate the contract with MLBPA for failing to properly negotiate for the possibility of playing without fans to better insulate themselves from potential losses.  I see both sides, but both sides don't need to compromise. The time for compromise was in March, when the deal was made. A compromise was reached, amateur players got screwed, MLB players got a short term loan (or payment if the season was canceled) to tide themselves over, MLB got cost certainty, and likely (mistakenly) believed that they had pulled one over on the players by cutting their salaries while still being able to hold all the major events of the season and play in front of fans. Now MLB has to honor the deal by paying the players on a pro-rated basis, or open their books and prove to the players that they would lose more money doing that than they would canceling the season. The MLBPA doesn't owe x amount of profitability to MLB, in much the same way that the league doesn't share profits with them. It is a business arrangement entered into by professionals with highly paid lawyers who are among the best in their field. Unfortunately for MLB, it looks like this deal is going to bite them in the behind. It isn't up to the players to bail them out. Hope to hear more constructive comments tomorrow, I am off to enjoy my birthday!  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...