Sessh

Ok, so the play in question is on this page at the bottom right corner of the video blocks. The throw is so far into the baseline it's almost in foul territory and is a little high. Chavis jumps to catch it and is off the base when he catches the ball. It's a terrible throw, but caught cleanly and clearly thrown well into the baseline and may have been caught just over the line into foul territory. Chavis had to reach far to get it and had to leave his feet to do so. Anyway, I think I emptied the tank on this topic. lol My opinion is only reinforced after watching the replay again. https://www.mlb.com/gameday/red-sox-vs-orioles/2019/06/16/564967#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=564967

Okay, but Chavis did catch the ball. He had to come off the base to catch it because it was a high throw and not because of Broxton. It was certainly a bad throw. The ball was caught to the right of Broxton's head and slightly above. That's a bad throw any way you look at it. Chavis is only 5'10, so the high throw took him off the base. I understand what you're saying, but Broxton's line had nothing to do with the outcome of the play. The throw was made, the ball was caught, it was a bad throw that took Chavis off the bag. I agree with everything you said above except that it applied to this play. The runner did not impede Chavis's view at all or his ability to catch the ball which he did. Anyway, I think this has been beaten into the ground sufficiently. We will agree to disagree.

That's fair. The thing is there was no interference on the play. Broxton's running line did not affect the outcome of the play. The bad throw did. In order to call interference, there has to actually be interference. Generally speaking, runners are allowed to run outside the baseline all they want UNLESS doing so interferes with a throw (ball hits the runner going to first while he's out of the baseline) or he's trying to evade a tag or something. Otherwise, running outside the baseline is not a rule violation. My issue is that there was no interference on the play. Even if Broxton is in the baseline here, it doesn't change the fact that the throw was high and an out wouldn't be recorded.

If it was so egregious, then it shouldn't have been a late call. The ball is thrown into the baseline and caught inside the baseline. Running outside the baseline is not an automatic interference call. A good throw makes this a non issue. If he's running in the baseline, the ball hits him in the back of the head. If the runner alone was called out on the play, that's one thing. Making the call knowing the runners would be called back and taking a run off the board was excessive.

I agree that it was a bad call. Guys run outside the baseline all the time and doing so is not generally against the rules. The only time an interference call is made is when the act of running outside the baseline interferes with the ability to throw the ball to first base or interferes with the first baseman's ability to catch the ball. Neither were true in this case despite Broxton being outside the baseline. The throw to first from the pitcher took the first baseman into the baseline and was high. It was a bad throw. Broxton's line had nothing to do with anything on that play and it shouldn't have been called interference because no interference took place. It was a bad call.

It's funny. If you watch when it shows the ump and the Padres manager discussing what happened, it looks like Welke was saying "He walked right up to me and said it was a horse sh-t call!" and the manager replies with "He walked up to you and said it was (something). Come on! F'in (something)" .. my lip reading skills aren't perfect. So, I guess Welke threw him out for that?

In his defense, the ball was way outside. He really went off on Welke, threw his helmet and later threw his bat which got him booed off the field. At least he didn't throw it at anyone this time. https://www.mlb.com/gameday/padres-vs-rockies/2019/06/15/565450#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=565450 Can't link to the specific video, so scroll down and find it on the left side. Machado gets ejected in the 5th.

I like Eshelman. I think he has a chance of sticking in the rotation in some capacity. If his command is really as good as it seems to be, I think he's got a chance of doing well. Can't wait to see him called up.

Machado wRC+: 95 90 - Mar/Apr 122 - May 35 - Jun WAR: 1.0 OPS+: 95 Harper wRC+: 114 128 - Mar/Apr 111 - May 84 - Jul WAR: 1.8 OPS+: 113 Yes, it's an early reading of his performance with his new team and I even stated so in the post. So what? He hasn't been "just as valuable" as Harper this year so far. He's been below average in two months compared to Harper's one and Harper's WAR is almost twice as high as Mannys. So no, he hasn't been just as valuable. Harper has been almost twice as valuable if we're going by WAR. I said things like "so far" and "I know this is just the first year" which is hardly indicting a 10 year deal on the basis of three weeks or even three months. I don't like any 10 year deal because they rarely ever work out for the team, so the odds are that any such deal indicts itself eventually regardless of who the player is including Harper. My general feelings about 10 year deals are based on the history of 10 year deals. Not "three weeks" or months. Even reading my post again, I fail to see how that is indicting an entire 10 year deal based on three weeks. I also know what I think of Manny's attitude and performance because he played here for years and saw some of the bush league "step on the first baseman's ankle" and "I don't hustle" stuff he did last year with the Dodgers which has not changed my opinion of him. On many levels, it's not "early" at all. He's not a below average player, but has a below average attitude which was clearly visible while he was here.

Machado is slugging .397 on the year, .343 over the last month, 228 over the last two weeks and .286 over the last week. Only two home runs in the last 30 days and hitting .140 over the last two weeks. I sure am glad we dodged that bullet. So far, seems like a guy that got his money and is going to take it easy for awhile now. It's only year one, but damn is that pathetic. He's doing a great imitation of Chris Davis these last couple weeks with his .462 OPS and all. At least Harper has been solid so far for the Phillies.

AAA Numbers 2017: 121 IP, 10-3, 2.23 (0.94), 80K/13BB, 8HR 2018: 140.1 IP, 2-13, 5.84 (1.67), 104K/45BB, 21HR 2019: 26 IP, 1-1, 2.77 (1.07), 23K/5BB, 3HR Don't know what happened to him in 2018 and early this year in AA, but he seems to be back on track in 2019 so far since being promoted back to AAA. He gave up 189 hits in those 140.1 innings., but otherwise less than a hit per inning. Could be a serviceable starter, maybe a Paul Byrd type guy. Let's find out.

If he averages 180 hits and 30 HR a season over the next 10 years, he's got a real shot. So, 1746 hits (he has 54 this season) and 290 HRs (10 this season) would put him at 2850 hits and 475 HRs. He's got a legitimate chance and he'd be in his age 37 season, so maybe he'd have another 150 hits and 25 HR's in the tank. I wouldn't say it's highly unlikely barring major injury problems.

I was talking about the stint in AAA which seemed like a decent comparison (sans the walks) because of the games played. He wasn't good when he was with the ML club, though. As far as walks, he walked 18 times in 213PA last year with the Nats (8.45%) and this season, he has 12 walks in 120PA (10%) which is an increase of 1.55%. A 10% walk rate up from 8.45% last season which is up from 6.27% in 2017 which is up from 5.99% in 2016 (also had five walks in 32PA in a brief stint with the Nats in 2016 good for 14.7%, but way too SSS to be relevant), so there is an overall increasing trend over the last few years with the walks. The .756 OPS he had last year at AAA was the highest of his career and now he's doing this with us. Whether he can sustain it is anyone's guess, but his approach at the plate has been outstanding so far this season. Considering Tony mentioned that he has always needed a better approach, maybe he has had that reinforced under the new regime. If it's a fluke, we'll know soon enough.

I agree with this. I hadn't looked at Severino's stats before last night's game, but what stood out is he is taking way more walks than he ever did in the past. Aside from the walks/OBP, he did hit like this while in AAA for the Nationals. I too think there's a chance of sustained success with him. He is more patient and as a result, pitchers can't get him out on pitchers pitches so he's getting better pitches to hit and he's not missing them. More time is needed, but I don't think it's so easy in this case to write it off as some kind of flash-in-the-pan success. He has definitely changed something in his approach this year. We'll just have to wait and see whether he can keep it going or not, but I think he should be our starting catcher right now and see what he does with it. Sisco should be for when/if Severino regresses back to his former self, but not before.

Severino should get a full 1 WAR for tonight's game.

Well, if we're going to have other guys in the bullpen, we might as well use them. We can't just use Givens all the time and expect him to go more than one inning. Our bullpen is terrible and indeed, who is going to get the outs? Givens isn't getting them either, but he has been a successful bullpen piece in the past and there's no reason to think he can't be that again just maybe not in the ninth. The other guys may amount to nothing, but I think he has to be careful with relying too much on Givens. One of those guys we have now may surprise us, so let's just use what we have and sort the wheat from the chaff as we go. If we want to trade Givens or if the organization sees him as a part of the future, then we have got to put him in situations where he will excel. You can't go forcing something if it's just not right and it's possible that being a closer isn't in the cards for him. The most important thing for him now is having good outings and I would suggest one inning outings only for the time being.

Givens closing is an experiment. It's not like he has established himself as a viable closer to this point in his career nor has he, in my opinion, earned a whole lot of rope here. He has failed 50% of the time this year to get the job done, so he is getting horribly burned half the time he's going into that building. His body language and the emotion on his face at times did not scream "keep putting me in there coach!" You can't just keep putting people into situations where they're failing over and over again and expect them to figure it out especially in high pressure situations. Some guys respond well to that and some don't. Givens does not appear to be one of the ones that does. It's not just this season and it certainly does not appear that he has what it takes to be a closer. Continuing to put someone into a situation that they are showing you is too much for them is not productive and can be, in fact, destructive. Not everyone reacts the same way to the same stimulus. Part of why a team stays behind a manager is also knowing his players and knowing that they can't all be given the same treatment because they respond differently to different things. Knowing when to push a player and when to back off a little as well as which ones work best on which players. You put guys in a situation where they are most likely to succeed, not fail. Givens has proven nothing as far as being a closer is concerned despite having been given numerous chances; 13-for-28 is not good. Even if you remove the 0-for-7 before last season, he's still 13-for-21. Making players earn their places as opposed to just handing it to them even if their performance doesn't merit them being there is a good way to keep your team behind you, too. If Givens wants to be a closer, he's going to have to do better. He has been awful. How many more times should his confidence have to take the hit of losing the game for his team in the last inning? He's not ready yet and he may never be. We'll see. Let him get some positive outings under his belt and then try to ease him back into the ninth and see what happens.

I was thinking about that, too. I guess my answer is that this year (and probably next year) are more about finding out what we have and where they will slot into the future if at all. If we want to see if Givens can be the closer, then we need to look after him and groom his confidence over the next year or two and see what we can get out of him. I am not concerned with trying to squeak out every little win because.. what's the point? These years are about figuring out who is going to be part of our future and who isn't. For the ones that are, how do we want them to fit and can we make them fit? With Givens, I guess the question is can he be a reliable closer at some point? I don't really think so, but this is the time to find out. Use the other guys in the pen is what he can do. I know there's not much to work with now, but to me, this year and probably the next two at least are about building the future. Maybe one or two of those guys will surprise us.

It's more than two weeks. He went 8-for-10 in saves down the stretch last season which means a 20% failure rate. That is not "perfectly fine" as a closer. and he is 13-for-28 in save chances up to this point in his career. He's failing 50% of the time this year, so I am not as confident as you are in his ability to close. I will agree that he has the best shot among the guys we have now, but that's not saying much. He does have a chance, but ... I don't know. I'm not sure he has the mentality for it, but we'll see.

I am pretty far from calling for Hyde's head, but I don't think he is always reading situations well or his players in the case of Givens. Look, maybe Hyde's way of motivating players is to just keep throwing them in the fire and that certainly works for some guys. Givens is clearly not one of those guys. He has never done well when given the chance to close games. It can take some time to get used to pitching in such a role and seems to take guys a few tries before they get comfortable in that role. Givens has been awful. I don't care that he pitched multiple innings in the past. If you keep sending a guy out there to not only fail, but repeatedly lose games for his team at the last minute is crushing and will destroy confidence, not build it in his case. I don't know why he would send Givens out there for the eighth last night after such a strong seventh. That's the perfect time to take him out on a positive note, but Hyde does the same thing Buck did constantly in leaving guys in for a batter too long. I also don't care how bad the bullpen is. It's irrelevant to Hyde's ability to manage the guys he has effectively. It's not his fault if he brings a guy in and he implodes, but it starts to become his fault if he continues putting that guy into the same situation over and over despite continued failures. It's not like Givens is an established closer and it's not like this team is going anywhere this year except down. I am interested in how he manages his players. He had a great opportunity last night to let Givens end his night on a VERY high note. Instead, he ends it on a low note and the Orioles lose the lead and ultimately the game. Maybe we would have lost anyway, but he still made the wrong decision with Givens.. again. I can agree with the sentiment that next year will say a lot more about Hyde than this year, but I don't think it's unreasonable to point things out along the way and see how they develop as time passes.

He did that stuff all the time when he was here. Palmer routinely lambasted him for not running out ground balls he had a chance of beating out or going into a home run trot when it wasn't a home run and being stuck on first base instead of second or third. It's not viewed the same without the orange glasses, that's all. He ran hard sometimes and sometimes, it was like the video.

Yup, nail on the head.

I don't think he put him in knowing he would fail, but he has failed to understand his player and what he needs. I am shocked that he put Givens in there again tonight and he waited until there were two guys on base to bring him in to get two outs. He brought him in to a situation with more pressure than he would have just starting the inning himself. I just think he is mismanaging Givens right now. He needs some chances to build his confidence back up. I'm not against using him at all, but use him in the seventh for awhile or something and try Kline in the ninth. Givens looked like a broken man tonight after blowing the game. Hyde simply can not keep sending him out to close at this point or he's going to break him. Givens can be good, but he needs to get out of the kitchen for awhile until he feels confident again. Hyde set Givens up to fail tonight by not reading the situation properly. JMO. Hopefully, he can read it better now. Let's see what Kline can do.

You mean he's still here?

So, great defender. Home run power to all fields and uses all fields. Showed the ability to take walks in the minors and was decent in that area in 2016. If 2016-type production is the best he can do plus the glove, we could do worse. Lottta K's though. Just unscientifically estimating if the 2016 production were extended to a full season, he'd have around 25 doubles, 25 home runs, 80 walks, 200+ K's, 45 steals and maybe 3 triples and the 107 OPS+ is fine too. Nothing spectacular, but if he can maintain that, it would be a great addition. Can he? Seems unlikely, but we'll see. It would be nice, though. I hope he gets an extended look in the lineup and he's elite defensively in center. Let's see what happens.