Friday, July 14: O's look to overcome City Connect jinx in post-ASG opener with surprising Marlins

[justD]

2 hours ago, Malike said:

I call people 10,000 miles away frequently. I think you're over thinking this.

And yet, when interviewing a guy on the field, they still get feedback like back in the 1950s when you'd tap the mic before making a speech. 

[mrbig1]

4 minutes ago, Fiver6565 said:

Frazier smoked a J right before this interview 

Me and him both.

[justD]

So cool that MASN finally made the decision to allow pre-game and post-game shows on the MLB app.  Haven't seen those shows since moving to PA in 2008, and seeing them here in CO is really great!

[allquixotic]

I was here at this game and it was a fun one! The rain delay brought us a good luck rainbow, and Frazier, Kramer and the Mountain delivered.

 

I will remember this game  

[e16bball]

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Terrible. 

The part I don’t get is why you would hit for O’Hearn to gain the platoon advantage — but then refuse to hit for Mountcastle to regain the platoon advantage once the Marlins have countered. 

The only explanation that makes any sense is that it would have been “disrespectful” to announce Mountcastle and then not even let him hit…but that’s just silly. You were willing to pull O’Hearn because that was a high-leverage AB where we wanted an advantage, you have to be willing to do the same to Mountcastle. He’s a grown up, he’ll get over it. You don’t let him hit when there’s now a better option (Cowser) to take that AB.

[LA2]

23 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

Frazier now leads Rutschman in SLG.

Quite a leap up to the next rung of Henderson and Mullins though. OPS is up to .729 too.

[LA2]

27 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I bet O’Hearn gets a start in one of those two games. 

I doubt it

[Uli2001]

2 hours ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

There you have it from Mike Elias himself. They are trading for pitching.

Elias knows that the future is now. Not next year, not the year after that, but right now. This is one of those kinds of years. You have to go for it.

[SteveA]

5 minutes ago, e16bball said:

The part I don’t get is why you would hit for O’Hearn to gain the platoon advantage — but then refuse to hit for Mountcastle to regain the platoon advantage once the Marlins have countered. 

The only explanation that makes any sense is that it would have been “disrespectful” to announce Mountcastle and then not even let him hit…but that’s just silly. You were willing to pull O’Hearn because that was a high-leverage AB where we wanted an advantage, you have to be willing to do the same to Mountcastle. He’s a grown up, he’ll get over it. You don’t let him hit when there’s now a better option (Cowser) to take that AB.

I don't think that's the ONLY explanation that makes any sense.   Here are some other possibilities that may have been factors:

   -- Not wanting to use 2 of your 5 man bench one one at bat in the 7th inning

   -- Mountcastle is respectable vs righties in his career and the manager is looking at more than just the more recent, small sample size

   -- Cowser hasn't exactly torn it up in the majors.   Your assumption that he is "clearly a better option" is based extrapolating his minor league performance to the majors where he hasn't performed well yet, as well as assuming that Mountcastle's current season is more indicative of who he is than his entire career.

I'm not arguing in favor of the move.   But when you make a blanket statement that the only explanation that makes sense is about not wanting to be disrespectful, and immediately then ridicule that as "silly" -- that is a BS argument technique.     You see it in politics all the time... misrepresent the opponent's position as something silly/extreme that they never actually said, and then ridicule them for the "position" you just labelled them with.   "They want to cut funding to schools, they must HATE children".   "They want to cut defense spending, they must want us to be taken over by the Communist Chinese".   

[25 Nuggets]

9 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

Elias knows that the future is now. Not next year, not the year after that, but right now. This is one of those kinds of years. You have to go for it.

Don't be surprised if it is relief pitching they get instead of starting pitching.  There will be some good targets available.

[Gurgi]

41 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I thought we called them the Three Stooges.

Maybe we did....its been so long.  

[e16bball]

14 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I don't think that's the ONLY explanation that makes any sense.   Here are some other possibilities that may have been factors:

   -- Not wanting to use 2 of your 5 man bench one one at bat in the 7th inning

   -- Mountcastle is respectable vs righties in his career and the manager is looking at more than just the more recent, small sample size

   -- Cowser hasn't exactly torn it up in the majors.   Your assumption that he is "clearly a better option" is based extrapolating his minor league performance to the majors where he hasn't performed well yet, as well as assuming that Mountcastle's current season is more indicative of who he is than his entire career.

All those explanations, and you still didn’t get to the most obvious one that came to me after I made my post, which is that using Cowser there leaves you without a 1B in the game since Santander was the DH. The difference between Cowser and Mountcastle isn’t worth burning your DH or having to use three bench players on one AB (to then have to sub Urias into the game at 1B). 

I’m sure that some of your points may well have been in Hyde’s head, although I do have to say that I don’t consider Cowser’s present slashline to be a reasonable representation of the quality of his ABs so far, and he certainly already has a more professional approach than Mountcastle, regardless of their respective experience. And while I recognize there’s some benefit to considering players’ overall track records — they are (and should be) regularly playing O’Hearn over Mountcastle, which speaks to their willingness to prioritize what they’ve done lately. 
 

As for the rest of your editorial of a post, which I didn’t quote, you can miss me with that rubbish. I’m sorry that my largely spontaneous, superficial, gut reaction reasoning reminded you of “what’s wrong with America.” I actually prepare, hone, and thoroughly refine comprehensive arguments for a living, so I’ll try to keep in mind that that’s the standard for posts in the OH Game Thread.

[SteveA]

16 minutes ago, e16bball said:

All those explanations, and you still didn’t get to the most obvious one that came to me after I made my post, which is that using Cowser there leaves you without a 1B in the game since Santander was the DH. The difference between Cowser and Mountcastle isn’t worth burning your DH or having to use three bench players on one AB (to then have to sub Urias into the game at 1B). 

I’m sure that some of your points may well have been in Hyde’s head, although I do have to say that I don’t consider Cowser’s present slashline to be a reasonable representation of the quality of his ABs so far, and he certainly already has a more professional approach than Mountcastle, regardless of their respective experience. And while I recognize there’s some benefit to considering players’ overall track records — they are (and should be) regularly playing O’Hearn over Mountcastle, which speaks to their willingness to prioritize what they’ve done lately. 
 

As for the rest of your editorial of a post, which I didn’t quote, you can miss me with that rubbish. I’m sorry that my largely spontaneous, superficial, gut reaction reasoning reminded you of “what’s wrong with America.” I actually prepare, hone, and thoroughly refine comprehensive arguments for a living, so I’ll try to keep in mind that that’s the standard for posts in the OH Game Thread.

Good point on Santander being  DH.  I did forget that.

 

[TraditionRich]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Is it me or are we witnessing the annual Hays cooling period?

I think it's you.

[Moose Milligan]

5 hours ago, TraditionRich said:

I think it's you.

No.