Cole Irvin 2024

[dystopia]

5 minutes ago, survivedc said:

You can make a bad decision that isn’t stupid. And either way, it’s not objectively a bad decision. It was a move that won the game, using a guy that hadn’t pitched in 4 days (Cano), had pitched once in 4 days (Coulombe) and hadn’t pitched in 5 days (Kimbrel). Not like it’s a group that pitched every game in the last series.

Im sure the goal today would be to not use  Coulombe and then only use Kimbrel once more this series. Remember Monday is an off day.

Coulombe pitched Thursday, there was zero reason for him to ever come into that game yesterday. Yes, the goal today probably would be to avoid him -- which is exactly the point I'm making about Hyde -- burning our best relievers for no reason.

Sticking was Irvin instead of looking for a reliever who didn't have it was the better move. Luckily every pitcher he brought in was on top of their game yesterday, but it very easily could have had a different outcome.

[Aristotelian]

4 minutes ago, dystopia said:

Coulombe pitched Thursday, there was zero reason for him to ever come into that game yesterday. Yes, the goal today probably would be to avoid him -- which is exactly the point I'm making about Hyde -- burning our best relievers for no reason.

Sticking was Irvin instead of looking for a reliever who didn't have it was the better move. Luckily every pitcher he brought in was on top of their game yesterday, but it very easily could have had a different outcome.

So to be clear your problem was with Coulombe more.so than removing Irvin? Because Hyde also could have extended Cano beyond the 3 pitches he threw if the goal was to save Coulombe. But then you might have Cano restricted today. Using Coulombe back to back takes him away but now literally everyone else is available today. We should be able to get through two games with 7 pitchers. We have an off day on Monday and another on Thursday. 

[interloper]

10 minutes ago, dystopia said:

Coulombe pitched Thursday, there was zero reason for him to ever come into that game yesterday. Yes, the goal today probably would be to avoid him -- which is exactly the point I'm making about Hyde -- burning our best relievers for no reason.

Sticking was Irvin instead of looking for a reliever who didn't have it was the better move. Luckily every pitcher he brought in was on top of their game yesterday, but it very easily could have had a different outcome.

Zero reason? It's a 3-0 game on the road. Secure the win.

[potota_bread]

I understand questioning some things during the game. I couldn't imagine waking up in the morning after a road win and crying about it, though. Nothing is perfect. We won, we have best record in the AL, enjoy it.

[dystopia]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

So to be clear your problem was with Coulombe more.so than removing Irvin? Because Hyde also could have extended Cano beyond the 3 pitches he threw if the goal was to save Coulombe. But then you might have Cano restricted today. Using Coulombe back to back takes him away but now literally everyone else is available today. We should be able to get through two games with 7 pitchers. We have an off day on Monday and another on Thursday. 

No, my main issue was removing Irvin. And guess what? Everyone in the game thread reacted with disbelief when Hyde removed him -- that's how you know it was a ridiculous decision.

 

[dystopia]

6 minutes ago, interloper said:

Zero reason? It's a 3-0 game on the road. Secure the win.

When Hyde walked to the mound to remove Irvin, was your reaction "Yes! Get that bum out of there!" or "WTF are you doing Hyde?" 

Be honest.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

100% didn’t want him in the rotation at all going into the off sseason.

Dunno why considering how he finished last year. 

[RZNJ]

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Dunno why considering how he finished last year. 

Find me someone who had Cole Irvin penciled into our starting rotation.  There might be a few before we acquired Burnes.  I would guess there were none after that.   

[andymax]

Citing game thread reactions to back up the assertion that you're being rational isn't as convincing as you think it is.

[dystopia]

Just now, andymax said:

Citing game thread reactions to back up the assertion that you're being rational isn't as convincing as you think it is.

Okay Mr. 8 posts.

[andymax]

Just now, dystopia said:

Okay Mr. 8 posts.

Another winning argument, I think everybody is convinced now!

[RZNJ]

2 minutes ago, dystopia said:

Okay Mr. 8 posts.

His posts are intentionally funny.

[RZNJ]

10 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Dunno why considering how he finished last year. 

“That's true, it depends on what else they do.  

I've gone on record as saying I think they're going to bank on G-Rod year 2 and a healthy Means being the main "offseason acquisitions."  Irvin/Hall for the 5th spot.  

Now I'm not rooting for that to happen, I agree that they need to add a good starter but I can easily, easily see this outcome.  Lots of tire kicking, no acquisitions for a key rotation arm.”

On January 9, you were hoping for something better.

[interloper]

11 minutes ago, dystopia said:

When Hyde walked to the mound to remove Irvin, was your reaction "Yes! Get that bum out of there!" or "WTF are you doing Hyde?" 

Be honest.

It was, "yeah I guess this makes sense, Irvin gave up a loud double and the bullpen is rested and I trust Hyde with these moves 9 times out of 10." 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Find me someone who had Cole Irvin penciled into our starting rotation.  There might be a few before we acquired Burnes.  I would guess there were none after that.   

Didn’t know that Bradish and Means would open the year on the DL.  I assumed that Irvin and Wells would be battling to be the first guy inserted into the rotation in case of injury.