Hyde Hot Seat

[LookitsPuck]

9 minutes ago, Deadwood Fan said:

Rubenstein is going to make the call on the manager. 

If that happens, Angelos might be the better owner. The last thing you want is ownership, that doesn’t know even a fraction of what the GM knows about baseball, making baseball decisions over his GM. It would signal massive micro managing and a dysfunctional organization.

[Ohfan67]

6 hours ago, LookinUp said:

 

Then new guys came in and it's like they brought their culture. 

It’s not culture. They are AAAA players. They are fringe talents. 

[Flightless]

Obviously Hyde has shown his limitations this season. Steam comes out of my ears when I watch his post-game interviews. Always sounds like he is giving everyone a pass and an excuse. He does not sound like an inspiring manager and his on-field moves seem orchestrated out of desperation and lack of confidence. I’d be pissed as a player too if everyone always got a pass for incompetent play. If you’ve ever played sports you know what I mean. 

[ShoelesJoe]

Really tired of the losing, but even more tired of the team not playing the game the right way. Giants losing by a run get men on 1st and 2nd no outs, and their next guy lays down a nice bunt. Kremer slips fielding the roller and next thing you know they got bases loaded no outs, and a couple minutes later three runs have crossed the plate. We have the same situation in the 7th inning and our best bunt guy up to bat, and what does Hyde do? He has Mullins (0-3 at that point w/o hitting the ball out of the infield) swing away. WTF. Mullins strikes out, and our runners are eventually stranded. 
 

At the very least Mullins should shown bunt. He didn’t. A good manager would have instructed him to bunt. Hyde didn’t. His team lost the game, and more importantly his team deserved to lose. That’s what really pisses me off. 

[waroriole]

Is it really the injuries?

 

[Safelykept]

13 minutes ago, ShoelesJoe said:

Really tired of the losing, but even more tired of the team not playing the game the right way. Giants losing by a run get men on 1st and 2nd no outs, and their next guy lays down a nice bunt. Kremer slips fielding the roller and next thing you know they got bases loaded no outs, and a couple minutes later three runs have crossed the plate. We have the same situation in the 7th inning and our best bunt guy up to bat, and what does Hyde do? He has Mullins (0-3 at that point w/o hitting the ball out of the infield) swing away. WTF. Mullins strikes out, and our runners are eventually stranded. 
 

At the very least Mullins should shown bunt. He didn’t. A good manager would have instructed him to bunt. Hyde didn’t. His team lost the game, and more importantly his team deserved to lose. That’s what really pisses me off. 

A good manager would have instructed him to bunt

Well not for nothing, but I would like 100 dollars for every time a Good Manager did not bunt with first and second with nobody out. Now if the SF pitcher was LH, I would be onboard. If they were down by 1, maybe. Why would you not let Mullins hit there?

[NashLumber]

3 hours ago, RavensNOsGuy said:

If we replace Hyde with our AAA manager I’m out. That would be the lamest hire ever. What so he can be buddies with all Of the guys in the clubhouse that he saw in Norfolk?

Different era obviously, but Rochester AAA manager Earl Weaver replaced O's skipper Hank Bauer in '68, just a year and a half after Bauer won the World Series. 

[e16bball]

1 minute ago, Safelykept said:

A good manager would have instructed him to bunt

Well not for nothing, but I would like 100 dollars for every time a Good Manager did not bunt with first and second with nobody out. Now if the SF pitcher was LH, I would be onboard. If they were down by 1, maybe. Why would you not let Mullins hit there?

Also, our Bad Manager had Mullins bunt with men on 1st and 2nd and nobody out precisely…two games ago, on Sunday in Detroit.

Fouled off the first two, then flied out rather meekly to center field (advancing the runners anyway on nice tag-ups by Soto and Henderson). But then Santander popped up and Kjerstad hit a weak tapper back to the pitcher, so we went empty. Gave up an out with one of our hottest hitters — just to set up two dudes who couldn’t come through.

I didn’t see Hyde getting too much praise as a Good Manager for doing that on Sunday. If he’d gone right back to the same strategy that failed a couple days ago in the exact same situation, then we’d be telling him “job well done” this time? Only if it worked, I’d wager…

[maybenxtyr]

32 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Is it really the injuries?

 

I think there's something else beyond the injuries,  but a person would have to be naive to think this lineup wouldn't be drastically different with even 2 of the RH hitters on that list. 

[ShoelesJoe]

30 minutes ago, Safelykept said:

A good manager would have instructed him to bunt

Well not for nothing, but I would like 100 dollars for every time a Good Manager did not bunt with first and second with nobody out. Now if the SF pitcher was LH, I would be onboard. If they were down by 1, maybe. Why would you not let Mullins hit there?

I wouldn't let Mullins (.228 / .301 / .403) hit in that situation for the same reason Bob Melvin didn't let Tyler Fitzgerald (.290 / .343 / .516) swing away when he came up with two on no outs in the 4th inning. Laying down a sac bunt was the best way to ensure your team scores that inning. Bob Melvin's strategy led to three runs scoring (Fitzgerald one of them) in a game his team won by two runs. Hyde's strategy led to NO runs scoring in a game his team lost by two runs. Hyde was hoping Mullins would run into one and maybe give us the lead. Hope is not a strategy. 

[ShoelesJoe]

33 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Also, our Bad Manager had Mullins bunt with men on 1st and 2nd and nobody out precisely…two games ago, on Sunday in Detroit.

Fouled off the first two, then flied out rather meekly to center field (advancing the runners anyway on nice tag-ups by Soto and Henderson). But then Santander popped up and Kjerstad hit a weak tapper back to the pitcher, so we went empty. Gave up an out with one of our hottest hitters — just to set up two dudes who couldn’t come through.

I didn’t see Hyde getting too much praise as a Good Manager for doing that on Sunday. If he’d gone right back to the same strategy that failed a couple days ago in the exact same situation, then we’d be telling him “job well done” this time? Only if it worked, I’d wager…

The decision to have Mullins bunt against the Tigers on Sunday was correct, just as it would have been correct on Wednesday to have him bunt against the Giants. Whether or not either bunt was successful is irrelevant. If Mullins tries to bunt in that situation and fails then that is on Mullins. If Mullins doesn't even try to bunt then that is on Hyde. 

[Safelykept]

2 minutes ago, ShoelesJoe said:

I wouldn't let Mullins (.228 / .301 / .403) hit in that situation for the same reason Bob Melvin didn't let Tyler Fitzgerald (.290 / .343 / .516) swing away when he came up with two on no outs in the 4th inning. Laying down a sac bunt was the best way to ensure your team scores that inning. Bob Melvin's strategy led to three runs scoring (Fitzgerald one of them) in a game his team won by two runs. Hyde's strategy led to NO runs scoring in a game his team lost by two runs. Hyde was hoping Mullins would run into one and maybe give us the lead. Hope is not a strategy. 

what are you talking about. See above post by e16bball. 

Even if you move the runners up , you still have to get them in. Last I checked AS and CC went GO, FO. Yeah,  hat full of winners.

[ShoelesJoe]

1 minute ago, Safelykept said:

what are you talking about. See above post by  e16bball.

Even if you move the runners up , you still have to get them in. Last I checked AS and CC went GO, FO. Yeah,  hat full of winners.

See my response to e16bball.

Every successful sac bunt requires that other players come through once the runners are moved up. After Mullins our next two batters were our #3 and #4 hitters, supposedly the heart of the lineup. Those are supposed to be exactly the guys you move runners up for. Santander hit a hard grounder to the first baseman's right which he was able to snag and get a force out at 2nd base. If the runners had been moved up w/first base open the same play would have almost certainly resulted in a run scoring. As it was nobody scored. 

[Safelykept]

3 minutes ago, ShoelesJoe said:

See my response to e16bball.

Every successful sac bunt requires that other players come through once the runners are moved up. After Mullins our next two batters were our #3 and #4 hitters, supposedly the heart of the lineup. Those are supposed to be exactly the guys you move runners up for. Santander hit a hard grounder to the first baseman's right which he was able to snag and get a force out at 2nd base. If the runners had been moved up w/first base open the same play would have almost certainly resulted in a run scoring. As it was nobody scored. 

that makes it 5-4, again hat full of winners, also you might want to check out Ceds OPS the last 3 months, especially against RH. Why do you think he got moved up to 2nd in the lineup, answer? he's been one of our best hitters. Again why do you not let him hit there????

[ShoelesJoe]

4 minutes ago, Safelykept said:

that makes it 5-4, again hat full of winners, also you might want to check out Ceds OPS the last 3 months, especially against RH. Why do you think he got moved up to 2nd in the lineup, answer? he's been one of our best hitters. Again why do you not let him hit there????

Hyde let him hit. How'd that work out?