What did DT do wrong tonight?

[JourneyFan]

After McCrory gave up a few runs, Trembley figured that the game was likely out or reach anyway, so why waste anymore fresh arms?

I was actually in agreement with Dave.

In that case Trembley was doubting his team's abilities, which isn't something I like seeing in a manager.

[Mirko Crocop]

A good source told me Dave Trembley calls Stan Van Gundy any time he has a close 9th inning situation to manage.

[NewMarketSean]

I personally think that he knew McCrory was going out after the game so he wanted to get him some more experience to take with him. I really think DT is looking past some individual games to work on specific issues. Last night, I think he wanted to get this guy more experience that he could take with him to the minors. McCrory clearly has a plus fastball. I'm sure DT and AM want to know if he'll ever be able to harness it up here.

As a fan it was tough for me to watch that 9th inning, because I want to win every game. However, if he was thinking what I'm proposing, I can't really quibble with the decision. I'm not saying I would have done the same, but I do think it is a shades of gray thing.

My 2 cents though I think it is hard to know for sure what was really going through his head. I will say this. I think those of us who think he just "fell asleep" or "gave up" don't have a very good read on DT and haven't thought about this very deeply. Again, just my opinion.

Yeah but do you "take that look" at McCrory down 2 runs in the 9th inning? They should be doing that stuff in blowouts.

[atom_25]

Sure seemed like it to me and all the rest of the fans like me who left in the middle of the top of the ninth inning.

[ChesterPeake]

I agree. What if the Orioles went 1-2-3 in the 9th. Everyone would have said, "nice move by Trembley letting McCrory eat up that burtal ninth inning and saving the bullpen for a close game." Hindsight is always 20-20, so its easy to look back now and say, if only we hadn't given them 4 runs in the 9th. But in baseball, you never know what would have happened. Had the Rays not scored 4, we may not have score any either. You just never know. So I cannot be too critical of keeping McCrory out there, because under different circumstances it may have saved the bullpen for the KC series.

If the things you wrote were true and acceptable (and I don't think they are) then MLB baseball would be bull****!

I'd hate to think that our manager would get so caught up in the idea that the season is a marathon that he would intentionally take a loss in a close game.

If Trembley was thinking that the game was over, then he is just as guilty of trying to see into the future as you say some fans are of having 20-20 hindsight.

I stand by what I said in my previous post in this thread. That was a winnable game until Trembley let McCrory blow it and that sends a bad message to the players.

[Mackus]

Yeah but do you "take that look" at McCrory down 2 runs in the 9th inning? They should be doing that stuff in blowouts.

McCrory got the job done with 2 outs in the 8th. What's different about the 9th?

Once things started unraveling then maybe you take him out, but at that point you're then down 3-4 runs, and it is a blowout, which is then a good time to see what he's got before he goes back down.

[hoosiers]

Trailing by 2 in the 9th is actually a higher leverage situation than leading by 3 in the 9th, I believe. You shouldn't use one of your weakest relievers just because you are "behind".

You should use your weaker relievers in a game where you jump out to an 8 run lead....but no, Saturday night we had to use Baez, Johnson, and Walker so that Baez was tired on Sunday and Johnson and Walker were going for the second consecutive day.

I've been a Trembley supporter since day 1. I loved the attitude he brought to the team; I think he is great at handling people.

But he has completely lost me with his mismanagement of the bullpen this year.

People should be used to this by now.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't think Trembley makes decisions based on this kind of information, but a team going to the bottom of the 9th down two runs won the game 7.9% of the time in 2008. Or about one out of every 12 or 13 games like that.

Trembley probably thought the small chance of the O's winning was less valuable than getting McCrory some experience, the context of the O's expectations in 2009.

As a fan wanting to win every game that's hard to swallow. From a big-picture perspective it's probably not a bad thing.

[LookitsPuck]

I personally think that he knew McCrory was going out after the game so he wanted to get him some more experience to take with him. I really think DT is looking past some individual games to work on specific issues. Last night, I think he wanted to get this guy more experience that he could take with him to the minors. McCrory clearly has a plus fastball. I'm sure DT and AM want to know if he'll ever be able to harness it up here.

As a fan it was tough for me to watch that 9th inning, because I want to win every game. However, if he was thinking what I'm proposing, I can't really quibble with the decision. I'm not saying I would have done the same, but I do think it is a shades of gray thing.

My 2 cents though I think it is hard to know for sure what was really going through his head. I will say this. I think those of us who think he just "fell asleep" or "gave up" don't have a very good read on DT and haven't thought about this very deeply. Again, just my opinion.

Then what he says and what he does are completely different. I listen to him on Saturdays on 105.7, and he clearly wants to win every game. His mantra of managing to win today is something I certainly think he does (see: putting Baez in a blowout game...didn't agree with that move btw). So I don't think he put McCrory in there to fail. Remember, he may have thought McCrory was going down, but at that point Jones was fine and McCrory wasn't going anywhere just yet. Either way, I think it was a poor managing decision, and if he's giving up a close game so that he can look at McCrory for an inning, then shame on him. There's plenty of games in the season, and plenty of opportunities to give him time.

[ChesterPeake]

I don't think Trembley makes decisions based on this kind of information, but a team going to the bottom of the 9th down two runs won the game 7.9% of the time in 2008. Or about one out of every 12 or 13 games like that.

Trembley probably thought the small chance of the O's winning was less valuable than getting McCrory some experience, the context of the O's expectations in 2009.

As a fan wanting to win every game that's hard to swallow. From a big-picture perspective it's probably not a bad thing.

Well, that type of thinking is certainly a slippery slope.

Let's do the analysis of the upcoming game at KC. They have a winning record and we have a losing record. They are 11-6 at home and we are 3-9 on the road. AJ and Luke are hurt. So, we'll probably lose.

Since we're probably going to lose anyway, why not bring up a starter from Single-A to get a little ML experience?

Winning is a culture and so is losing. That's why I still don't appreciate the way Trembley gave up on last night's game.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, that type of thinking is certainly a slippery slope.

Let's do the analysis of the upcoming game at KC. They have a winning record and we have a losing record. They are 11-6 at home and we are 3-9 on the road. AJ and Luke are hurt. So, we'll probably lose.

Since we're probably going to lose anyway, why not bring up a starter from Single-A to get a little ML experience?

Winning is a culture and so is losing. That's why I still don't appreciate the way Trembley gave up on last night's game.

Slippery slope arguments quickly get ridiculous, because anyone can see the difference between a 5% chance at something and a 40 or 45% chance at something.

It's debatable to argue whether a 1-in-13 chance of winning is worth bringing in someone other than McCrory. But the problem is that Trembley doesn't appear to use those odds as a factor in his decision-making.

The fact that Trembley doesn't usually pay attention to the odds has and will continue to cost the Orioles games. He often uses his better relievers in games the O's have tiny chances of winning or losing, making them unavailable or tired for games that the O's have much better odds. DT does a lot of things well, but he really needs to redefine his pitchers' roles to include leverage. The information is available in a few mouse clicks, it's irresponsible to not use it.

[Baroquen131]

I have to agree with VaTech and Dan-O on this one. Some moves work out, like Tuesday's pitching decisions. Some don't like last night's. But I suspect Trembley has his reasons for leaving McCrory in - whether it was to get a last look at him, give the guy some experience before being sent down, or save the bullpen for the KC series. People can disagree with the decision making, but it's not like he's falling asleep and giving games away. And no, I don't see as perpetuating a losing culture, or giving up on his players. To me, it smacks of 'big picture' type of decision making, and doesn't bother me.

If McCrory recovered, this discussion doesn't happen. And if the O's don't score those 9th inning runs (which they haven't done much of late... there's a whole thread on late clutch hitting on the front page of Orioles Talk, I beleive), this discussion doesn't happen. Because of the somewhat unsual combination, we've got another chance to jump on Trembley and shotgun manage.

Have I been thrilled with all his decisions this year? No. And this one is questionable in my mind too. But my torch and pitchfork aren't ready to be used yet.

[markdublya]

I'm one of those people that believes that if everything happens even a minute later, the same scenario may not play out. That being said, if we had someone slam the door, Pie would have hit a walk-off bomb!!

Unless Percival is one of those guys that can only focus in save situations...

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm one of those people that believes that if everything happens even a minute later, the same scenario may not play out. That being said, if we had someone slam the door, Pie would have hit a walk-off bomb!!

Unless Percival is one of those guys that can only focus in save situations...

We've finally gotten to the crux of the matter: Dave Trembley is both a crystal ball reader and a member of JTrea's cabal! The conspiracy wouldn't stand for a Pie walk-off!

[olehippi]

I started this thread because I questioned Trembley’s motives for leaving McCrory in despite the fact that he had obviously lost his control - 3 walks - and then started serving up BP fastballs that came whizzing back past him on the mound. It wasn’t in hindsight that I questioned Trembley’s inaction, it was while McCrory was quickly sliding into trouble. He obviously had lost command of his pitches, and the game was still on the line.

IMO, the suggestions being offered that Trembley left McCrory in to “discover himself”....or for Trembley to evaluate him….or because he was being sent down….or whatever…is pure BS. The object of baseball is to win the game….EVERY game…and to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to achieve that goal. To do or think otherwise is disingenuous to the players, the fans, and to the integrity of the game itself.

All of us have questioned various moves Trembley has made, usually with the full advantage of 20-20 hindsight, and I have no doubt that will continue. Along with hypothesizing trades, it is a favorite OH past-time. But there are some moves, or the lack thereof, that lack supporting logic, and I think this was one of them.

I am a Trembley fan, and I have always thought he is the right man for the job right now…and maybe the right man for the future as well. But when I see what appears (to me) to be such an obvious managing gaffe, it raised the question in my mind -- why did he leave McCrory in? I was hoping that someone would ask that question in the post-game interview, but they didn’t….or I didn’t hear it…and I also found that odd because of the way the game ended. It was almost as if the reporters were told not to ask it.