What did DT do wrong tonight?

[SilentJames]

Just devil's advocate, but Wieters hasn't been lighting up the plate so far. Why put him in a situation with such a slim margin of victory?

I have a feeling if it were less than two outs Wieters is up there.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I'm guessing he wanted a guy to get on base rather than just one very long-odds shot at a dinger that wouldn't even tie the game.

Getting on base has not been Matt's strong suit so far. Zaun's OBP is 100 points higher: .300 vs .200, and with 2 outs, it's been .350.

So, if you wanna keep the inning going, do you want the odds being 1 in 3, or 1 in 5?

Plus, Matt hasn't exactly been a dinger machine yet. Not sure this was a situation where you bet on potential.

I don't pretend to know what DT was thinking, but that's the only thing that comes to mind...

Seriously?

If I walked up to the plate earlier in the game and got hit in the head with a pitch, my OBP would be .800 points higher than Wieters'; would you then want me up in that situation?

And, do you know who IS out-hitting Zaun and only slightly behind in OPS? Wigginton.

[RShack]

Just devil's advocate, but Wieters hasn't been lighting up the plate so far. Why put him in a situation with such a slim margin of victory?

I have a feeling if it were less than two outs Wieters is up there.

If the situation called for sac-fly, I bet he'd be up there. But to keep an inning going? I don't think so.

I think folks are confusing the desire for a dramatic big swing with what the actual need was: to just keep the inning going.

[BaltimoreTerp]

A lot of people here seem to think that a catchers main job, besides throwing out runners trying to steal, is to hit. Most ML managers don't see it that way. I would think not stressing his hitting right now, is important because the responsibility of catching in the ML must be foremost in his mind. Once again I wouldn't presume to know what is gong on with Wieters or what DT knows or does not know in this situation.

So, if Wieters was crushing the ball you wouldn't want him up to pinch-hit there?

[SilentJames]

You had three choices:

Zaun

Wieters

Wiggington

None of them, right now, are really great options with two outs and the game on the line. In three months Wieters is probably that answer, but honestly - HONESTLY, are you trusting any of those three in that situation?

Not saying I agree with that decision, but I am asking people to be honest with themselves for a second.

[Mooreisbetter27]

If the situation called for sac-fly, I bet he'd be up there. But to keep an inning going? I don't think so.

I think folks are confusing the desire for a dramatic big swing with what the actual need was: to just keep the inning going.

Maybe. But even if he doesn't bring Wieter's up, he had Wigginton on the bench too. Zaun has done nothing to suggest he should be up in that situation (not that Wigginton has, but he'd be more likely to produce in that situation). So even if you don't bring up Wieter's, why not Wigginton?

The move is just a head scratcher. In a perfect world he brings up Wieter's who gets a big hit for a few rbi, then brings up Ty for Andino who gets another hit... etc. I dunno, I never ever say anything bad about Trembley, but this one really has me baffled. It really feels like he just conceded victory.

[BaltimoreTerp]

If the situation called for sac-fly, I bet he'd be up there. But to keep an inning going? I don't think so.

I think folks are confusing the desire for a dramatic big swing with what the actual need was: to just keep the inning going.

I think we're closer to victory at 9-8 with two outs and the bases-empty than with 9-5 with two outs and the bases loaded.

[SilentJames]

So, if Wieters was crushing the ball you wouldn't want him up to pinch-hit there?

But Wieters ISN'T crushing the ball. If Wieters WAS crushing the ball, or even hitting for average right now, he would have been up there. But right now Wieters is doing none of those things.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You had three choices:

Zaun

Wieters

Wiggington

None of them, right now, are really great options with two outs and the game on the line. In three months Wieters is probably that answer, but honestly - HONESTLY, are you trusting any of those three in that situation?

Not saying I agree with that decision, but I am asking people to be honest with themselves for a second.

I'm not trusting any of the three, but that includes the guy at the plate and I'm trusting one of the other two a little more.

[SilentJames]

Maybe. But even if he doesn't bring Wieter's up, he had Wigginton on the bench too. Zaun has done nothing to suggest he should be up in that situation (not that Wigginton has, but he'd be more likely to produce in that situation). So even if you don't bring up Wieter's, why not Wigginton?

The move is just a head scratcher. In a perfect world he brings up Wieter's who gets a big hit for a few rbi, then brings up Ty for Andino who gets another hit... etc. I dunno, I never ever say anything bad about Trembley, but this one really has me baffled. It really feels like he just conceded victory.

But if you sub Wiggington then you leave yourself with nothing NO bench in extras because Wieters then has to come in and catch. So Wiggy really isn't an option.

Besides, what has Wiggy done lately to deserve that shot?

[SilentJames]

I'm not trusting any of the three, but that includes the guy at the plate and I'm trusting one of the other two a little more.

So say he subs Wieters, how quick is the thread about "setting him up to fail" and "why bring him in in such a tight situation on his day off" blah blah blah.

Again, When you have no one batting over 250, and the rookie isn't batting over the mendoza line - well, what has Wieters done to warrant being put in that position right now?

[Mooreisbetter27]

But if you sub Wiggington then you leave yourself with nothing NO bench in extras because Wieters then has to come in and catch. So Wiggy really isn't an option.

Besides, what has Wiggy done lately to deserve that shot?

I'm assuming that was his main thought process.. that he either had to bring in Wieters to pinch hit or lose all his men.

I'll be honest... I haven't watched every game... but I catch as many as I can and everytime Wieter's is up... he works the count well and a lot of the time he hits the ball hard. Hell, I think he got a hit yesterday.

I guess my main issue is just Zaun getting the at bat...the guy has done nothing all year...and I don't expect him to suddenly start making clutch hits.

[BaltimoreTerp]

But if you sub Wiggington then you leave yourself with nothing NO bench in extras because Wieters then has to come in and catch. So Wiggy really isn't an option.

Sure he is, if Trembley is trying to win.

[SilentJames]

I'm assuming that was his main thought process.. that he either had to bring in Wieters to pinch hit or lose all his men.

I'll be honest... I haven't watched every game... but I catch as many as I can and everytime Wieter's is up... he works the count well and a lot of the time he hits the ball hard. Hell, I think he got a hit yesterday.

I guess my main issue is just Zaun getting the at bat...the guy has done nothing all year...and I don't expect him to suddenly start making clutch hits.

Wieters has been scuffling. So you can look at this one of two ways:

1) Why bring in the scuffling rookie, star though he may be, in a situation where the margin for victory is very slim when you have barely a ghost of chance of winning anyway?

or:

2) This is just the situation the kid needs to turn it around. Win or lose he needs to know he is the man I want.

[SilentJames]

Sure he is, if Trembley is trying to win.

Why? What has Wiggington done to give anyone any confidence in his abilities off the bench this year?