I'm not really one to second guess the manager...

[Sports Guy]

Good Post RShack. People can not understand that baseball is a game of decisions. What is worst we have some posters, who actually think they know more than the guys that make the decisions. That is what is boneheaded and terrible.

Of course people understand that...they just don't want those decisions to be poor.

Taking the bat out of the hands of the guy with the third highest OPS in the AL is poor. Asking that same player to bunt, when he never really ever does, is poor.

Taking the bat out of the hands of a guy that has an 850 OPS and an OPS of almost 1000 over the last 7 days is poor.

Putting the bat(and potentially the game) in the hands of a hitter with a 638 OPS and an OPS in the 500s over the last 7 games is poor.

I love it when the OH holier than though posters come into threads like this and act as if second guessing a manager is wrong. It is such bs...It makes OldFan's arguments against Markakis look intelligent.

[Lucky Jim]

Yep....He is good...Boston needs a bat...I wonder if they would be inclined to move him or Papelbon as a main piece for a bat?

I'd venture no - for the sole reason that the team is built on on-base and defense (for the most part) and so they need high-leverage dominance in order to really compete.

[Hank Scorpio]

Love this from Viviano.

http://1057thefan.cbslocal.com/shows/mark-viviano-the-bulldog/

Orioles fans (and players, manager and coaches, and front office) can breathe out for a minute after a 3-game sweep of Boston. Ty Wiggnton told me in the post-game clubhouse that the good feeling lasts about 10 minutes, then it’s on to the next challenge: 3 games at Yankee Stadium. No, the weekend sweep doesn’t save what’s been a disastrous start to the season but maybe it saves me a day of having to hear what a horrible manager Dave Trembley is. Is Trembley a good manager, who knows? Was he a better manager this weekend? Not really. So what happened that they were able to beat Boston 3 straight? Well, Baltimore’s players were better than Boston’s players for 3 games. Yep, there it is again: players win baseball games and the Orioles have played better lately. Managerial moves can make a difference in games, no doubt, but the success and failure of those moves come down to how well the players execute when put into the positions they’re called on to pitch, hit, run or field. Terry Crowley must’ve coached the heck out of those Oriole hitters this weekend: they scored 12 runs on Saturday and hit 5 home runs! Trembley is a genius for moving Jones to the lead-off spot in the absence of Brian Roberts and pitching coach Rick Kranitz is a miracle worker for the much-maligned Matt Albers earning a win in relief. How silly does all of that sound? I hope it sounds real silly because that’s the stuff I hear some fans saying to the opposite when the team is failing: Trembley can’t manage, Crowley can’t coach hitting, and Kranitz is a failed pitching coach. Did you hear what Trembley said in his post-game comments after the 3rd straight win over Boston on Sunday? He said, “It’s the players.” Thanks, skip I appreciate the validation of my personal belief that primarily it’s the guys between the lines who win and lose games. And, clearly the Orioles don’t have as many good players as the other teams in the A.L. East. It doesn’t mean that can’t win some games here and there and when they win 3 in a row, 4 out of 6 on a home stand, and 5 of 7 overall it’s noteworthy. But make the note of who played well and how well they played. Nick Markakis 7 hits in 12 at-bats, 5 RBI on Saturday…Adam Jones 7 for 14, 3 runs scored in Saturday…Ty Wigginton 3 for 8, 2 HR Saturday and game-winning RBI on Sunday….Miguel Tejada 6 for 11 with a couple of clutch hits in the win on Friday including the game-winner in the 10th inning. In summary: I’m taking time during a winning streak to point out that when the players perform well, the team is more apt to win games, as opposed to the tiresome practice of suggesting (when the team does poorly) it’s a managerial issue.

Just my opinion. Call me on the show and tell me otherwise if you believe so. I always enjoy the conversation.

[Sports Guy]

I'd venture no - for the sole reason that the team is built on on-base and defense (for the most part) and so they need high-leverage dominance in order to really compete.

Yea, i would agree...But I will say this...If I am Boston, I am looking to trade Papelbon in the offseason.

[Lucky Jim]

Yea, i would agree...But I will say this...If I am Boston, I am looking to trade Papelbon in the offseason.

Me, too. And I might package Delcarmen with a bundle of prospects and hope it gets something close to Papelbon or Bard.

[olehippi]

Sooo...some people complain that he had Wigginton bunt in the 8th. While other people thought it was foolish that Wigginton didnt bunt again in the 10th. Poor Dave can't please anyone around here.

In that situation you can play big ball, play small ball, or have no balls. Well, Trembley had the balls to make a decision...in real time...not from the comfortable position of "second guessing" that everyone here knows and loves.

And as you suggest, it was a "no win" situation for Trembely only because it is impossible to please everyone on the Hangout....even if the strategy had worked out as he hoped.

[maudibjr]

I do not have a problem with the decision to have Wiggy bunt. It was a close call, certainly not 'terrible' or 'foolish'.

It didn't work, but I don't think that the reasoning was wrong. The problem was that Luke could not get a sac fly or draw the walk.

Bard pitching to Scott and Nolan was also filthy.

I think that the wiggy situation in the 10th was totally diffrent and not even comparable.

[Going Underground]

I think it was the right move.You can't help it if Scott strikes out. Wiggy hit into a double play once in the gane already. The 10th was different since it was no runner at first. I thought Wiggy was going to hit it toward first base. They were pitching him in so he could not shot the ball to the other side. I was watching when Wiggy hit the ball and neither Boston outfielder took a good route to the ball.

[bluedog]

Does anyone know the probability stats of how often a team scores with 1st & 2nd, no outs, as opposed to 2nd & 3rd, 1 out?

I would think you're more likely to have a multi-run inning in the first situation, but you're more likely to score 1 run in the second scenario.

Is that accurate? If so, I don't have a problem with Trembley increasing his odds of scoring 1 run, since it was a tie game in the 8th. Earlier in the game, I wouldn't have had Wigginton bunt, but in that situation it was defensible.

But how accurate are the odds if they don't take into account who's actually hitting?

To use a big stretch lets say its the Cardinals and the hitter your asking to bunt is Pujols and the guy that comes up with the bases loaded and one out is (because of a double switch or something) the Pitcher. You throw the situational stats out the window in that scenario. It doesn't matter what the stats say, the difference in the quality of the hitters completely overrides the situational stats.

Clearly Wigginton and Tejada are not Pujols and Scott doesn't hit like a pitcher (right now he might be worse!), but the principle should hold.

The situational stats are based on a large sample of stats where the quality of the individual hitters is probably close to even to each other. It is certainly not true that the probability of scoring in those two situations holds true if the hitter in the first situation is batting .330 and the hitter in the second situation is batting .180.

So although situational stats are a useful guide for making decisions, they should never be used as absolutes to override the actual in game scenario - otherwise we could just write a rule book for how to manage games based on stats and then hire JTrea to manage the O's.

[bluedog]

I do not have a problem with the decision to have Wiggy bunt. It was a close call, certainly not 'terrible' or 'foolish'.

It didn't work, but I don't think that the reasoning was wrong. The problem was that Luke could not get a sac fly or draw the walk.

Bard pitching to Scott and Nolan was also filthy.

I think that the wiggy situation in the 10th was totally diffrent and not even comparable.

So right now, if I said I'd give you a million bucks if the O's scored a run in one of these scenarios:

1. Scott and then Reimold hitting against Bard with the bases loaded and one out.

2. Wigginton and Tejada hitting against Bard with men on first and second and no outs.

You'd pick #1?

[Since'54]

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with a manager's decisions. That's half of what managers are for. But of course, people can't just disagree with the decision, now can they? No, they cannot. Instead, everything has to "boneheaded" and "terrible". Why? Evidently, it's because the poster is oh-so-much smarter about baseball, to the point where there is no basis for disagreeing, just condemning. What a complete load of baseless ego...

Nope. It was just a boneheaded play -- for the reasons poster the first so persuasively explained.

[Since'54]

I think it was the right move.You can't help it if Scott strikes out. Wiggy hit into a double play once in the gane already. The 10th was different since it was no runner at first. I thought Wiggy was going to hit it toward first base. They were pitching him in so he could not shot the ball to the other side. I was watching when Wiggy hit the ball and neither Boston outfielder took a good route to the ball.

What is a good route to a ball hit in the gap over your head?