fuck you white jerry

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

You dope.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Between the leaving Parnell in to hit, then pulling him, then the switches...that was almost Randolphian.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I wish a malicious virus on him.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Parnell didn't hit, did he? I was at the game, I should have known. He was just removed after his one batter to end the 7th because Rauch is the Eighth Inning Guy.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Miscounted-- you're right. But still... if this is how they're operating WITH set roles, well, shouldn't relievers' comfort level be less of a concern?

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: ... if this is how they're operating WITH set roles, well, shouldn't relievers' comfort level be less of a concern?

I thought that the relievers' comfort level was one of the primary reasons for assigning them set roles (i.e., set designated innings). Not that I, you know, endorse these asinine assignments.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Well, yes. But if their pitching in relative comfort produces these kinds of results, then, hell, dress them in burlap uni alternates and make them sit on triangular bullpen stools.

[Edgy MD]

The thing is --- you can keep them in familiar roles based on the rank of their effectiveness without the specific inning being a necessary part of the equation at all.

[Edgy MD]

Post this table on the bullpen wall. Tell them as the game moves into the leverage and period situation where their name falls, the higher the likelihood that they are going to be called, and they should be mentally ready at that point. That does not, however, guarantee they will go in at that point, but will instead enter if, and only if, the pitcher who is currently in the game is
a) failing,
gassed, or
c) on the obviously wrong side of a strategic overmatch, such as Byrdak-vs.-Werth.

But if these obvious situations aren't occurring, then it's on the manager to stay with the pitcher who is pitching, because every time you bring a new pitcher in, you are rolling the dice that he is on his game that day, and it's on you, and not him, if you removed a guy who was coming up sevens for a guy who comes up snake-eyes. It's on you that you are burning another pitcher for the day when you don't have to.

You are also next on the depth chart behind the guy to the right of you, so be ready to go in if you didn't get used during and your chunk of the game and if he is failing or gassed.

This should be screamingly obvious. I feel like I've said it a thousand ways. And it certainly seemed obvious through much of baseball history. But now we have bullpen sizes ever-more bloated, ever-more overused, but no more effective, and probably less.

[Frayed Knot]

I was too pissed off last night to go wading through any post-game stuff, so did we ever get an explanation from [crossout]J[/crossout]Terry on pulling Parnell after just 5 pitches?

Not that Rauch shitting the bad was predictable or anything but, especially given the circumstances last night, starting the 8th with Bobby P seemed to be the perfect set-up. Even if just to use him for one batter before turning to Byrdak to face Votto (due up 2nd) and then Rauch to finish the inning, switching relievers before you needed to was doubly-risky on a night where Rammy-Rammy was unavailable and with Frankie-Frankie so shaky lately.

[Edgy MD]

What is predictable is that the more pitchers you use, the more likely it is that one of them will blow up your game.

[G-Fafif]

BTW, this thread title is hilarious when you hear it in your head in a vaguely disgusted Jamaican accent.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

It wasn't even supposed to be a thread, but a response to the game thread typed from my seat at CF.

[nymr83]

Edgy DC wrote: What is predictable is that the more pitchers you use, the more likely it is that one of them will blow up your game.

This is it exactly. You don't know who is going to be "on" on any given night, so if someone is pitching well just stick with them until they are tired!

[Benjamin Grimm]

[bmfc1]

Frayed Knot wrote: I was too pissed off last night to go wading through any post-game stuff, so did we ever get an explanation from [crossout]J[/crossout]Terry on pulling Parnell after just 5 pitches?

On the pre-game today, Ed Coleman asked about bullpen use and "White Jerry" (a/k/a Shorty McBunty) said that he wants Parnell to build on successful outings. I took that as "he got a guy out, he's pitching well, so let's not push it or he might fail and we'd be back to where he was last year." This, of course, is nonsense. We're talking about the 8th inning, not the 9th, so he would have been protecting Parnell if he left him in.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, like I said earlier, just leaving him in there for one more batter would have made a world of more sense.
If he gets that guy then either leave him in for Votto too (HR couldn't tie the game) or go to Byrdak and hopefully shorten by two outs what you need from Rauch & Francisco.

[G-Fafif]

I still love this accidental thread title in a Jamaican accent. Red Stripe should adopt it as their tag line.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I'm pissed off now, white jerry. Look, I go to you. I stick up for you. You don't help me now. I say "Fuck you," white jerry, I do it myself.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

G-Fafif wrote: I still love this accidental thread title in a Jamaican accent.

Like when a German tourist gives a really, REALLY crappy tip.