Losers of 9 of the last 10 games , unacceptable, Gelbs keeps banging on( and has for a good while ) about how this offense is too good for this , so annoying It is irritating to listen to, over and over, but what if he's right? There's some explanation for the chasm between the team's offensive ability and their performance on the field, but what if that explanation is "bad luck"? I don't think the explanation is bad luck, but I certainly think you can have good personnel and still struggle because of your philosophy and approach. I find it less edifying to ask Why is that guy still in the lineup? than Why is that guy still doing things the way he does? But yeah, I would have pinch-run Taylor for Marte. I probably would have done so even if Marte was a my last catcher. I suspect it didn't go down that way because Mendoza didn't want to disrespect a respected MLB vet and the active league leader in stolen bases. He may well read the risk:reward ratio differently, and see the potential damage to clubhouse/manager relations and morale not worth the marginal increase that he would get in the moment. He, of course, did not know increase would be the difference in the game, but he well knew it could be. Maybe, in some way, he is right about that. I am not good at organizational psychology, but I respect that. Casey Stengel, though, had a very compelling attitude toward loyalty. He didn't see sticking with a guy who is important to the team, but isn't currently getting it done — or isn't the best option in a situation — as the way to express loyalty to his players. He thought giving his team the best chance to win was the best way to do so, and if that sucked for one guy, he has to be an adult and realize that it was best for 25 guys. Anyhow, getting two runs on two solo homers tells me to re-think my team's philosophy, not their personnel.