Reds @ Padres...Game 1

• Ironman92

  

  Ironman92;1480106 wrote:Bad feelings on Chappy.
  
  You guys wouldn't like me as manager. I would've used Chappy in the 10th yesterday and seeing Hoover look so good in the 8th, let him also go for the close.

  
  Well, maybe you would
• se-alum

  

  One more thing, this is one of the reasons I'm not opposed to the Reds exploring trade options for Chapman. He's getting starter money to pitch a few innings every couple weeks. They can get more value out of other players.
• Ironman92

  

  Pitching......it's not and has never been just throwing.
  
  Denorfia just busted my balls for making fun of the notion (about 6 years ago) of how the Reds needed him and how valuable he would be for them.
• mhs95_06

  Poor plate approaches, bad base-running, and poor situational hitting leaves you in position to be beat by a closer break-down. And whoever thought up this ridiculous role of "closer". "Firemen" should be way more valuable to be brought in when the threat is the worst. If a pitcher is doing well, let him in there until he gives you a reason to lift him. This idea of pre-conceived roles is bunk. Use them when the time is right, not when the inning is his!
• Ironman92

  

  mhs95_06;1480126 wrote:Poor plate approaches, bad base-running, and poor situational hitting leaves you in position to be beat by a closer break-down. And whoever thought up this ridiculous role of "closer". "Firemen" should be way more valuable to be brought in when the threat is the worst. If a pitcher is doing well, let him in there until he gives you a reason to lift him. This idea of pre-conceived roles is bunk. Use them when the time is right, not when the inning is his!

  
  ....because the pitcher in the game has given you an idea of what he's got that day.....the guy coming in may not be too sharp that day
• SportsAndLady

  

  Chris F'n Denorfia
  
  Unreal. So glad I fell asleep before the 9th started.
• Rotinaj

  

  Arguing over Leake and Bailey is pointless. Neither will be pitching in the playoffs unless this lineup grows some balls. My guess is that Latos will lose the 1 game playoff 3-1.
• thavoice

  mhs95_06;1480126 wrote:Poor plate approaches, bad base-running, and poor situational hitting leaves you in position to be beat by a closer break-down. And whoever thought up this ridiculous role of "closer". "Firemen" should be way more valuable to be brought in when the threat is the worst. If a pitcher is doing well, let him in there until he gives you a reason to lift him. This idea of pre-conceived roles is bunk. Use them when the time is right, not when the inning is his!

  For every time this happens there is also a time where a manager leaves a pitcher in, too long, and it falls apart quickly and gets blamed for leaving him in too long. I am not arguing or disagreeing with you at all, just stating what would have happened if last night ML was left in, and then gives up the lead. Just the nature of being in baseball I guess. I am all for what you are thinking. Recently people complained that HB was left in too long when he was throwing well, but I digress. The issue with this team isn't on the pitching side, it is with the hitting. What is this team going to do to fix it?
• se-alum

  

  The Reds have had their best month of pitching in over a decade(starters-2.76 era, bullpen-1.61 era), and are 13-12 on the month, unacceptable.
• thavoice

  se-alum;1480230 wrote:The Reds have had their best month of pitching in over a decade(starters-2.76 era, bullpen-1.61 era), and are 13-12 on the month, unacceptable.

  Did they mention when they had a better month pitching-wise?
• se-alum

  

  thavoice;1480232 wrote:Did they mention when they had a better month pitching-wise?

  For the starters it was in May of '90, and for the bullpen it was in April of '87.
• SportsAndLady

  

  We are really missing ludwick
  
  And good offensive players.
• se-alum

  

  Chapman Career w/ Rest: 0 Day: 1.66 ERA (48 G) 1 Day: 1.07 ERA (51 G) 2 Day: 3.82 ERA (40 G) 3 Day: 2.79 ERA (9 G) 4 Day: 5.49 ERA (23 G)
• thavoice

  se-alum;1480247 wrote:For the starters it was in May of '90, and for the bullpen it was in April of '87.

  Gotcha. Figured it was that long ago but when you only said more than a decade, and yes I know 1990 is more than a decade, I thought ya meant like 11-15 years ago. WIth those numbers they should have won 18+ EASY in that span.
• Heretic

  

  thavoice;1480225 wrote:For every time this happens there is also a time where a manager leaves a pitcher in, too long, and it falls apart quickly and gets blamed for leaving him in too long. I am not arguing or disagreeing with you at all, just stating what would have happened if last night ML was left in, and then gives up the lead. Just the nature of being in baseball I guess. I am all for what you are thinking. Recently people complained that HB was left in too long when he was throwing well, but I digress. The issue with this team isn't on the pitching side, it is with the hitting. What is this team going to do to fix it?

  That's a good question, because it seems a big problem you guys have is depth. Starters need days off from time to time (at least most of them do), but when your bench has guys like Izturis, Hannahan, Miller etc., it's almost like putting a bunch of auto-outs in the line-up in place of them. Add to that a few starters who aren't performing that well and it's a recipe for disaster, as there's no way you guys should have put that little up against that starting pitcher.
  
  But I don't know that you have the chips to deal for anyone of real note (at least not if the other team is looking for MLB-ready prospects). Especially since it seems like the asking price for anyone is higher than it usually would be, just because the trade market is really sucky. Like, the price the White Sox have been asking for guys like Peavy and Rios is just obscene and neither one of those two is even a "sure thing" stretch contributor.
• se-alum

  

  thavoice;1480254 wrote:Gotcha. Figured it was that long ago but when you only said more than a decade, and yes I know 1990 is more than a decade, I thought ya meant like 11-15 years ago. WIth those numbers they should have won 18+ EASY in that span.

  To add to that, they are averaging over 4 runs per game this month. Just goes to show how wildly inconsistent this offense is.
• thavoice

  se-alum;1480257 wrote:To add to that, they are averaging over 4 runs per game this month. Just goes to show how wildly inconsistent this offense is.

  AVG runs per game only tells you a part of the story. A year or two ago 120 games or so I went back and looked at the Reds and Cards games. The time I did it the reds were avg more than the cards, and had a better ERA I think but were behind them in the standings. In looking at it the reds had scored less than 3 runs almost double the amount of times that the cards had, and on the contrary had quite a few more games where they scored like 7+ or something like that. Basically feast or famine. Whereas the Cards had more games in the 4-6 range and were much more consistant.