The Duh Ceci Code

[Limey]

Please can anyone explain to me:

Why the fuck you PH Erstad before Pudge, given that Erstad PHed for Q, meaning that Pudge has to come in the game anyway and is batting about double the BA?

The Butterfly Effect of this was that Pudge went into the #9 spot and the reliever went into #8, so that two innings later, with two out and two on, Michaels had to PH for the pitcher when it could've been Pudge in the normal order of things.  Pudge got a sharp single to lead off the next inning - which is lucky because I'd bet both my houses on it.  A further knock on effect was that Michaels was burned unnecessarily, so when Tracy walked Lee and Berkman to get to Kata, Coop had only Keppinger on the bench.

Oh, and on that subject, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NOT PH KEPPINGER FOR KATA?!!!!

Lastly, Pence at #3 and Berkman at #5 is rank idiocy.

I sat through the first 10 innings, but left when I saw Keppinger come up to PH, because I thought that the bench must've been empty already.  If the manager doesn't give a shit about whether the team wins, why the fuck should I?

And in case you're wondering, I'm sober as a judge.  Just mad as hell....and the team won!

[Bench]

Oh, and on that subject, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NOT PH KEPPINGER FOR KATA?!!!!

That's the only thing I disagree with you about.  Other than that, fuck yeah.

[Limey]

That's the only thing I disagree with you about.  Other than that, fuck yeah.

You can PH for Kata with Keppinger OR Michaels, if you hadn't fucked up and PHed Erstad before Pudge, knowing that you were going to use two PHers and Pudge was going to stay in the game.

This isn't hindsight, btw, I was pissing about it at the time.  Coop is fucking terrible.

[OregonStrosFan]

Oh, and on that subject, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NOT PH KEPPINGER FOR KATA?!!!!

Because then Kata doesn't make an outstanding, run saving play in the top of the 11th and then I don't get to see my first walk off home run in the bottom of the 11th.  Duh.

[Bench]

You can PH for Kata with Keppinger OR Michaels, if you hadn't fucked up and PHed Erstad before Pudge, knowing that you were going to use two PHers and Pudge was going to stay in the game.

This isn't hindsight, btw, I was pissing about it at the time.  Coop is fucking terrible.

Kata had the lefty/righty matchup. 

[otterjb]

Coop is fucking terrible.

This is true.

[Limey]

Kata had the lefty/righty matchup. 

...and zero at-bats in the bigs for 2 years.

[toddthebod]

I also wondered about the whole Erstad/Pudge issue and the only reason I could come up with was that Cooper may have thought that Erstad was less of a double play risk.  Agreed that Berkman at 5 makes no sense. 

[Fredia]

...and zero at-bats in the bigs for 2 years.

didnt you see the perfect game movie with costner in it.. they always send in a rookie in these pressure filled situeations

[MusicMan]

...and zero at-bats in the bigs for 2 years.

You see, Strawberry, it's called strategy.  That pitcher is right-handed.

[HudsonHawk]

Please can anyone explain to me:

Why the fuck you PH Erstad before Pudge, given that Erstad PHed for Q, meaning that Pudge has to come in the game anyway and is batting about double the BA?

Because Erstad was a better pinch hit option in that scenario against a tough rightie, 1 out and the tying run on 3B with a double play in order.  I thought it was absolutely the right move. 

[Limey]

Because Erstad was a better pinch hit option in that scenario against a tough rightie, 1 out and the tying run on 3B with a double play in order.  I thought it was absolutely the right move. 

In case you haven't noticed, Erstad isn't hitting anyone this year, righty or not.  He's hitting .152 against righties (and Blutarsky against lefties) while Pudge is hitting righties at a .244 clip.

[Limey]

I also wondered about the whole Erstad/Pudge issue and the only reason I could come up with was that Cooper may have thought that Erstad was less of a double play risk.

In a situation when you needed wood on the ball, I'd send up the best hitter.  Otherwise why not PH Erstad for Lee in DP situations?

[VirtualBob]

In a situation when you needed wood on the ball, I'd send up the best hitter.  Otherwise why no PH Erstad for Lee?

That's what he should have done, obviously.  Erstad's subsequent defense in LF would make up for the lack of offense.

[MusicMan]

In case you haven't noticed, Erstad isn't hitting anyone this year, righty or not.  He's hitting .152 against righties (and Blutarsky against lefties) while Pudge is hitting righties at a .244 clip.

Perhaps if he ever saw the field, he'd remember how to swing.

[TenThirty]

what am I missing?  Why doesn't Coop have Pence bunt with no outs and Bourn, the winning run, on second in the ninth, with two professional hitting RBI producers coming up behind him in the order?  Can Pence not bunt?

(for the record, not hindsight, I was wondering this at the time)

[MusicMan]

what am I missing?  Why doesn't Coop have Pence bunt with no outs and Bourn, the winning run, on second in the ninth, with two professional hitting RBI producers coming up behind him in the order?  Can Pence not bunt?

(for the record, not hindsight, I was wondering this at the time)

1.  No, Pence cannot bunt.  Bunting does not sell tickets.
2.  Pence is hitting 3rd because Coop views him as the best RBI man right now.

[BudGirl]

i don't think your #3 hitter is suppose to bunt.  whether or not the can doesn't matter.

[MusicMan]

i don't think your #3 hitter is suppose to bunt.

"I'd bunt Babe Ruth" - Augie Garrido

[Limey]

Perhaps if he ever saw the field, he'd remember how to swing.

I agree.  I like Erstad a lot and thought he made a fantastic contribution last year.  And I don't have a problem with him PHing last night, except that he went up in front of Pudge which had all the negative - and predictable - knock on effects.  It's not about whinging because he made an out - so did Pudge - it's about situational awareness, or total, utter and complete lack thereof exhibited by the manager.

Here's how I see the outcomes if you hit Pudge for Q:

GIDP - Inning over.  You can keep Paulino in for one more inning, or go to the pen, either way PHing for the pitcher to lead off the next inning with Erstad still available.
GO/FO - run may or may not score, Erstad then PHs for Paulino.
Hit - run(s) score(s), still an option to PH for Paulino, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

In all of those scenarios, there's a silver lining.

PHing Erstad, you get:

GIDP - Inning over.  You have to remove Paulino for Pudge, putting the reliever in the #8 spot - one hitter earlier (and we know how that worked out later).
GO/FO - run may or may not score (it didn't).  You have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him.
Hit - run(s) score(s), you have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

In every scenario using Erstad first, Coop has handcuffed himself over his pitching options, and has gained the advantage of a .140 hitter over a .265 hitter.  Paulino was doing very well and the pen blows.  Coop ended up doing one of his specials where he used up the whole fucking pitching staff (save Sampson) while unnecessarily burning bench players (Michaels).  He's just not very good at thinking this shit through.  IMNSHO.

[JimR]

...and zero at-bats in the bigs for 2 years.

didnt you see the perfect game movie with costner in it.. they always send in a rookie in these pressure filled situeations

Kata is far from being a rookie, and he was hitting well in AAA. this is the only part of the rant i disagree with.

[VirtualBob]

I agree.  I like Erstad a lot and thought he made a fantastic contribution last year.  And I don't have a problem with him PHing last night, except that he went up in front of Pudge which had all the negative - and predictable - knock on effects.  It's not about whinging because he made an out - so did Pudge - it's about situational awareness, or total, utter and complete lack thereof exhibited by the manager.

Here's how I see the outcomes if you hit Pudge for Q:

GIDP - Inning over.  You can keep Paulino in for one more inning, or go to the pen, either way PHing for the pitcher to lead off the next inning with Erstad still available.
GO/FO - run may or may not score, Erstad then PHs for Paulino.
Hit - run(s) score(s), still an option to PH for Paulino, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

In all of those scenarios, there's a silver lining.

PHing Erstad, you get:

GIDP - Inning over.  You have to remove Paulino for Pudge, putting the reliever in the #8 spot - one hitter earlier (and we know how that worked out later).
GO/FO - run may or may not score (it didn't).  You have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him.
Hit - run(s) score(s), you have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

In every scenario using Erstad first, Coop has handcuffed himself over his pitching options, and has gained the advantage of a .140 hitter over a .265 hitter.  Paulino was doing very well and the pen blows.  Coop ended up doing one of his specials where he used up the whole fucking pitching staff (save Sampson) while unnecessarily burning bench players (Michaels).  He's just not very good at thinking this shit through.  IMNSHO.

This right here is the kind of thing that keeps us all addicted to this site!

[Limey]

Kata is far from being a rookie, and he was hitting well in AAA. this is the only part of the rant i disagree with.

Do you think Coop would've PHed for him if he had two players left on the bench instead of one?

Keppinger is a better hitter and has at least seen ML pitching this year.  He PHs, then stays in to play 3rd and Maysonet goes back to 2nd.  Riskier move, though, if Kep is the last man on the bench.  Tracy took Coop's earlier fuck up, and jammed him with it.

[Limey]

This right here is the kind of thing that keeps us all addicted to this site!

This right here is (essentially) the discussion I had with my buddy when I saw Erstad come up to bat.  It's not rocket science.

[VirtualBob]

This right here is (essentially) the discussion I had with my buddy when I saw Erstad come up to bat.  It's not rocket science.

Correct.  It's baseball's version of common sense.  But as someone famous once said, "The problem with common sense is that it isn't that common".

[Andyzipp]

I agree.  I like Erstad a lot and thought he made a fantastic contribution last year.  And I don't have a problem with him PHing last night, except that he went up in front of Pudge which had all the negative - and predictable - knock on effects.  It's not about whinging because he made an out - so did Pudge - it's about situational awareness, or total, utter and complete lack thereof exhibited by the manager.

Here's how I see the outcomes if you hit Pudge for Q:

GIDP - Inning over.  You can keep Paulino in for one more inning, or go to the pen, either way PHing for the pitcher to lead off the next inning with Erstad still available.
GO/FO - run may or may not score, Erstad then PHs for Paulino.
Hit - run(s) score(s), still an option to PH for Paulino, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

In all of those scenarios, there's a silver lining.

PHing Erstad, you get:

GIDP - Inning over.  You have to remove Paulino for Pudge, putting the reliever in the #8 spot - one hitter earlier (and we know how that worked out later).
GO/FO - run may or may not score (it didn't).  You have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him.
Hit - run(s) score(s), you have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

In every scenario using Erstad first, Coop has handcuffed himself over his pitching options, and has gained the advantage of a .140 hitter over a .265 hitter.  Paulino was doing very well and the pen blows.  Coop ended up doing one of his specials where he used up the whole fucking pitching staff (save Sampson) while unnecessarily burning bench players (Michaels).  He's just not very good at thinking this shit through.  IMNSHO.

What's sad is that you seem to be putting more thought into the moves than Cooper does.

And you've been following baseball for, what, 10-11 years?

Cooper's been in the game his whole life.

[Limey]

What's sad is that you seem to be putting more thought into the moves than Cooper does.

And you've been following baseball for, what, 10-11 years?

Cooper's been in the game his whole life.

At this point, I don't know whether Cooper is just brainfucking things, or if he knows the obvious choice and goes the other way because he's trying to do something "different".  Oh, and it's 15 years, including 10-11 AC/OWA/Sns years, which is probably the equivalent of 30 human years.

[JimR]

At this point, I don't know whether Cooper is just brainfucking things, or if he knows the obvious choice and goes the other way because he's trying to do something "different".  Oh, and it's 15 years, including 10-11 AC/OWA/Sns years, which is probably the equivalent of 30 human years.

despite most folks' belief to the contrary, not just anyone can handle the tasks required by coaching and managing in a REAL game. there are jillions of decisions to be made, and as you pointed out so well, there is a lot of thinking ahead to be done. he cannot handle the job, no matter how great a player he was.

[Taras Bulba]

I find it incredibly sad that a professional baseball man is questioned over his moves.  With good reason.

[MRaup]

You see, Strawberry, it's called strategy.  That pitcher is right-handed.

Smithers! Massage my brain!

[Limey]

Smithers! Massage my brain!

So is our manager now "Cooper Simpson"?

[MusicMan]

despite most folks' belief to the contrary, not just anyone can handle the tasks required by coaching and managing in a REAL game. there are jillions of decisions to be made, and as you pointed out so well, there is a lot of thinking ahead to be done. he cannot handle the job, no matter how great a player he was.

On this point... my understanding is that Romero's sole function is to remind Coop of such things.  Sounds like he's asleep at the wheel, too.

[MRaup]

So is our manager now "Cooper Simpson"?

Cecil Burns. With Waylan Romero assisting from the bench.

[EasTexAstro]

despite most folks' belief to the contrary, not just anyone can handle the tasks required by coaching and managing in a REAL game. there are jillions of decisions to be made, and as you pointed out so well, there is a lot of thinking ahead to be done. he cannot handle the job, no matter how great a player he was.

To drift off topic for a second, the instant recognition of in-game situation is why I was always impressed with Bagwell. A ball could be hit and he seemed to instantly make the best play possible for the situation.

The tag out/force out.
The letting the pop bunt drop and going for two.
The toss of the ball to Hidalgo after the over the shoulder catch to hold the runner.

I know he worked on all these situations, and planned before each pitch what he might do in a situation, but the instant recognition after the play starts was amazing.

DO players that think on their feet this well translate well to coaching/managing?

[Limey]

DO players that think on their feet this well translate well to coaching/managing?

Things brings to mind Baggy's genius unassisted double play on a bunt, which he figured out instantly when four umps and two coaches took 5 minutes thereafter to figure out that he was right.

Unfortunately, one needs to communicate verbally to be a coach/manager.  Not Baggy's strong point.

[Bench]

Cecil Burns.

I think he Blows.

[Texifornia]

What's sad is that you seem to be putting more thought into the moves than Cooper does.

And you've been following baseball for, what, 10-11 years?

Cooper's been in the game his whole life.

If only Limey's thoughts could be collected into a coherent format with a recognizable title and posted on an internet site with predominantly Astros content....

Yo quiero Limey Time.

[Andyzipp]

If only Limey's thoughts could be collected into a coherent format with a recognizable title and posted on an internet site with predominantly Astros content....

Yo quiero Limey Time.

This doesn't resemble any Limey Time I ever read.  It was more about googilies, wicked or otherwise and what he'd be wearing from time to time.

[Mr. Happy]

despite most folks' belief to the contrary, not just anyone can handle the tasks required by coaching and managing in a REAL game. there are jillions of decisions to be made, and as you pointed out so well, there is a lot of thinking ahead to be done. he cannot handle the job, no matter how great a player he was.

I agree with all of this.

[HudsonHawk]

I agree.  I like Erstad a lot and thought he made a fantastic contribution last year.  And I don't have a problem with him PHing last night, except that he went up in front of Pudge which had all the negative - and predictable - knock on effects.  It's not about whinging because he made an out - so did Pudge - it's about situational awareness, or total, utter and complete lack thereof exhibited by the manager.

I had a post about pinch hitting and GIDPs and not wanting to have to bring your second catcher in the game at that point.  I even posted it, but no sooner did I hit "bring it" when the vapor lock on my brain open up about Pudge having to come into the game no matter what, since you're pinch hitting for your catcher.  In attempting to admit my mistake, I accidentally deleted it.  So if anyone saw and thought I'd lost my mind, you are correct.  At any rate...another go at an explanation.  

Here's how I see the outcomes if you hit Pudge for Q:

GIDP - Inning over.  You can keep Paulino in for one more inning, or go to the pen, either way PHing for the pitcher to lead off the next inning with Erstad still available.
GO/FO - run may or may not score, Erstad then PHs for Paulino.
Hit - run(s) score(s), still an option to PH for Paulino, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

In all of those scenarios, there's a silver lining.

Pudge GIDP has no silver lining.  It is the worst possible outcome of all the possible outcomes.  You do what you can to avoid that outcome.

You've got the tying run on 3B with one out and the double play in order.  If you can stay out of the double play, you've got two shots at driving in that run.  PHing Erstad in the 8 spot does two thing:  1) it gives you a better chance of staying out of the double play, and 2) it means you hit Erstad when all it takes is a fly ball, ground ball (not a GIDP) to drive in the run.  That means if Erstad makes an out, which he did, you've got your better average hitter up there when you need a hit, not just contact.  Bottom line is, Coop decided he wanted two shots at that mother, and if he got in a situation that required a hit, he wanted the better hitter.  If you plan to give yourself two attempts, then Erstad before Pudge is better in that situation, in addition to being the situation most likely to avoid the double play.  

PHing Erstad, you get:

GIDP - Inning over.  You have to remove Paulino for Pudge, putting the reliever in the #8 spot - one hitter earlier (and we know how that worked out later).

You don't *have* to double switch.  If Erstad ends the inning, you simply insert Pudge into Erstad's spot.  Erstad wasn't staying in the game no matter what.

GO/FO - run may or may not score (it didn't).  You have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him.

And now you have the better hitter up there when it requires a hit, not just contact.

Hit - run(s) score(s), you have to remove Paulino and have Pudge PH for him, we probably all go home earlier and happier.

If you're going to remove Paulino anyway, then your first point is invalid.  

[chuck]

On this point... my understanding is that Romero's sole function is to remind Coop of such things.  Sounds like he's asleep at the wheel, too.

I'm traveling and wasn't able to see the game but reading through the thread this is exactly what I was thinking. The bench coach is supposed to be either a sounding board for in-game personnel options or, in this case, he's supposed to tell the halfwit in charge what the fuck to do. Either Romero's as bad as Coop or Coop's just not listening to him. I would put my money on the latter.

[Jacksonian]

I had a post about pinch hitting and GIDPs and not wanting to have to bring your second catcher in the game at that point.  I even posted it, but no sooner did I hit "bring it" when the vapor lock on my brain open up about Pudge having to come into the game no matter what, since you're pinch hitting for your catcher.  In attempting to admit my mistake, I accidentally deleted it.  So if anyone saw and thought I'd lost my mind, you are correct.  At any rate...another go at an explanation.  

Pudge GIDP has no silver lining.  It is the worst possible outcome of all the possible outcomes.  You do what you can to avoid that outcome.

You've got the tying run on 3B with one out and the double play in order.  If you can stay out of the double play, you've got two shots at driving in that run.  PHing Erstad in the 8 spot does two thing:  1) it gives you a better chance of staying out of the double play, and 2) it means you hit Erstad when all it takes is a fly ball, ground ball (not a GIDP) to drive in the run.  That means if Erstad makes an out, which he did, you've got your better average hitter up there when you need a hit, not just contact.  Bottom line is, Coop decided he wanted two shots at that mother, and if he got in a situation that required a hit, he wanted the better hitter.  If you plan to give yourself two attempts, then Erstad before Pudge is better in that situation, in addition to being the situation most likely to avoid the double play.  

You don't *have* to double switch.  If Erstad ends the inning, you simply insert Pudge into Erstad's spot.  Erstad wasn't staying in the game no matter what.

And now you have the better hitter up there when it requires a hit, not just contact.

If you're going to remove Paulino anyway, then your first point is invalid.  

I put all of that together and it reads to me like you're saying Coop managed based on the fear of GIDP rather than playing for 1 run or even more.

[HudsonHawk]

I put all of that together and it reads to me like you're saying Coop managed based on the fear of GIDP rather than playing for 1 run or even more.

No, I'm saying Coop was playing for one run.  Paulino was coming out.  He was going to use two pinch hitters in a row there.  They were going to be Erstad and Pudge.  It was a matter of which first gave him the best chance of driving in that one run.   

[Limey]

Pudge GIDP has no silver lining.  It is the worst possible outcome of all the possible outcomes.  You do what you can to avoid that outcome.

Understood.  But it's still better than Erstad GIDPing because if Pudge does it you have him in the game anyway and Erstad still available on the bench.  Small victories...

You've got the tying run on 3B with one out and the double play in order.  If you can stay out of the double play, you've got two shots at driving in that run.  PHing Erstad in the 8 spot does two thing:  1) it gives you a better chance of staying out of the double play, and 2) it means you hit Erstad when all it takes is a fly ball, ground ball (not a GIDP) to drive in the run.  That means if Erstad makes an out, which he did, you've got your better average hitter up there when you need a hit, not just contact.  Bottom line is, Coop decided he wanted two shots at that mother, and if he got in a situation that required a hit, he wanted the better hitter.  If you plan to give yourself two attempts, then Erstad before Pudge is better in that situation, in addition to being the situation most likely to avoid the double play.  

I understand that Erstad has a slightly better chance of staying out of the DP, but that has to be tempered with his appalling average this season.  He's significantly worse than Pudge against any type of pitcher, and strikes out at a notably greater rate when what you want is contact to bring the runner home (avoiding the DP, natch).  I simply do not accept that Erstad is a better first option than Pudge, and saving Pudge for when Erstad fails does not strike me as generating any positive waves.

You don't *have* to double switch.  If Erstad ends the inning, you simply insert Pudge into Erstad's spot.  Erstad wasn't staying in the game no matter what.

Good point.  That's why I'm not a manager and Coop...

And now you have the better hitter up there when it requires a hit, not just contact.

Wouldn't it be better to lead with the better hitter?  Because if he's a better hitter, and Erstad GIDPs, your better hitter might as well have his dick in his hand as a baseball bat.

If you're going to remove Paulino anyway, then your first point is invalid.  

I don't know what Coop was planning (who does?), but I would've been sorely tempted to leave Paulino in to start the 7th.

[Jacksonian]

No, I'm saying Coop was playing for one run.  Paulino was coming out.  He was going to use two pinch hitters in a row there.  They were going to be Erstad and Pudge.  It was a matter of which first gave him the best chance of driving in that one run.   

You might be thinking that but that's what you describe Coop doing.  If you're playing for one run you pinch hit Pudge first because, as you said, he's the better hitter, more likely to get a hit much less make contact.  The only reason to pinch hit Erstad first is to reduce the chance of a double play.  Regarding scoring the run Erstad is less likely to make contact or get a hit and therefore less likely to get the run home.  Plus if Erstad GIDP's you've left your best bullet in your gun with runners in scoring position.

[Limey]

You might be thinking that but that's what you describe Coop doing.  If you're playing for one run you pinch hit Pudge first because, as you said, he's the better hitter, more likely to get a hit much less make contact.  The only reason to pinch hit Erstad first is to reduce the chance of a double play.  Regarding scoring the run Erstad is less likely to make contact or get a hit and therefore less likely to get the run home.  Plus if Erstad GIDP's you've left your best bullet in your gun with runners in scoring position.

1st and 3rd, 1 out: I'm playing for more than 1 run.

[JimR]

1st and 3rd, 1 out: I'm playing for more than 1 run.

not at 1-2. you've got to get the game tied.

[HudsonHawk]

Wouldn't it be better to lead with the better hitter?

Maybe.  But you might be thinking that you're going use Pudge anyway...I'm not saying one is cut and dried the move to make.  Only that I think there's a reason for doing it the way Coop did it.  He wasn't just lost.

I don't know what Coop was planning (who does?), but I would've been sorely tempted to leave Paulino in to start the 7th.

I think Paulino was coming out no matter what. 

[HudsonHawk]

1st and 3rd, 1 out: I'm playing for more than 1 run.

Not in that situation.  You feel like you *have* to get at least one run there, even if it costs you a shot at a bigger inning. 

[HudsonHawk]

You might be thinking that but that's what you describe Coop doing.  If you're playing for one run you pinch hit Pudge first because, as you said, he's the better hitter, more likely to get a hit much less make contact.  The only reason to pinch hit Erstad first is to reduce the chance of a double play.

Reducing the double play significantly increases your chance at scoring that one run.  The reducing the chances of the double play is simply the means to the end.

 Regarding scoring the run Erstad is less likely to make contact or get a hit and therefore less likely to get the run home.

I don't know that Erstad is less likely to make contact in that situation.  There's more to it than batting average or strikeouts.  There are situation things to consder, like who the pitcher is and who is more used to pinch hitting, Erstad or Pudge. 

Plus if Erstad GIDP's you've left your best bullet in your gun with runners in scoring position.

Not entirely, because Pudge is still in the game and guaranteed to hit again.  It's not like you've just burned him.

[Jacksonian]

Reducing the double play significantly increases your chance at scoring that one run.  The reducing the chances of the double play is simply the means to the end.

I don't know that Erstad is less likely to make contact in that situation.  There's more to it than batting average or strikeouts.  There are situation things to consder, like who the pitcher is and who is more used to pinch hitting, Erstad or Pudge. 

Not entirely, because Pudge is still in the game and guaranteed to hit again.  It's not like you've just burned him.

In that situation I don't see thinking beyond the current hitter.  You're not guaranteed the batter after Erstad in that inning.  He could have GIDP or some other DP possibility.

Pudge would have come up again but there are no guarantees you have anyone in scoring position again, much less 3b with less than 2 outs.

If the thinking is in that situation "get the game tied now" don't you go with the best bat you have right now?

[JimR]

In that situation I don't see thinking beyond the current hitter.  You're not guaranteed the batter after Erstad in that inning.  He could have GIDP or some other DP possibility.

Pudge would have come up again but there are no guarantees you have anyone in scoring position again, much less 3b with less than 2 outs.

If the thinking is in that situation "get the game tied now" don't you go with the best bat you have right now?

i would, and i would have used Erstad to try to score one to tie. others might use Pudge. the most important thing to me would be getting the game tied. i have more problems with Coop's manic use of the bullpen and with his incessant changing of the lineup.

[HudsonHawk]

In that situation I don't see thinking beyond the current hitter.  You're not guaranteed the batter after Erstad in that inning.  He could have GIDP or some other DP possibility.

With only one out, I don't see how you can NOT think beyong the current hitter. 

Pudge would have come up again but there are no guarantees you have anyone in scoring position again, much less 3b with less than 2 outs.

Right.  I'm not saying it would be ideal, only that you still have him in the game, and given that it was only the 6th inning, he was going to hit again.

If the thinking is in that situation "get the game tied now" don't you go with the best bat you have right now?

If there are two outs, yes.  If there are less than two outs...eh...depends on the situational factors.  You *have* to think beyond the current hitter in that situation.

[Andyzipp]

i would, and i would have used Erstad to try to score one to tie. others might use Pudge. the most important thing to me would be getting the game tied. i have more problems with Coop's manic use of the bullpen and with his incessant changing of the lineup.

I'm probably just overblowing it, but what's the point of warming up both Ortiz and Backe at the same time last night in the 8th inning?

[HudsonHawk]

I'm probably just overblowing it, but what's the point of warming up both Ortiz and Backe at the same time last night in the 8th inning?

I don't remember if it was the top or the bottom, but off the top of my head it was probably a "Backe if we take the lead, Ortiz if we're behind or tied" kind of thinking.  I don't remember the particulars though. 

[Jacksonian]

With only one out, I don't see how you can NOT think beyong the current hitter. 

Right.  I'm not saying it would be ideal, only that you still have him in the game, and given that it was only the 6th inning, he was going to hit again.

If there are two outs, yes.  If there are less than two outs...eh...depends on the situational factors.  You *have* to think beyond the current hitter in that situation.

So, giving Coop credit for thinking about the next 2 hitters, he's thinking the best bet is Erstad then Pudge.  I can't imagine he's thinking about anyone else pinch hitting.  Pudge was 1 for 3 lifetime against Jimenez.  Erstad had never faced him.  In my mind go with the guy who's been successful against him and is the better hitter rather than the lefty versus righty.  Added benefit is keeping the pitcher lowest possible in the order.  If L vs R is the logic I can see it but don't think, overall, it was the best move.

[Jacksonian]

off the top of my head it was probably a "Backe if we take the lead, Ortiz if we're behind or tied" kind of thinking.

Why?

[HudsonHawk]

So, giving Coop credit for thinking about the next 2 hitters, he's thinking the best bet is Erstad then Pudge.

Exactly.  I'm giving him credit for thinking about the next two hitters trying to drive in that on run, not just the current hitter.  It's possible that he wasn't and sent Erstad up there with no clue what he was going to do in the very next spot with Paulino, but I don't believe that to be the case.

[JimR]

So, giving Coop credit for thinking about the next 2 hitters, he's thinking the best bet is Erstad then Pudge.  I can't imagine he's thinking about anyone else pinch hitting.  Pudge was 1 for 3 lifetime against Jimenez.  Erstad had never faced him.  In my mind go with the guy who's been successful against him and is the better hitter rather than the lefty versus righty.  Added benefit is keeping the pitcher lowest possible in the order.  If L vs R is the logic I can see it but don't think, overall, it was the best move.

my thinking would have been avoiding the DP and making contact/avoiding a K. i would choose Erstad, but neither choice is wrong in an absolute sense. those numbers are not relevant/significant enough to matter.

[HudsonHawk]

Why?

I'm not sure, other than you feel you can get multiple innings or so out of Ortiz and only one out of Backe at this point.  So you'd only use Backe if you thought you could end the game in the top of the 9th, Ortiz if you needed your at bat in the 9th or longer.  Again, I don't remember the particulars, just trying to think about why you might have them both ready. 

[JimR]

Exactly.  I'm giving him credit for thinking about the next two hitters trying to drive in that on run, not just the current hitter.  It's possible that he wasn't and sent Erstad up there with no clue what he was going to do in the very next spot with Paulino, but I don't believe that to be the case.

i also think Paulino was coming out regardless.

[Jacksonian]

my thinking would have been avoiding the DP and making contact/avoiding a K. i would choose Erstad, but neither choice is wrong in an absolute sense. those numbers are not relevant/significant enough to matter.

I get the thinking stay out of the GIDP.  But why Erstad over Pudge in the thinking of getting the run home?  I am assuming Pudge is the better hitter.

[Jacksonian]

I'm not sure, other than you feel you can get multiple innings or so out of Ortiz and only one out of Backe at this point.  So you'd only use Backe if you thought you could end the game in the top of the 9th, Ortiz if you needed your at bat in the 9th or longer.  Again, I don't remember the particulars, just trying to think about why you might have them both ready. 

And yet, the Astros just spent the entire month of May stretching out Backe's arm in the minors.  It's Ortiz that's not stretched out.

[HudsonHawk]

And yet, the Astros just spent the entire month of May stretching out Backe's arm in the minors.  It's Ortiz that's not stretched out.

I don't know, man.  Just thinking out loud.

[HudsonHawk]

I get the thinking stay out of the GIDP.  But why Erstad over Pudge in the thinking of getting the run home?  I am assuming Pudge is the better hitter.

It wasn't a choice between Erstad or Pudge, it was a choice between Erstad *then* Pudge or Pudge *then* Erstad.  You have to plan for them both hitting back to back that inning.

[Andyzipp]

I don't know, man.  Just thinking out loud.

Yeah, you're trying to come up with something other than Cooper's a dumbass.  Good for you.

[HudsonHawk]

Yeah, you're trying to come up with something other than Cooper's a dumbass.  Good for you.

I know you marvel that Coop can even wipe his ass on his own (allegedly), but I just don't feel that way about him.  I don't like a lot of the moves he makes, but I don't agree that he does things on a whim or without any clue as to why he thinks it's the right move.

[Jacksonian]

I don't know, man.  Just thinking out loud.

I know what you're doing.  But, if you're right, Coop is nuts.  There are other possibilities of course.  The one that jumps to mind is Backe later if the game goes very long.  I have the feeling Coop doesn't trust Backe though.

[Jacksonian]

I know you marvel that Coop can even wipe his ass on his own (allegedly), but I just don't feel that way about him.  I don't like a lot of the moves he makes, but I don't agree that he does things on a whim or without any clue as to why he thinks it's the right move.

I agree with you.  He has a logic.  I'm with Jim on the bullpen usage and lineup.  It seems to me that Coop just thinks about managing in all the wrong ways.

[HudsonHawk]

I agree with you.  He has a logic.  I'm with Jim on the bullpen usage and lineup.  It seems to me that Coop just thinks about managing in all the wrong ways.

I think the pressure gets to him and he feels he has to make moves.  At least that's why I think he tinkers with the lineup so much.  He feels like he has to make changes.  It's like when he commented that he's tried the lineup 8 million different ways and nothing has seemed to work.  He's tried everything except leaving it alone and letting guys settle in.

[Andyzipp]

I know you marvel that Coop can even wipe his ass on his own (allegedly), but I just don't feel that way about him.  I don't like a lot of the moves he makes, but I don't agree that he does things on a whim or without any clue as to why he thinks it's the right move.

Probably should have said a dumbass in baseball parlance.  No idea about the asswiping, but that may be why no one comes near him during games.

I think he makes questionable moves...sometimes VERY questionable moves.  I think added to what appears to be some serious issues in communication and leadership and he's not a good manager. 

That's as un-hyperbolic as I can put it.  He's just not very good at his job.

[Jacksonian]

I think the pressure gets to him and he feels he has to make moves.  At least that's why I think he tinkers with the lineup so much.  He feels like he has to make changes.  It's like when he commented that he's tried the lineup 8 million different ways and nothing has seemed to work.  He's tried everything except leaving it alone and letting guys settle in.

In my mind the lineup card fiasco/Bourn tension/Blum intervention is as damning of his inability to do his job as anything.  It sums up his inability to lead.  What you describe seems to me to be also a symptom of lack of leadership skills.

[VirtualBob]

Not in that situation.  You feel like you *have* to get at least one run there, even if it costs you a shot at a bigger inning. 

On that reasoning you bring Kata in and have him squeeze.

[Bench]

In my mind the lineup card fiasco/Bourn tension/Blum intervention is as damning of his inability to do his job as anything.  It sums up his inability to lead.  What you describe seems to me to be also a symptom of lack of leadership skills.

Every time I talk about Cooper I always come back to that.  Forget the initial screw-up, his total lack of responsibility and leadership afterwards is the most damning thing.

[HudsonHawk]

Every time I talk about Cooper I always come back to that.  Forget the initial screw-up, his total lack of responsibility and leadership afterwards is the most damning thing.

I agree about the leadership part of that statement, but I don't agree that he didn't take responsibility for the screwup (I don't characterize it as a "fiasco" either).  In fact, he seemed to take full responsibility.  Agreed he should have handled it with his player on the field, who was obviously searching for some guidance. 

[HudsonHawk]

On that reasoning you bring Kata in and have him squeeze.

I thought about that.  Even if the squeeze fails, you still have a runner in scoring position and a chance to drive him in with a base hit.  That was certainly an option.

[HudsonHawk]

Probably should have said a dumbass in baseball parlance.  No idea about the asswiping, but that may be why no one comes near him during games.

I think he makes questionable moves...sometimes VERY questionable moves.  I think added to what appears to be some serious issues in communication and leadership and he's not a good manager. 

That's as un-hyperbolic as I can put it.  He's just not very good at his job.

No he's not.  I'm not defending him against the charge that he's a poor manager, only against the charge that he's totally clueless and without throught process.

[Bench]

I agree about the leadership part of that statement, but I don't agree that he didn't take responsibility for the screwup (I don't characterize it as a "fiasco" either).  In fact, he seemed to take full responsibility.  Agreed he should have handled it with his player on the field, who was obviously searching for some guidance. 

He took full responsibility, if at all ("the other coaches didn't catch it either, WFW"), well after the game.  He didn't take any responsibility at the moment when he should of stepped forward and handled the situation when it was actually ocurring.  That's what I mean by responsibility.

[HudsonHawk]

He took full responsibility, if at all ("the other coaches didn't catch it either, WFW"), well after the game.  He didn't take any responsibility at the moment when he should of stepped forward and handled the situation when it was actually ocurring.  That's what I mean by responsibility.

There was nothing to do at that point except explain the situation to Bourn, which I agree he should have.

[Bench]

There was nothing to do at that point except explain the situation to Bourn, which I agree he should have.

Which would be the whole "taking responsibility" part of being a manager.

[HudsonHawk]

Which would be the whole "taking responsibility" part of being a manager.

No, that would be the "leadership" part.

[JackAstro]

No, that would be the "leadership" part.

I think the "taking full responsibility" part would have been have been actually doing so, without mentioning how his coaches also failed in the process. Maybe throw in a "this will never happen again" guarantee, for good measure.

[HudsonHawk]

I think the "taking full responsibility" part would have been have been actually doing so, without mentioning how his coaches also failed in the process.

Well, they did fail in the process.  Coop writes the lineup, and it's one of the coaches job to type it up for delivery.  The coach screwed up.  Coop explained what happened and then said "but I'm ultimately responsible and I take full responsibility".  I'm not sure what more you expected from him, other than to grovel at the feet of reporters begging for their forgiveness.

Maybe throw in a "this will never happen again" guarantee, for good measure.

He did.

[Bench]

No, that would be the "leadership" part.

Kind of one of the same.  How about "responsible leadership?"

[HudsonHawk]

Kind of one of the same.  How about "responsible leadership?"

I can live with that.

[JackAstro]

Well, they did fail in the process.  Coop writes the lineup, and it's one of the coaches job to type it up for delivery.  The coach screwed up.  Coop explained what happened and then said "but I'm ultimately responsible and I take full responsibility".  I'm not sure what more you expected from him, other than to grovel at the feet of reporters begging for their forgiveness.

If he's accepting full responsibility, I expect him to not bring up what anyone else did. In my job, I have to answer to my clients, and take full responsibility for any fuck ups. That means saying that I fucked up, plain and simple. I don't tell them about how someone on the team contributed to the fuck up, even if they were largely to blame. It's my team, so it's my fault, and my responsibility is all they're going to hear about. I will pull someone aside internally and let them hear about it, certainly, but that's internal stuff.

I've met and worked with plenty of people who say that the buck stops with them, while simultaneously distributing blame. That's a different thing entirely. Do you see what I'm saying?

He did.

It was a joke.

[HudsonHawk]

If he's accepting full responsibility, I expect him to not bring up what anyone else did. In my job, I have to answer to my clients, and take full responsibility for any fuck ups. That means saying that I fucked up, plain and simple. I don't tell them about how someone on the team contributed to the fuck up, even if they were largely to blame. It's my team, so it's my fault, and my responsibility is all they're going to hear about. I will pull someone aside internally and let them hear about it, certainly, but that's internal stuff.

Well, if your clients only care about having a neck to squeeze, not about finding out what actually happened, then ok.  But that's not the case for everyone.  That would never fly for anyone that works for me.  When they fuck up, I want to know why.  Simply saying "I fucked up" ain't gonna cut it.

I've met and worked with plenty of people who say that the buck stops with them, while simultaneously distributing blame. That's a different thing entirely. Do you see what I'm saying?

I see what you're saying, but when asked what happened, what did you think Cooper should have said?  "The lineup card was wrong...that's all you need to know"?  That would have went over big.  A professional sports manager/coach is expected to talk to the press and explain things.  It comes with the territory and is distinctly different than what would be expected of most jobs. 

[MusicMan]

You're talking about the difference between external and internal communication.  To a client - externally - you take the bullet.  JA is spot on.  Internally?  Different matter.  You're right, one of your people fucks up, you find out details.

In a perfect world, Coop would have said, "I'm the manager, and I handed in the wrong lineup card.  It's my responsibility."

[HudsonHawk]

You're talking about the difference between external and internal communication.  To a client - externally - you take the bullet.  JA is spot on.  Internally?  Different matter.  You're right, one of your people fucks up, you find out details.

No, I'm talking about external.  When one of my consultants fucks up and the only response I get is "I fucked up", he won't work for me much longer.  I expect to know what happened, the root cause of why it happened, and what his mitigation plan is so he won't fuck up again.  Simply saying "I fucked up, that all you need to know" is no kind of response.

In a perfect world, Coop would have said, "I'm the manager, and I handed in the wrong lineup card.  It's my responsibility."

He did.  But he also explained why it happened.  I don't fault him for explaining what happened.  Hell, most people don't know that the manager doesn't prepare the lineup card.  I don't think an explanation is out of the question.

[MusicMan]

Root cause and mitigation plan is fine.  Pinning blame on a subordinate is not.

[HudsonHawk]

Root cause and mitigation plan is fine.  Pinning blame on a subordinate is not.

No one pinned blame on a subordiante.  Coop said he was responsible.  He took the blame. 

[Noe]

No one pinned blame on a subordiante.  Coop said he was responsible.  He took the blame.  

The difference though is that you said you want to know "as the boss" (re: Ed Wade).  But do you want your consultant telling your *clients* (Re: fans... ticket, caps, beer, shirt buying fans) "Hey I take responsibility, but the reality is that guy over there... well... he's a moron, and then there is this guy over here... idiot... wait, let me tell you about my boss... "(Cooper, thank goodness, stop from going that far).

You're going to tell me that you, as the boss, won't care that your own consultant is telling clients this sort of thing?

[HudsonHawk]

The difference though is that you said you want to know "as the boss" (re: Ed Wade).  But do you want your consultant telling your *clients* "Hey I take responsibility, but the reality is that guy over there... well... he's a moron, and then there is this guy over here... idiot... wait, let me tell you about my boss... "(Cooper, thank goodness, stop from going that far).

Yes, I want my consultants explaining what happened.  I dont' accept "I fucked up" as a response. 

You're going to tell me that you, as the boss, don't care that your own consultant is telling clients this sort of thing?

Mind?  I demand that's what they do.

[Noe]

Yes, I want my consultants explaining what happened.  I dont' accept "I fucked up" as a response.  

Mind?  I demand that's what they do.

Wow, sorry to say this, but you wouldn't last very long at the places I've worked for.  You never tell *clients* about internal matters. Ever.  You take the hit if you're the project manager and assure them you're going to handle things.  Sure, internally you tell your boss everything... I mean you hold nothing back with them.  But clients?  Sorry, that don't fly.  Not unless you want to take down your company with you.

Does Drayton McLane care about making money?  If yes, then he doesn't need someone airing internal matters on the airwaves, making his customers question whether they want to turn over any more hard earned dollars to guys who manage the product this way.

[HudsonHawk]

Wow, sorry to say this, but you wouldn't last very long at the places I've worked for.  You never tell *client* about internal matters. Ever.  Sure, you tell your boss everything... I mean you hold nothing back.  But clients?  Sorry, that don't fly.  Not unless you want to take down your company with you.

When I hire a consultant, and they fuck up, and the only explanation they can give me is "I fucked up, that's all you need to know", they wont continue to be my consultant much longer.  And if that's the way companies you work for respond to their clients, they wouldn't keep me or my company as a client very long.

[Noe]

When I hire a consultant, and they fuck up, and the only explanation they can give me is "I fucked up, that's all you need to know", they wont continue to be my consultant much longer.  And if that's the way companies you work for respond to their clients, they wouldn't keep me or my company as a client very long.

Consultants and you are far from the situation we've mentioned.  A hired consultant is your internal matter, even though you may think it's a client relationship.  It is not... it is a work for hire situation.  Players are the nearest to a consultants/contractors in this matter.... not the fans.  And we don't respond to clients with the blaming game, they don't want to know.  All they want to know from us is if we're going to fix the problem.  End of story.  And yes, we wouldn't work for you if you demand more than that.  It's none of your business actually to know our internal matters.

[HudsonHawk]

Does Drayton McLane care about making money?  If yes, then he doesn't need someone airing internal matters on the airwaves, making his customers question whether they want to turn over any more hard earned dollars to guys who manage the product this way.

Without an explanation and an assurance that they've taken steps to make sure it doesnt happen again, then I damn sure don't want to give my hard earned dollars, because I question whether they even take their fuckup seriously.

[HudsonHawk]

Consultants and you are far from the situation we've mentioned.  A hired consultant is your internal matter, even though you may think it's a client relationship.  It is not... it is a work for hire situation.  Players are the nearest to a consultants/contractors in this matter.... not the fans.

The fans are the company and the club is the consultant.

[Noe]

Without an explanation and an assurance that they've taken steps to make sure it doesnt happen again, then I damn sure don't want to give my hard earned dollars, because I question whether they even take their fuckup seriously.

So Cooper should fire his coaches.  End of story.

[Noe]

The fans are the company and the club is the consultant.

That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard you utter in here.  Seriously?

[HudsonHawk]

So Cooper should fire his coaches.  End of story.

No, finding the root cause is not a punitive excercise.  It's constructive.  The point is to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[HudsonHawk]

That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard you utter in here.  Seriously?

Of course I'm serious.

[Noe]

Of course I'm serious.

Cool.  I'm out.

[Bench]

The fans are the company and the club is the consultant.

You're torturing the analogy.  I agree that when there's a fuckup, I want to know what happened, why it happened, and what's being done to fix it/avoid it from happening again.  But there are plenty of times when you don't need to let the clients see how sausage is made.

[HudsonHawk]

You're torturing the analogy.  I agree that when there's a fuckup, I want to know what happened, why it happened, and what's being done to fix it/avoid it from happening again.  But there are plenty of times when you don't need to let the clients see how sausage is made.

Sure.  But this isn't making sausage.

[Jacksonian]

The fans are the company and the club is the consultant.

I don't own the Astros.  They aren't my company.  I give them my money in exchange for a product just as I do the gasoline company.  I'm the consumer.

[Bench]

I don't own the Astros.  They aren't my company.  I give them my money in exchange for a product just as I do the gasoline company.  I'm the consumer.

Oh yeah.  And that point.

[HudsonHawk]

I don't own the Astros.  They aren't my company.  I give them my money in exchange for a product just as I do the gasoline company.  I'm the consumer.

I don't own the consulting company either.  I give them money in exchange for a product.  But I am the client and I expect that they are minding the store.  If they want to keep my business, they owe me certain answers.

[Noe]

I don't own the consulting company either.  I give them money in exchange for a product.  But I am the client and I expect that they are minding the store.  If they want to keep my business, they owe me certain answers.

But you said this "The fans are the company and the club is the consultant."  I'm confused by your point if the above is now your answer.

[Jacksonian]

I don't own the consulting company either.  I give them money in exchange for a product.  But I am the client and I expect that they are minding the store.  If they want to keep my business, they owe me certain answers.

*Certain* answers.  As a fan of the Astros I'd like certain answers as well, but I don't want or need to hear the manager blame others.  Blame them to Wade, Tal, or Drayton.  Tell me you screwed up, that the situation that led to it is fixed, and it won't happen again.

[Andyzipp]

But you said this "The fans are the company and the club is the consultant."  I'm confused by your point if the above is now your answer.

You said you were out.  Do we need to make you pinky swear?

[Noe]

You said you were out.  Do we need to make you pinky swear?

Yes.  Good point.  I'm out.  Carry on!

[HudsonHawk]

But you said this "The fans are the company and the club is the consultant."  I'm confused by your point if the above is now your answer.

The fans are the "company", the "client", the "company man", the "comsumer", the "end user".  Whatever phrase is typical of your line of work.  They ultimately pay the salary of the "club", the "players", the "consultant", the "contractor", the "hired help".

[HudsonHawk]

*Certain* answers.  As a fan of the Astros I'd like certain answers as well, but I don't want or need to hear the manager blame others.  Blame them to Wade, Tal, or Drayton.  Tell me you screwed up, that the situation that led to it is fixed, and it won't happen again.

The manager didnt' blame others.  He explained what happened.  He accepted responsibility himself.  And simply telling me "it's fixed" isn't good enough.

[Jacksonian]

The manager didnt' blame others.  He explained what happened.  He accepted responsibility himself.  And simply telling me "it's fixed" isn't good enough.

Considering the context, dumbass major league baseball as opposed to the consultant who helps you make a living, telling me it's fixed is good enough for me.

[HudsonHawk]

Considering the context, dumbass major league baseball as opposed to the consultant who helps you make a living, telling me it's fixed is good enough for me.

Well, not for me.  And I'm glad that the media asked follow up questions that got the answers.

[JackAstro]

Jimy Williams thinks this all a bunch of bullshit.

[Andyzipp]

Jimy Williams thinks this all a bunch of bullshit.

Jimy, what's the best way to deal with the media?

"We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

[Astroholic]

Jimy, what's the best way to deal with the media?

"We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

Abraham Jay?

[pots]

It's all bs.  Coop was hiding the lineup card in his pants cause he wanted to talk with the players who he was moving in the lineup prior to them knowing.  The coaches didn't verify the lineup cause Coop changed the way things were being done that day.  He shouldn't of even mentioned the coaches cause on that particular day it was all him.

Edit:
At least that's what I got from all the explanations.

[HudsonHawk]

It's all bs.  Coop was hiding the lineup card in his pants cause he wanted to talk with the players who he was moving in the lineup prior to them knowing.  The coaches didn't verify the lineup cause Coop changed the way things were being done that day.  He shouldn't of even mentioned the coaches cause on that particular day it was all him.

Edit:
At least that's what I got from all the explanations.

From whom did you get these explanations?

[pots]

From whom did you get these explanations?

From the quotes of Cooper.  He said he put the lineup in his pants cause he wanted to talk with his players about the lineup changes first.  I don't have the exact quote, nor the ambition to look it up.  But on that particular day Cooper decided to change the way things normally worked (and for good reason).  On this particular day he was fully responsible. 

[Astroholic]

From the quotes of Cooper.  He said he put the lineup in his pants cause he wanted to talk with his players about the lineup changes first.  I don't have the exact quote, nor the ambition to look it up.  But on that particular day Cooper decided to change the way things normally worked (and for good reason).  On this particular day he was fully responsible. 

And Irresponsible.

[HudsonHawk]

From the quotes of Cooper.  He said he put the lineup in his pants cause he wanted to talk with his players about the lineup changes first.  I don't have the exact quote, nor the ambition to look it up.  But on that particular day Cooper decided to change the way things normally worked (and for good reason).  On this particular day he was fully responsible. 

Coop explained that he made the changes in the lineup and wanted to talk to the players.  He then handed his handwritten card to one of the coaches to prepare on the computer for submittal, just like he always did.  However, the coach who types up the lineup card did not see the card usually posted in the clubhouse (the one Coop didn't post because he was going to discuss it with the players), and assumed that it was a mistake and switched Bourn and Matsui.  Coop then discussed with the players and posted the lineup card in the clubhouse for everyone to see with the changes he wanted.  However, the computer-prepared card was not checked.  Coop explained that there were several "checks" usually in place, including the final one, which is his responsibility.  He simply said the switch got missed and he did not make his normal final check.  It was on him.  For some reason, there is this misconception that Cooper blamed the coaches.  He did not.  Nothing of the sort.  He took full responsibility. 

[pots]

Coop explained that he made the changes in the lineup and wanted to talk to the players.  He then handed his handwritten card to one of the coaches to prepare on the computer for submittal, just like he always did.  However, the coach who types up the lineup card did not see the card usually posted in the clubhouse (the one Coop didn't post because he was going to discuss it with the players), and assumed that it was a mistake and switched Bourn and Matsui.  Coop then discussed with the players and posted the lineup card in the clubhouse for everyone to see with the changes he wanted.  However, the computer-prepared card was not checked.  Coop explained that there were several "checks" usually in place, including the final one, which is his responsibility.  He simply said the switch got missed and he did not make his normal final check.  It was on him.  For some reason, there is this misconception that Cooper blamed the coaches.  He did not.  Nothing of the sort.  He took full responsibility. 

He first said it was everyone's fault followed by a but and taking of the blame.  Seems like a backhanded taking of the blame to me:
"We have three or four safeguards, two or three coaches and myself," Cooper said. "And today no one checked it. So we're all at fault, but I take the blame ultimately because it's my responsibility. That should be the end of it."


Then later explained what was a cause of the screw up:
"I was waiting to talk to a couple of guys," Cooper said. "That might have created a problem. But again, it's my responsibility."

And from another artickle:
"I put [the lineup card] in my pocket today and didn't even check it, and usually I check it everyday, but for some reason I didn't check, and no one else checked it," Cooper said about the gaffe. "There's four people who check it, but today nobody checked it and it's my responsibility. It happened, it's over. It is embarrassing, but we won the game."

[JimR]

absolutely no reason to mention the coaches. lame.

[HudsonHawk]

He first said it was everyone's fault followed by a but and taking of the blame.  Seems like a backhanded taking of the blame to me:
"We have three or four safeguards, two or three coaches and myself," Cooper said. "And today no one checked it. So we're all at fault, but I take the blame ultimately because it's my responsibility. That should be the end of it."


Then later explained what was a cause of the screw up:
"I was waiting to talk to a couple of guys," Cooper said. "That might have created a problem. But again, it's my responsibility."

And from another artickle:
"I put [the lineup card] in my pocket today and didn't even check it, and usually I check it everyday, but for some reason I didn't check, and no one else checked it," Cooper said about the gaffe. "There's four people who check it, but today nobody checked it and it's my responsibility. It happened, it's over. It is embarrassing, but we won the game."

Exactly.  He took full responsibility.  No where does he blame anyone else.  When asked if there are any safeguards in place, he explained that there were, then accepted full responsibility.  I don't see how that could be any more clear. 

[HudsonHawk]

absolutely no reason to mention the coaches. lame.

He was asked a direct question, "doesn't anyone check the lineup card before it's handed in?"  Most people probably think the manager simply writes up the lineup card and hands it to the umpire.  He explained how the procedure works.  He didn't blame anyone but himself.  

[JackAstro]

He was asked a direct question, "doesn't anyone check the lineup card before it's handed in?"  He explained how the process works.  He didn't blame anyone but himself.

"And today no one checked it. So we're all at fault..."

It's really not that big of a deal, but I feel like we're reading entirely different things.

[HudsonHawk]

"And today no one checked it. So we're all at fault..."

It's really not that big of a deal, but I feel like we're reading entirely different things.

"I take the blame ultimately because it's my responsibility."

"But again, it's my responsibility."

"nobody checked it and it's my responsibility."




I guess so.  


Explaining what happened and assigning blame are two different things, IMO.  There are many things about which to criticize Cooper's managing.  Claiming he doesn't know how a lineup card works is simply ad hominem, and undermines those legitimate criticisms.  

[JimR]

I guess so.  Explaining what happened and assigning blame are two different things, IMO.  There are many things about which to criticize Cooper's managing.  Claiming he doesn't know how a lineup card works is simply ad hominem, and undermines those legitimate criticisms. 

and numerous folks here disagree.

it would have been easy to say "What our system is does not matter. the lineup card is my responsibility." he was trying to share the blame, not to assume full responsibility.

[HudsonHawk]

and numerous folks here disagree.

it would have been easy to say "What our system is does not matter. the lineup card is my responsibility." he was trying to share the blame, not to assume full responsibility.

The system matters to me.  I want to know why it happened and what's to prevent it from happening in the future. 

[JackAstro]

Explaining what happened and assigning blame are two different things, IMO.  There are many things about which to criticize Cooper's managing.  Claiming he doesn't know how a lineup card works is simply ad hominem, and undermines those legitimate criticisms. 

Saying someone is at fault and assigning blame are not two different things, however.

[HudsonHawk]

Saying someone is at fault and assigning blame are not two different things, however.

I read "fault" in this context as an explanation of what happened. 

[pots]

What really happened is Noe, wearing a radiation suit, snuck into Coops room while he was sleeping the night before.  Slipped some headphones on his head and blasted some Van Halen into his ears....

The next day Coop can running into the locker room went up to Romero and said:
"Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told me that if I didn't bat Bourn leadoff that he'd melt my brain."  Romero explained he probably should keep that to himself.  

You see everything fits.  He forgot to check the lineup because he was still shaken from the incident the night before.  He didn't come out of the dugout to explain the mess up to Bourn because he was hiding from Darth Vader because officially Matsui batted first.

In the end it's all Noe's fault but no one will ever know.

[JackAstro]

I read "fault" in this context as an explanation of what happened.  

Fair enough. I see the whole thing as being badly handled, you see it as well-handled, so we're not going to get to the same place there. At least we all agree that he should have exhibited leadership during the game.

As a postscript, don't be so quick to dismiss ad hominem attacks – they can be fun and effective.

[Noe]

In the end it's all Noe's fault but no one will ever know.

Ooohhhh... they know.  Trust me.  They know.

[Mr. Happy]

and numerous folks here disagree.

it would have been easy to say "What our system is does not matter. the lineup card is my responsibility." he was trying to share the blame, not to assume full responsibility.

I agree. He was trying to take responsibility and parcel some out to others at the same time. You can't have it both ways, Cooper. IT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

[Bench]

What really happened is Noe, wearing a radiation suit, snuck into Coops room while he was sleeping the night before.  Slipped some headphones on his head and blasted some Van Halen into his ears....

The next day Coop can running into the locker room went up to Romero and said:
"Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told me that if I didn't bat Bourn leadoff that he'd melt my brain."  Romero explained he probably should keep that to himself.  

You see everything fits.  He forgot to check the lineup because he was still shaken from the incident the night before.  He didn't come out of the dugout to explain the mess up to Bourn because he was hiding from Darth Vader because officially Matsui batted first.

In the end it's all Noe's fault but no one will ever know.

And nobody has brought up the fact that the reason he was late talking to the players and notifying the other coaches was that he was goofing around with football players in the batting cage (NTTAWWT) all the while with the mystery lineup card in his back pocket.

[Clark in Denver]

I think the bigger issue is that he hid while Bourn and Matsui were left confused and fighting with the umpire out on the field. 

Regardless of whose mistake it was, he should have taken charge in that situation.

[das]

I think the bigger issue is that he hid while Bourn and Matsui were left confused and fighting with the umpire out on the field. 

Regardless of whose mistake it was, he should have taken charge in that situation.

Aaaaaaaaaannnndddd, we're reset back to zero.

[HudsonHawk]

Fair enough. I see the whole thing as being badly handled, you see it as well-handled, so we're not going to get to the same place there. At least we all agree that he should have exhibited leadership during the game.

As a postscript, don't be so quick to dismiss ad hominem attacks – they can be fun and effective.

I didn't say it was well-handled, I said it wasn't as poorly handled as people are making it out to be, and it's certainly not an indication that Coop doesn't know the fundementals of the rulebook and how a lineup card works.  I think he responded to direct questions asked of him in an honest way.  I'm not suggesting he's Winston Churchill.

[Bench]

I think the bigger issue is that he hid while Bourn and Matsui were left confused and fighting with the umpire out on the field. 

Regardless of whose mistake it was, he should have taken charge in that situation.

And by "taking charge" do you mean demonstrating leadership or do you mean taking responsibility?

[HudsonHawk]

And nobody has brought up the fact that the reason he was late talking to the players and notifying the other coaches was that he was goofing around with football players in the batting cage (NTTAWWT) all the while with the mystery lineup card in his back pocket.

Point of order:  he was not late in notifying the coaches.  They were notified, by definition, when he handed over the lineup card to be prepared for submittal.

[HudsonHawk]

And by "taking charge" do you mean demonstrating leadership or do you mean taking responsibility?

You're the straw that stirs the drink.

[MusicMan]

Aaaaaaaaaannnndddd, we're reset back to zero.

YTIFY

[JackAstro]

I didn't say it was well-handled, I said it wasn't as poorly handled as people are making it out to be, and it's certainly not an indication that Coop doesn't know the fundementals of the rulebook and how a lineup card works.  I think he responded to direct questions asked of him in an honest way.  I'm not suggesting he's Winston Churchill.

From your earlier statements of approval regarding Cooper's providing an explanation and assurances that the mistake would not happen again, I inferred that you thought he handled the press conference well. That was presumptuous, and I take full responsibility. It will not happen again.

[HudsonHawk]

From your earlier statements of approval regarding Cooper's providing an explanation and assurances that the mistake would not happen again, I inferred that you thought he handled the press conference well. That was presumptuous, and I take full responsibility. It will not happen again.

You sound like my wife.  Now I'll just wait till you're crying one night, and when I ask "what's wrong", you'll respond "you remember that time 12 years ago..."

[JackAstro]

You sound like my wife.  Now I'll just wait till you're crying one night, and when I ask "what's wrong", you'll respond "you remember that time 12 years ago..."

Good lord, is her voice really that deep?

[MusicMan]

You sound like my wife.  Now I'll just wait till you're crying one night, and when I ask "what's wrong", you'll respond "you remember that time 12 years ago..."

It's not so much what you said... it's the way you said it...

[HudsonHawk]

Good lord, is her voice really that deep?

One of the fun things about online persona is that you get to imagine what people sound like, as if they were actually speaking words to you.  You my friend do not sound like James Earl Jones.

[MusicMan]

I thought giving him Mahoney's voice was kind of natural.

[Bench]

I thought giving him Mahoney's voice was kind of natural.

At this point, if I ran into Steve Guttenberg on the street I would unfailingly address him as JackAstro.

[HudsonHawk]

I thought giving him Mahoney's voice was kind of natural.

It's too easy to base imaginary voices on one's avatar.  I like to be more creative.  By the way, is that John Davidson in yours?

[MusicMan]

By the way, is that John Davidson in yours?

That's incredible.

[JackAstro]

One of the fun things about online persona is that you get to imagine what people sound like, as if they were actually speaking words to you.  You my friend do not sound like James Earl Jones.

You know, I've never even considered that. I don't think I have a voice assigned to anyone, though I probably should think about doing it. For the record, if you ever meet a lady with a voice like mine, back away, it's a trap.

[Andyzipp]

It's too easy to base imaginary voices on one's avatar.  I like to be more creative.  By the way, is that John Davidson in yours?

Do you also assign voices to people you have met, just to keep thing interesting?

I'd like Foghorn Leghorn, please.

[JackAstro]

By the way, is that John Davidson in yours?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Circle does not get the square, sorry.

[Arky Vaughan]

Of all the people I've met from the site, Limey and Coach come closest in terms of online voice vs. real-life voice.

The real Noe doesn't seem to use as many words as the online Noe.

[Noe]

Do you also assign voices to people you have met, just to keep thing interesting?

I'd like Foghorn Leghorn, please.

Gimme Speedy Gonzales, just to be what I should be in the minds of many.

[MusicMan]

Gimme Speedy Gonzales, just to be what I should be in the minds of many.

We have to give you Speedy.  It's the only way to make it through your posts.

[Noe]

Of all the people I've met from the site, Limey and Coach come closest in terms of online voice vs. real-life voice.

The real Noe doesn't seem to use as many words as the online Noe.

The routing system in my brain assigned X amount of words to my hands to type on a keyboard.  The channel to my mouth to speak is down for maintenance... permanently.

[JackAstro]

I need an opportunity to address this... when's the next group outing to MMPUS? And who else thinks Mark should be organizing a softball game in Austin? [/raising hand]

[Noe]

We have to give you Speedy.  It's the only way to make it through your posts.

See, I know the audience around here.  It helps to have a speed talking voice to go with a tome.  If Speedy doesn't work, then imagine Hunter Pence reading one of my post after drinking a gallon of coffee.

[Arky Vaughan]

The routing system in my brain assigned X amount of words to my hands to type on a keyboard.  The channel to my mouth to speak is down for maintenance... permanently.

Many people would be better off with this arrangement, first and foremost myself.

[Noe]

I need an opportunity to address this... when's the next group outing to MMPUS? And who else thinks Mark should be organizing a softball game in Austin? [/raising hand]

You renting a voice for the occasion?

[JackAstro]

You renting a voice for the occasion?

I'm checking Mahoney's availability now...

[MusicMan]

I'm pretty sure he's VERY available.

[Noe]

I'm checking Mahoney's availability now...

You're welcome to borrow my "Dad" voice.  My son has locked himself in his room playing Halo, so it's not currently being used.

[JackAstro]

You're welcome to borrow my "Dad" voice.  My son has locked himself in his room playing Halo, so it's not currently being used.

I do a mean impression of Don LaFontaine, actually, so I'm thinking of bringing that to the table. It'll probably get annoying after the 10th time I start a conversation with "in a world...", but I'm willing to take that risk.

[chuck]

By the way, is that John Davidson in yours?

Fuck me, I always thought it was Shaun Cassidy.

[HudsonHawk]

Do you also assign voices to people you have met, just to keep thing interesting?

I'd like Foghorn Leghorn, please.

Yes.  Mark Raup has the voice of Charles Nelson Reilly.

[hostros7]

Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for Cooper didn't bunt with men on 1st and 2nd and no outs in the 9th yesterday?  PH Hampton or anyone who can get down a bunt if Pudge can't.  1999 was 10 years ago.  Pudge shouldn't be up there swinging away in that situation, IMO.

Sure would have been nice to take game 1 with Greinke on the mound. 

[HudsonHawk]

Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for Cooper didn't bunt with men on 1st and 2nd and no outs in the 9th yesterday?  PH Hampton or anyone who can get down a bunt if Pudge can't.  1999 was 10 years ago.  Pudge shouldn't be up there swinging away in that situation, IMO.

Sure would have been nice to take game 1 with Greinke on the mound. 

I can offer Coop's explanation, though I don't agree with it.  He said at the bottom of the order, he felt Pudge was his last best chance to get a hit, and drive that run (Tejada) in.  That Pudge was "an RBI guy" and that's what he has to be counted on to do.  I don't see how you can reasonably call your #7 hitter an "RBI guy" in that situation.  Furthermore, your #8 hitter in that spot was a guy you'd been batting leadoff or second much of the season, and if you bunt Pudge, you don't need a hit, you only need a groundball or a fly ball, just someone who can make contact.  Turns out Matsui struck out, but Coop didn't know that at the time.  I understand bunting Bourn over in the 8th.  I agree with that move.  I don't agree with letting Pudge swing away in the 9th.  There are those who would say you should never give up an out.  I think those people are full of crap.

[MusicMan]

I can offer Coop's explanation, though I don't agree with it.  He said at the bottom of the order, he felt Pudge was his last best chance to get a hit, and drive that run (Tejada) in.  That Pudge was "an RBI guy" and that's what he has to be counted on to do.  I don't see how you can reasonably call your #7 hitter an "RBI guy" in that situation.  Furthermore, your #8 hitter in that spot was a guy you'd been batting leadoff or second much of the season, and if you bunt Pudge, you don't need a hit, you only need a groundball or a fly ball, just someone who can make contact.  Turns out Matsui struck out, but Coop didn't know that at the time.  I understand bunting Bourn over in the 8th.  I agree with that move.  I don't agree with letting Pudge swing away in the 9th.  There are those who would say you should never give up an out.  I think those people are full of crap.

I think even the sabremetrics crowd would say that a 1st and 2nd, no outs bunt when down 1 in the 9th is the appropriate move.  It increases the chances of scoring at least 1 run.

[hostros7]

And you're at home.  And the bunt also likely moves the winning run into scoring position.  I think the argument for not bunting there is almost untenable.  Sure Kaz struck out, not unrelated some generous calls by the HP ump, but his approach would have certainly been different with men on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, so even hindsight is not 20-20 there.

[Noe]

Just to add a little bit of tension to the equation, when Cooper failed to do the same thing in Chicago (on the road) in the late innings, he was questioned by several players as to why this was not a move he considered.  He dismissed their questions and that pretty much made some of them question Cooper's acumen.

And yes, Sabrematricians don't question the bunt per se, they question using it in *all* situations.  Situations dictate how to use it wisely.  Late inning scenarios is a good reason to give up an out to change the dynamics of the situation.  The manner a player can score from third as opposed to second is greater.  That is baseball 101.

[Andyzipp]

Just to add a little bit of tension to the equation, when Cooper failed to do the same thing in Chicago (on the road) in the late innings, he was questioned by several players as to why this was not a move he considered.  He dismissed their questions and that pretty much made some of them question Cooper's acumen.

And yes, Sabrematricians don't question the bunt per se, they question using it in *all* situations.  Situations dictate how to use it wisely.  Late inning scenarios is a good reason to give up an out to change the dynamics of the situation.  The manner a player can score from third as opposed to second is greater.  That is baseball 101.

Cooper said he CLEPed out of Baseball 101.

[Clark in Denver]

I seem to recall hearing a few days ago that Q has been a little banged up lately.  Perhaps he wasn't ready to go in case they had go back out in the 10th?

[MRaup]

I seem to recall hearing a few days ago that Q has been a little banged up lately.  Perhaps he wasn't ready to go in case they had go back out in the 10th?

So Pudge bunts instead?

[JackAstro]

I seem to recall hearing a few days ago that Q has been a little banged up lately.  Perhaps he wasn't ready to go in case they had go back out in the 10th?

Pudge probably knows the bunt sign.

ETA: Damn Raup, with his boyish good looks and lightning-fast typing hands.

[HudsonHawk]

I think even the sabremetrics crowd would say that a 1st and 2nd, no outs bunt when down 1 in the 9th is the appropriate move.  It increases the chances of scoring at least 1 run.

I disagree.  I think they'd spout the same bullshit about statistically scoring more runs if you don't give up the out.  The statgeek (I hate calling them "sabremetric", as I have a great deal of respect for SABRE, which is most definitely NOT about stat geekdom, they simply co-opted the name in hopes that it gave them some legitimacy) crowd is situationally ignorant.

[HudsonHawk]

I seem to recall hearing a few days ago that Q has been a little banged up lately.  Perhaps he wasn't ready to go in case they had go back out in the 10th?

Bunting doesn't mean you have to leave the game.

[Noe]

I disagree.  I think they'd spout the same bullshit about statistically scoring more runs if you don't give up the out.  The statgeek (I hate calling them "sabremetric", as I have a great deal of respect for SABRE, which is most definitely NOT about stat geekdom, they simply co-opted the name in hopes that it gave them some legitimacy) crowd is situationally ignorant.

Some surprise me though when they understand situation dictates bunting and not formulas.  Others, pretty act and say as you're mentioning here.

[JimR]

this former coach would have bunted them over and squeezed in the winning run.

[HudsonHawk]

this former coach would have bunted them over and squeezed in the winning run.

Then you would have had to have scored the tying run without giving up an out, which means you would have needed a hit first.

Or did you mean squeeze in the tying run?

[Andyzipp]

Then you would have had to have scored the tying run without giving up an out, which means you would have needed a hit first.

Or did you mean squeeze in the tying run?

Play for the tie at home, for the win on the road.

[ValpoCory]

Then you would have had to have scored the tying run without giving up an out, which means you would have needed a hit first.

Or did you mean squeeze in the tying run?

He meant Berkman would have scored from 2nd on the squeeze.

[HudsonHawk]

Play for the tie at home, for the win on the road.

Well, that's my question.  If you bunt, and you have Tejada at 3B (the tying run) and Berkman at 2B (the winning run) with 1 out, do you still squeeze?  Or do you take your chances with Matsui where a groundball/fly ball ties it, hit wins it?  I like the squeeze there too, but not everyone might like it.

[JackAstro]

I made a card for Coop.

[Gizzmonic]

Well, that's my question.  If you bunt, and you have Tejada at 3B (the tying run) and Berkman at 2B (the winning run) with 1 out, do you still squeeze?  Or do you take your chances with Matsui where a groundball/fly ball ties it, hit wins it?  I like the squeeze there too, but not everyone might like it.

With that huge-ass strike zone and Matsui, I'd take the chance, since he can bunt.  With any other LH hitter on the Astros, I'd let them swing away and hope they hit it to the right side.

[HudsonHawk]

With that huge-ass strike zone and Matsui, I'd take the chance, since he can bunt.  With any other LH hitter on the Astros, I'd let them swing away and hope they hit it to the right side.

You don't need the ball to the right side, any ground ball would do, considering the Royals would most likely have had the infield back.

[Gizzmonic]

You don't need the ball to the right side, any ground ball would do, considering the Royals would most likely have had the infield back.

Good point. 

And BTW, I love your card, JackAstro.  Here's hoping it displaces "Not only do I want to grow old with you%2C I hope to one day fuck you so hard that you need a hip replacement. " from the top 5 cards on that site.

[Noe]

Well, that's my question.  If you bunt, and you have Tejada at 3B (the tying run) and Berkman at 2B (the winning run) with 1 out, do you still squeeze?  Or do you take your chances with Matsui where a groundball/fly ball ties it, hit wins it?  I like the squeeze there too, but not everyone might like it.

With Matsui as a contact hitter, a squeeze is good strategy.  However, what defense will the Royals employ?  Will they move the infield in?  If yes, I have him hit away because as a contact hitter, you have a very good chance of a basehit.  If they play back, then I think about the squeeze.  If the pitcher decides he has a base open and will unintentionally/intentionally walk Kasuo, that means that the corners will play in and ss/2nd will play back for the DP.  In such a case, I make sure I have a guy (like Michaels) who can put air underneath the ball to get my sac fly.

All those things were taken away and in one fell swoop, Cooper went for the "score him from second base with a hit" method.

[Noe]

I made a card for Coop.

I thought it was going to be a similar card as the food snacks roadmap.

[HudsonHawk]

With Matsui as a contact hitter, a squeeze is good strategy.  However, what defense will the Royals employ?  Will they move the infield in?  If yes, I have him hit away because as a contact hitter, you have a very good chance of a basehit.  If they play back, then I think about the squeeze.  If the pitcher decides he has a base open and will unintentionally/intentionally walk Kasuo, that means that the corners will play in and ss/2nd will play back for the DP.  In such a case, I make sure I have a guy (like Michaels) who can put air underneath the ball to get my sac fly.

I think if they bunt Pudge, they probably walk Matsui then play the infield back.  Even if they pitch to Matsui, they probably play the infield back, conceeding the tying run on a routine groundball, but not giving up the winning run on the same. 

[Noe]

I think if they bunt Pudge, they probably walk Matsui then play the infield back.  Even if they pitch to Matsui, they probably play the infield back, conceeding the tying run on a routine groundball, but not giving up the winning run on the same. 

Agreed.  That is what having a man on third base does for the situation.  None of that ever came into play with the tying run dying on the vine at second base.  I will say though, in the case of a manager not putting on the bunt, the hitter then must go up there with the situation well thought out.  Meaning, if I am to do my job, then I must move over the runner to third base at minimum.  How must he do this?  The only way is to either bunt on their own, make sure he hustles down the line in a groundball hit to the right side or put air underneath the ball to right deep enough to move over the runner.

If Tejada is sitting on third and Berkman is still on first, then I play the infield back for a double play.  Guess what... I put the squeeze play on immediately.

[HudsonHawk]

Agreed.  That is what having a man on third base does for the situation.  None of that ever came into play with the tying run dying on the vine at second base.  I will say though, in the case of a manager not putting on the bunt, the hitter then must go up there with the situation well thought out.  Meaning, if I am to do my job, then I must move over the runner to third base at minimum.  How must he do this?  The only way is to either bunt on their own, make sure he hustles down the line in a groundball hit to the right side or put air underneath the ball to right deep enough to move over the runner.

Absolutely.  I think bunting is clearly the smart move.  It gives you many more options, plus forces the defense to make a tough choice. 

If Tejada is sitting on third and Berkman is still on first, then I play the infield back for a double play.  Guess what... I put the squeeze play on immediately.

Me too.  You'd have to be careful about bunting into a double play in that situation, but that's less of a risk with Matsui as the hitter.  If, however you bunt the runners to 2B and 3B, and the Royals walk the bases loaded, it probably takes the squeeze out of play.

[JimR]

Then you would have had to have scored the tying run without giving up an out, which means you would have needed a hit first.

Or did you mean squeeze in the tying run?

yes. sorry.

[HudsonHawk]

yes. sorry.

If you are the Royals, do you then walk Matsui to load the bases?

[Bench]

If you are the Royals, do you then walk Matsui to load the bases?

I would.

[JackAstro]

If you are the Royals, do you then walk Matsui to load the bases?

Hell yes.

[Noe]

If you are the Royals, do you then walk Matsui to load the bases?

Yes, I would.  And then I'd bust fastballs in on Michael's hands so as to prevent him from putting air underneath the ball.

[HudsonHawk]

I would.

I probably don't.  If the game were tied, I do, but not when I have the lead. 

[Noe]

I probably don't.  If the game were tied, I do, but not when I have the lead. 

Do you, under those circumstances, play the infield in (to cut off the tying run) or back (concede the run if he makes contact)?

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, I would.  And then I'd bust fastballs in on Michael's hands so as to prevent him from putting air underneath the ball.

But you got nowhere to put Michaels with the bases loaded.  You can't try to be too fine, or you end up walking Michaels and then you've got a tie game and the bases still loaded with the winning run on 3B and facing Bourn and his .376 OBP and difficult DP candidacy.  I think I like my chances with Matsui with a base open.

[HudsonHawk]

Do you, under those circumstances, play the infield in (to cut off the tying run) or back (concede the run if he makes contact)?

I play the infield back.  I'm willing to conceed the tying run if it means getting the second out and reducing the chances that an otherwise routine groundball beats me.

[Noe]

But you got nowhere to put Michaels with the bases loaded.  You can't try to be too fine, or you end up walking Michaels and then you've got a tie game and the bases still loaded with the winning run on 3B and facing Bourn and his .376 OBP and difficult DP candidacy.  I think I like my chances with Matsui with a base open.

I play for the double play by putting my infield back.  I bust Michael's hands and also go for sinkers or sliders away hoping he rolls over one right into the play I want.  Busting his hands gives me a chance for a infield fly or shallow pop fly.

[Noe]

I play the infield back.  I'm willing to conceed the tying run if it means getting the second out and reducing the chances that an otherwise routine groundball beats me.

Then if you want to reduce the routine groundball beating you, why not put Matsui on and have an out at every base option?  I can see your point though, so it isn't as if I think you're wrong at all.  Just playing it differently than me.

[JackAstro]

I walk Matsui, play the infield in, and try to take the win right there. But that's just how I roll.

[Noe]

I walk Matsui, play the infield in, and try to take the win right there. But that's just how I roll.

I play corners in and middle back.  Go for two up the middle or two on a home to first dp if hit to the corner.  I play my outfielder where they normally would play.

[JimR]

If you are the Royals, do you then walk Matsui to load the bases?

i would.

[HudsonHawk]

Then if you want to reduce the routine groundball beating you, why not put Matsui on and have an out at every base option?  I can see your point though, so it isn't as if I think you're wrong at all.  Just playing it differently than me.

That's one of the benefits of loading the bases.

If you walk Matsui, you get the good:

1.  A shot at a double play to end the game.
2.  A force at any base to at least get one out.
3.  Minimizes the risk of the squeeze.

and the bad:

1.  Nowhere to put Michaels so a walk or HBP, in addition to a fly ball ties the game, and then you've still got the bases loaded facing yet another tough lefthanded out.  Forces your pitcher to be finer with his pitches.
2.  Forces you to play for the infield double play on a ground ball, ie. coming home not an option.

If you pitch to Matsui, you get the good:

1.  A base open, giving your pitcher more leeway in how he approaches the hitter.
2.  The option of bringing the infield in to cut off the tying run.
3.  A fly ball likely keeps the winning run at 2B.

and the bad:

1.  Squeeze is possible to tie the game.
2.  If you play the infield in, you could get beat on a ground ball that would otherwise be an out.

All in all, if I've got the tying run at 3B and the winning run at 2B, facing Matsui and Michaels, I like my chances facing those guys with a base open rather than facing Michaels and Bourn with the bases loaded.  That may seem like playing for a tie rather than for the win, but I'm in a tight spot. 

[HudsonHawk]

I walk Matsui, play the infield in, and try to take the win right there. But that's just how I roll.

There's no point in walking the bases loaded if you're gonna bring the infield in. 

[HudsonHawk]

I play corners in and middle back.  Go for two up the middle or two on a home to first dp if hit to the corner.  I play my outfielder where they normally would play.

I think if you're gonna walk the bases loaded, you've can't go halfway.  You've got to play the corners for two also.

[austro]

If you walk Matsui, you get the good:

1.  A shot at a double play to end the game.
2.  A force at any base to at least get one out.
3.  Minimizes the risk of the squeeze.

I don't understand why loading the bases minimizes the risk of a squeeze. Is it because of an increased possibility of bunting into a double-play?

[HudsonHawk]

I don't understand why loading the bases minimizes the risk of a squeeze. Is it because of an increased possibility of bunting into a double-play?

Because you don't have to make a tag at the plate, you have a force. 

[JackAstro]

There's no point in walking the bases loaded if you're gonna bring the infield in. 

I should've elaborated... like Noe said, corners in, middle at DP depth. I'm walking Matsui in large part to have the force at home, because I'm not conceding the tie.

ETA: I realize my original post was even more vague than I thought – just to be clear, my primary goal is to keep the tying run from scoring. Double play is great, but getting out #2 at home is acceptable.

[HudsonHawk]

I should've elaborated... like Noe said, corners in, middle at DP depth. I'm walking Matsui in large part to have the force at home, because I'm not conceding the tie.

What does a force at home buy you?  You either play to cut off the run at the plate or you play for the double play.

[austro]

Because you don't have to make a tag at the plate, you have a force. 

Duh. Thanks.

[MRaup]

What does a force at home buy you?  You either play to cut off the run at the plate or you play for the double play.

With the bases loaded, a slow chopper to a corner infielder still might get you a double play of the 5-2-3 or 3-2-1/4 variety.

[HudsonHawk]

ETA: I realize my original post was even more vague than I thought – just to be clear, my primary goal is to keep the tying run from scoring. Double play is great, but getting out #2 at home is acceptable.

This doesn't work.  In loading the bases, you're playing for the double play.  You're conceding the tying run on a ground ball if you don't get two.  You're not going to load the bases then try to cut off the run at the plate.

[JimR]

What does a force at home buy you?  You either play to cut off the run at the plate or you play for the double play.

no. the usual alignment/direction from the coach is: 1st, 3rd and P go home, SS and 2B turn two

[HudsonHawk]

With the bases loaded, a slow chopper to a corner infielder still might get you a double play of the 5-2-3 or 3-2-1/4 variety.

A huge maybe.  Though it would at least get the force at the plate.  Still, you don't load the bases then play for a play at the plate.

[HudsonHawk]

no. the usual alignment/direction from the coach is: 1st, 3rd and P go home, SS and 2B turn two

Right.  And you can't do that if you bring the infield in.

[JimR]

A huge maybe.  Though it would at least get the force at the plate.  Still, you don't load the bases then play for a play at the plate.

yes, you do, HH. corners or P go home, ss and 2B turn it at second. that was SOP on all the teams i played on and for the ones i coached.

[JackAstro]

What does a force at home buy you?  You either play to cut off the run at the plate or you play for the double play.

It buys the second out with the lead and forces everywhere intact. We're talking about infield positioning with bases loaded, one out, right? Or did I lose the situation in there somewhere?

[JimR]

Right.  And you can't do that if you bring the infield in.

corners in, SS and 2B at DP depth

[HudsonHawk]

yes, you do, HH. corners or P go home, ss and 2B turn it at second. that was SOP on all the teams i played on and for the ones i coached.

Right.  We're talking about the middle infielders.  You don't load the bases then tell them to go home. 

[JackAstro]

Right.  We're talking about the middle infielders.  You don't load the bases then tell them to go home. 

Yeah, I did a shit job explaining it. I don't want the middle infielders to come home – I want the corner infielders in, and coming home.

[HudsonHawk]

It buys the second out with the lead and forces everywhere intact. We're talking about infield positioning with bases loaded, one out, right? Or did I lose the situation in there somewhere?

We're talking runners at 2B and 3B one out, and whether or not to intenionally load the bases.  If you do, you commit to playing the SS and 2B back for a double play at 2B.  You don't intentionally load the bases then pull them in or tell them to go home. 

[HudsonHawk]

Yeah, I did a shit job explaining it. I don't want the middle infielders to come home – I want the corner infielders in, and coming home.

I'm fine with that.  You're confusing me on getting a force at home being an "at least" option.

[Bench]

Right.  We're talking about the middle infielders.  You don't load the bases then tell them to go home. 

I thought you were talking about the corner infields too.  I'm with coach and Noe, corner infielders play in and come home, middle infielders play DP depth and go for two.

[JackAstro]

We're talking runners at 2B and 3B one out, and whether or not to intenionally load the bases.  If you do, you commit to playing the SS and 2B back for a double play at 2B.  You don't intentionally load the bases then pull them in or tell them to go home.  

Let me consolidate my 5 answers into one cohesive thought, and see if this makes any more sense.

With 2nd and 3rd and one out, I walk Matsui, because I'm worried that tying run is coming across during his AB, one way or another.

Bases loaded, I have the corners in, middle at DP depth. Getting out of it with a DP is ideal, but I want everything else coming home. Having a lead with forces everywhere and two outs is an acceptable backup plan to the DP, if I don't get the ball to SS or 2B. I don't want to concede the tie, under any circumstances.

[HudsonHawk]

I thought you were talking about the corner infields too.  I'm with coach and Noe, corner infielders play in and come home, middle infielders play DP depth and go for two.

I think we all agree on that, though I wouldn't necessarily play my corners in too much. 

[Limey]

Fuck me this game is complicated.  [Switches to the CricketChannel]

[Mr. Happy]

Fuck me this game is complicated.  [Switches to the CricketChannel]

I used to say :"Hey, I just throw the pitch. You guys do what the coach tells you." I agree with Coach on this one. From what I remember about this play, that was the SOP on the teams I played on too.

[HudsonHawk]

Let me consolidate my 5 answers into one cohesive thought, and see if this makes any more sense.

With 2nd and 3rd and one out, I walk Matsui, because I'm worried that tying run is coming across during his AB, one way or another.

Bases loaded, I have the corners in, middle at DP depth. Getting out of it with a DP is ideal, but I want everything else coming home. Having a lead with forces everywhere and two outs is an acceptable backup plan to the DP, if I don't get the ball to SS or 2B. I don't want to concede the tie, under any circumstances.

But you're going to concede the tie on a roller or chopper or any ball to SS or 2B that doesn't get the double play.  That's my point.  If you don't want the tying run to score, under any circumstances, you bag the double play position and have the infield in and come home.  At which point you've bought yourself little, if anything, by walking the bases loaded.  This is the part that confuses me about what you're saying.  You're saying that cutting the run off at the plate is first and foremost.  You can't have both.  When it comes to your middle infielders, you either sell out and come home, or you play for two, conceding that if you try and don't get it, the tying run scores. 

[Noe]

no. the usual alignment/direction from the coach is: 1st, 3rd and P go home, SS and 2B turn two

Yup.  Corners in (come home, secure at least one), middle back, go for the 2nd to first double play.

[Noe]

yes, you do, HH. corners or P go home, ss and 2B turn it at second. that was SOP on all the teams i played on and for the ones i coached.

Same here.

[HudsonHawk]

I used to say :"Hey, I just throw the pitch. You guys do what the coach tells you." I agree with Coach on this one. From what I remember about this play, that was the SOP on the teams I played on too.

ARGHHHH!!!

This is SOP on every team.  I am not disputing this.  I'm disputing JackAstro's claim that he can somehow play the middle infielders back, try for a double play, but still not let the tying run score if he doesn't get it.

[Mr. Happy]

ARGHHHH!!!

This is SOP on every team.  I am not disputing this.  I'm disputing JackAstro's claim that he can somehow play the middle infielders back, try for a double play, but still not let the tying run score if he doesn't get it.

I understand.

[Noe]

ARGHHHH!!!

This is SOP on every team.  I am not disputing this.  I'm disputing JackAstro's claim that he can somehow play the middle infielders back, try for a double play, but still not let the tying run score if he doesn't get it.

I didn't get that from his replies, but that's just me.

[HudsonHawk]

I didn't get that from his replies, but that's just me.

Well, that's what I get.  It's possible I've lost it.

[JimR]

Well, that's what I get.  It's possible I've lost it.

i did not understand him to say that either. i do see that we all were not talking about the same thing.

[HudsonHawk]

i did not understand him to say that either. i do see that we all were not talking about the same thing.

I think we all agree what to do once the bases are loaded.  I still think I pitch to Matsui/Michaels with a base open rather than Michaels/Bourn with the bases loaded, but that's just me. 

[Mr. Happy]

I think we all agree what to do once the bases are loaded.  I still think I pitch to Matsui/Michaels with a base open rather than Michaels/Bourn with the bases loaded, but that's just me. 

I agree with HH. However, I never believed in giving a free pass to anyone, even when it set up the double play. I see the logic in it; I just didn't like to give in to any hitter. Now that I'm older, I might walk a dangerous hitter intentionally, like Pujols, if there was a man on second or third and no outs or one out.

[Noe]

I think we all agree what to do once the bases are loaded.  I still think I pitch to Matsui/Michaels with a base open rather than Michaels/Bourn with the bases loaded, but that's just me. 

The only two differences in the two scenarios is this (to me):

1. You eliminate the "any base" for an out.  If you have a ball hit right at you as a corner man, you must make sure the runner does not break for home right away.  If he does, then you have to decide to throw home.  If he does not, then you have to hold the ball a few seconds longer in order to make sure he does not get a running lead on you.  At which point, you may not get Matsui either.

2. You face Matsui/Michaels instead of Michaels/Bourn and Bourn is much better hitter than Matsui at this point.

None of which says one scenario is better than the other, just says that there are multiple ways to get through the inning unscathed had the opposing manager decided to bunt.  Cooper did not force the other team to make those decisions.  At. All.

[JimR]

I think we all agree what to do once the bases are loaded.  I still think I pitch to Matsui/Michaels with a base open rather than Michaels/Bourn with the bases loaded, but that's just me. 

i hope you do 'cause i be squeezin'.

[Noe]

I agree with HH. However, I never believed in giving a free pass to anyone, even when it set up the double play. I see the logic in it; I just didn't like to give in to any hitter. Now that I'm older, I might walk a dangerous hitter intentionally, like Pujols, if there was a man on second or third and no outs or one out.

It is technically to set up a double play, but my reasoning is that if you have a force out at every base, you have a better option on getting the out at home.  If you play the middle infielders back, you take away home as an option for sure, but you go for the two outs up the middle.  If you're on the corners, you don't even think twice, you throw home.  You cannot throw home without the force out, unless the runner broke on contact and then you need to throw home for the tag play.

[JackAstro]

I'm disputing JackAstro's claim that he can somehow play the middle infielders back, try for a double play, but still not let the tying run score if he doesn't get it.

Oh no, that's not what I'm saying... it's possible that my brain and the keyboard just aren't wired together today. I think I'm saying the same thing as Jim and Noe. The double play is obviously the ideal, but my saying that I wanted the corners in and coming home to preserve the tie was just a reference to what you said earlier:

I play the infield back.  I'm willing to conceed the tying run if it means getting the second out and reducing the chances that an otherwise routine groundball beats me.

Both approaches are reasonable, I'm just saying that I'd play the corners in to maximize the chances of winning it right there in the ninth, at the increased risk of losing outright. You'd play it safer against the loss, with an increased risk of a tie and having to win it in extra innings. Which is fine. I'm just a man of danger, and the ladies dig that.

[BatGirl]

Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for Cooper didn't bunt with men on 1st and 2nd and no outs in the 9th yesterday?  PH Hampton or anyone who can get down a bunt if Pudge can't.  1999 was 10 years ago.  Pudge shouldn't be up there swinging away in that situation, IMO.

Sure would have been nice to take game 1 with Greinke on the mound. 

footer with additional quotes
and an interesting answer to ragarm's comment

[OregonStrosFan]

and an interesting answer to ragarm's comment

You know that Mr. Happy.  Always the rabble rouser...

[Mr. Happy]

You know that Mr. Happy.  Always the rabble rouser...

That would be me.