Thurston Fluff

There is a differance between big and fat.

There are going to be times this year when the Brewers are going to have to send Counsell to the plate against a righty when they really need a HR late in the game, and there's going to be a lot of squawking about it when it happens. How many times would we both need the late HR and he would actually provide it for us though. Add in the times we would need a better defensive option, or better base runner and I just don't see how trading one for the other really makes a differance. For every time Gabe would have provided a late inning HR there will be a time Gwynn makes a great play in the field to prevent the need for said late inning HR. Goodbye and good luck Gabe.

Yost scans 25 man roster which consists of a record 14 pitchers and says "this looks like a great spot to get turbow some work". Yost scans the roster and sees one pitcher who is injured taking up a spot. He sees another long man with an erratic past whose best role on the team is in mopup duty. He sees three pitchers he's used early and often, many times going mulitiple innings, that he'd probably like to have in August and September, he sees a closer in a tie game who has been used four days in a row. He sees a very effective 39 year old loogy who has been used quite a bit so far. He sees a rookie lefty and a former all star closer turned setup man last year who, when used to start an inning has been effective, and was unscored upon 80.5% of the time last year. So, yes, it was a great time to see if he's good enough to help this team in anything but a blowout. In fact I'd argue an April game at home is the perfect time to see if he ahs any real value to the team at all. If he fails then the team still has a chance to come back in the bottom half of the inning. If not then when?

Because the manager is paid to have the superceding opinion. If you look at RP usage, common sense should tell you that using a guy on the 4th consecutive day, in a HR park no less, is not a wise idea. That useage of Coco five days in a row last year had a long lasting detrimental effect on him didn't it? I'd have way more problems with Yost if he routinely went agianst his coaches and players information than if he followed their reccomendations. Quite frankly I'm kind of surpirsed anyone would critisize him for not superceding his staffs opinions since most people seem to think he doesn't have a clue himself of how to do it. You seem to be suggesting that he take his own opinion, which you yourself feel is poor in that area over that of his staff and players. If he is as poor in game as you think wouldn't that mean he's going to make more mistakes than if he listened to his staff and players?

Since it's Melvin's call I'm sure you really meant it's Melvin's secret ambition to hamstring the roster so he can finnaly have an excuse to fire Yost.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

I know I back to backed it once today though I try not to. It was because I posted one thought and someone posted another while I was writting my original. Since I wanted to respond to that one as well I started another post. I've actually wondered what the right protocol is for that situation. Should i just edit the last one or is it ok to double post in that situation?

Most of the time, an athlete isn't going to even know their tired unless it's one of those situations where they're huffing and puffing. Again it's diofferant with relievers. They do know it's part of thier job to know their body and relay that information. Especially when it's a veteran like Gagne who has been around long enough to understand his body and how to play for an entire season. Gagne knows better than anyone on the staff how he can and should be used. It's up to him to convey that message to the manager/coaches. I'm quite sure Ned has talked to him about that very subject before he ever stepped on the field in spring training.

I know why that word can't be used but I never really thought of it used in that context as derogatory to anyone. I always felt that was a word that has several meanings. Only one of which was "dumb or silly," which to me has nothing to do with the other meaning. Just never really connected the two to be honest.

Personally, every time I listen to an interview, or read some quotes in the paper, he sounds or reads like the opposite of intelligent. I think that has to do more with a personal dislike of him as a manager than it does him actually sounding stupid. Nothing wrong with that mind you it's simply your perception of him but I've never really found that to be the case. I think sometimes he doesn't explain his meaning very well to the press and perhaps the press doesn't do a very good job of putting some of his comments in context. Not that I blame the media for that either they need easy to read sound bites and he doesn't give that type of bite. It's kind of like Farve. If you listen to him he'll give a long rambling expalination for the simplest of questions. Then later like the "It's notmy job to help Rodgers," quote of a few years ago it gets taken out of context. What Farve said was it's Rodgers job to ask if he has questions. He has to be the pro yet what it sounded like was a prema donna not taking the time to help others.

I don't know about how dumb he'll look. Every manager who ever managed said something that turned out to be either inaccurate or a flat out lie about injuries one time or another. I never believe what a manager says about an injury unless it's conclusive like Cappy being diganosed with a torn ligament type thing. I'd rather prefer a manager/GM to be coy about injureis rather than have every team out there knowing exaclty the status of players and their short term future. There is no % in it for the team to let other teams know precisely what's going on. Yet a manager has to mention something to the press about injuries so they tend to be vague or deceptive.

Given what happened yesterday Riske or Mota. That doesn't make the decision to use Gagne yesterday the wrong one though. To be honest under the same circumstances as yesterday I be inclined to try Gagne once more to see if yesterday was a fluke or a trend. That would be more inclination than set in stone though. I'd have to have been involved in the conversation between Gagne and the coachs in both situations to determine that for sure. At the next Yost is God meeting I'll ask Ned if I can be privey to those talks.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif I just don't see a huge difference between "closer" experience and "reliever" experience. Nirhter do I but according to Melvin and other people whose opinion is more trustworthy than mine we are both wrong about this.

How can girls miss the toilet?

3. Just because Simmons or Maddux or Castro say something to Ned to express disagreement doesn't mean that Ned listens. It could be everyone's fault, or it could be Ned's fault. But it can't be the fault of just one of the assistants by himself. Ned is the head guy, so if he takes idiotic advice from Maddux, then Ned is also an idiot for taking that advice. The reason Ned gets so much more grief about game decisions is because no matter what, he's involved in them true it goes with the territory but so does the success. If you want to give credit to maddux as a pitching coach then the same amount of blame for not knowing his charges should go to him. Conversly if you wish to give Ned credit for revitalizing the careers of all the pitchers instead of Maddux then it's fair to blame him for the bad times. To me you have to either blame both or give credit to both. So far I see Ned getting the blame but not he credit. Shouldn't he get some credit for taking Mota, someone run out on NY for a bag of balls, and using him so masterfully as to have revitalized his otherwise decling career so far this year? Especially when you consider his past success was psoobily PED enhanced.

and then who closes today? or do we use gagne 5 days in a row? the exact same reason you gave for why they shouldn't have used Gagne yesterday make this question irrlevant doesn't it? I mean we have all the same players who could have been used yesterday in the pen today don't we? The only differance is yesteday we know we needed a closer today we don't. To me you use your closer when you need him and let the future to the guys you may have used today take care of it. I've seen plenty of people talk about riske and Torres having been used as a closer but no one actually mentions how they did in that role. Riske, in this his tenth year, has all of 21 saves with a high of 8 a year as I recall he didn't fare very well in the closer's role. Torres had a high of 12 in both 06 and 07 but couldn't maintian that role even with the lowly Pirates and Mota has 7 throughout his 10 years in the league. So all the closing experience of those three combined don't even match Turnbow and certainly don't come close to what Gagne has done thorugh the years.

I am pretty convinced that the primary reason Gagne was used was that it was a statistical save situation -- had the Brewers been up by 4 runs, Gagne would not have been used -- i find this entirely arbitrary. I tend to agree with you on this point but Melvin, as do most of today's baseball people, seem to disagree with us. they beleive closers have a differant sor tof mentality. Somehow the game on the line with very little margin for error makes some wilt and some flourish. Given those beliefs by both Yost and Melvin I see why they went to him yesterday. Given his failure this time around I'll be less understanding in the future. Just because a player says he is ready doesnt mean you pitch him. You everyday players will always tell you they are good to go but you still sit them every once in awhile to give them rest. Players are almost always going to tell you they can play, as a manager you have to be smart enough to know if it is a good idea to play them. While this is true enough for postion players the bullpen is entirely differant. They are expected to be honest about their ability to go. It is very normal, not to mention necessary, for bullpen guys to tell the manager they are tired and not available for a particular game. I would assume certain pitchers are more honest than others or perhaps think they are when they are not but that has to be something a manager learns from trial and error with each pitcher. If Gagne always says he's ready when he's not Ned will learn not to trust him. But under the circumstances there was no reason not to believe him.

He wouldn't have done the interview if he had known. There is nothing wrong with trying to sensationalize IMO. That's their job. Their rating are tied to how interesting the story is. Most people, myself included, wouldn't give an interview with a middle aged shortstop who hasn't been relevant in years a second thought. Now everyone has seen the very same interview multiple times. If Tejada lying to make some moeny isn't such an evil thing then some second rate program attempting to sensationalize to keep their show on the air shouldn't be either. I'm guessing Tejada's finances at this point are in better shape than the people who need that show to stay on the air to get a paycheck are.

It's been a weird way to get to 11-7, but I'll take it! You said a mouthful there. It's got to be the most painful way to see a team win possible. Yet at the end of day winning while playing bad is what separtes good teams from great ones.

This was really the first game that Ned has blown for us this year, so I'm happy its only been one so far. Funny, I thought it was Gagne who blew it. Either because he said he was ready when he wasn't or because he was ready and couldn't keep the ball in the park.

Cordero wasn't coming off of 3 straight years of being injured though. Gagne should never be used 4 days in a row and really shouldn't be used 3 days in a row. Keeping him healthy is more important than him getting every single save opportunity. He was healthy all last year wasn't he? He's paid quite a bit of money to be the go to guy. I don't think they paid him that much to be pampered or nurtured back to health. They paid him to go out as often as he says he's ready to go and do the job they paid him to do. Like I said it was the first time Ned used him that way. The only way to know if he can be used that way is to try it. I'd rather know that now than in September. Some of this, I think, is related to Ned trying to learn his new pithcers. I just can't blame Yost for using someone who says he's good to go in a situation like he did. In fact if Ned is going to learn about Gagne's strengths he has to find out his weakness' as well. What better time to learn this particular bit of information than the last game of a three city road trip where you have already secured a winning trip and the team you are now up two games to zero with a two run lead? If he stumbles there was a bit of a cushion in the game to work with. Even if all goes wrong it certainly isn't devastating over all. Perfect time to learn something about your new closer whether it worked or not IMO.

We are staying close to the top of the division even though our schedule is much tougher than the Cubs or Cards has been. One more winning road trip this year and we'll have as many as all last season. Not bad for a team that has yet to click on all cylinders.

I guess Yost was a moron to use Coco the same way last year as well. It didn't hurt Coco down the stretch did it? Closers close. Sometimes they close 3 or 4 in a row then don't get used for another 8 days. If this was the third or fourth time he used Gagne this way and he blew them all then I'd get the critisism. Given that it's the first time Yost attempted to use him this way why is it all that big a deal? To paraphrase Kremblas philosophy - How is he supposed to know if Gagne can handle that type of situation until he uses him in it? If gagne wasn't ready to go and said he was then put the blame on him. If he felt he was ready to go then what's the problem with using him?

The Reds are relying on young unproven talent in their rotation as well. The Cubs have already sent Hill to the pen for a while because of ineffectiveness and Lilly is showing last year may have been the highwater mark of his career. The Cards rotation has played so far abovtheir heads so far it's almost impossible to keep up the pace. There isn't a single team in the division that doesn't have as many or more questions in the rotation as the Brewers.

Do fans panic about the Packers after 2 games? Yes. Fans panic because they are fanatics. They live and die with each pitch, each throw and each strikeout. Football fans are the same way. They then say things like player X is never going to be any good, or player Y always is going to suck. Then, a month later, when player X or Y are back to thier ususal standard they say things like - everyone was saying player X sucked but I knew those people didn't have a clue. The average fan vernacular has three key words - always, never and everybody. Quite frankly I'm not sure I'd want it any other way. It's the intensity of the emotion that makes sports so fun and so frustrating. But you don't get one without the other.

The depth of the teams will start to get tested more as the season wears on. Both through players regressing/progressing to their average ability and the inevitable injuries. Unless a team sort of lucks out, which is always possible, and remain injury free or get that proverbial career year from some players at once we'll see the teams start to show their true abilties before long. The Brewers last year was a perfect example. Most of us felt they were a slightly above average team. They started out so well that some, myself included to a degree, got fooled into thinking that was the real Brewers talent level. When October came around what we all saw was the real level was more like the preseason predictions than the early season showing. That is where the Cubs and Brewers will start to pulll away from teams like the Cards and Reds. They just have better players and more depth than the other two.

If teams are going to walk Prince you cannot, in my opinion, have someone behind him who is striking out a lot and more of a risk to ground into double plays. Who would you rather have with Prince on first someone slugging 500 or someone slugging >400? I realize there is an arguement to be made for Hart in 5th and quite frankly I'd probably do that as well. I just think there is a valid arguement to be made for Hall right now as well. I just think we've started to make way too big a deal out of something that has very little to nothing to do with the offensive struggles. Ulitmately one batting fifth and the other sixth really isn't the problem.