It was a dumb decision, but what's to blame?
by goodymobb on Jul 11, 2007 9:18 AM EDT
43 comments
So I agree that TLR's decision was a disappointing one (to say the least), but what's really to blame here? The MLB All-Star game is incredibly flawed: 1- Now "it counts." There's some sort of incentive to win the game. 2- However, the fans ( and really, we're talking about the fans who have the most internet access) set the starting lineups. Now, these starters are not necessarily the best players like, you know, "starters" in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, these starters are the most popular players. Following the naming of the starters by the fans, the manager and players select some guys, then the fans vote AGAIN on the final guy. 3- With most All-Star games, there are some unwritten rules. First, you only pitch your starters 1-2 innings. Second, basically no player will receive more than 2 ABs. Third, the manager will try his best to juggle everything and get everyone into the game at some point. 4- However, if the objective was to win the game because it counts, there shouldn't be this pressure to make sure that everyone gets some playing time. Rather, you would determine the 8 best position players to field a team, plus your best starting pitcher and roll with it for the majority of the game, guided by the logic that the best guys give you the best chance to win, so these guys should be given the most chances to make something happen. Sure, you'd make some timely substitutions for pinch-hitting situations or defensive replacements late into the game, but there would be less of a juggling act.
So ultimately, given the dumb unwritten rule that everyone (who isn't a Royal) gets into the game at some point, what's a guy to do?
While most people realize that you can't please everyone, MLB seems to be of the mindset that being vague and ambivalent about a bunch of different things maximizes the popularity of the game.
It's the fans' game, so they should pick the starters. Yet the game "matters", so make sure you aren't horsing around out there and that your squad is playing to win. Oh, but make sure that you don't simply play the best guys for 9 innings, but that you try to juggle the roster so that you have substitution after substitution so each player (who's isn't a Royal) can say "Yeah, I played in the All-Star game once."
It's really dumb and I'm not really sure why the game has to "matter." No other All-Star game matters - each is an exhibition and people have fun with it - yet MLB seems to think their game has to be all things to all people, plus it has to count for something so that the players and managers put forth maximum effort.
0 recs |
43 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Not a dumb decission.
Tony's decission was perfectly defensible based on 2007 stats. While everybody recognizes Pujols is a better hitter over his career, this year Pujols hasn't been himself while Rowand is having a career/ breakout year. Look at their lines:
avg hr rbi obp slg
Rowand .310 11 43 .385 .478
Pujols .310 16 52 .411 .516
Rowand's line isn't much different than Pujols' this year when you consider that a base hit wins it and reaching base ties it. Pujols doesn't give the NL a better chance of winning but increases the NL's chance of a tie by 2.6%.
If the game does go to the 10th, that mean Pujols would need to be played out of position in left. (I assume Sorinao would move to center.) Also the next time the pitcher's spot comes around, the NL would be left without a pinch hitter.
Lastly as I said before the 2007 Pujols hasn't been the same as the 2001-2006 Pujols. Look at his line with RISP and 2 out; compare it to Rowand's:
avg obp slg
Rowand .395 .500 .605
Pujols .313 .593 .563
by Zubin on Jul 11, 2007 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But you're ignoring the replies
2 -- that it was extremely unlikely in that circumstance that the game would have gone extra innings. The very strong likelihood is that the batter makes an out, thus ending the game, or a gets a hit which produces 2 runs or more and ends the game. It is very unlikely that 1 run, and 1 run only scores, and the game continues.
Finally, LaRussa continued to say that Pujols was the team's most versatile player. He wasn't. Freddy Sanchez was. He can play pretty much any position but LaRussa burned him by using him in place of David Wright in the 7th. If Wright had stayed in the game, Sanchez would've been on the bench for defense and Pujols could've been used as a PH.
by chuckb on Jul 11, 2007 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sanchez
by dmb60614 on Jul 11, 2007 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thing is -
by silent_bob on Jul 11, 2007 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again I disagree
- Tony should manage to win in thte situation he was in. He shouldn't manage for loyalty or vainity as others have put it.
- In the sistuation we were in a basehit (single) likely wins it. Statistically Rowand is just as good as Pujols at getting a basehit. Pujols is however 2.6% better at reaching base to tie the game.
- On this, I agree. Sanchez would have been a better player to hold back.
by Zubin on Jul 11, 2007 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand how
And, make no mistake, this wasn't just about that final AB. It's justifiable to go w/ Rowand, who probably should have started the game based on 1st half performance. But Tony also chose Freddy Sanchez over Pujols, Dmitri Young over Pujols, Derrek Lee over Pujols. Pujols was the only position player on the team who didn't get into the game!
I should add that I believe, and have stated here a number of times, that a big part of the reason that Pujols has struggled this season so far is that he hasn't had many pitches to hit and has been reaching for balls he shouldn't have been swinging at. He's been swinging at pitchers' pitches b/c that's all he's been given. That wouldn't have been a problem w/ the bases loaded and the game on the line. K-Rod would have to come right at him and Pujols, like Rowand did, would have had pitches to hit.
Finally, I have a hard time w/ the suggestion that Rowand is as good as Pujols in that situation. For the first half of this year, they've been about equal; it's true. But, historically, Rowand can't touch Pujols. Is there any manager in baseball who would suggest that, between Rowand and Pujols, it doesn't matter who's at the plate w/ the game on the line? Is there one who, honestly, would select Rowand over Pujols, as LaRussa did last night? Additionally, LaRussa is the reason Pujols was on the team. He was a manager's selection. Why would you select him to the team if you had no intention of playing him, as you (Tony) clearly didn't. That is inexplicable! One would think that, if Tony thought that Albert deserved to be on the team, he might also have some confidence in Albert's ability to get a hit at some point! I'd be surprised if Tony only chose Albert b/c he needed to have a Cardinal on the team.
by chuckb on Jul 11, 2007 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to add here Zubin
You have good stuff, always, and back your opinion w/ good numbers. Here, I just think that you're wrong. I hope my reply didn't come off as snarky.
by chuckb on Jul 11, 2007 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loyalty
On your first I guess I have a different view (or values) than most everyone else. The case for PH Albert mostly comes down to an argument about loyalty versus fairness. And personally I just rather come down on the side of fairness. And to be quite frank I think loyalty more often than not sucks. As I stated earlier, loyalty is the reason my we have incompetent bosses and government officials. Loyalty is why New Orleans was such a disaster after Hurricane Katrina. Loyalty is the reason why Jason Marquis and now Kip Wells starts instead of Anthony Reyes. Loyalty is the reason why Miles plays short instead of Ryan. Loyalty sucks. As fans we bitch when loyalty takes precedence over sound statistical decisions. I just don't get why now we complain when we think loyalty was overlooked.
by Zubin on Jul 12, 2007 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Generally speaking
That said, the 80 or so games the Cardinals have left are more important to Tony and Albert than this 1 game. If it's going to create bad feelings that affect the team for 80 games, and it's reasonable to think that it might have, then you use him. It's not like Pujols just didn't belong in the game. This isn't based on loyalty (ok, maybe a little) but rather on a need to keep some sort of harmony for the rest of the season and it came across as snubbing your best player -- to go w/ Aaron Rowand! Not Bonds or Griffey, but Rowand and Young and Sanchez and the rest.
It was a snub and it's reasonable to think that Albert might have been insulted and it's just not healthy to begin the 2nd half, when you really need to put together some wins, w/ your star feeling like you snubbed him in front of tens of millions of people.
by chuckb on Jul 12, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you don't think
I wouldn't doubt if Tony talked to Albert before the game and explained that there was a shot he might not get in there that night, and Albert probably understood. When you're a perennial all-star like Pujols, not getting in one year isn't a huge deal. Plus, they know each other and Albert is a class act. I'm sure they talked about it beforehand, and honestly, I wouldn't doubt if that Al was in the derby had anything to do with TLR not being so concerned about getting in. He was able to participate in festivities the day before, so it's not like it was a weekend gone to waste.
by aet15 on Jul 11, 2007 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nevermind
You'd think that there would've been better communication between those two either before or during the game so that this wouldn't happen. After all, isn't that why they're teammates?
by aet15 on Jul 11, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay...not dumb
And when you have YOUR favorite team's manager calling the shots in a good All-Star game with one of the best players in the league (who is probably one of YOUR favorite players from YOUR favorite team) and said manager has a chance to insert said player into a critical situation but said manager chooses to leave said player on the bench = dumb.
by goodymobb on Jul 11, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is of course that tie game
- Hold back players like they did, so there isn't a repeat of 2002.
- Do what they did before 2002 and just throw everyone in there and say who cares?
- Find a way to further fix it. My suggestion: Pitchers will have to be held back because I don't think a pitcher is going to want to warm up, go into the game, come out and then have to go back in again, so a pitcher or two will have to be held back and will have to be happy with the idea of being an all-star, despite not playing in the game. However, for a positional player to go back in shouldn't be that big of a deal. Then you could bat Pujols in the 9th and if the game ends up tied, Rowand or another outfielder could go back into the game so that Pujols isn't playing out of position.
Of course, this fundamentally changes the game, so it's probably something purists would scream about.
by mtalken on Jul 11, 2007 9:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I see your point about a tie game......
by jillsinmo on Jul 11, 2007 9:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Used to be...
To heck with "getting everybody in"... let the manager play the players he thinks are "best" after the starters have had their three innings. You can still limit pitchers to no more than two innings apiece and still have plenty left over.
Now let's see Tony and Albert "kiss and make up"...
by The Ol Goaler on Jul 11, 2007 10:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And next thing....
I came in about the sixth inning and thought, good for Tony. If that's who the fans wanted to see, then LET THEM SEE THEM FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD. I cannot remember who it was, but in the late 90's I remember a player being yanked after his first AB in the top of the inning. Basically, I thought it was a message: "Kid, the fans may have voted you here, but you don't belong."
by Brock20 on Jul 11, 2007 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My dad was my coach when in little league
It sucked for me, and it surely sucks for El Hombre. But the only thing this does is get everyone into the coulda/woulda/shoulda argument, one that can never be won.
Then again, I wasn't Albert Pujols.
by effin fisk on Jul 11, 2007 10:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this just gives people things to prove...
stlfan
by stlfan on Jul 11, 2007 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Crackpot Theory ALERT!!!!!
Hows that for a crackpot theory?
by Calhoun on Jul 11, 2007 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And another thing...
Of course, one could make the argument that seeing Pujols "fail" in that situation would make the team tuck their collective tail and sulk away, although they couldn't really play much worse than they have to this point.
by goodymobb on Jul 11, 2007 12:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
disappointed
by Elvis on Jul 11, 2007 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
LaRussa
Sad commentary that the World Series Champions had to have a player forced on the roster by their manager.
by Elvis on Jul 11, 2007 1:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You will not convince...
Taking the emotion of the fact that it was our player out of the equation, I believe the majority of baseball fans everywhere were wondering "Where's Albert?" in the 9th.
Here's why I don't agree with you; while I'll give you the fact that Rowand's numbers this season are quite close to Albert's, and in some cases, better, TLR has basically about 30 seconds to a minute to make a snap decision on who to bat next. Do you really think TLR has that good of a memory that he has both Rowand's and Albert's numbers memorized in his head, and therefore makes that decision so quickly by going with Rowand? Or do you really believe someone is sitting in the dugout with a laptop, consulting STATS, Inc. to see who's the better hitter in this situation, and then relaying this to TLR?
In my opinion, Zubin, you are using revisionist history to defend TLR's decision. Why? Because I'm sure you had to look up each player's stats yourself after the game to see who was the better player (for this situation), and then used that data to support your argument. And that also tells me you could not have been completely "sold" on your belief until you found these stats.
My argument is, in the heat of the moment of a game, a manager has to make a quick decision as to his replacements on the field. Simple logic, to me, in that situation calls for Albert to be at the plate, not Rowand.
by philbobilbo on Jul 11, 2007 1:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm certain TLR knew Rowand's and Pujols' stats
Yes. Or perhaps not actually that he has their numbers memorized but that he has them readily available to him and knew what situations could come up in the 9th inning.
La Russa, love him or hate him, probably knows the numbers and is willing to play those numbers moreso than any other manager in baseball. He manages the same way a poker player decides whether pot odds dictate whether a call should be made.
I'm assuming from your statement that you have not read Three Nights in August. In the book, Bissinger talks about all the information La Russa has available to him and how he decides what he's going to do in a certain situation.
If he came to the All-Star game even 50% as prepared as he came into those games described in the book, he knew Rowand's stats and knew that the statistical average of putting Pujols out there was only marginally better than leaving Rowand out there, and to leave Rowand out there set them up better in the small chance that there might be a tie.
by mtalken on Jul 11, 2007 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, TLR knows the stats...
Oh, and by the way, Pujols is not some occasional All-star. He is one of the best hitters in baseball. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE!!!! NOTHING!!!
That's the point. Who cares about the stats. This is a celebration of baseball. IT'S THE FREAKING ALL-STAR GAME! Give the fans something to get excited about. Pujols in the bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, 2 outs. The drama. It doesn't get any better than that.
by jdubya on Jul 12, 2007 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right in part.
by Zubin on Jul 12, 2007 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've read "Three Nights"
Look at it this way; let's say you knew nothing about the current stats of either player (which in the modern-day era is a stretch, I know). From past experience, wouldn't logic conclude that you go with Albert instead of Rowand?
by philbobilbo on Jul 11, 2007 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not disagreeing with that
I'm simply disagreeing with the fact that you said TLR probably didn't know Rowand's numbers compared to Pujols.
by mtalken on Jul 11, 2007 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Think of the fans...
Somewhere, there's a kid who stayed up wanting to see Albert hit. And he went to bed sad.
by bukowski on Jul 11, 2007 3:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
MY NEPHEW!!!
by Calhoun on Jul 11, 2007 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the clincher
by DCRedbird on Jul 11, 2007 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rick Hummel has a pretty good take
- You can't pinch-hit Pujols for Rowand for various reasons -- possible defense, insult to an upcoming opponent, possibly forcing a reliever to bat for himself in extras
- Albert should've been in the game. There's no reason to leave 1 of your best hitters and 1 of the best in the game on the bench in that situation.
I'll still go w/ what I said earlier -- LaRussa chose several players -- Rowand, Sanchez, Young, D. Lee, and others -- over Pujols last night and the worst error was having Pujols, rather than Sanchez, as his "last man standing." Letting Rowand bat wasn't the sin.
by chuckb on Jul 11, 2007 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Um, isn't this close to what I said all along?
by Zubin on Jul 12, 2007 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is close
Plus, if Sanchez is the guy left back, as you've already agreed should've happened (I think), most of this becomes moot anyway b/c Albert could have batted for someone besides Rowand.
by chuckb on Jul 12, 2007 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RESIGN TONY
Let me first say that I love the St. Louis Cardinals more than any other team in sports. BUT, I am DONE with Tony Larussa. The past 11 years I have watched him "overmanage", never use his gut instinct, never manage with his heart, and always make excuses for his bad managing. Larussa screwed Ozzie BIG TIME, pissed of Rolen, and now Pujols. He has shown no confidence or respect for three of the game's best.
I heard the guy filling in for Jim Rome today (whatever his name is) say "The Cardinals won the World Series last year despite Tony Larussa'a managing, not because of it. I totally believe it.
His excuse this time was that he was holding out on Pujols for extra innings? FOOLISH!!! You play the game to WIN, not play for extra innings. Larussa's time is St. Louis has run out. Resign Tony. Do us all a favor. Time to give the job to Oquendo. Hell once Tony is out of the picture, maybe Ozzie will coach 3B for us!
Seriously Tony....resign. You make me sick.
by LurchMudpuddle on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:47:33 PM EDT
[ Reply to This ]
by LurchMudpuddle on Jul 11, 2007 6:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think
And finally, WHO CARES what Jim Rome's fill-in said! If he is under Rome, he must really be a *great* analyst. One of the main reasons we won the World Series is BECAUSE Tony went with the hot pitcher, regardless of his role during the season. If that isn't beneficial to a team in the playoffs, I just don't know what is.
Tony should stay as long as he wants. Who else would be better? Dusty Baker? While Tony does occasionally get on my nerves with his by the book approach, playing the odds does work over a long time, such as an entire baseball season. I will take that over some manager who just goes by his gut ANYDAY.
by spiderman15 on Jul 11, 2007 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rereading my post,
by spiderman15 on Jul 11, 2007 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting Stuff from Kevin Kennedy
Kennedy passed Pujols in the tunnel and noted that Pujols had a serious look to him, so Kennedy assumed he was going down to hit off the tee and get ready to pinch hit. Then, after the NL got closer, Joe Pettini went down in the tunnel to get Pujols, but couldn't find him. Kennedy says that Pujols was not actually at the tee, but instead had gone into the clubhouse and already had his shirt off. Kennedy's guess was that Pujols actually would have pinch hit for Orlando Hudson, but because of the delay in finding him Pujols wasn't ready in time to pinch hit at all.
Obviously, Kennedy might not have known exactly what was happening and some of this might be incorrect (or I may have just misunderstood part of it -- but I'm pretty sure I've summed up his talk correctly), but if this is true then it adds another dimension to this whole situation. Like Kennedy said, it puts at least some of the blame on Pujols at that point. Sure, maybe Tony should have communicated with him a little better, but I'd be much more inclined to give Tony a pass if the real reason Albert didn't hit was that he'd just assumed he wasn't going to play.
by stlnd on Jul 11, 2007 8:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
During the 9th
It certainly does add a new dimension if he wasn't there. My assumption was that, if he wasn't there, that LaRussa told him he could go ahead and get cleaned up -- that the game was 5-2 in the 9th and he wasn't going to be needed. If there is any shred of truth in this, then Pujols will be best served by letting this die quickly b/c LaRussa will have taken a bullet for him by not calling him out today.
by chuckb on Jul 11, 2007 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you just have to know...
by LurchMudpuddle on Jul 11, 2007 11:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
