14Ks, LaTroy Meltdown

[Roxpert]

Yeah, HiAspire, we indeed did have Justin Speier.......when he was affordable. We traded him in the deal that landed us Joe Kennedy, as I recall. Speier was a free agent last offseason, and we didn't even bid for him. Check out his contract with the Angels and you may learn why.

[PurnGoldy]

As always, HiAspire shows he is the baseball-wise voice of reason amidst this feeding frenzy of cherry picking Rockie bashers with their 20/20 hindsight.

LaTroy Hawkins pitched well enough in camp to be designated as the team's 8th inning setup man. On what basis was Hurdle not to use him in that role in the first game of the regular season? Yes, Hawkins failed, and if he continues to do so he will be removed shortly from his 8th inning role. BTW, Byrnes in the paper today said the two strikes he received from Hawkins were two of the nastiest pitches he has seen in six weeks.

The Taveras bunting situation in the 8th was absolutely warranted. You've got men on 1st and 2nd (tying runs), nobody out. Taveras is a good bunter. A sacrifice bunt gives you runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, with Matsui and Atkins coming up. Taveras failed (a bad strike 3 call didn't help). What if Hurdle had sent up Mabry to PH and he grounded into a double play, erasing the tying run from the bases? This board would have been screaming to high heaven against Hurdle.

[Heltonfan]

I agree with Aspire and PurnGoldy.

Hawkins has a fine projection, and had a fine spring. If he's worse than Corpas, it's not by a significant margin. There's no real drop-off there; and like it or not, he's one of the top three relievers we have, so he's going to have to pitch sometime. Blame O'Dowd for failing to obtain a Linebrink/Speier-caliber setup man, but don't blame Hurdle for using what he has.

And on the Taveras bunt:
Win expectancy pre-bunt: .463
Win expectancy with successful bunt: .516
And the decision to bunt makes even more sense than that, because Taveras is a) a terrible hitter b) with great speed c) who lacks the platoon advantage. All told, you're probably looking at a WE bump of .06-.07 or so from the bunt attempt. That's a hell of a lot better than you're likely to do with the likes of John Mabry at the plate. Bottom line here: the bunt is a much better play with two on than it is with one on, for the same reason that a double steal is a much better play than a single steal. The risk is the same, but the reward is higher.

We could call almost every close loss a "Hurdle loss" if we scramble hard enough for a rationale. But that would just be silly. This was an evenly-played game that we happened to lose. Not exactly a rare occurrence, for any team.

Edit: I will, however, agree that the intentional walks were absolutely atrocious decisions. The WE chart says that they combined to lower our WE by .064. So basically, the IBBs cancel out the benefit of the Taveras bunt, and Hurdle comes out even for the day.

[BigRapidsJackass]

To Cook, add Holliday and Atkins as big opening day disappointments as mentioned. That's your two best hitters and supposed co-ace pitcher coming out flat.

Scrolling throgh comments at purplerow, I was reminded that when interviewed by FSN for the Rox preview, Holliday said that Brandon Webb was (for him) the toughest pitcher in baseball. So you may notice I'm leaving him alone, even though striking out against Valverde didn't come with a similar excuse. Also, Atkins didn't have a good day, but I'm not picking on him. He did hit a hard line drive right at the leftfielder to end an inning.

Why I'm picking on LaTroy: again, not because I think he's awful and useless. He was brought in to be the 8th inning guy because he's a veteran and he's supposed to be comfortable in this situation. And he proceeded to dig himself a very deep hole by overthrowing and going 3-0 on Chris Young, and then making things worse against Snyder.

As for purngoldy's comment (Hawkins had a good spring; why change the bullpen pecking order in Game 1?): what if Cook had been cruising, with a very low pitch count through 7. Would you say "bring in Hawkins?" No, you'd probably let him pitch the 8th. If it ain't broke, why fix it? I never understand why similar logic doesn't apply to relievers. Corpas threw 10 pitches and obviously was sharp. Was there any reason to take him out?

Aspire will tell us that this is nothing special about Hurdle; most managers do this. Most managers are wrong. The smart thing to do: Corpas starts the 8th against 2 right-handed hitters. The pinch hitter is announced and Fuentes comes in to face Clark. Yeah, it might not have worked, but it would have given the Rox the best possible matchups to get those last 6 critical outs.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Speier was a free agent last offseason, and we didn't even bid for him. Check out his contract with the Angels and you may learn why.

I don't need to "learn" why. The point is that he was here, and we had a chance to evaluate and develop his talent. He wasn't traded away for money reasons. That's a mistake on our end if we are placing a priority on trying to assemble as much talent as we can within a bullpen. Instead of CRYING over spilled milk and ownership misfortune all day long, the reality is that it wasn't a money issue in the least bit and more a failing of personnel decision making as to why he didn't remain here. The EASY solution is always "money" holding us back, but that's not the reality most times.

In Cleveland, O'Dowd & Co. got around that money problem by investing long-term in talent and showing some faith in their development before they had to over-pay on the competitive market. They gave out security in hopes it would pay off down the line as the player improved. Instead of trading guys like him away for another temporary fix (which we specialize in for some reason), they could have easily given Speier a very reasonable multi-year deal at that point for him to continue developing his talent here. If they saw enough talent there at the time. They've spent a good chunk of money on short-term bullpen fixes that didn't work out in recent years, and I'd bet they would prefer to have paid someone they knew better who was having more success here already in that case if he grew beyond that deal as it appears like he has now.

[Heltonfan]

As for purngoldy's comment (Hawkins had a good spring; why change the bullpen pecking order in Game 1?): what if Cook had been cruising, with a very low pitch count through 7. Would you say "bring in Hawkins?" No, you'd probably let him pitch the 8th. If it ain't broke, why fix it? I never understand why similar logic doesn't apply to relievers.

Because Cook won't pitch for another five days, no matter what. You ride him as long as you can (within reason, obviously), figuring that the less stress you put on the bullpen, the better off you are. But if you run Corpas out there for another inning, you probably make him unavailable for today's game. There's something to be said for flexibility, I think.

I certainly don't mean to say that leaving Corpas in would have been wrong, but there's a very real difference between starters and relievers in this regard.

[Roxpert]

Did someone steal your computer this morning, Heltonfan? Of course Jackass is right. Corpas pitched a low stress inning in the 7th with only 10 pitches. This "traditional" notion that you gotta save Corpas' arm for the next day is silly. We may not be in a position to use him tonight if we are, say, 2 runs behind in the late innings. Why not bring him out for a 2nd inning in the 8th when he appeared so sharp and dominant? We had a 1-run lead to nurse to get to Fuentes. Better to stick with the guy who's on than to gamble on our designated "8th inning guy" in that instance.

Also, don't forget that the rest of the bullpen is rested as well, and Fuentes could have come in BEFORE the 9th inning if Corpas had run into trouble in the 8th, as Jackass mentioned. We have a sellout crowd, so Hurdle should pull out "all the stops" to send fans home happy on an otherwise sunny Opening Day.

As for PurnGoldy calling us "cherry-picking Rockies bashers" with 20/20 hindsight, maybe he didn't know this in his playing days with Detroit, but the real national pastime isn't baseball......it's SECOND-GUESSING baseball decisions. LIVE WITH IT!

[Heltonfan]

Why not bring him out for a 2nd inning in the 8th when he appeared so sharp and dominant?

Because one inning isn't a sufficient sample to conclude that he's meaningfully better than Hawkins.

[BigRapidsJackass]

And on the Taveras bunt:
Win expectancy pre-bunt: .463
Win expectancy with successful bunt: .516
And the decision to bunt makes even more sense than that, because Taveras is a) a terrible hitter b) with great speed c) who lacks the platoon advantage. All told, you're probably looking at a WE bump of .06-.07 or so from the bunt attempt. That's a hell of a lot better than you're likely to do with the likes of John Mabry at the plate.

That may be part of the story.

So all other things being equal, a succesful bunt would increase the Rox win expectancy by five percentage points. But what would be the win expectancy change with an unsuccesful bunt attempt? And what would be the probability that Willy T. would fail in a sac bunt attempt?

And after that comes the other (obvious) question: what's Willy T's chances of failure when he's bunting with one strike? With two strikes? Remember, Hurdle left the bunt on with an 0-2 count on Willy. No, he didn't strike out on a foul bunt; he was caught looking showing bunt.

HF, your assumption is that the sac bunt is a fait accompli. And as we saw, it wasn't -- and it isn't.

[Heltonfan]

HF, your assumption is that the sac bunt is a fait accompli. And as we saw, it wasn't -- and it isn't.

That's not my assumption. That's an oversimplification that I felt comfortable with here because, when you look at it in more depth, it only strengthens the argument in favor of the bunt. It's just as likely that Taveras will reach safely (via hit or error) than that he'll fail to advance the runners, and the benefits of the former are greater than the consequences of the latter.

[Dante Bichette]

I will be the first to admit that I am being overcritical of Hurdle. He made some decisions, all of which failed, some of which were worse than others. Tavares bunting in the 8th wasn't neccessarily a bad decision, even though it didn't work out. I probably would have done the same. The Corpas vs. Hawkins deal could have went either way, while the two intentional walks were horrible decisions at the time, whether or not the end result would have been different or not.

The main problem, as I see it, is that Hurdle performed yesturday like he always does. Yes, we could defend mor criticize each decision at face value, but with Hurdle he always gets locked into doing certain things and putting certain players in specific roles and shows no ability whatsoever to think outside of the box or manage based on instinct, which is what a manager ultimately must do. If Hurdle is always going to use Hawkins in the 8th with a lead, Fuentes in the 9th (for one inning only), bunt the potential tying run over in the late innings, what is the point of having him as the manager? Why not just hire a robot to manage the game if the decisions are pre-made with betty crocker like instructions?

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

Because one inning isn't a sufficient sample to conclude that he's meaningfully better than Hawkins.

This is where statistical analysis can get you into trouble, Heltonfan. Nobody is saying that Corpas is "meaningfully better" than Hawkins. Plus, nobody thinks one inning is a sufficient sample to prove long-term talent level.

However, I truly think that when a pitcher shows that he's "ON", i..e. that he can command and control the strike zone in an inning, with low stress, he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt about being the man to pitch the next inning. One inning does not make a "trend", but I would gather there may be studies somewhere that shows when a reliever does well his first inning with a low pitch count, and is left in for a second inning, his component stats in that second inning are better than his overall season stats.

Corpas also would only have had to face the bottom of the order, which was due up in the 8th inning. I believe he would have given us a better chance to get to the 9th inning with a lead, ON THAT DAY, than Hawkins.

If you don't believe this, then you don't believe in the concept of athletes being "hot", "cold", or "ON FIRE"!

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Dante Bichette

The main problem, as I see it, is that Hurdle performed yesturday like he always does. Yes, we could defend mor criticize each decision at face value, but with Hurdle he always gets locked into doing certain things and putting certain players in specific roles and shows no ability whatsoever to think outside of the box or manage based on instinct, which is what a manager ultimately must do. If Hurdle is always going to use Hawkins in the 8th with a lead, Fuentes in the 9th (for one inning only), bunt the potential tying run over in the late innings, what is the point of having him as the manager? Why not just hire a robot to manage the game if the decisions are pre-made with betty crocker like instructions?

Dante, I couldn't have said it better myself. Thinking outside the box is not a forte of Clint Hurdle, who does tend to manage like a robot at times. He will take whatever roster handed to him, and underachieve with it every season, due to his "robot-like" decisions. I believe he costs us at least 5 wins per year compared to an average major-league manager.

[BigRapidsJackass]

If you don't believe this, then you don't believe in the concept of athletes being "hot", "cold", or "ON FIRE"!

Roxpert, you just lobbed Heltonfan a big fat hanging curve. (Or is it a Latroy Hawkinsesque fastball down the middle when he's ahead of Eric Byrnes -- a gift even Byrnes couldn't believe he was handed; see today's quotes.)

The "hot hand" theory has been pretty well refuted in basketball. There's no pattern at all; it's all random given a particular shooter's skills. I think that (for the most part) that's also the case with batters in baseball (although there's a bit of evidence that "clutchiness" exists, but it's pretty slim and even if it does exist the effect is probably pretty small).

But pitchers? Particularly relievers? I'm strongly on Roxpert's side there. There was a time, not so long ago, as recently as the 1980s, when managers would often have 2 righthanders warming up at the same time and would choose who to bring in based on what the bullpen catchers told them. I mean, they'd actually say things like, "LaTroy has his best stuff today," or "LaTroy can't get his curve over today," and the manager would choose accordingly.

And yesterday after the 7th inning the verdict probably would have been, "Corpas has some nasty stuff today." And it might've been (I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised), "LaTroy's having trouble keeping his fastball in the zone."

Maybe it is just random. Maybe Corpas would've fallen behind 3-0 on Chris Young. I'm not saying Hurdle is irrational; I'm just saying why must he be such a slave to routine that he's unwilling to vary it even when a guy like Corpas is throwing so well? I mean, it's not like Hurdle's bullpen management has led to any notable success in the past. He is, after all, the guy who stuck with Chacon The Closer until the 3rd week of September ...

[hiaspire]

You won't get an arguement from me in terms of some of that more traditional thinking about a pitcher's stuff on any particular day. However, the quote you focus on goes against that very point in terms of no indication that Hawkins WASN'T on. As even the hitter said, Hawkins came out blazing with some incredible stuff.

A pitching staff that will be taxed tremendously in Coors Field throughout the year (especially the pen) is probably the least likely staff (quite reasonably) to give relievers extra daily work to see who is on or not on a given day. Roles are arguably also more important in more demanding environments.

We can direct all the resources in the universe into analyzing the troublesome pitch that followed his good start that wasn't located exactly as he wanted when ahead in the count, but there are going to be many more pitches this year to follow and it doesn't merritt that emphasis IMO. They can't get that second game started soon enough already, as then it can become the most urgent matter to throw everything into. I personally kind of like the pace of baseball otherwise where tomorrow is another day and teams/players are given some time to allow things to play out a bit.

I have seen many stuggling bullpens (even in Colorado over the years) where inconsistent pitchers don't seem to get on track and often you'll hear pitchers themselves in those situations complain about not having a role. Not being in a trainable routine with set expectations to gear towards. Baseball especially revolves around routines for players.

Most players don't discount the importance of such roles within a team. There almost always are good points on most sides of these issues, but what the Rox are doing isn't so earth-shatteringly different than how the game is being played on nearly 100% of all other fields. It certainly isn't anything unreasonable within the context of the game and its history. That isn't where the biggest difference is playing out. Across the diamond yesterday, the D-Backs management of their pitching situation was virtually identical outside of their starter going one less inning.

Valverde didn't get off to a good start in the 9th and isn't a proven closer by any means. Clough on the radio this morning even said he didn't look confident up there initially. But as a manager, you sometimes have to let players either prove or disprove your faith in the responsibilities that have been given to them (especially early). Sometimes the player comes through, and sometimes they don't and it could be different from day to day -- and it doesn't always have to reflect upon the manager personally each and every single time. Our players didn't respond to their opportunity and the D-Backs did yesterday. So let's go get them today.