There
are two huge mistakes that Charlie Manuel made in today's 5-4 loss to
Pittsburgh. One came in the bottom of the sixth inning when Manuel failed to
pinch hit Chase Utley (or Jim Thome) for Mike Fontenot with two outs and two men
on base; the other, of course, was Juan Pierre's hideous sacrifice bunt in the
bottom of the ninth with nobody out.
In
the sixth inning, the Phils had men on first and second with two outs. The score
was 5-3, and Mike Fontenot (career OPS vs. RHPs .755) came to the plate. Chase
Utley was available to pinch hit, but, presumably, he was not available to play
defense. As a result, Manuel was obviously holding him out for a PH spot when
the pitcher was due to bat. Had Manuel thought outside the box, he would have
been able to pinch hit Utley for Fontenot, and then double switch Utley out of
the game. Polanco would have moved from third to second, Wigginton from first to
third, and either Luna/Mayberry/Ruiz to play first (Ruiz can also play third).
In other words, defensive alignment should not have been a factor into allowing
Fontenot to hit in this important situation.
Fontenot's
.755 OPS vs. RHPs is not bad at all, but Utley's .900+ OPS vs. RHPs is obviously
much stronger. Yes, Utley is past his prime, but so is Fontenot.
Allowing
Fontenot to hit with two men on base and only ten outs remaining is
irresponsible when you have Utley, Thome, and Ruiz all still available. Manuel
has no idea if he will ever get another chance to get the lead-run to the plate;
with only 1/3 of the game remaining and three awesome options off the bench, you
simply cannot forgo this opportunity by failing to pinch hit. Fontenot was
hitting seventh for a reason. Naturally, Fontenot failed to reach base, and the
threat ended with zero runs in.
Utley was later used as a pinch hitter with one
out and nobody on base. The score was still 5-3. Nice work, Mr.
Manuel.
Now, that wasn't even the worst decision of the
game! In the bottom of the ninth inning, with the Phillies down 5-4, Jimmy
Rollins led off with a single against RHP Joel Hanrahan. Alright! Not only do
they have the leadoff man on base, but he is a stolen base threat. Guess what
else? Hanrahan has allowed 31 stolen bases out of 35 attempts since he converted
to a reliever in 2008. That's an 88% success rate. Rollins, of course, has been
well over 80% for his career. So, Rollins is going to run early in the count,
right? WRONG. You clearly do not know baseball. Instead, Baseball Man Charlie
Manuel called for a sacrifice bunt from Juan Pierre (or, he didn't tell Pierre
to not bunt; either way, it's terrible managing).
Pierre was "successful" in his bunt, moving
Rollins to second base while getting himself thrown out at first. Pierre bunted
on the first pitch; Rollins never had a chance to steal second base. When
Rollins was standing on first base with nobody out, the Phils had a 44% chance
of scoring in the inning. When he was standing on second base with one out, the
Phils had a 40% chance of scoring. Manuel has consistently allowed Pierre to
decrease this team's chances of scoring runs, and it's about goddamned time for
it to stop. I don't care if Domonic Brown throws every ball into the stands
after it's hit to him; at least he tries to get on base when he
bats.
Since
Rollins is a well-above average base stealer, and since Hanrahan holds runners
on base very poorly, let's put Rollins's success rate at stealing second at a
generous 85% (below Hanrahan's career number). If he decides to steal second
base, there's an 85% chance he gets to second base with nobody out. In this
scenario, the Phillies would have a 63% chance of scoring. As a result, the
Phillies would have had a 54% chance (.63*.85) of scoring by simply deciding to
send Rollins to second base. Now, it is
possible that Juan Pierre reaches first base on an error or a hit if he bunts.
However, he can still bunt after the stolen base. Unlike from first to second, you actually
increase your chances of scoring (albeit slightly) when you bunt from second to
third with nobody out.
Let's
summarize: deciding to steal second base increases your chances of scoring by
about 22%. Deciding to bunt decreases your chances of scoring. What did Manuel
do? Well, if you're here, you know the answer. Shane Victorino and Hunter Pence
were unable to drive in the tying run off an MLB closer. Just shocking.
Tomorrow
the Phils head to the new hell-on-Earth stadium in South Florida when Cliff Lee
faces RHP Josh Johnson at 7:10 pm.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Bill James says that the steal is essentially a "break-even" strategy.
Steals + sac bunts = seems Philadelphia has yet another "Little Ball" manager, a "strategy" which went out when the lively ball era came in, 1920-1921, then reappeared when the N.L. went astro turf nuts, post Houston Astrodome era.
Of course Charlie The Butcher has never heard of 1964 and the primary reason that Phillies team collapsed. Well, when you put "little ball" strategies on top of burning out your two top starters with panic-driven relief appearances down the stretch, you forfeit your season.
It's almost as though this klutz is actually taking a page from Gene Mauch's failed play book. Oh, joy!
With the loss to Miami, it's now a 5% chance this club will make the playoffs.
This club could lose 100 games and this werewolf of a human being would still be secure in his managerial job. At this point, a responsible and classy individual would voluntarily step aside for the good of the club. Somehow, I don't think the good of the club is remotely connected with his selfish priorities.
And if someone can clue me in as to what RAJ does for a living, that would be appreciated? One rumour has it that he's an ace on the "Bowling For Pesos," reruns on Channel 491, from Juarez. - but that's just a rumour.
Let's be honest, here, Ed Wade "spent more time at the ballpark" (by his own admission) than RAJ spends here on the planet from hell. Can we just bring back Ed Wade, now, please? You really start to miss the Ed Wade dynastic Terry Adams - David Bell - Real Cormier crowd, if just for laughs.
Based on Manuel's response to the media last week, do you really think he understands just how bad he is?
Does anyone, beyond this quite savvy website, really understand how slick this con-man is? This ain't your typical country bumpkin, down-home, just folks, next door neighbor, good guy, but so many continue to buy into that fable.
Why don't the players revolt agains this dolt? Or are they too well paid to care? Never seen such a caricature of a human being, let alone manager, in my life. This joke on us is beyond "stale."
Where the hell is the GM, on this fiasco? What the hell is going on, in Philadelphia, that about three people actually care about righting this sinking ship?
And in answer to your question, Manuel doesn't think he is a bad manager, anymore than a world class poker player thinks he is a bad poker player because he allows himself to be bluffed out of a cheap pot, early in the game.
In fact, I think Charlie Manuel
is one of the sharpest cons ever to come down the public domain pike. And one of the most untrustworthy creeps who ever lived. His is an honest face? I wouldn't trust him with my toothbrush.
Post a Comment