Your 2016 World Series Champs...

[Golfingdad]

13 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

Yeah. I was sitting on the couch saying that he should have left Hendricks in for another batter. He actually struck the guy out a few pitches sooner but didn't get the call. Having watched Chapman as a Reds player many times, I knew that was a mistake to put him in before the 9th.

I dunno, he came in before the ninth inning in all except for one of his last 6 appearances, and they won 5 of those games.  The only one they lost was the 1-0 game.

[Groucho Valentine]

42 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

Yeah. I was sitting on the couch saying that he should have left Hendricks in for another batter. He actually struck the guy out a few pitches sooner but didn't get the call. Having watched Chapman as a Reds player many times, I knew that was a mistake to put him in before the 9th.

Having Baez squeeze with two strikes and one out was a worse decision than anything Maddon did with the pitching.

But some of the pitching decisions where horrible, too... Luckily the Cubs bats bailed him out. 

[Gator Hazard]

I agree that I did not like the pitching changes. Especially pulling Hendricks. Also, right before Lester threw the pitch that caught Ross in the face you could see it all over him that he did not look comfortable at all. He wound up righting the ship and did some great pitching but I can't help but wonder if Hendricks stayed in through end iftenth inning would have been necessary.

How about Ross hitting a home run though huh?  He basically told Lester "I got you buddy".  

That being said what the heck do I know I haven't coached one game let alone a 103 win season and beyond.  

 

10 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Having Baez squeeze with two strikes and one out was a worse decision than anything Maddon did with the pitching.

But some of the pitching decisions where horrible, too... Luckily the Cubs bats bailed him out. 

Before series started my assessment was that pitching was going to wash against each other and gave advantage to Cubs hitting. Then we were down 3 games to 1and it looked like pitching was the difference. The Cubs got hits when it counted though and had benefit of seeing a not fully rested Kluber a third time. I would never have thought game 7 would have been a scoring game. I figured Cubs either lose by a run or two unless they fold and get murdered or they win by a run or two. 

[Groucho Valentine]

6 minutes ago, Gator Hazard said:

I agree that I did not like the pitching changes. Especially pulling Hendricks. Also, right before Lester threw the pitch that caught Ross in the face you could see it all over him that he did not look comfortable at all. He wound up righting the ship and did some great pitching but I can't help but wonder if Hendricks stayed in through end iftenth inning would have been necessary.

How about Ross hitting a home run though huh?  He basically told Lester "I got you buddy".  

That being said what the heck do I know I haven't coached one game let alone a 103 win season and beyond.  

 

Before series started my assessment was that pitching was going to wash against each other and gave advantage to Cubs hitting. Then we were down 3 games to 1and it looked like pitching was the difference. The Cubs got hit when it counted though and had benefit of seeing a not fully rested Kluber a third time. I would never have thought game 7 would have been a scoring game. I figured Cubs either lose by a run or two unless they fold and get murdered or they win by a run or two. 

The Cubs had better starting pitching, but Cleveland's bullpen was ridiculous. For Francona, it was more or less a race to get to Andrew Miller, Shaw and Cody Allen. You can question too how much he worked those guys, especially Miller. But i dont know what else he could have done. 

I didnt think Kluber would get hit the way he did. Im not sure if he was tired or not, but he doesn't have a history of being a workhorse. Consecutive starts on 3 days rest might have been too much for him. 

[Gunther]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

If you're talking about Chapman coming in in game 6, I disagree ... but I agree about game 7, especially when he brought in Lester.  And boy did that nearly blow up in their face (almost comically).

Definitely talking about that.  They had a 5-run lead.  Cat had pitched previous game.  Throws 102 (wow!).  Needed him in game 7 and he was spent, although still throwing heat, command off.  Had he not pitched in game 6, I doubt 7 would have gone extra innings.

Was great for the fans but I think that was over-managed, although I do admire Madden, esp facing him all those years with the Rays.  I think he panicked a little. 

[Golfingdad]

30 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Definitely talking about that.  They had a 5-run lead.  Cat had pitched previous game.  Throws 102 (wow!).  Needed him in game 7 and he was spent, although still throwing heat, command off.  Had he not pitched in game 6, I doubt 7 would have gone extra innings.

Was great for the fans but I think that was over-managed, although I do admire Madden, esp facing him all those years with the Rays.  I think he panicked a little. 

Gotcha.  You're talking about the fact that he brought him in AT ALL.  That's a fair argument.  I have no qualms with that.  (Although one could argue that had he not pitched in game 6, game 7 might not have happened - more on that below)

I was listening to the announcers question the fact that he brought him in specifically at that moment, instead of later in the game.  Earlier this year, or perhaps it was last year, I read an article (that I strongly agreed with) that talked about how managers are starting to go away from the formula they've been using for the last several years, with the ideal routine of the starter, then the "7th inning guy," "8th inning guy," and then the "closer."  And those last three were always in those innings regardless of the situation, whereas it makes more sense (to me) to pitch your best pitcher (usually that closer) in the toughest spot ... which is not necessarily the 9th inning with a 2 or 3 run lead and nobody on base.

Another related argument I heard recently is one that convinced me that everybody who criticized Buck Showalter in the wild card game was correct.  One argument - that I had been agreeing with - was that it was OK to save your closer when on the road because you'd always need him after you scored.  They** mentioned Joe Torre and his philosophy was to start with the current moment and worry about only that, and then worry about the next moment when (and if) it happens ... because that next moment is not guaranteed until you get past this current moment.  Sure, I thought it was fine to save the guy for the bottom of the 12th (or later) in case you scored in the top of the 12th, but of course, you can't score in the top of the 12th if you give up runs in the bottom of the 11th - which they did.

My point with the last part is that it seemed like Maddon was mostly following a similar philosophy and I approve. :)

** "They" are Joe Posnanski and Michael Schur discussing relievers on their podcast from 10/14/16 called "Baseballs reliever revolution." https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-poscast/id757346885?mt=2

[jamo]

 

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

** "They" are Joe Posnanski and Michael Schur discussing relievers on their podcast from 10/14/16 called "Baseballs reliever revolution." https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-poscast/id757346885?mt=2

I'm claiming credit for this.