hypothetical situation

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:22 am

i heard earl weaver used to do this. i was wondering what some of the pundits thought of this strategy, and is it allowed in MLB now?

let's assume the Mets are on the road in an NL game and johan is scheduled to pitch. the plan is to give carlos beltran the day off. when the lineup is submitted for the game, it has beltran batting 3rd in the order and pitching. after the top of the inning and the Mets take the field, beltran is replaced in the order by johan santana. supposedly, earl weaver thought this could possibly give him an extra inning of his stud pitcher before having to replace him late in the game. i was just wondering what people thought of this strategy and even if it is still possible to do.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:14 am

Never heard of it, but the downside that would make managers not use it would be having the pitcher batting in the 3 hole all game - even if he delays his last at bat probably not worth it the potential hole in the middle of a rally. Like the creativity though.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:33 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Never heard of it, but the downside that would make managers not use it would be having the pitcher batting in the 3 hole all game - even if he delays his last at bat probably not worth it the potential hole in the middle of a rally. Like the creativity though. You would use a double switch. You would list yesterday's starter in the nine hole as an OF. Then after the first half inning replace both yesterdays starter and Beltran (getting the day off?) with Santana and your new OF. If you batted around to the ninth spot in the first, Santana could 'pinch hit'

I would only see this being used if Beltran could hit but was unable to play the field because of some injury.

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Fri May 02, 2008 1:10 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Never heard of it, but the downside that would make managers not use it would be having the pitcher batting in the 3 hole all game - even if he delays his last at bat probably not worth it the potential hole in the middle of a rally. Like the creativity though. i heard billy and cal talking about this strategy on their show the other day. weaver actually did this, apparantly.

Atlas · Post by **Atlas** » Sat May 03, 2008 1:25 pm

Didn't Dick Williams and the Oakland A's do something similar in the 70's? (showing my age)

I believe when they were on the road, they would put a stronger hitter in the 2 slot and list him as a second baseman. After he got his at bat, he would them sub the regular second baseman. If memory serves, they kept someting like 3-4 on the roster and they were all light hitting and her hit for them frequently.

Those were the days of nine man pitching staffs.

He probably carried eight.

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Sat May 03, 2008 2:02 pm

Originally posted by Atlas:

Didn't Dick Williams and the Oakland A's do something similar in the 70's? (showing my age)

I believe when they were on the road, they would put a stronger hitter in the 2 slot and list him as a second baseman. After he got his at bat, he would them sub the regular second baseman. If memory serves, they kept someting like 3-4 on the roster and they were all light hitting and her hit for them frequently.

Those were the days of nine man pitching staffs.

He probably carried eight. i do believe those were the days of the ingenious managers...todays managers are too busy trying too hard to be sociable.

DiamondKing · Post by **DiamondKing** » Sat May 03, 2008 2:21 pm

Managers today have to spend much too much time dealing with reporters.It has become a huge part of the job.I also believe that is why so many of them manage by the book.If something does not work out,well hey that is what you are to do in that situation.I just did what everybody else does.

You also have to remember teams back in the early 70's did not have 12 and 13 man pitching staffs.They had a 4 man rotation.Which means they had a deeper bench.You could burn a reserve in the first without costing you so much depth later in the game.

[ May 03, 2008, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: DiamondKing ]

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Sat May 03, 2008 2:30 pm

Originally posted by DiamondKing:

Managers today have to spend much too much time dealing with reporters.It has become a huge part of the job.I also believe that is why so many of them manage by the book.If something does not work out,well hey that is what you are to do in that situation.I just did what everybody else does.

You also have to remember teams back in the early 70's did not have 12 and 13 man pitching staffs.They had a 4 man rotation.Which means they had a deeper bench.You could burn a reserve in the first without costing you so much depth later in the game. so what's your point?

looks like to me if todays pitchers weren't such pansies, managers could be more ingenieous. i'll take mcnally, phoebus, palmer, and cuellar from '69. and palmer had a down year.

[ May 03, 2008, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: cleaver beavers ]

DiamondKing · Post by **DiamondKing** » Sat May 03, 2008 3:14 pm

Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

Managers today have to spend much too much time dealing with reporters.It has become a huge part of the job.I also believe that is why so many of them manage by the book.If something does not work out,well hey that is what you are to do in that situation.I just did what everybody else does.

You also have to remember teams back in the early 70's did not have 12 and 13 man pitching staffs.They had a 4 man rotation.Which means they had a deeper bench.You could burn a reserve in the first without costing you so much depth later in the game. so what's your point?

looks like to me if todays pitchers weren't such pansies, managers could be more ingenieous. i'll take mcnally, phoebus, palmer, and cuellar from '69. and palmer had a down year. [/QUOTE]Speaking of what is your point.You use 1969 as the good old strong pitchers.Well,I guess the original "pansies" were the 1969 Mets.They were the first team to embrace the five man rotation.Teams started paying higher salaries and that "pansy" Sandy Koufax had to retire at 30 years old because he could not comb his hair.

Oh,and to help you out.My point is when you have a 3 or 4 man bench you do not want to burn one in the first inning.Kind of thought that was obvious.

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Sun May 04, 2008 1:12 am

Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

Managers today have to spend much too much time dealing with reporters.It has become a huge part of the job.I also believe that is why so many of them manage by the book.If something does not work out,well hey that is what you are to do in that situation.I just did what everybody else does.

You also have to remember teams back in the early 70's did not have 12 and 13 man pitching staffs.They had a 4 man rotation.Which means they had a deeper bench.You could burn a reserve in the first without costing you so much depth later in the game. so what's your point?

looks like to me if todays pitchers weren't such pansies, managers could be more ingenieous. i'll take mcnally, phoebus, palmer, and cuellar from '69. and palmer had a down year. [/QUOTE]Speaking of what is your point.You use 1969 as the good old strong pitchers.Well,I guess the original "pansies" were the 1969 Mets.They were the first team to embrace the five man rotation.Teams started paying higher salaries and that "pansy" Sandy Koufax had to retire at 30 years old because he could not comb his hair.

Oh,and to help you out.My point is when you have a 3 or 4 man bench you do not want to burn one in the first inning.Kind of thought that was obvious. [/QUOTE] i agree with you, but like i was saying in my original hypo. situation, if your going to give a player the day off anyway, go ahead and get one good AB out of him if, and it's just an IF, it will keep you're starter in one more inning. honestly i don't know if it's worth it or not, because that good AB could possibly come to use later in the game. the ripkins were saying weaver did it just to possibly delay the removal of his starter maybe one inning.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Sun May 04, 2008 3:18 am

Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

Managers today have to spend much too much time dealing with reporters.It has become a huge part of the job.I also believe that is why so many of them manage by the book.If something does not work out,well hey that is what you are to do in that situation.I just did what everybody else does.

You also have to remember teams back in the early 70's did not have 12 and 13 man pitching staffs.They had a 4 man rotation.Which means they had a deeper bench.You could burn a reserve in the first without costing you so much depth later in the game. so what's your point?

looks like to me if todays pitchers weren't such pansies, managers could be more ingenieous. i'll take mcnally, phoebus, palmer, and cuellar from '69. and palmer had a down year. [/QUOTE]Speaking of what is your point.You use 1969 as the good old strong pitchers.Well,I guess the original "pansies" were the 1969 Mets.They were the first team to embrace the five man rotation.Teams started paying higher salaries and that "pansy" Sandy Koufax had to retire at 30 years old because he could not comb his hair.

Oh,and to help you out.My point is when you have a 3 or 4 man bench you do not want to burn one in the first inning.Kind of thought that was obvious. [/QUOTE] i agree with you, but like i was saying in my original hypo. situation, if your going to give a player the day off anyway, go ahead and get one good AB out of him if, and it's just an IF, it will keep you're starter in one more inning. honestly i don't know if it's worth it or not, because that good AB could possibly come to use later in the game. the ripkins were saying weaver did it just to possibly delay the removal of his starter maybe one inning. [/QUOTE]I'm trying to see how it saves one inning for the pitcher. In the original question, Santana might not be in the orginal lineup but he is still going to pitch the first inning. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly.

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Sun May 04, 2008 3:27 am

Originally posted by rucrew2:

quote:Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

Managers today have to spend much too much time dealing with reporters.It has become a huge part of the job.I also believe that is why so many of them manage by the book.If something does not work out,well hey that is what you are to do in that situation.I just did what everybody else does.

You also have to remember teams back in the early 70's did not have 12 and 13 man pitching staffs.They had a 4 man rotation.Which means they had a deeper bench.You could burn a reserve in the first without costing you so much depth later in the game. so what's your point?

looks like to me if todays pitchers weren't such pansies, managers could be more ingenieous. i'll take mcnally, phoebus, palmer, and cuellar from '69. and palmer had a down year. [/QUOTE]Speaking of what is your point.You use 1969 as the good old strong pitchers.Well,I guess the original "pansies" were the 1969 Mets.They were the first team to embrace the five man rotation.Teams started paying higher salaries and that "pansy" Sandy Koufax had to retire at 30 years old because he could not comb his hair.

Oh,and to help you out.My point is when you have a 3 or 4 man bench you do not want to burn one in the first inning.Kind of thought that was obvious. [/QUOTE] i agree with you, but like i was saying in my original hypo. situation, if your going to give a player the day off anyway, go ahead and get one good AB out of him if, and it's just an IF, it will keep you're starter in one more inning. honestly i don't know if it's worth it or not, because that good AB could possibly come to use later in the game. the ripkins were saying weaver did it just to possibly delay the removal of his starter maybe one inning. [/QUOTE]I'm trying to see how it saves one inning for the pitcher. In the original question, Santana might not be in the orginal lineup but he is still going to pitch the first inning. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. [/QUOTE]he goes to the third spot in the order, which would make his first AB the 12th hitter instead of the 9th. it just delays his first AB 3 slots.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Sun May 04, 2008 3:37 am

Originally posted by rucrew2:

quote:Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by cleaver beavers:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

Managers today have to spend much too much time dealing with reporters.It has become a huge part of the job.I also believe that is why so many of them manage by the book.If something does not work out,well hey that is what you are to do in that situation.I just did what everybody else does.

You also have to remember teams back in the early 70's did not have 12 and 13 man pitching staffs.They had a 4 man rotation.Which means they had a deeper bench.You could burn a reserve in the first without costing you so much depth later in the game. so what's your point?

looks like to me if todays pitchers weren't such pansies, managers could be more ingenieous. i'll take mcnally, phoebus, palmer, and cuellar from '69. and palmer had a down year. [/QUOTE]Speaking of what is your point.You use 1969 as the good old strong pitchers.Well,I guess the original "pansies" were the 1969 Mets.They were the first team to embrace the five man rotation.Teams started paying higher salaries and that "pansy" Sandy Koufax had to retire at 30 years old because he could not comb his hair.

Oh,and to help you out.My point is when you have a 3 or 4 man bench you do not want to burn one in the first inning.Kind of thought that was obvious. [/QUOTE] i agree with you, but like i was saying in my original hypo. situation, if your going to give a player the day off anyway, go ahead and get one good AB out of him if, and it's just an IF, it will keep you're starter in one more inning. honestly i don't know if it's worth it or not, because that good AB could possibly come to use later in the game. the ripkins were saying weaver did it just to possibly delay the removal of his starter maybe one inning. [/QUOTE]I'm trying to see how it saves one inning for the pitcher. In the original question, Santana might not be in the orginal lineup but he is still going to pitch the first inning. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. [/QUOTE]You are not. Santana pitches the game, but his spot in the order is three instead of nine, giving him three extra spots in the batting order before a pinch hitter is needed in the seventh or eighth inning and probably one less at bat in the game.

Along the same lines, Leo Durocher would have a run of the mill starter rh starter "get hurt" after the first batter and then bring in his lefty against a left handed stacked lineup.

Neither scenario will be seen again. Tv and political correctness has changed all that. Instead of being thought of as as showing inginuity, it would now be looked at as "embarrasing the organization".