The Nats have been the best team in baseball for a month plus. They just had their second best month ever and they are above .500 and in the thick of the Wild Card race. This turnaround has a lot of people feeling good about the team and feeling good, or at least less bad, about the manager. What do I think?
Fire Davey
What gives me pause is a name from the Nats past, Matt Williams. Handed a mild favorite (remember 2013 did not go well) and a mostly healthy team*, Williams proceeded to guide the Nats to 96 wins (2nd best in baseball), a division title that was wrapped up with at least a month to go. It's not hard to manage when you are given a good team and little resistance.
If you twist my arm I'd say Davey has shown something Matt hasn't - he didn't let it all go to hell, which is what Matt did at the end of 2015. Despite a disappointing 2018 and 50 games of crap in 2019 the team didn't pack it in, he didn't lose the clubhouse** and the Nats have managed to find their way back.
But still look at the above. Thats 200+ games telling me Davey, even if he is learning, isn't right for this team - a team that will forever be aiming for 90 wins, not 95. This year, he lost Trea Turner and managed the team to an 8-7 record as if he was George Brett on the '85 Royals (look it up). He lost Rendon and they were 3-6. Take this team, drop Trea and Rendon and they aren't a playoff team, but a well below .500 mess? No. A great 30, and they have been great, isn't enough to change my mind.
When could I change my mind. Here's a couple of scenarios
The Nats continue playing this well for basically the rest of the year. Put up an over 100 win pace for a large chunk of the season. Win mid 90s in games in total. Possibly (probably) win the division.
The Nats get into the WC - then make the World Series. If your goal is winning playoff series, you can't really count the WC game, and the DS could be a fluke, but the WC, DS, and CS? Ok you got me.
There you go - that's where I keep Davey. Now of course there are split the difference type scenarios. Nats win low 90s are WC1 and go to the CS... ok probably keep him. But in general I don't want to see him back unless the Nats do something special either baseball wise (playing like this for 112 games would qualify) or for their franchise (winning a few playoffs series).
*He'd lose Ramos and Bryce, and the team would go a disappointing 8-9. He'd lose Zimm at the end, which when added to the cooling bats from a lot of players would doom the Nats playoff chances.
**though I think the lack of a certain scraggly bearded OF matters a lot there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
This post is so unlike most of your posts. It reads like a fanpost gripe. As a fairly reader and Nats fan, I get where you are coming from, but where is the usual soulless automaton type post where you back it up with data and/or historical precedence?
Are you becoming a Nats fan?
Dave Martinez speaks fluent Spanish, right? Now that the Nats have signed the top international pitching prospect this year in Andry Lara, RHP, Venezuela for $1,250,000 - who they say "profiles as a #1 Starting Pitcher" according to MLB.com report, along with most of the top "prospects" like Soto, Robles, Garcia...maybe Spanish bilingual capabilities become a key piece of a manager from the top brass perspective of the Nats org...what do you think?
On the one hand, what if Martinez's two-year apprenticeship leads eventually to his becoming a first-rate manager? (I said "IF," but it has happened before.) And another organization's benefiting from their investment would drive the Lerners nuts as bunnies (and you just know the roster payroll would take the brunt).
On the other hand(s), who would you hire to replace Martinez? If there were a golden-boy manager with sterling bona fides available, would the Lerners meet his price? And even if they did, what kind of team would the new manager be left with?
(Asking for a friend.)
Smile - Manager analysis is basically like momentum analysis. We know it exists but we can't really figure out how much it matters because the noise drowns it out. Like with Matt Williams - he may very well be bad - but give him a good team and no one to chase him and he wins 96 games. Roster make-up and other things are overwhelmingly more important. So you almost have to go on gut - otherwise you can just hire anyone. Or no one. Let fans vote. Have a Magic 8 ball.
Suburban Steve - might matter. Why not keep him in the org then? Or he's not the only spanish speaker out there. people rave over Carlos Beltran
SM - the former happens. you just have to accept it. In the first place - they pick a org that isn't right for them, build up some anchors, but get better. Might take them a few years of middling managing to shake out the bad stuff - but join a better fit and take all they learned and boom. golden. (In part why I was an Ron Roenicke backer last hiring round)
The second question is ever present. I just choose to ignore it.
I normally would say fire Davey, but either the Nats win this year and you keep him, or the Nats lose this year and the window begins to close, so you keep him anyway to guide the team through the messy next couple of years.
This team is facing a rebuild, so if you want to fire the manager as part of that rebuild so be it, but I'm of the opinion that why waste money firing him (he'd be owed next year I'm pretty sure) when you could just keep him around and then fire him once the team is ready a la Bo Porter and the Astros? Heck, maybe he gets good and becomes the manager of the future?
@Harper Here’s the thing. The disgust with Davey and his .500-ish ways all presupposes that the Nats have had a great roster the last two years and for years before. The evidence for that is that they won a bunch of division titles, then lost in the playoffs immediately before last year. Here’s my hypothesis. The Nats never really were a truly great team with a great 95-100 win roster. They just played in the worst division in baseball, and due to tons of games against non-challenger teams, they won a lot of games. But there’s plenty to not like about the roster construction. The Nats routinely have no depth, and are susceptible to injuries, and** they’re prone to injuries. Not a good combo. They routinely have a bad bullpen, or at least a bullpen that requires additions and fixes mid season every year. They supposedly always have as much talent as almost anybody. Really? Ryan Zimmerman has gone (during this run) from a good player to a bleh player to a terrible player. Daniel Murphy was a great bat and a hideous defender. Trea Turner is very good but not as good as his talent is. Rendon IS a star. Their catching has been overall bad, at least compared to the C for other contenders. Their outfield has overall been bad....Eaton is below average as a starter. Robles is a rookie. Soto is a great hitter and according to fan graphs the 3rd worst fielder in baseball. Werth during the run was never a great player. He was a fine player then he was a bad player. Bryce had a year when he was absolutely insane, some years that were good, and multiple years that were not good. As for the starting staff, this team is perpetually without dependable 4-5 starters, and their No. 3 starter of the past (Gio) was sometimes bad and sometimes good. The guy supposed to be their number 2 stud, Stras, has contended for 1 Cy Young, and due to both performance and injuries never come close again. Max obviously is a Hall of Famer. As i said, their bench is almost always thinner than other contenders. I guess my point is this: I think commentators (and Harper) vastly overrate the raw talent level of the Nats during this window. To me, they usually have the talent of a 90 win team, plus or minus a few games based on injury luck or bad luck on Pythagorean stuff. Now, why did they win 95+ games multiple times, leading people to say they were World Series favorites and a GREAT team? Because they played in a garbage pail division. As soon as the division got better and the Phillies/Braves rounded into the end of their rebuild, those games suddenly became tough. During the Davey Johnson and Matt Williams and Dusty years, usually there was only one team that was even worth keeping an eye on. That went from Braves first, then to Mets, basically. The other 4 teams were cannon fodder, leading to inflated win totals. This also explains the Nats terrible playoff performance (along with bad luck).
What that roster analysis tells you is that frankly, the Nats have only had 2 RELIABLE STARS during this run. Max and Rendon. The other guys sometimes get hurt or sometimes aren’t good or sometimes underperform. Should a team with 2 reliable stars and a ton of flaws expect to win 95 games a year and the divison? Only if the division stinks, is my answer. Obviously I have SLIGHTLY simplified the overall 2012-2019 story, and there is more to say, but I absolutely believe that in some respects Dave Martinez is a victim of circumstance and the NL East finally improving. (You night say NL East still stinks. Not really. The Braves are an awesome team, and there will likely be two additional over .500 teams in the divison. That’s not an UNUSUALLY strong division. But it’s better than the division the Nats dealt with for half a decade.
Oh yeah, the Nats should fire DM. Heck, I'd be okay if they did it now. The guy can't handle a bullpen. Look what he's done to Rainey. Everyone knows Suero shouldn't pitch two days in a row, except DM. I really believe DM is a poor man's Dusty Baker. Great clubhouse guy, horrible tactician. Dusty's great clubhouse presence and putting hitters in a position to be successful over a long season was his strength, but when the playoffs rolled around, his poor tactics and over-reliance on gut almost always doomed him, (like pulling Russ Ortiz in game 6 for a bullpen anchored by an injured Rob Nen).
Then again, for whatever reason, Rizzo and the Lerners suck at hiring managers. I mean, they're just awful. So it very likely could get worse. Unless they're going to pony up the money for Girardi or finally promote Randy Knorr. I'd probably keep DM because to a certain extent you can build the team with his strengths and weaknesses in mind.
That said, do I think Martinez is a really good manager. No. I tend to think the importance of how good a manager is is inflated though. The one thing I can’t stand is him playing Zim against RHP for no reason whatsoever.
Zim should never NEVER NEVER get an AB vs a RHP. Only LHP. Otherwise it should be Adams or Kendrick. Or Kendrick at 2B and Adams at 1B.
Zimm is in at 1st against righty tonight... when adams saw this kid last week
/Facepalm. Zim is a platoon player at this point in his career. Here's a good idea, let's take that one guy, who's been hot and hits righties well, and we'll put him on the bench and keep that other guy who hasn't hit righties since 2017, but also hasn't hit a ball hard all week and we'll get him in there because he's a veteran, with gamery grit.
Managing the bullpen is... not the manager's job. The pitching coach is the coach of the pitchers (weird I know). He asks each guy if they are available to throw that day. They respond with a) yes, b) no, or c) no, but only if you need me - my arm is a little sore today. K? Now...
Its up to the pitching coach to relay this information to the manager (important), read through the player's warrior-mentality of "i can do it coach!" (very important) and INFORM the manager on the best course of action. Ultimately the manager can disagree, but do you really think Menhart says that Rainey "isn't available today" and DM just says "F it - Rainey get ready!" I don't think so.
We already know that Lilliquist's lack of preparation and communication contributed the dumpster fire we saw until he was fired. I think the pitching has been better and that's because of Menhart, and pitchers just finding their groove. It has way less to do with DM than people like to fantasize. He's much more dialed in to lineup construction, pinch hitting situations, bunt/steal scenarios, and managing players days off and personalities of a 162 slog. The pitching, is for Menhart.
IF there was a way to judge that Martinez can't manage personalities (see MW), or uses idiotic strategy in key moment games (see Dusty's use of Werth in the 2017 NLDS), I don't see how firing him would make this team better. If record or recent play is any indication, I think he's as much a reason for their success as he is of their failure. Let him stay.
According to a recent Athletic article, Rizzo says he meets with DM TWICE A DAY! At this meeting, with examples given in the article, they engage in "game planning." Back in the day, like just 10 years ago, when GM confidence was maybe a touch lower because they didn't have an overconfident analytics staff, I think the manager might have had a little more room to make tactical decisions. From this article it almost seemed like Rizzo is leaving setting up a bunch of if...then scenarios with DM and DM just executes. The article goes so far as to say that Rizzo conveys to DM what the training staff say about reliever availability. If my boss came into my office twice a day, hell, twice a week, to tell me tactical stuff, I'd blame him for work outcomes (and look for another job). I'm not a Davey fan, but there's just too many unknowns about who is really pulling the strings on this team right now. Rizzo is not a modern GM - doesn't delegate, uses his scouting instincts, etc. If I want a change, if I want to fire someone, I promote Rizzo to President with scouting portfolio and get myself a real GM who is an executive who hires well, delegates appropriately, puts together processes that don't get overridden, and really knows how to use quantitative analysis to improve human processes (this is very hard).
@Ole PBN. You're right the pitching coach asks, but each and every pitcher says yes. Yes, the pitching coach has a ton of input, which is why it was so idiotic to let Mike Maddux go. However, how often guys get up in the bullpen, when to pull guys and host of other bullpen decisions are all on the manager.
@billyhacker That's a good point, there are a ton of unknowns at play and more and more I think that this boils down to poor decisions by Rizzo, who, from the outside looking in, does seem like a bit of a micro-manager. Maybe that's why Davey Johnson and Dusty had more success, because given their experience, Rizzo was less inclined to micro-manage them. I don't know. What I do know is that something is broken and despite the great month they've had, problems will persist until they fix their process and possibly some of their people.
Great insight everyone. A number of people made the point that we are on the outside looking in and just guessing on how this club or any sports organization operates on a day to day basis. Yet fans blame the owner, GM or even the manager when things don't go well.
The truth is we really don't know how to apportion the blame or how to distribute the praise when things go well. But we are FANS or at least you are and so you pretend to know what you really don't know. A good example was back in May when many of you wanted to blow up the team and trade all the team's assets. Great plan when you are fans with unlimited knowledge,
As I pointed out, Rizzo never gave up on the season and did what a good GM does. He set out to fix the problems. Enjoy the games, but don't forget to give him some credit.
I'm curious: when Davey lifted Corbin last night at only 87 pitches, would that have been due to the rain delay?
I'm the least knowledgeable person on this board by far, but it seems odd to me that he'd do that in a one-run game, considering his stinky bullpen and his starter still going strong with a super-low pitch count (12.4 pitches per inning after 7, wow).
And then of course the reliever comes in with a clean inning to work with and promptly gives up a double to the first batter, which, two batters later, becomes the game-tying run. I know Suero has been better recently, but he's still carrying a 5.45 ERA and we HAVE to win this game, so, hmm . . .
Can somebody more knowledgeable than I (i.e. anybody not in a coma) break down the reasoning here?
(And if somebody says, paraphrasing Davey, that the relievers "have to learn to pitch in these situations," I'm going to find a secluded cubicle and just weep quietly for an hour or so.)
@windhover Davey talked about this at the postgame interview. Per him, he talked to Corbin, and once he told Corbin he was done for the night, Corbin admitted that his legs were heavy. So it might have been a good time to lift him (though I certainly grant your point about handing the game over to the 'pen).
There you have it. Martinez disavowed strategy and sabermetrics to play Zimmerman last night because the man is sitting at 999 RBIs and about to achieve a a career milestone. At least he's honest.
Credit for wins goes to the players, blame for losses goes to the manager. I agree. Thus the recent winning streak is largely due to much better execution by the players and Davey has managed to stay out of the way of his players and let them win. Having said that, he categorically avoids apportioning blame and he maintains an earnest brand of optimism that is often irritating.
So I give him the benefit of the doubt. He stuck with them, they held together and now sit quietly at 2 games above .500 for the first time in the year. No stars (except Max!) on this team.
Let's hope Zimmerman gets to 1000 career RBIs soon.
Everybody that thinks letting Zimmerman bat with the bases loaded and two outs in the bottom of the eighth against a righty was the right move stand on your head. This is the kind of crap that's going to cost victories against anything other than the worst team in the league. Matt Adams should have gone in for Zim right then and there, and then there's probably no need for ninth inning heroics from Trea Turner. Even if Mattingly brings in a lefty to face Adams, I have infinitely more confidence at this point in Adams against a lefty than Zim against a righty.
This is way too reminiscent of 2015 when Werth, Zimmerman, and Rendon all spent extended time on the DL, but contrary to expectations guys like Danny Espinosa, Clint Robinson, and Michael A. Taylor stepped up and played like gangbusters and had the team in first place at the break and beyond. Then the three injured guys all come back within days of each other, and Matt Williams put them right back in to the lineup, where they proceeded to step on their peters for a month--especially Werth and Zim. The guys that played the team into first place go to the end of the bench. The team starts losing and in six weeks goes from 3 games up to 9.5 behind. The season goes to hell, the home schedule fittingly ending with a blowout against Philadelphia featuring former and future Phillies Papelbon and Harper having a melee in the dugout.
I remember Ray Knight howling at the fans for complaining about the situation, adamant that Werth, Rendon, and Zimmerman were "better players" than the ones that had filled in for them. Well, SO WHAT????? Maybe they were better players, but the question isn't who's a better player. It's WHO'S PLAYING BETTER? Right now Matt Adams is playing better. Howie Kendrick is playing better.
I love the revisionism and cherry picking that goes on here. You don't like a move so we destroy the people that made, what you think, is a bone-headed choice. So we go back in history and pick a bad outcome and highlight it as representative of the player. Ridiculous. We forget 2017 when Zimm was a clutch hitting machine that carried to Nats to many victories. Replacing Zimm with Adams there is a fools errand. Guaranteed the righty is replaced with a lefty. So you waste your best left-handed stick and have two right-handed bats left on the bench in the 8th. Even today, Zimm is a a better choice against a righty than Adams against a lefty. And Zimm had a good at bat. His bat didn't look slow against 95 and 96. He battled and ended up hitting it right at someone. Happens every day, doesn't make him a bad choice in that situation.
? I saw Zim swing and miss, be late on two fastballs, and then rollover a breaking ball (that probably shouldn’t have been thrown given the fb swings) for an easy out.
There was a lot of that last night from everybody on the field...The point was he wasn't inept at the plate. If you saw Cabrera from Detroit against Scherzer you gonna say he can't hit. Jeez people, have any of you managed at any level?
Look here is an idiot proof guide for Davey. If anybody actually disagrees with this, do me a favor and look up the Zim and Adams numbers against lefties and righties over the last 5 years (or even career). Here it is:
RHP starter:
Adams at 1B
Kendrick at 2B
(If Kendrick needs a day off or can’t move great that day, move Kendrick, Dozier, Adams around as necessary).
LHP starter:
Zim or Kendrick at 1B
Dozier or Kendrick at 2B
Suzuki is the everyday catcher. When he needs a day off (maybe one day per series), Gomes.
There you go.
Starting Zim against RHP makes absolutely zero sense. Zero. Kendrick is a better choice at 1B and so is Adams. He’s your 3rd option. Until those two are both hurt at the same time, don’t tell me Zim should be playing against RHP. Ever.
Now frankly, if it were up to me, I would start Kendrick and Dozier vs LHP too and leave Zim as a permanent bench bat, given how hideous he is in the field and washed he is at the plate. But that’s unrealistic for the franchise and trying to get him going vs LHP is defensible.
I also would like to see Davey pinch hit Suzuki more in big situations when he doesn’t start.
The Nationals are now tied for the second wild card spot, and it's not even the All-Star break. 25 - 10 in the their last 35 games. Turns out that, when healthy, and playing weak opponents, they are (as expected) a pretty good team. But they are going to need a lot more from the bullpen when they face better teams -- and I don't think they are going to get it.
PotomacFan: I agree on the BP. I think Rodney represents a small upgrade, and resolving the Rosenthal fiasco just helped by ending all the uncertainty surrounding him and his role and the roles of others (and he ruined every game he pitched in). Suero is okay when not overused. The big alarm that should be sounding is Doolittle starting to show the signs of overuse. If he goes down, Nats are in trouble. They HAVE to get another closer type guy to share the load with Doo. Or get a closer and make Doo the 8th inning guy (sharing it with Suero whom you never should pitch two days in a row). I'm not even mentioning Rainey--I'm not counting him as part of the solution anymore. They might need TWO solid guys not claimed off the scrap heap to really hold on to the WC. I still shake my head when I think of who was available when Rizzo proudly grabbed Rosenthal before anyone else could bid on him. Adam Ottavino was my #1.
Wonder who might be available that Nats can afford?
And....for the game today,
1. Zim is starting vs a RHP. No Kendrick or Adams a day after he hits a homer...off a lefty.
2. Parra is hitting 2nd because....I guess he’s playing RF and that’s where right fielders hit?
Not a second guess. A first guess at 11:16 AM: Zim will do nothing today while Adams and Kendrick sit. People have been noting the Nats offense has slowed down. Yes. It has. And it doesn’t help playing Ryan Zimmerman over above average major league hitters.
And Zim is batting 5th, ahead of Suzuki and Dozier, because …. well, because 4 years ago Zim was a #5 batter?
And Parra hitting second makes no sense.
Guys, you really have this thing nailed. Zim goes 2 for 4 and Rainey throws a scoreless inning. I hope you are putting together your GM resumes. You could be in heavy demand after the season is over.
If you are going to see if Zim has anything left in the tank, you do it against the Tigers, Marlins and Royals. I don't know if he has anything left, but this is when you find out. If he does then you have one less need at the trade deadline...just saying. You also need to put Rodney in the pressure of the 9th to answer the same question about him. I like Venters as your set up guy in the eighth but that is just me.
Zimmerman was 2 for 4 and all 4 PA were quality AB’s.
And somehow the Nats are now sitting in the second WC position. Actually, tied for first with the Phillies, so if the Braves beat them, we will move ahead of the Phillies.
Can the Nats manage to use Rainey and Suero effectively? It seems like the Nats have several pitchers who shouldn't pitch two days in a row. Doo seems to be heading into too much use territory (actually I think he's there already). Is this a unique problem to the Nats that they have so many guys like this or is it DM's BP management? Seems like the Nats need at least three relievers each game.
Well, today we needed five relievers to go three innings. On the other hand, Rainey, Venters, Guerra, and Rodney all pitched well, and as long as we're discussing Davey, he quick-hooked Suero rather than leaving him in to give us another trash fire.
The biggest step forward now is that with those five guys behind Doolittle, there's now a substantial body of relief pitchers on the team where giving up runs now seems like "a bad thing that could happen" instead of "the expected result." (After all, a 3.33 ERA pitcher is going to give up one run every third inning on average, so even with solid-not-great relievers runs will occasionally happen.) It's certainly not perfect by any means and I hope that Rizzo will add to that group, but "basic competence" is a huge step forward. We'll need a functional bullpen if we're going to play at least .500 ball over the tough stretch post-break.
The nice thing is, with PHI-(BAL)-ATL-COL-LA coming right out of the break, as I'm sure Harper will have a post or two to discuss, it should be explicitly obvious whether Rendon, Kendrick, Adams, Dozier, and maybe others should be heading out of town or not. (Too bad the trade deadline isn't the 4th...) We at least break even--or better yet keep it up and post a winning record--we're cemented as a serious contender. We get crushed, and it's time to punt and reload for next year.
But most of all--keep up this winning and at least take two from KC!
Some guy said you should get greedy when others are fearful, so go for the sweep.
@Johnny. Well...the problem is, it’s definitely hard to go back to back when you throw 20-30 pitches per appearance. Effective relievers will either go 1-2-3 or give up a base runner, and throw no more than like 17 pitches, then like 15 pitches the next night. But the Nats pitchers (even Doolittle) very rarely have quick innings. If Suero had appearances where he was in and out in under 15-ish pitches, I don’t think he’d have a back to back problem. And Doolittle even when he K’s people, they often foul like 2-3 balls off per AB. Sure some relievers are more durable, but I think it’s more about the Nats having very few guys to rely on AND those few guys being inefficient.
@Mark. Great, I’m happy for him. Play him only against lefties. Look at the large sample. He sucks against RHP and has going back half a decade...and Kendrick and Adams mash them. Not astrophysics here. Perhaps others are saying play Zim zero. I’m not that demanding. Just don’t play him against RHP when you have a power lefty bat or even better a dude with like a .930 OPS this year (and I fully believe in Kendrick’s slugging in the year of the bouncy ball. If Ketel Marte can hit 30+ homers, Howie can slug .500.)
@ssln. First of all, every game counts. Your logic is nonsensical. You can’t just figure “we can afford Zim to possibly be terrible because the teams aren’t good.” We’ve won these games by the skin of our teeth. If we make the playoffs, it’s not going to be by much. There’s no time for experimenting. Second, we don’t require a first baseman at the deadline—that’s even assuming Zim is a zero. If the Nats are buyers, Rizzo should be spending all resources on relief pitching. The Kendrick/Adams platoon as produced excellently at the 1B position. Third, citing evidence from one game is exceptionally silly. You don’t see me screaming “Adams hit a homer two games ago and off a lefty!” Because that is stupid analysis. Look at the large sample to make your decisions, then look at the trend line, and analyze. Any rational person would deduce that Ryan Zimmerman, if he has any use at all, considering his record, age, injuries, etc, is limited to hitting and hitting against lefties, and should under no circumstances play against RHP over Adams (or Kendrick). My approach would be (when Kendrick feels good) Kendrick at 2B and Adams/Zim platoon at 1B. When Kendrick needs a day off you can have Dozier play 2B. If Adams needs a day off, play Kendrick at 1B. I’m not saying cut Zim. Maybe others are. I’m not. But saying “Zim is our first baseman when he’s healthy” is a BS position. First, he’s never healthy. He has chronic plantar fasciitis, which is excruciating. That doesn’t go away. And when he’s healthy, he’s not good enough to be the first baseman every day. I don’t see how anybody could disagree with that position. Kendrick should be in the lineup absolutely as much as he physically can. He is our third best hitter and protects Soto effectively, who, if you have noticed, sees zero fastballs when Zim is behind him. Between Adams and Zim, it’s a platoon. There you go.
"We've won these games by the skin of our teeth." Most games are won by the skin of the teeth. Just check the results sometimes.
As to Adams vs Zimmerman...any rational person would base it on performance. Is Zimm about to erupt into one of his hot streaks? If so, he plays. The only person that observes that on a daily basis is Davey. Zimm made a play in the field yesterday that Adams wouldn't make. (He's not a great 1st basemen.) The only reason either player is in the league is because of their bat. And history says Zimm is the better hitter. Has his time passed. That's Davey's call to make and no one on this board KNOWS better than him.
@Anonymous - good call on the Zim play in the field - IIRC, it was a nice play on a scalding grounder he actually caught almost behind him. Zim might not have range anymore, but he was a gold glover, and his leather work is still excellent. Not sure his defensive rankings take that into account.
I remember watching my dad, who was once a minor leaguer, play senior league ball till he was almost eighty in a league whose age range began, I think, at 60, and which featured a lot of ex-college and ex-minor league players. The guys' legs were gone, but if they could get to a ball, they made the plays. Guess you don't lose that part of your game.
Nobody will read this, because I've joined this thread so late, but...
"Yes, the pitching coach has a ton of input, which is why it was so idiotic to let Mike Maddux go."
I paid a lot of attention when Maddux left. I don't think the Nats let him go. I got the sense Maddux was leaving. The Nats wanted him to stay. But he wanted out. Maybe he thought a new manager would replace him? Maybe he's always wanted to see St. Louis? I don't know. But he signed awfully quick with St. Louis.
Post a Comment