ashbury

If you hold your best reliever in reserve for the bases-loaded jam, then I agree the first inning may not prove to be the highest leverage. But if you're like most managers and bring in the guy to begin an inning, then again I refer to the chart in my earlier post to suggest that the first inning has the highest leverage on the game outcome.

It's a data point. Maybe deeper analysis could be done, but on the surface it's at least worth knowing.

If the Opener's skills are such that he should keep going, I'd want him to face the top of the lineup twice. I think the whole idea is to keep the nominal starting pitcher from facing the toughest batters 3 times. So sure, if it's May, plan to let him go 3 innings even. Then turn it over to Mejia or Odorizzi or whomever, for some easy outs in the bottom of the lineup and go from there. I'd also ask, if the Opener has a bad first inning, whether it would have been more acceptable to see it occur in the 7th inning instead. Bad outings will happen. Are we more concerned with PR than results?

Hot taeks from success. Now there is a concept I haven't heard in a long time.

The idea of an opener makes sense to me, if it's a really good short man in the role. Did you know that historically more runs have been scored in the first inning than any other? source It's not surprising. The first inning is the only one that managers can set their batting order the way they want. One of the complaints of the now-traditional Closer role is that your excellent short man might be facing the bottom of the lineup, or else may not even get into the game at all for several days at a stretch. The thinking, then, is to put your shut-down guy in the highest leverage situation possible, and deal with the ninth when it comes. Based on the above chart it would be an especially appealing strategy for the visitors. It's an era where complete games are virtually non-existent. Relievers will be appearing in your game. As manager, you have the option when to deploy them, not whether. A secondary decision is whether to go through the lineup completely before bringing the more-durable starter into the game. My feeling is that it's OK for your erstwhile starter to face the lower portion of the lineup 3 times, so bring him in for the start of the second inning to face batter #4 or lower, and then decide what to do when the top of the lineup comes up against him for the third time, based on how he's going. Plus maybe that lets you use your Opener more often during a season. Anyway, it needs to be a shut-down guy, or else the strategy is no good. I'm not sure we have that guy at present. May is a reasonable candidate, but it sure didn't work out that way. If what you have is Moya, Hildenberger or Rogers, I wouldn't expect great results, because I don't see any of those as candidates to be Closer either - on a seriously contending team these are all middle-innings guys. I know Hildy has had some success as closer lately, but I'd expect him to be badly exposed as an Opener, more quickly than as Closer.

The number of farm clubs has little to do with the number of genuine prospects. The ones who look good just get spread around differently.

Ben received Honorable Mention for the TD Minor League Hitter of the Month award, for his August body of work. In 61 plate appearances he batted .286, with 4 walks to go along with 5 doubles, a triple, and a homer, leading to a tidy .809 OPS. He struck out only 6 times in that span.

Yeah, I keep cautioning Mrs Ash - who gets a little excited when a new "hero" like Stormy Daniels or Michael Avenatti or Omarosa or Michael Cohen emerges and starts looking like "the one" who will bring down Trump - none of these people are doing anything except what they perceive to be in their own self-interest. Assume they are skunks too, given their willing assocation with Trump or his associates, and you won't be too far off. Certainly, appreciate what truths come out. But no one except the House of Representatives, and then the Senate, can get us out of this fascist predicament before 2020. Fellow fascists like Sessions do their things for their own reasons.

Concur. He still has a chance to remake his game, trade something in terms of movement for better command, perhaps disguise his pitches better, and still have a career as a major league starter. He is young enough.

Five-run lead, bases loaded. That has the tying run on-deck.

Wouldn't be Rule 5. Waiver claim after an attempt to designate and assign outright.

Catchers doing synchronized popup drills is also fun, if a bit chaotic with all the "I Got It"s. http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/10twin021413.jpg

Which could go to someone else, probably a reliever, for evaluation purposes instead. Maybe that's not needed. We shall see.

I was thinking more about 40-man space than room on the bench. Probably he won't hurt anything in that regard, but just one less name to worry about.

Make him an offer to coach starting in September, instead of taking a roster spot for the same end-purpose. All game experience needs to go to Garver and Astudillo.

Bring him up as a coach.

I think you have a few days when someone is traded to you - he lives in DFA-limbo land in the interim. Sept 1 will mean no major league roster shuffling will be needed.

The same site that gave mistaken rules about the players' league levels also states that each team "is required to provide six players". I guess that can be interpreted to mean "no fewer than", although if all 5 organizations feeding one team provide 8, does that cause problems of getting each player enough work? http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/winterleagues/about/?league=119&id=player_elig Maybe the actual rules are nothing like this.

An extra year of control affects the nature of that extension, which in turn has a trickle down effect on other financial decisions made concerning the roster at that time. But, as I said, I'm not inclined to play such transparent games in this situation. / ninja'd - great minds think alike, and fools rarely differ.

Joe's no-trade situation means that you can't plan the way you usually would: go with a passable veteran and then deal with any good news that comes from a prospect beating the door down, making him expendable. He is No-trade in a couple of ways: his contractual status (which could conceivably be negotiated), but also the negative PR.

Carefully.

This is a poor choice for a slogan, given that Brian Dozier was recently traded. / so is this post

Unless Stewart was cooked by that point. I wasn't paying close enough attention to demeanor and radar gun numbers to say one way or the other, if that was the rationale to take him out.

Good catch. The box score shows it correctly. Jose Martinez got it in relief.

There was also a soccer player named Horace Cope but as far as I can tell he wasn't into Astrology.