CHRIS

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Baby steps.

The concept of outfield depth is entirely on AA. Obviously it's tough to predict the Saunders injury, but handing the starting CF job to Pompey only to send him down after 20 games is very poor roster management. It could very well have been even worse had Pillar not emerged as much as he has. I think everybody appreciates some of the big hits that Colabello has produced this season, but sending him (or Valencia or Goins) out to play LF is entirely a roster construction issue.

More likely they were there hopeful of a Chapman appearance. The bullpen session they scouted a few years ago when they decided not to sign him is probably out of date according to their computer system. Probably need to a see an inning or two live before making any trade offers.

Jeezus Donaldson.

Rib fest?

Just heard the Davidi stuff: "If you don't trust your SS to catch the ball in the 9th inning, you don't trust him to catch it in the 1st inning". Yeesh.

Wouldn't the selected sample be more relevant since it's all in his most recent outings (i.e., that 42% isn't spread out as peaks and valleys through the season, but all comes after his early season struggles)? Seems like it's more relevant that picking a random 42% sample from April 26th to May 29th, for example. For me, it all comes back to poor roster construction. This has got to be the weirdest 'all-in' team ever put together. Beginning the season with Pompey, Sanchez, Norris, Osuana, Castro, Travis, Pillar all being handed roster positions screams rebuilding, except for the large collection of players making huge money and playing in their late prime or twilight of their careers.

Wow. That's great, thanks. I just assumed they'd be blacked out.

Quick MLB.TV question; does the premium subscription allow you to watch in-market games live?

Me too. The Marlins deal was risky. The Mets deal was reckless.

I think the main difference between the two (in general) is that with FIP-to-ERA for an individual pitcher, you're isolating, for the most part, a single variable, whereas RD is looking at the 25 man roster which obviously has more moving parts. I would imagine that trying to correct an individual performance so that ERA trends positively toward a FIP value is easier to do than to have a strong RD trend towards a better W/L record. While I think you're correct that having a mediocre W/L record doesn't mean we aren't a good team, I also think that having a good RD doesn't necessarily mean we have a good team; at least good enough from the perspective of contending.

Of course it matters, it's just that the end goal of this team isn't to have the best run differential in the league, it's to have the best W/L record. The key is to identify the reason why the two aren't lining up, and take the necessary steps to try and address the areas that need addressing. If nothing else, the run differential helps us to identify what needs to be addressed.

Until Cecil can find the strike zone with his off-speed stuff, I think he's going to continue to struggle. I'd move him down the line a bit and see if he can regain some confidence. Probably move Delabar into the closer role in the meantime.

That's really my only main complaint with Gibbons as well. I will be interested to see who gets the next save situation. Historically I think Gibbons has done a good job of rotating guys through that role, going back to the days when he guys like Speier and Downs on the team. I think yesterday was a chance to see if Cecil would right himself, and since he didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if he went with Delabar for a bit. The roster construction has always been the bigger beef with me.

Can Putin stick?

Toadally unacceptable journalism. Someone should take that paper and ribbit up out of protest.

This is what this organization seems to do.

I think most people are fine with the fact that he's hitting well at the moment. The problem with not investigating why he's doing as well as he has is that it may impact decision making down the road when regression catches up to him. Pillar is a classic example. Hot(ish) start, dazzling plays in the field. He's probably our starting CF for the next 3-4 years as a result.

Going with Schultz is a real puzzler.

How on earth can we consider firing this guy?

GAK! I read the comments!

To be honest, I'm not sure how fair of an opportunity he's had. Maybe his time is up; I'm not trying to suggest that firing him is absolutely the wrong move, but I would like to see him manage a team where his general manager doesn't go into a slumber 20 men into the roster construction process. I'd like to see him manage a team that has some semblance of depth to it.

I would imagine it's the opposite, as formulae generally require the input of tangible, quantifiable parameters in order to work. That said, I've worked under both good and bad managers, and I do believe different people in the same role can make a difference to outcome, to a certain extent. However, there isn't a manager in the game who can be given an outfield rotation of Pillar, Carrerra, Goins, Valencia and Colabello and produce a collective that excels both offensively and defensively. There isn't a manager in the game who can step in and make Dickey excellent again. I believe that there is a possibility that someone could be brought in who may be able to do a better job of motivating, or a better job of holding players accountable for poor execution, or , but I also acknowledge that any gains in this area may well be negated by someone who knows less about platoon advantages, or is more careless with outs. In my opinion, targeting Gibbons as step 1 in righting the ship only delays the inevitability; the realization that this team isn't deep enough outside of a core of 8-10 guys or so to maintain the kind of consistency required to go on a run that makes this team relevant.

I think that's what a lot of people are hoping for, but we don't really know this. I think pretty much every team thinks their manager is terrible. In my opinion, Gibbons is being asked to effectively manage a 25 man roster that has about 19-20 guys who should legitimately be on it, at the position they're being asked to play. That being said, maybe firing Gibbons does provide some sort of: spark/wake up call/etc. The flip-side though is what if the problem with this team is actually that they have a 25 man roster with minimal talent and depth? In that case all we're really doing is going further into the season without addressing the real problem that is plaguing this team.

There are financial considerations as well. If we hire Dusty Baker, the toothpick budget goes through the roof, and we have no money to add a reliever at the deadline.