Larry Dierker is better than Bob Brenly

And why he kept going to Kim as his closer boggles my mind. I mean it was obvious that the dude was rattled after the Jeter bomb in Game 5.

 

He's made 4 huge mistakes in this series, IMO.

1. Pulling Schilling in game 4.

2. Letting Kim throw 62 pitches in game 4.

3. Putting in a reliever who threw 62 pitches the night before, never mind the mental disadvantage after the night before.

4. Not pinch hitting for Schilling tonight.

Had he not done 1 of those things, save the last one, the Diamondbacks would've ended the Yankees reign atop the league (or should I say, atop the richest 10 teams).

 

No help from him...woulda won it in 5 if not for that dumbass.

 

DOWN WITH THE YANKS!

RANDY JOHNSON IS GOD! MVP MVP MVP!

THE MYSTIQUE IS BROKEN!

 

Let's play question the World Series winning manager. Better yet, let's compare him to a manager who's never won a single playoff series. Alrighty...

 

Amazing how the guy made a ton of great moves, he makes a few mistakes and the guy is an idiot. Idiots don't take an offensively challenged team and beat a dynasty for a world championship. Houston is a much more rounded and balanced team then Arizona and hasn't done jack squat. They have a better record then Arizona, yet Arizona wins the championship. If Dierker was the better manager, why is he sitting at home without a job while Brenly is celebrating a championship. You act like this is a talent laden team, this team has freaking Reggie Sanders, an aging Matt Williams, Counsel, Kim and MIKE MORGAN on their team! Their bullpen is bad. By the way Cat, Arizona had the 2 best pitchers in baseball last year, not only did they not make the playoffs, I think they finished 3rd or 4th, so give the guy some credit. If it was just about having dominant pitchers, Atlanta would make the World Series every year, and New York would have won another championship. Seattle was the most balanced team in baseball, and New York steamrolled them, yet Arizona beat them. Brenly is a pretty good manager.

 

I've always liked the adage that Managers can't win games, but they sure as hell can lose them.

Managers, at their best, do exactly what they're supposed to. In fact, I think in baseball (not basketball/football/soccer, etc) almost any idiot could manage a team for a day during the game and do just about as well as most managers.

To me, the key to being a successful manager is all about making the clubhouse a good place to be, identifying problems with players, and delegating authority to good coaches, etc. Roster decisions are also important.

At game time, the manager just has to avoid screwing up. Brenly screwed up a little too much for my taste.

That's the good thing about Joe Torre. He seldom makes does anything stupid.

 

Brenly started an amazing number of secondary players who came through with clutch hits throughout the playoffs and world series. If we're going to criticize managers for starting young players / rookies / odd-choices (ie, Lugo), then we have to give a manager credit when those moves work out.

It's silly to say managers can only make mistakes. If it were that easy, there are a ton of people who can make the "textbook" move each time. The problem is that "good moves" get credited to good plays by the players while "bad moves" get blamed on the manager. Who keeps track of all the bunts, hit & runs, run & hits, defensive alignments, pitchouts, etc that can make or break a team? I certainly don't, but they all contribute to winning & losing.

Brenly & his team won a world series -- that's all that matters. The fact that he did it with an offensively inept team (they scored 13 runs in their first 7 postseason games) and no real bullpen to speak of against a team that was on an amazing run makes it that much more spectacular.

 

No, we criticized Dierker for starting players when we felt it was obvious that they weren't getting the job done, not just because they were no names.

He had nothing to do with the fact that Schilling and Johnson are amazing pitchers. The Astros can't score in the playoffs, but they didn't have the luxury of having Schilling and Johnson this year.

His team won a world series -- despite him doing his best to give it to the Yankees.

 

The "text book" move is such because it pays off more often than not. Other moves are labelled brilliant if they pay off, and lousy if they don't. I prefer to think they're mostly lousy, given the fact that the odds are against them. There's nothing more annoying than an annoucer who tells the tv audience how horrible a move is... until it pays off. The truth is, that bad moves pay off sometimes... that doesn't make them good retroactively.

I was watching the Saints game, not the World Series tonight, and Jim Haslett decided to accept a 5 yard penalty after the Jets failed to convert a 3rd and 7. The Jets were in easy field goal range in either case, so I thought it was r****ded to exchange a down for 5 yards when they were only down by 4. Well, after an off-sides penalty, the 5 yards were revoked. But the Jets missed the FG eventually anyway. The announcers said Haslett made the right call. No he didn't... he was lucky (and I even like Haslett, generally).

I don't think Brenly necessarily gets credit for playing who he did; it's not like there was a lot of choice in the matter, as far as I could tell.

I've said it once, I'll say it again... everything is recorded in baseball. From the first pitch to the last, and everything in between. You can quantify any given situation, and probably find thousands others exactly like it that took place before. What paid off more than anything else over the course of the past situations? Well, that's what the manager should probably do.

Who knows? It could be that I'm wrong, and certain people have a miraculous ability to shake their crystal balls, take a quick glimpse at the clouds, look deep intoe their players eyes, and put in that PH who's only hitting .198, but the manager just has a "feeling" about them. That could be true. But I rather doubt it.

I'd rather have someone who doesnt' screw up than a live-by-the-gut, shake up the roster type of manager anyway.

Which is why I despise Jimy Williams.

 

Well if it's that simple then why didn't you just call it before the playoffs. DBacks are going to take the Series because they have two of the best pitchers ever... just like last year when they didn't even make the playoffs under Bucky Schowalter. BTW, Clemens and Maddux both have more Cy Youngs by themselves than Randy and Schilling combined so there are some pretty damn good pitchers out there not named Johnson and Schilling.

With the exception of 1997, Dierker has never been at a talent disadvantage in the playoffs. Let's not forget the Astros, despite all of the injuries, actually had a better regular season record than the World Series champs.

 

<B>He had nothing to do with the fact that Schilling and Johnson are amazing pitchers. The Astros can't score in the playoffs, but they didn't have the luxury of having Schilling and Johnson this year. </B>

OK, so to you, what makes a good manager? If everything good is player-based, then how does a manager become "not bad"? Every manager will make non-normal calls. Some eventually won't work out, so it seems to me that makes them all "bad managers" according to you guys.

Of all the managers out there, who do you think is a good one?

<B>Who knows? It could be that I'm wrong, and certain people have a miraculous ability to shake their crystal balls, take a quick glimpse at the clouds, look deep intoe their players eyes, and put in that PH who's only hitting .198, but the manager just has a "feeling" about them. That could be true. But I rather doubt it. </B>

I simply don't believe baseball is all about statistics. Statistics break down overall situations, but every situation is unique, every batter/pitcher combination is different, and every play can be broken down far more than any recorded stat. Stats don't tell us whether a particular pitcher was ignoring runners on a given night, leading to a likelier possibility of a stolen base. Stats don't tell us whether a particular pitcher is leaving his pitches high creating a good situation for a high-ball hitting. Stats don't tell us whether a pitcher is ripe for a hit & run because his breaking ball isn't breaking quite so much making contact more likely. Stats provide general trends. The nuances of specific situations can only be analyzed by people smarter than me, and that's the job of the manager.

I refuse to believe it was random luck that two nights in a row, on the biggest stage in baseball, the Yankees hit two-out, two-run game-saving home runs. There's simply more to baseball than luck and stats, in my opinion.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the DBacks get credit for <b>playing</b> the Yankees, but for <b>beating</b> them.

 

And is there some mandate that Jeter suck before hitting that home run? Jeter was actually atrocious in that series, something like 4/27.

Is he "clutch" and magical because he managed that homerun? or did he get dominated because he hit under .200.

And yes, Curt Schilling and RJ had something to do with that. But the Yankees didn't exactly jump all over the other Arizona pitchers. And Kim ain't exactly a bad pitcher himself.

You don't have to be "clutch" if you take care of business in the 4th inning.

 

Rocksmill,

I agree that arizonas bullpen is weak, but byung hyun kim isnt, he is flat out nasty in terms of stuff, he just had a bad series.

Anyways, im sooo happy


ARIZONA(GONZO,FINLEY,RJ,CURT) WINS THE SERIES

THE WE BUY OUR CHAMPIONSHIP YANKEES GET A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE.

AND NOW MAYBE NOW, THE MEDIA WILL STOP KISSING JETERS *** AND RIVERAS POSTSEASON CLOSER MYTH CRAP IS OVER!!!!!!!

Great Night, thats all i have to say