I do think he is loyal to a fault. Maybe loyal to a fault isn't the right words as much as stubborn. He wants Lidge to succeed so bad that I feel he was not looking objectively at the situation in Spring Training. Taking him out after 2 games tells me he didn't really have confidence in him before the season started and he threw him out there anyway. I realize what he says his rationale was, but I believe there is more to it than that. I will definitely give him credit though for making the move and opening himself up to this criticism. I was worried his "hope" of Lidge doing well would carry Lidge as the closer for at least a month of poor performance and I was completely wrong. It took guts for Garner to make this move after emphatically stating that Lidge was his closer after that first game. That is being a leader and doing whats needed for the team. Hopefully Lidge will perform well as a late inning guy and can earn that closers role back.
yeah, we have much more vested in his career than he does!! geez!!! how selfish of him to think only of himself!!
One of the most annoying things about sports fans in general (and I'm sure Major will find a quote from me contradicting myself here ) is the sense of entitlement a lot of us seem to have. Sure, these are grown men being paid to play a kids game. It's still their careers and livelihoods.
I don't know about you guys but shoudn't he be pissed for having a 16.20 ERA? How Brad you get better at not giving up runs and maybe you will get your job back.. Wow what a concept not giving up runs....
Major, thanks for the article. I was aware of those quotes already. The latest quotes from Brad *are* out of character from what he's said his entire career, and out of character from the quotes you posted above. I hope the out-of-character quotes were taken out of context.
I agree they're diff from his usual. But people tend to say stuff like that when they eventually get pissed enough. I agree w/DD...he needs to show some fire and quit just agreeing with everything management and the media says. I think it's a good thing. Did anyone listen to Ausmus? I saw a video link on ESPN that said he thought Lidge's mechanics were still off. Didn't Nolan supposedly fix that?
Well, here's what Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus has to say about the Lidge demotion. Kinda sounds like he's not aware of what Brad did last year : http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6091 Prospectus Today Blowing the Lidge Off Your Own Pen by Joe Sheehan One of the things you’ll become tired of reading from me over the next two months is how it’s important to not overreact to a week, a month, even two months of games. Baseball is harder than that. It is possible for players and teams to do things over 50 or 60 games that do not reflect the underlying talent, things that fool us into thinking we know something we don’t. Look at the standings on June 1 the last two seasons; there’s a lot of misinformation there. It’s more important for the teams themselves to not make the same mistake, of course, and to avoid doling out playing time according to some guy’s hot streak or some other player’s slump. If a guy like me overreacts, he puts bad analysis into the world; if someone in charge of a lineup or a rotation does, he’s messing with a $150 million business, potentially costing his employer tens of millions in revenue. This is my long way of saying that I’m not sure if Phil Garner knows what he’s doing. I get that Brad Lidge looked bad on Sunday afternoon, coughing up three hits and a pair of walks in a mop-up situation. At the same time, I’m reasonably sure that Lidge is the first closer to ever lose his job following a bad outing in a game that his team was losing 5-1 when he walked to the mound. The people who believe in the power of the scarlet "C" are fond of talking about how a true closer doesn’t pitch as well when used outside of his protected role. If this is true, how can you demote Lidge based on his get-some-work appearance? So maybe it wasn’t just Sunday’s outing. The sum total of Lidge’s season prior to that was a blown save on Opening Day, in a game in which he looked all right for two hitters before giving up a first-pitch homer to Xavier Nady on a fastball that wasn’t that bad (it was in the lower middle of the plate). Lidge allowed a double and a walk before getting out of that inning. He didn’t pitch for five days after that, then pitched poorly Sunday, then landed out of a job. If you’re going to make a change based on that sequence—an unspectacular blown save, five days off, a bad mop-up outing—why did you bother leaving Florida with Lidge as your closer? You knew essentially nothing more about Brad Lidge this Monday morning than you did on the last one. What’s the motivation for the change? Lidge pitched poorly in spring training, not enough to lose his job, but just enough to make him almost lose his job? So Garner opened his season with his closer essentially on probation, based on…practice?!? This is panic, and misplaced panic at that. The Astros had five losses when Phil Garner made this decision. One of them was arguably attributable to Lidge (who, it should be noted, left with the game tied); the other four were all about the team’s lousy hitters, a group that scored 16 runs and put up a .283 OBP in the season’s first week. Craig Biggio played worse than Lidge did and kept his job; so did Chris Burke. Demoting Brad Lidge was a reaction to the Astros’ inability to score, a tantrum, kicking the dog because you had a bad day at work. Lidge lost his job because his teammates didn’t hit for a week. Is it the right move, anyway? Dan Wheeler isn’t a bad pitcher, an agate-type pickup from 2004 who has given the Astros two very strong seasons as Lidge’s set-up man and occasional replacement. He has the peripheral stats you like in a closer, nearly a strikeout per inning and nearly a 4:1 K/BB ratio (after intentional walks are pulled out of the equation) the last two seasons. For a guy who throws about half his innings at Minute Maid Park, allowing just 12 home runs in 144 2/3 innings the past two seasons is very impressive. That’s his biggest edge on Lidge. Wheeler isn’t a bad pitcher. You can make an argument that he’s better than Lidge right now, and as such, that he's more deserving of the perceived highest-leverage role. The problem is the process; Wheeler and Lidge are the same pitchers they were ten days ago. Flipping their roles wasn’t decision making, it was reaction. It’s the wrong way to run the team. Garner has said that the role change is temporary, which makes the whole thing look even sillier; you’re going to temporarily demote someone based on the available information? The postscript is the best part. Yesterday, Wheeler got knocked around a bit by the Cubs, turning a 4-0 game when he entered into a 4-2 game in short order. With two outs and two on, Wheeler got a good look at how Garner is handling things: Lidge was warming up in the bullpen. Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Joe by clicking here or click here to see Joe's other articles.
That's stupid by Sheehan. Taking Garner's words out of context. He said it might be temporary assuming Lidge can earn the spot back. This idiot is saying that Garner said it's temporary no matter what. On top of this guy writing a dumb article that doesn't consider the past 1 year in any way, shape, or form. He doesn't mention that Wheels took over last year for a while. Ugh
Not only that, but it doesn't consider the fact that if Lidge is struggling with pressure, that pressure is increased in a situation where your team is 1-5, and thus it may cause Lidge to overthrow even more or whatnot and excerbate the problem. I fully agree with the line of logic that if Lidge had performed the same but the team were 5-1 or 4-2 at the time, no change would have been made. And I don't see a problem with that.
Ok, lets take one quote from a long interview out of context and use it to bash someone, not that he dosnt take enough crap already... I see this as the turning point in Lidge's career. He can get his stuff together and become dominant again, or he can become a mediocre middle reliever who implodes and does not live up to his potential. He has the abillity to be great, time for him to show it.
So you would consider a 5-0 deficit (it was 5-0, not 5-1, we scored our one run in the bottom of the 9th) more pressure packed then a 1 run lead? What planet are you on?
Not only does he have the ability to be great; he's already done so. He's already shown it. 2004 and 2005 were amazing. Here's hoping he finds it again.
No, I would consider one game to be a small sample size. Or two games. The decision would have made looking forward based on what Garner knows about Lidge and how he reacts to things and what his mental state is, not based on looking at that one game.
