This road trip has all the makings of a 3-3 trip.

Which could vault the Dodgers into second!

Actually, it wouldn't since the Dodgers are four games behind the two teams in first. But I won't let mathematics get in the way of a funny line.

Assuming we don't have a joint-forfeit situation and they actually play the games, I'll be RFK tomorrow and wednesday night, hands over my eyes. So far, the Dodgers are 1-0 this season when I'm in attendance. mlb.com says I'll see Weaver and DJ Houlton. But Wash Post has this: "The struggling Dodgers, probably more banged-up than the Nationals have been this year, come for three games and will pitch their top two starters, Brad Penny, left, and Derek Lowe, in the series." Anyone know who's right?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8788603/

"Unfortunately, I wasn't able to explain to the arbitrator how the banned substance entered my body."

"If my situation results in the education of current and future players about the dangers of taking anything without a prescription from a licensed physician -- that is a positive."

And I'm not happy with McClendon, who pitched Duke on short rest (he pitched 2 innings before a rain delay) so he will face us and not the Padres

Oh wait, they just did that.

One of my health teachers during undergrad used to tell people that he could be a millionare if he only could look past his morals. He was primarily referring to throwing anything in a bottle, calling it a supplement, and selling to naive kids.

I have a working theory that JT is just a rank pessimist. He manages in such a way as to make the WORST possible outcome less likely. That's what all the bunting is about, anyway. Maybe with the team full of AAA players that made a little sense. But when you've got Bradley/Kent/Saenz/Ledee coming up with no outs and men on base, let the guys hit! LaRussa does the same thing - he just has more weapons throughout the team.

Anyway, I'd like to echo the sentiments of those who find DT a stimulating refuge. I hope it stays that way. After reading Jon's post about yesterday's apparent flame-fest, I considered staying away. But I think I'm addicted, and I'll try to be part of the solution.

Is this the ideal lineup right now?

1. Perez 3B
2. Izturis SS
3. Bradley CF
4. Kent 2B
5. Saenz 1B
6. Ledee RF
7. Valentin LF
8. Navarro C

Had the 3 guys involved been, say, Repko, Edwards, and Saenz, then "wasting" Repko and Edwards in teh way he wasted Bradley and Kent wouldn't have been as dumb. But it seemed obvious to me that Bradley should have been allowed to hit, which, in turn, would have given Kent a chance.

Stats from "DePodesta For President":
Last Two Months
Choi: .233/.318/.475 .793 OPS
Saenz: .252/.315/.420 .735 OPS

Last Month
Choi: .277/.382/.426 .808 OPS
Saenz: .250/.304/.481 .785 OPS

starts per week with that lineup:

Phillips: 2
Choi: 1
Repko: 2
Robles: 1
Edwards and Robles

I'm looking to get my hands on a copy of yesterday's game. Does anyone have it TiVOed, and willing to make a VHS copy of it?

I'd be happy to reimburse the cost of the tape or give you a new one.

Email me at telemachos712 (at) yahoo (dot) com.

I do. It's not about Bradley. It's about knowingly and willingly allowing the other team to not have to face Jeff Kent who just happens to be the ML leader in Batting with RISP. He took the bat right out of his hands while also saying without saying, Bradley won't get it done and yeah he has grounded into two DP's all year, but here comes number 3.

It's about managing out of fear of the worst case sceniaro. Thats the wrong message to send IMO

I'll ask it this way, same situation but move it up one slot in the lineup. 0 outs, runners and first and second, saenz and valentin on deck, Kent is up to bat. Do u make him bunt? Of course not.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3852882

Why was Tracy worried Bradley would hit into a double play but not worried that Saenz would hit into one, when Saenz hits into them more frequently.

Just stating what could've been the logic, not that I support it.

Allowing Bradley to swing there sounds like you are playing for more than one run, when only one is needed.

I don't totally disagree with this: (although, given how money kent has been with RISP i sorta do)

Id rather have saenz up with a runner on 3rd than kent up with a runner on 2nd.

But to get Olmedo up with a runner at third meant KNOWING (as trace admits) that means also runners at 1b and 2b...hence "the issue" that many of us have.

Again, I doubt he asks Kent to bunt if Bradley is on deck with Olmedo and Jose in the hole.

But a hit wins.

Anyone have any ideas on how they'd begin to do something like that?

If I'm a manager, I think I'd run all over a kid just called up from AAA, just to make him prove that he can do the job at the highest level. I guess I just don't really understand La Russa not testing Navarro ... is his reputation so good that making him prove himself is too risky?

I then amended that to say "maybe...MAYBE...if there was a runner on 2nd, no outs, tie game, last of an inning (a 'walk off' situation)."

What's more likely to happen - Bradley or Kent getting a base hit, or Saenz hitting a "productive out" anywhere in the field of play with the infield and outfield's in emergency mode?

I'm not saying I completely agree with it, just that it isn't completely unfathomable to make that call.

But again, if it was kent up with runners on 1b/2b no outs, what do u think Kent would have done with that Bunt sign?

And also how often the bunt attempt is successful.

We might have one of the lower pct in the league.

So you agree?

I've seen Milton bunt before, he doesn't seem completely incompetent. He used to bat leadoff frequently for Cleveland, so I'm sure he's familiar with the skill.

Kent, not so sure. He doesn't look like he's done much bunting in his career.

anyways best lineup possible:
ss robles
3b perez
cf bradley
2b kent
rf ledee
1b saenz/choi
lf valentin
c navarro

What JT did was give our #5 hitter a chance to hit with runners at 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. While this MIGHT maximize the opportunity to score on ONE opportunity, the chance that it's better than having at least TWO opportunities to score (with better hitters) is pretty low.

we dont have to trade him. fine we can play him, but pleaseee, not at the top of the order.

which is great if it was true. what happened was it put the 2nd slowest guy on our team up with the bases loaded and 1 out.

And its not like it was Weaver ending up having to hit or something.

1st-2nd-0outs the expected runs scored is 1.5 but the probability of scoring is 63.6%.

2nd-3rd-1out the expected runs scored is 1.4, but the probability of scoring is 68.6%

Bases Loaded 1out the expected runs scored is 1.57, but the probability of scoring is 67.8%

What is obvious is that early in the game with 3-4-5 coming up you don't bunt and play for the most runs you can get... Bottom 9th of a tie game however you improve your chances to score by bunting.

I don't like Tracy much but statistically he did the "right thing."

That said when discussing the "right thing" the expected runs tables don't consider GiDP% for the hitters in these situations. And 4-5% difference is fairly small, and I would have been inclined to give Milton (who has decent speed) the benefit of the doubt.

Yesterday we took the bat out of our 3 best hitters (Perez, Bradley, and Kent).

My guess is that he would not, even though it would seem to be a better opportunity to score because Milton's low GiDP%.

We'll never know what Tracy would do, but I'm inclined to think that Tracy bases many decisions on which players have currently earned his favorite status and been dubbed "Proffessional Hitters", thus Olmedo would not have bunted.

Another interesting question we can't answer but can definitely speculate about is whether Tracy would have asked Phillips to bunt. Just thinking about the answer to that one makes me sick though.

Putting the game-winning run at 3rd base with less than two outs and one of your most productive hitters at the plate can't be such a bad idea.

If Tracy felt confident that Milton could successfully bunt them over, its not a bad play.

Not sure how you can so emphatically state that there are "better ideas" out there. Tracy managed to get his team to within a boring medium flyball away from victory, with one of his best hitters at the plate.

If he retires is his salary for next year guaranteed?

And yes, I do believe that he knew that Kent would be walked, giving Saenz a crack at the game. Not sure I would've managed it that way, but I don't chalk this up to one of the things that should get him canned.

I get your point, but let me pick another nit. Vinny yesterday said something similar about Kent. He noted that JK leads the team in GiDPs, but that that was partly because, batting 4th, he "usually" comes up with runners on, and "the majority of the time" he drives them in. We all have the same impression that Vinny was trying to express - namely, that Kent is clutch. But "usually," and "the majority of the time" were of course hyperbole. Kent's BA with RISP sure ain't higher than .500. Kent has now had 88 ABs with RISP, 180 with the bases empty.

I don't just bring this up to be anal. It's also because we need to keep reminding ourselves that even the best hitters usually fail. Only Bonds gets on half the time, and that's more often by BB than by hit.

So I guess the argument against having Bradley bunt was that it gave us only 1-2 chances for success, instead of 2-3.

Runners on: .333/.407/.544, 180 ABs
RISP: .409/.500/.607, 88 ABs

Wow.

The percentages showed that OTHER THINGS EQUAL, the probability of one run goes up a smidge doing what Tracy did. But given the hitters (or, as it happens, non-hitters) involved, other things were not equal. I'm sure that if one cared enough, one could plug in the individual numbers of Bradley, Kent, and Saenz (and even Navarro, who would have batted had Saenz made only one unproductive out), and found that the sacrifice was, in net, a bad idea.

db, you're right to suggest that it was a close call, and one that we might let the manager have the benefit of the doubt to make. I think what was so infuriating was that JT's choice was 100% predictable, as though no thought was required.