Dusty vs. Bobby Cox

by Rotodaddy on Feb 24, 2006 5:24 AM CST

This says it all.

Mike Remlinger - R - Braves

Needing something to help him neutralized left-handers, Mike Remlinger is working on a curveball.
Remlinger's No. 2 pitch has been his changeup, something that's far more effective versus lefties than righties. As a result, he's never been a specialist. The Braves will probably only carry him if he shows he can handle lefties. "We always used him against righties," manager Bobby Cox said. "If the curve is going, we can do anything [with him]." Feb. 24 - 1:04 am et
Source: Braves.mlb.com

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

How does that say it all?

Cox said they always used him against righties, which is exactly what Baker did. The only difference was the quality of Remlinger's stuff when he was a Brave compared to when he was a Cub.

by Maddog on Feb 24, 2006 10:30 AM CST reply actions

No, you have it backwards...

... Baker used him as a LOOGY, vs. lefties -- the exact split that was wrong for him. Cox had it right, using him vs. righties.

by Al Yellon on Feb 24, 2006 10:32 AM CST up reply actions

My apologies.

I got it mixed up in my head.

by Maddog on Feb 24, 2006 11:11 AM CST up reply actions

To be fair...

...Derek Smart, over at Cub Town, wrote on this today and discovered (to his shock) that Dusty didn't misuse Remmy nearly as much as we thought. I was surprised...goes to show what analysis can do.

by dr johnson on Feb 24, 2006 10:36 AM CST reply actions

though, to be fair

what the eminently readable mr smart found was that cox had him facing 70% rh, whereas dusty managed only 62%. why that toothpick-sucking imbecile found it a good idea to expand his workload against lefties is beyond me -- though one can be sure that it does back to his need to rely on stereotypes (gosh, it sure is hot out here...) to place supposed mythology where actual knowledge is lacking.

by gaius marius on Feb 24, 2006 12:49 PM CST up reply actions

No argument here...

"toothpick-sucking imbecile" who has managed with "mythology where actual knowledge is lacking." Remember his sacreligious use of holy water before last season, sprinkling it around the mound to ward off bad mojo? I think God punished Dusty and the Cubs in '05 for that nonsense alone.

by dr johnson on Feb 24, 2006 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

god hates no man

but surely sees fit to punish folly. :)

by gaius marius on Feb 24, 2006 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

lol

I like it.

by Perkins on Feb 24, 2006 1:39 PM CST up reply actions

Back in 2004

it became obvious to most fans that Rem was a poor bet against LH hitters. The previous year they hit .272 versus him compared to his BAA versus RH of .177.

Here's what happened in 2004 when we were in a chase for the wild card. Baker had him face 69 RH and 65 LH. They batted .188 and .308 respectively against Remlinger. The question many were asking is why would a manager put a pitcher with such severe splits in situations that adversely affected the team. It was just another of Dusty's seeming ignorance when he always proclaimed his understanding of how to get the most out of his team.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Feb 24, 2006 3:40 PM CST up reply actions

the question

is then who did we have that was a quality reliever who had great success against LHB? It's easy to go back and quote stats without understanding the whole situation.

Fact is we had no one worth a crap in the bullpen.

by socalbob on Feb 27, 2006 8:15 PM CST up reply actions

actually, in 2004...

mercker was awfully good vs left hand hitters.
26/9 k/bb and 1.21 whip. i cannot remeber if he was healthy all year; he only ended up pitching 55 'ish innings.

by dc60123 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 27, 2006 9:24 PM CST up reply actions

not really

Mercker was better than Rem. He was excellent vs. RH much like Rem. Most times Mercker had already come in (6th or 7th inning guy). I should change my statement that we had another reliver outside of Hawk and Rem who were above average in Mercker.

He was .240/.312/.396 (.708 OPS). He had an outstanding .541 OPS vs. RH.

by socalbob on Feb 28, 2006 11:14 AM CST up reply actions

so cal...

"not really" healthy or "not really" effective?
i thought all mercker's value was vs lefties, and right hand hitters did him all the damage. but going from memory now; may be wrong.

by dc60123 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 28, 2006 1:17 PM CST up reply actions

re:

Mercker was not really all that dominant vs. LH. We didn't have a shut down lefty out of the pen.

I do ammend that we had "crap" outside of Rem and Hawk. Mercker had a good year for us.

The problem everyone misses in using this crticism of Dusty's tactics is he used "the best pitcher available" to win the game because a lack of bullpen depth and quality. Rem was one of the 2 best we had coming out of the pen.

by socalbob on Feb 28, 2006 2:26 PM CST up reply actions

gotcha...thanks.

although you appear to have more faith in dusty than i do that he would have used remlinger "properly" (according to his greater effectiveness vs rightys than leftys). but that page has been turned; onward and upward with eyre and howry. and a (hopefully) improved wuertz and ohman.

by dc60123 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 28, 2006 2:41 PM CST up reply actions

yep

I do have faith. He's won everywhere he's been. And our re-built bullpen ought to be better and the guy are the more traditional LH and RH rather than the reverse-type (LHP doing better vs. RHB) like Remilnger.

by socalbob on Feb 28, 2006 5:11 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know fellas...

despite an obvious failure as a manager here in Chicago, I would say that he is most likely a nice guy who simply differs from your general idea od what good management looks like.

I feel that "toothpick sucking imbecile" is probably a bit harsh. I mean, this country has far bigger problems than the success rate of the Chicago Cubs...IMO there are greater imbeciles to criticize in this day and age.

To each his/her own though...

Hey Norm...if you were a hot dog...would ya eat yourself? -Will Farrell as Harry Caray

by EbbyCalvinNukeLaLoosh on Feb 24, 2006 1:16 PM CST reply actions

Hear Hear

"there are greater imbeciles to criticize in this day and age"

But Al has made it quite clear that this is no place for politics.

I'm sure Dusty is a nice man, and perhaps we are too harsh on the man; but it is not a matter of opinion as to whether or not Dusty ignores facts and plays "hunches" more often than not. Witness the Hawkins/Dempster fiasco or the Neifi/Corey debacle last year as but two examples.

Good management looks like Bobby Cox.

by dr johnson on Feb 24, 2006 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

Wow...twice in one day!

I couldn't have said it better doc...Bobby Cox is far more superior than any other manager in the game IMO.

Hey Norm...if you were a hot dog...would ya eat yourself? -Will Farrell as Harry Caray

by EbbyCalvinNukeLaLoosh on Feb 24, 2006 3:08 PM CST up reply actions

Shocking, ain't it?

by dr johnson on Feb 24, 2006 3:11 PM CST up reply actions

I think

I've seen it all now...actually, if I agreed with Gaius, that would probably seal the deal!

Hey Norm...if you were a hot dog...would ya eat yourself? -Will Farrell as Harry Caray

by EbbyCalvinNukeLaLoosh on Feb 24, 2006 3:15 PM CST up reply actions

Cox is the man

he is the best manager ive seen since i started following the game- and i dont think thats to say Dusty isnt good- but Cox is in a league of his own

KSUCubbie

by ksucubbie on Feb 24, 2006 2:21 PM CST reply actions

I would absolutely agree...

... the fact that he has won consistently for fifteen years, with major roster turnover in Atlanta, is a real credit to him.

Now, let's see how he does it this year without Leo Mazzone there.

by Al Yellon on Feb 24, 2006 4:39 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah you're right Al,

this will be a test for him but I got a feeling that he will still succeed.

Hey Norm...if you were a hot dog...would ya eat yourself? -Will Farrell as Harry Caray

by EbbyCalvinNukeLaLoosh on Feb 24, 2006 5:13 PM CST up reply actions

Cox did pretty well in Toronto, Al

... even though he left Mazzone behind in the Braves minor league system when he took the Blue Jays job.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 24, 2006 5:40 PM CST up reply actions

True...

... he also had great players there. The mid 80's Jays were, if not THE best, ONE of the best teams in baseball. Should have won the '85 pennant.

by Al Yellon on Feb 24, 2006 8:05 PM CST up reply actions

Do tell

Pray remind me who all those great players on the Blue Jays were when Bobby Cox arrived for the 1982 season. I'm afraid they escape my memory at the moment...

by One of Als Pals on Feb 24, 2006 10:02 PM CST up reply actions

How about...

... Jesse Barfield, Lloyd Moseby, Dave Stieb, Jim Clancy... the base on which their division championship team in '85 was built.

The '82 Jays significantly improved on the '81 version, even though they still finished sixth.

Yes, that's credit to Cox, absolutely.

by Al Yellon on Feb 25, 2006 4:20 AM CST up reply actions

None of whom

... considered great players at the time:

Moseby was in the process of hitting .230 with no power in back to back seasons.

Barfield had less than 100 major league at-bats before Cox arrived, in which he hit .230 with no power; Cox made him a platoon regular anyway.

Clancy had been in the majors 5 years with a career ERA of 4.18; Cox's first season was the first year Clancy had a winning record.

Stieb, I will grant, was already a good pitcher before Cox arrived. But he also blossomed under Cox: 3 of the 4 seasons in which he figured in the AL Cy Young voting (including his highest finish in '82) as well as his only ERA title came when Cox was his manager.

In sum, Cox came to the Jays when they were an expansion team and turned them into a contender -- without, BTW, having a single future of Hall of Famer on the roster, which is uncommon among contenders. When Cox first managed the Braves back in '78, they were coming off a 100 loss season; in 4 years, Cox had brought them near .500 and assembled most of the team Joe Torre would take to the NL West division title in '82. In both cases, he did pretty well without Leo Mazzone's help; I don't see any reason to suppose he will suddenly turn into Preston Gomez now that Mazzone is gone.

by One of Als Pals on Feb 25, 2006 1:09 PM CST up reply actions

please forgive my density

what in the sam hill took remlinger 146 years to finally work on a curveball? and is this a black eye for mazzone as well: ought he not have recommended this several years ago? i admit i have not followed rem at all, but this just seems like common sense, that he would have made himself as valuable as possible by having as diverse as possible a pitch selection.

folks, i'm damn glad it's friday.

by dc60123 @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Feb 24, 2006 8:19 PM CST reply actions