I got a bad feeling about this...

by jonk on Apr 1, 2008 12:30 PM EDT Comment 14 comments

From yesterday's boxscore:

.000

That alone doesn't mean much unless you know the context. Hanrahan comes in to relieve Chico (who shouldn't have made it out of the 3rd inning, grrr). Werth leads off with a walk (that's my boy) and Ruiz follows with an RBI double to make it 6-4. Good time to bring in Jenkins against a righty since he is awful against lefties. Jenkins is announces and tubby the left hander is called from the pen. This now seems like a good time to use Coste or even Helms as they both would likely to be better against King than Jenkins. But no, Jenkins hit and struck out, uglililiy. Lots of that was forgotten because Jimmy tied it up in the next AB with a homer.

So, why would you hit Jenkins there when he already knows he is part of a platoon (since Werth started on opening day)? Could it be because he is part of the bigger and cheaper picture? The Phils are shelling out 105 mil in payroll this year. We all know that they can't be happy about that. A few big time salaries come off the books next year like Gordon's, Thome's and...Burrell's.

Burrell is slated to make like $13 mil this year (correct me if I am wrong). This seems like the perfect set up for this team to slash payroll and blame it on bad timing and that Burrell won't be worth the money. I am guessing that they hope Burrell has a HUGE year so that they can say they don't want the same mistake to happen again by resigning him and letting him walk. What does that leave us?

An outfield of Werth, Victorino and Jenkins. Nice and cheap and the payroll is back down to the 90 million range. This may just be my mind wandering a bit, but it sure seems like a situation that this front office has been planning ever since they signed Jenkins. Why have him bat against a lefty otherwise?

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I also fully expect to see a Werth/Victorino/Jenkins outfield in 2009. throw Dobbs and Taguchi, Snelling, or (shudder) Golson in there and you're "set".

in addition to the Phils' certain reluctance to spend money, there just aren't good free agent options out there next year. besides Burrell, there's Abreu and Dunn, and that's really it.

by perfectdepth on Apr 1, 2008 12:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

that move

It bugged me too. I guess once Jenkins was announced, the die was cast. Maybe they should have hit Dobbs there and then if King came in, gone to Helms.

It seemed like Jenkins got a lot of ABs against lefties in the spring--generally not to good results.

by dajafi on Apr 1, 2008 1:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Disagree...

I think you are over thinking the entire situation. Charlie, correct me if I am wrong, almost never pinch-hits for a pinch-hitter (understand what I am saying?). He usually sends up a pinch hitter based on the original match up, and then leaves that guy in no matter who the opposing manager brings in from the bullpen. Also, one at bat in march says nothing about the following season's lineup. Nothing. Finally, why would Gillick care about next season's payroll, why would he really even care about next season's roster (within reason)? Lets just worry about this years team...

by Neduol Caz on Apr 1, 2008 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yes

I pretty much agree with this.

I recall, incidentally, that late last summer (or maybe it was the summer before that) there was a stretch of games in which Charlie repeatedly went deep into his bench in the middle innings and ended up running out of players in the 9th or beyond. And he got criticized pretty harshly for that too at the time. Sometimes you can't win for losing.

If it had been up to me I think I probably would have hit for Jenkins in that situation yesterday, but I don't think it was unreasonable for Charlie not to. It does kinda suck to have to use up 1/3 of your bench in ten seconds flat. And just as a general proposition, these in-game strategic decisions are pretty overrated in terms of importance. Yeah, Jenkins sucks against lefties, but the difference between a good hitter and a bad hitter doing something helpful in one isolated at-bat is something like five percentage points. That kind of thing really adds up over the course of a game and especially over an entire season, but in a single at-bat it really isn't all that meaningful.

by taco pal on Apr 1, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jenkins was announced as a pinch-hitter before King was brought in. If Jenkins isn't announced Hanrahan stays in.

Also, Jenkins was 4-for-7 against King in his career before that AB, so it wasn't an entirely bad move.

I'd be against using two players for one pinch-hit appearance as well.

http://crashburnalley.com/

by Crashburn Alley on Apr 1, 2008 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

With a man on second and down 2 runs? Jenkins also used to be able to hit lefties a bit better in his career, but now he is older and slower.

by jonk on Apr 1, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indirectly, Jenkins was responsible for Rollins' game-tying 2-run HR, since he forced Manny Acta to bring in Ray King. :)

http://crashburnalley.com/

by Crashburn Alley on Apr 1, 2008 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wait, I understand how the Phillies are probably considering that cheap outfield trio, and I understand that they probably are hoping Burrell has a year that makes him unsignable. What I don't understand is how hitting Jenkins against a lefty has anything to do with that. If anything, I would expect that they were planning to inflate Jenkins numbers by never using him against lefties.

Has Helms' star fallen so far that he couldn't be pinch hit in that spot? it's against a lefty!

by MattS on Apr 1, 2008 11:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Matt, Ray King was brought in after Geoff Jenkins was announced as a pinch-hitter. Once a hitter is announced, he either must bat or be pinch-hit for. Either way, he can't be used again.

It wouldn't make much sense to pinch-hit Jenkins to hit against Hanrahan, then pinch-hit someone like Helms or Coste for Jenkins against King.

http://crashburnalley.com/

by Crashburn Alley on Apr 1, 2008 11:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"Wouldn't make sense" seems a little strong from my perspective because double-PHing isn't at all uncommon. But I have to admit that it usually strikes me as overmanaging when I see it.

by taco pal on Apr 1, 2008 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come on, I know that. But it wasn't like Jenkins was going to stay in the game. It was a sunk cost. Either Jenkins bats against a lefty and not again or Helms bats against a lefty and not again.

The refusal to double pinch-hit by so many managers is indicative of a failure to understand sunk costs.

Regardless, I saw King warming up in the bullpen myself and I thought to myself, "Why is Jenkins on deck? Does he plan on wasting Jenkins to set up a King/Helms match up?" Apparently, it was once again Charlie's obsession with small sample sizes. He is a great overall, but his in-game managing tactics are horrible.

by MattS on Apr 2, 2008 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the "sunk cost" analogy works, because if you double-PH, you incur an additional cost. Of course, in hindsight we know that Charlie didn't need to use Helms or Coste later in the game anyway, but he didn't know that at the time. In fact, if Gordon hadn't blown up in the ninth, it's very likely we would have gone extra innings and who knows what might have happened then?

Also, what was the alternative to sending Jenkins out there at least in the first instance? If you send a righty out there, Hanrahan stays in the game (or is replaced by another righty), and you still don't have an advantage. You weren't going to get lefty-righty or righty-lefty either way.

by taco pal on Apr 2, 2008 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would have sent out Dobbs against Hanrahan and when they brought in King, I would have brought in Helms.

The sunk cost analogy is that Jenkins has already been used. It's just like regularly using a pinch-hitter for Jenkins when a lefty is brought in against him-- which should be done.

Of course, Helms wouldn't be able to hit later in the game (or ever as it turns out today), but if there is a better time to pinch hit, it's with a lot of guys left on the bench and to hit for Jenkins against a lefty.

by MattS on Apr 2, 2008 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dobbs?

I think Charlie should have announced Dobbs instead of Jenkins in the first place. Announcing your best left-handed bench player in a situation where the opposing manager is very likely to make a pitching change seems foolish.

If Dobbs had been used instead of Jenkins, Acta might have not bothered to replace Hanrahan for a relative scrub like Dobbs, so the Phillies might have wound up with a favorable matchup, and if Acta did end up bringing in King, you can pinch-hit Helms or somebody and still have Jenkins available. This has the added advantage of preventing the later double-switch that left Dobbs playing third base.

by phatj on Apr 2, 2008 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs