Post-Gazette Focuses on Zach Duke Conspiracy
by Charlie on Sep 28, 2009 11:46 PM EDT
85 comments
Only a Pirate fan...
...Could take a game that included one of the most amazing offensive performances of the year and turn it into an uproar about John Russell's relatively inconsequential decision to remove Zach Duke from the game with one out left. The commenters in the last thread who are complaining about this story have it right.
In yesterday's game, the home finale, Andy LaRoche went 5-for-5 with two homers and two doubles. And yet the Post-Gazette would rather focus on Duke, who was removed from the game after giving up his first run of the game with two outs in the ninth. Russell's explanation--that he wanted Donald Veal to get a bit of work, and that he wanted to give the fans a chance to cheer Duke before the game ended--was stupid, but it wasn't deserving of any sort of moral approbation, and it certainly shouldn't take top billing over what LaRoche did, which was amazing.
Particularly bizarre is the Post-Gazette's insinuation that there's some kind of conspiracy in play here:
Duke is second-time eligible for salary in the coming offseason, and a fourth complete game would have bolstered his bargaining position, tying him for the league lead with San Francisco's twin aces, Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain.
But team president Frank Coonelly strongly rejected any link.
"It was JR's decision, and the last thing he or anyone else was thinking about at a moment like that is a possible arbitration case in the future," Coonelly said.
Is there any, you know, evidence that the Pirates did this? If not, why are we talking about it? As WTM points out, the idea that there's some conspiracy here is pretty silly. Are we really to believe that Russell hatched this diabolical plan to reduce Duke's salary next year by depriving him of a complete game? Russell doesn't seem nearly that clever, unfortunately. Or did Coonelly or Neal Huntington send Russell a memo before the game? ("JR - Please leave Zach in if he's pitching well. But if he happens to give up a run in the ninth, please take him out so we can keep his salary low. But, uh, not until he gives up a run. Thanks, Frank.") Or did Coonelly or Huntington call Russell during the game? To believe there's a conspiracy here is farfetched at best. The Post-Gazette is giving ammunition to the tinfoil-hat element of the Pirates' fanbase, and I can't identify any justification for them doing so.
It's been a long season. But Monday's game was a great one. The Bucs' third baseman had the best game of any individual Pirates player so far this year (and yes, I think it was probably even better than Andrew McCutchen's three-homer game). Meanwhile, the Pirates' manager made a judgement call by lifting a pitcher in a game that was not a no-hitter, nor even a shutout. And there were perfectly good reasons to take him out of the game. Had Russell simply said, "We worried that he might be wearing down a bit, and we wanted to protect one of our most valuable arms," I don't see how anyone could fail to understand it. They might not agree with it, but it would have been a perfectly reasonable position. And yet some people would prefer to talk about the judgement call. It's strange, and disappointing. This was a great game, and yet the discussion about it has devolved into inane outrage about a far less important issue than the amazing stuff that happened on the field. Well done, Post-Gazette.
....And now I've spent as much space writing about the Duke issue as the LaRoche performance. Ugh.
UPDATE: I quick note on the Post-Gazette's response to concerns about its coverage:
Again, people who were in the stadium, who saw it for themselves might appreciate all of this than those who were not. And I understand the game was not televised, either.
The game might not have been on FSN, but I watched in on MLB.tv and I heard the fans booing, as you would expect them to. I also heard them cheer as Duke was removed. While Duke's exit was probably a bit of a downer for some fans, it never even occurred to me while watching that Russell's hook would become the story of the game. I can't give much of an explanation for the way I felt, but then I'm not sure much explanation is required--LaRoche had 13 total bases! Why wouldn't people look past the manager's decision to remove Duke?
UPDATE: In fairness, I should add that the Post-Gazette was not the only source to emphasize the Duke/Russell angle. John Perrotto did too, for example. I picked on the Post-Gazette mainly because, frankly, that's what I read, or at least the first thing I read.
0 recs |
85 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
In the past I’ve seen people criticize the way Dejan had presented some things in a sort of anti-management/ownership way and pretty much ignored them. I kind of understood when Dejan would write things like this and defend doing so based on it being a legitimate concern of the public, but at this point it seems like he’s just inventing controversies. I doubt anyone had given any thought to the arbitration issue until it was written as the lead of the article over Andy LaRoche having one of the more impressive individual offensive games in the majors this year against his former team.
It was probably the easiest game story he could ever write, and instead he went with this. I’ll never understand what he’s trying to accomplish here.
by ElDuce on Sep 28, 2009 11:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Charlie
I understand that you don’t want this issue to detract from an otherwise sterling performance by the Bucs, especially Duke and LaRoche.
I also think Dejan goes overboard with his latest PG article.
But your contention that Russell’s yanking of Duke was “completely inconsequential” is, at best, off base.
If you could ask Duke and his teammates their thoughts off record, they would undoubtedly tell you it was a bullsh*t move, and one that won’t soon be forgotten in the clubhouse.
There was simply no good reason for John Russell to remove Zach Duke from the game.
by patthatt on Sep 29, 2009 12:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There’s a distinction here between agreeing with Russell’s decision (which I don’t) and thinking it’s a bigger deal than LaRoche’s performance, or that it’s the result of a conspiracy.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Completely” was a bit strong. I tweaked it a little bit.
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(That is, you’re probably right that it had an impact in the clubhouse. But I don’t think this is, in itself, a good reason not to do it, and I certainly don’t think it ought to overshadow what LaRoche did.)
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't resist
I posted that I heard John Russell was born in Kenya.
by biggyv on Sep 29, 2009 12:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Charlie
I’m fine ripping the Pirates, but not today, not after a performance like that.
Also, I wasn’t aware that Dejan’s objectivity was shipped off in the Freddy Sanchez deal.
by woobie on Sep 29, 2009 12:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i think it was the mclouth deal myself
by johnnycuff on Sep 29, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unrelated note, but am I the last to notice that the PBC Blog is now linking to a “Pirates Forum”? It’s about as ridiculous as you would expect.
http://community.post-gazette.com/forums/147.aspx
by ElDuce on Sep 29, 2009 12:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i clikkd ur lnk
i loockedd et sum of duh thhred tittls an i aint thinnk soe gud nao.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um ...
Had Russell simply said, “We worried that he might be wearing down a bit, and we wanted to protect one of our most valuable arms,” I don’t see how anyone could fail to understand it.
-
I wouldn’t understand it. I would have said, “So if the batter hits a double instead of a triple, and then Hu hits a fly ball, the runner doesn’t score and Duke is still in the game, which negates your concern about his arm. Really, the run scoring in that situation makes absolutely no difference.”
It simply looked like Russell had made up his mind at some earlier point that once Duke gave up a run he was coming out, no matter when that run scord or what the score was, and dammit, he going to stick with it come hell or high water.
Duke was in command the entire game. He was throwing evil curveballs or sinkers, whatever they were they were breaking 12, 13 inches.
I will agree that this should have been a nonissue in light of LaRoche’s huge day (the guy slugged 2.600 for the game), but in ever so slight defense of DK, the booing Russell took from the “crowd” had to get mentioned somewhere.
Also in fairness to DK, he may have been trying to head off the conspiracy theorists by letting Coonelly go on the record about what a crazy idea that was. Nonetheless, I’m sure the PBC blog commenters will line up around the block to bitch about the cheap-ass Pirates.
by bucdaddy on Sep 29, 2009 12:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mentioned? Sure. I absolutely he agree he should have mentioned it.
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duh
I guess I WAS kind of stating the obvious. But really, the move kind of ruined the atmosphere in the park for a minute or two. People who went to the game would go home and talk about two things: LaRoche’s day and That Asshole Russell. It might be a toss-up which they’d mention first.
by bucdaddy on Sep 29, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. I didn’t mean to trivialize the rest of your post.
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Players
I’m wondering if this was a player issue, not a DK one. Just a suspicion.
by Bernie6666 on Sep 29, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM, we’re probably not allowed to reprint that (incidentally, photoshopped-looking) photo here. Sorry for deleting your post about <a href = http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09272/1001570-63.stm?cmpid=pirates.xml>this article.
I hate it when Bud is mostly right.
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 12:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Have I forgotten how to use HTML or something? Anyway, it’s here:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09272/1001570-63.stm?cmpid=pirates.xml
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s such a creepy photo, it probably shouldn’t be spread around the web anyway.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything posted since the McLouth deal has been comment bait for Nutting Hostage and his acolytes. Russell’s decision deserves some attention (though not this much), but this first fact has to be kept in mind.
I wholeheartedly agree that the story of LaRoche, a slight disappointment this season, showing his potential for the first time in a while (and showing an example of why he shouldn’t be given up on yet) should be much bigger. But that doesn’t fit the NuHo narrative.
by Adam Reynolds on Sep 29, 2009 12:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Funny, Nate’s post-trade OPS isn’t all that much better than LaRoche’s 2009 OPS, about 40 points or so. Given that LaRoche adds much more defensively, he may be the better player of the two.
One odd thing: If you compare LaRoche’s counting stats to Andrew McCutchen’s, they’re almost identical across the board, except for steals and the fact that Andrew has about 85 fewer ABs.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With the atrocious play of the Bucs these last two months, this was possibly the single best, all-around game they’ve had in a long time, and the focus is on JR’s decision. Yeah, it was strange, but I really think its a lot of bologna if people actually believe it would be financially motivated. If they didn’t want him to get the complete game, they probably wouldn’t have brought him out for the 9th in the first place. I seriously doubt this is Billy Martin-George Steinbrenner stuff, where Frank/NH have JR’s dugout phone on speed dial to demand that he take Duke out so they can save about 500 large.
by NastyNate82 on Sep 29, 2009 12:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That really is the most insane part of it all. They were giving the guy a chance to pitch a complete game shutout, but were somehow ordered not to allow him to pick up a complete game where he gives up a run?
by ElDuce on Sep 29, 2009 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tin Foil Hat Crowd.
They’re basically running things on the PBC Blog and I get this feeling that Dejan and the Post-Gazette thinks that they’re the ones reading (and buying) the paper and therefore, are going to pander to that group of readers.
Personally, I thought it was an odd move to make considering it might have only taken 1 more pitch to finish the game. But when the game was over on TV, before seeing what was being said on the internet, I was just excited they won and won in such a dominating fashion, especially after a rather rotten month of baseball. If anyone is ruining this win, it’s the guys who are complaining about Russell’s odd move and not Russell himself.
by IAPiratesFan on Sep 29, 2009 12:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was kinda puzzled by the move and I looked here after the game ended, and most posters just seemed bemused by it and more interested in LaRoche and the team taking 3 of 4 from LA. It didn’t occur to me to let it spoil my satisfaction with the game, but it did occur to me that the whiners would.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't think I was whining
But as I noted above, it DID spoil the mood in the park. I mean, how often does a team win 11-1 with a dominating pitching perforance against a good team and the crowd (what there was of it) spends two minutes in the top of the ninth BOOING THE MANAGER?
by bucdaddy on Sep 29, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worth noting
I know that the PG is the main source of Pirate news for probably everyone here, but it’s worth noting that the Trib focused on Duke being pulled in the headline and devoted a column to it, while Perroto wrote up an editorial-like piece that said that the move “ruined” the game. So it’s all three outlets for Pirate news that focused on this over LaRoche and taking three of four from the Dodgers, not just the PG.
http://www.whygavs.com
http://mlb.fanhouse.com
by whygavs on Sep 29, 2009 1:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, then they're all dumb, and wrong.
This feels like modern political coverage, where the writers focus on some inconsequential-but-flashy outrage-of-the-day, rather than a substantive discussion of the issues.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Media coverage
I think Duke and others were ticked and wondering JR made such a silly decision.
I think they complained to the reporters and that’s why it got such coverage.
I don’t think this is a reporter-driven story.
by Bernie6666 on Sep 29, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All stories written by reporters...
…are reporter-driven stories.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad
I’ll respectfully differ.
I was a reporter for eight years (health, not sports).
You have to write about controversial topics, even if you disagree with the views.
I had to write about the surgeon general popping off a few times. DK has to write about players popping off, e.g., after the trades.
I suspect there was a lot of gripping about Duke being yanked because all the major Pittsburgh media covered it.
That being said, DK should have made clear where the quotes were coming from.
I don’t like how DK attributes things because it sure looks like he is offering his opinion.
by Bernie6666 on Sep 29, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's nothing wrong with writing about controversial topics.
But when you do, you need to also draw a bright line between demonstrable fact and demonstrable fiction. Otherwise, you get “World Flat? Opinions Differ”.
If there were players griping about Duke being pulled, fine, but Dejan should’ve said that. And if they weren’t willing to go on the record with their complaints, maybe it shouldn’t have been written at all.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad
Agreed. I’ve sent DK e-mails about the issue. I think he’s a good reporter. Not perfect. But he tries.
At the same time, he doesn’t attribute well. As a result, the opinion/fact line gets blurred.
Also, just because a player says something silly—see Neil Walker—doesn’t mean you don’t investigate the merits of it.
Finally, I think your point on off-the-record comments makes sense. I think it’s lazy journalism when you just print comments off the record without trying to find someone willing to go on it. I can count on one hand the number of stories I wrote in eight years with off-the-record comments. It’s unnecessary. And it causes people to suspect your journalistic credibility.
by Bernie6666 on Sep 29, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing about players being upset is, that’s not the story he wrote. There were some vague implications, but that’s all. It’s too bad nobody went on the record, but that’s not a reason to substitute a ludicrous conspiracy story for the story you can’t get.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speculation: I think the conspiracy theory...
…is an off-the-record comment from a player who apparently doesn’t understand how arbitration works.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are times when off-the-record comments are appropriate, of course.
I just don’t think this is one of them.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTM, Vlad
Agree with all of the postings.
DK ended up with a poor article because he used off-the-record comments, which led to the conspiracy theory tone.
I covered health care in D.C. Obviously, with that beat, you had to write things using anonymous sources occasionally. You have no idea how careful I was. You have no idea how much fact checking I did to ensure it wasn’t someone just popping off or using my publication for a trial balloon.
But a player gripping about Duke not finishing a game is not an appropriate use of an off-the-record interview. In fact, I’d argue that sports stories almost never justify an off-the-record interview.
Actually, the source may not even be a player. I know a reporter who works with DK. He insists DK’s sources are mostly agents. This is just conjecture. But I wonder if it was Duke’s agent making silly comments.
by Bernie6666 on Sep 29, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of the time...
I would agree with not using off-the-record comments. We may have somewhat of a special case here however.
This is a VERY young team, compared to just about any other in the majors this season. Players saw how management reacted when specific quotes from players showed up in print (mainly after trades) that disagreed with the party line…very negatively. Most of these players aren’t bulletproof. Getting on management’s bad side is not a way to stay in the majors if you have borderline talent. About the only ones that could get away with identified negative statements might be Doumit, Capps, Duke and Maholm. And we know Duke let his feelings be known. Everyone else…likely to keep their mouths shut unless it directly affected them.
There may be a significant number of players that didn’t agree with the decision…but asked not to be pinned down…because they’d like to stay in the majors.
by Thunder on Sep 29, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let The PBC Babble Head Bloggers Babble On!
Perhaps JR’s reasoning was twofold. Since they both had great games, why not pull Duke and allow him to bask in his own standing ovation and once the game ended then Andy would pretty much receive his own moment of glory from the fans. Just a theory but I believe his intentions were good in spite of the backlash they engendered.
by tjc on Sep 29, 2009 2:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The reason Duke's removal is important
is because it is a signal of something being wrong with John Russell’s brain. It’s his ability to understand and read situations. It’s his ability to make valid decisions. It’s his ability to understand what motivates people and treat them fairly.
It incensed me as I was watching. JR was the Grinch that stole Christmas.
Everyone watching that game was pulling for Duke to put the final nail into the coffin – a whupping of the Dodgers and a series win, in the midst of a dismal season of close loss after close loss, of quality start after quality start by Duke that turned into blown save after blown save or lost because of the dreadful and anemic offense – FINALLY FINALLY Duke could have his way. Standing up on the mound – his batters finally giving him support – he was going to finish this off himself and not let anyone or anything take it away!
And then out walked John Russell, and he stole our moment. Not just Zach Duke’s moment, which was well deserved, but everyone’s moment that was there rooting for him and understood what it meant to him!
I know, I should be singing…
Fah who for-aze! Dah who dor-aze! Welcome Christmas, Come this way!
So what if the Grinch stole Christmas? Think about what we got!
Andy LaRoche had just about the greatest individual game that you can possibly have, Zach Duke was masterful, the whole team played like a team of winners for one day.
But I sat there aghast at the computer. At the incredible insensitivity of the man. At the man who was absolutely clueless to the situation unfolding in front of his eyes.
by MarkInDallas on Sep 29, 2009 2:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, John Russell is a freaking a s s w i p e, who hopefully in 6 days, will never, ever again be known as a major league baseball manager.
The Fo can’t keep him after such a historic embarassing moment brought on my the crowd, can they???
It can’t all be about money, so they have to eat 1 year of his contract, so what, i am sure it’s not nearly as close as the 1 year they ate of Matt Morris’s.
Just can this guy next monday, make it quick, put his horrible chapter of being the manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates to rest, once and for all.!!
by tom p on Sep 29, 2009 3:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, then maybe we can hire Eric Wedge after he gets fired!!!
Please, enough already, move on from this…
by God Loves on Sep 29, 2009 7:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Wish John Russell Would Stop Sending Me Laser Mind Control Beams.
He Wants To Devalue The Dollar, So We’ll Be Taken Over By Canada And Forced To Work In Their Syrup Mines. When I Tried To Write About This Last Month, He Poisoned My Dog, And Then Burned Down The Garage Where I Kept All My Evidence. HE MUST BE STOPPED!
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trying to think if I’ve seen this before, but I can’t recall any. Other than i’m sure i’ve seen it where a pitcher goes 8 innings and then gives way to the closer in the 9th inning or maybe after one out in the 9th.
Wonder if he was concerned about pitch count? I saw he through 103 pitches which doesn’t seem like alot, but then again…IDK about this overall annual pitch count theory. I know the history of arm troubles in the organization…..but this is almost like baby-ing. Plus it’s not like Duke is a fireballer.
by lfhlaw on Sep 29, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Russell Out!
To blame Dejan K. and/or the Post Gazette for making too much of Russell’s wickedly stupid move is to let Russell off the hook. Chastising the paper for pandering to the tinfoil brigade is to succumb to the same spin machine nonsense that rules in the Pirates’ front office.
What Russell did wasn’t just dumb, though it was that. It was borderline criminal. Did he not know that Duke would have tied Cain and Lincecum for most NL complete games? To deprive Duke of that, even in an era that doesn’t put as much stock in CGs as in years past, is beyond belief. He hadn’t thrown too many pitches, had a 10-run lead, and needed only one out. And you’re wondering why there are conspiracy theories? When confronted with stupidity this glaring, this monumental, people are going to scramble to come up with some sort of “rational” explanation. You can’t blame them for coming up with this one.
The worst thing in all of this is that Russell didn’t even give Duke a chance to say boo before taking the ball away from him. Didn’t even ask him if he’d value a standing ovation enough to come out of the game. What a loser.
Wait a week until the season’s over, after the Bucs have been pushed to page 17 of the sports page and all eyes are on the Steelers, and give Russell his walking papers. He might be a player development type, fine, but he is not a major league manager. Not even close.
by Middletown on Sep 29, 2009 7:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not defending JR, just responding to a couple of things:
Did he not know that Duke would have tied Cain and Lincecum for most NL complete games?
Is JR supposed to keep track of things like this, that don’t pertain to his team? I think not. What manager gives a rat’s arse about any other staff than his own, except when facing them?
… Russell didn’t even give Duke a chance to say boo before taking the ball away from him.
Typically when the manager comes out, it’s to remove the pitcher. Said pitcher rarely has any say in the matter. You think JR said, “I’m doing this so you can get the applause you so richly deserve.”? Doubtful.
None of this means that I don’t think JR’s a boob. Just sayin’, is all.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 29, 2009 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, what?
You’re seriously arguing that a manager should manage in a particular way in order to prioritize his players getting specific statistical accomplishments, as opposed to focusing exclusively on winning the game? That it’s “borderline criminal” for him to do so?
That’s… an interesting POV.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Managing by statistic
Well, there is this.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how many people here...
…have gone apeshit over Russell reaching for Capps in each and every save situation?
Guy can’t win.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not going to get into conspiracy theories and DK-bashing or any other crap. I’ll just say that I was at the game, and the booing was a big story. I’m sorry that you don’t like that, Charlie, but your personal preference doesn’t actually define what the news is. As I wrote here yesterday, the booing was at least as loud, if not louder than, the cheering for anything else all day. The crowd booed when JR came out, booed louder when Duke started to walk off, switched to DUUUKE , cheered when Duke tipped his cap, then went ballistic with boos for JR.
It didn’t “ruin” the game or anything like that. But it was a big deal. Deal with it.
by JRoth95 on Sep 29, 2009 8:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Because, as someone above said, for witnesses to the event, it was one of the 2 biggest things that happened (based on reportage, it was a big deal to the participants as well). From a distance, it doesn’t even register (see Charlie’s original game post, which didn’t even mention it). Its true importance is somewhere in between the two. But I read Charlie as wanting it written out of the game story entirely.
Let me put it this way: if Andy had been a hit away from the cycle, but JR pulled him before his last AB, would people have gone nuts? Yes. Would it have mattered in the big picture? No. But somehow, I don’t think people would be so blithe about dismissing such a move. I think some of the dismissal of this brouhaha comes from a dismissal of the CG as a significant accomplishment (but that’s a side argument; I’m not wedded to it).
by JRoth95 on Sep 29, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cycles are far rarer than complete games, and position players aren’t routinely yanked from just about every game. And even if your imaginary scenario does happen it wouldn’t matter either if he’s taken out if the team’s up by 10 runs. Maybe there’s something wrong with me, but I truly can’t get worked up about this at all.
by TravisDW on Sep 29, 2009 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as I'm concerned...
…the two biggest things that happened were:
1) The LaRoche HR.
and
2) The other LaRoche HR.
But here we are instead, talking about a manager taking a pitcher out of a game.
sigh
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
You have poor reading comprehension then if you think Charlie wanted it written out of the story. He simply didn’t agree with it being the headline and the all-around focus of a story where a young player goes 5-5 with 2 HRs and 2 2Bs, which is a perfectly understandable. No one is saying it shouldn’t be mentioned, but it’s silly to talk about arbitration numbers when that is in no way a logical argument for why Duke was pulled.
It was a silly move, but it shouldn’t mean conspiracy.
As an aside, and it has been brought up a bit already, but in other sports this is what you do when someone has a great final game a lot of the time. They do it in the NBA, they do it in soccer, I guess it’s just not something people like to see in baseball.
At least Charlie’s blog post got mentioned on the PBC’s morning links.
by Slizeezyc on Sep 29, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I read Charlie as wanting it written out of the game story entirely.
No, I agree that it should have been mentioned. I wasn’t at the game, but I did watch it. You have to mention it. I just disagreed that it should take top billing, and that it should come with this conspiratorial tone.
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing wrong with mentioning it...
…but I think it could’ve been handled appropriately in one graf, three sentences max. Duke pulled, crowd booed, Duke unhappy but restrained, the end.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It didn’t "ruin" the game or anything like that.
I can’t speak for Charlie, but to me the point is that you have one writer explicitly saying it DID ruin the game and another saying that it’s more important than (“overshadows”) the win and LaRoche’s performance. That’s what I object to, that and the laughable conspiracy theory. I agree it was a bonehead move. But then I’ve been convinced for a long time that Russell is possibly the stupidest manager to come along in many years, so that’s not even news to me.
by WTM on Sep 29, 2009 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overshadow
Well, obviously I disagree with the writer of “ruin.” I’m not sure I have a big problem with “overshadow” – it’s maybe hyperbolic, but it kind of captures what happened.
Let me put it this way: the crowd mood at the end of the game would have been a 10, possibly an 11, if Duke had completed the game. Instead, it was a 9, or even an 8. There was much less of an exultation than we were ready for just 2 minutes earlier. I might add that, if Veal had given up a baserunner, much less a run, the mood would actually have turned black. Bless the kid for getting a quick K. But at the end it felt much more like an ordinary but satisfying win than the real season highlight that it would have been had JR not screwed up.
Anyway, I, personally, am not worked up about it – I booed, but I didn’t talk about it when texting about the game with friends or recapping with my wife back home. But I simply think that Charlie’s too dismissive of the significance of the incident. Some of it is the unpleasant dynamic between what happens here and what happens at the PBC Blog, which is its own annoying thing.
by JRoth95 on Sep 29, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With all the booing, the nice ovation that JR had planned for Duke didn’t work out very well…;)
by Adam Reynolds on Sep 29, 2009 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Just
Doesn’t make any sense on any level. I don’t think there was a conspiracy just a severe brain cramp.
I gurantee JR did not know Duke would tie Cain and Lincecum for CG’s, that would require somebody caring and planning much more than he has shown being capable of in his run in Pittsburgh.
by eyeofhorus777 on Sep 29, 2009 8:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Duke had thrown about 105 pitches up to that point. I don’t know if having him throw an extra 10-15 would be the biggest risk in the world, but I would not want to see him get hurt just for vanity sake.
....You'll be able to spit nails, kid. You're gonna eat lightning and you're gonna crap thunder....
by chodan11 on Sep 29, 2009 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Duke getting pulled was NOT the main story.
It was a follow up piece, posted after the game story went up:
UPDATE 4:12 p.m.: Couple of postgame things to put here. All the stuff about Duke getting pulled has merited its own post above
The Duke story may have subsequently been moved up, but it was LaRoche’s day that made the original story.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 29, 2009 9:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess this is the kind of thing people write about
after 17 consecutive losing seasons. I am pretty sure that something like this wouldn’t be much of a story anywhere but in Pittsburgh.
by WestCoastBuc on Sep 29, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is seriously the dumbest discussion we’ve had this season.
No more than 5 posts should be devoted to this in the postgame thread. The fact that the Trib and the Post-Gazette focused on this nonissue so much helps explain why people don’t read newspapers anymore.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Sep 29, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is seriously the dumbest discussion we’ve had this season.
Bold words, sir!
by CptnAwesome on Sep 29, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Yeah, I think someone could come up with some additional worthy candidates for that distinction.
by WestCoastBuc on Sep 29, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know I tried to think of a dumber one we’ve had but I just couldn’t.
-The Neil Walker-Andy LaRoche discussions got pretty dumb at points but still at least had some merit.
-Obviously there were some poor posts about free agents the Pirate should sign but none of them reached this point of discussion.
-The discussions early in the season about Brandon Moss were certainly dumb but they weren’t this dumb/pointless.
Prove me wrong though.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Sep 29, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s funny that a lot of the “dumber” conversations are the most popular ones. Not sure what that means.
by Charlie on Sep 29, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well there’s nothing wrong with discussing something and most of those discussions had some merit but they quickly descended into idiocy.
I just think this conversation has absolutely no merit more than a perhaps a casual mention in a post-game summary and perhaps 5 comments on it.
As you have pointed out, this discussion is simply eclipsing bigger issues from that game. 11 runs for God’s sakes!
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Sep 29, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was primarily thinking of your last example. I admit my assessment is probably biased because it’s colored by thoughts of the participants. What the heck was the name of the now-banned guy that incessantly mentioned Moss in just about every comment he made?
by CptnAwesome on Sep 29, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s who I was thinking of too, slipping my mind at the moment though.
I was giving it more credit than this discussion because it was a fine topic on its face, people just took it way too far.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Sep 29, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The story of the day was definitely LaRoche.
However…the longer term story…Russell…should not be totally ignored either. Both…in many ways…are newsworthy.
The shame in the LaRoche story is that it didn’t happen earlier in the year. Is the game something he can build confidence on…or just one of those freak games that pops up once in a while? Seven games isn’t much to build before getting shut down for the season. It does pretty much force management to at least look next spring.
Russell’s decision making has been questionable all season…both in handling of players (lineups, etc)…and game situations. He doesn’t seem capable of making decisions that enhance a player’s confidence level. Frankly…when it comes time for the Pirates to contend…whether it be for one season or multiple seasons…I don’t think he’s right for the job.
by Thunder on Sep 29, 2009 11:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think people are missing the point
There were 3 big stories: the way Duke pitched (which is being largely overlooked here), that Duke was pulled and LaRoche’s big day.
LaRoche’s big day was great, but let’s not get carried away as if the one big day and he is suddenly realizing his potential. No player, let alone Andy LaRoche, is likely to replicate that output more than a handful of times in an entire career.
To me, the fact that Zach Duke is wrapping up a strong season in a very good way is the biggest story. Further, that fact that he is arguably not being treated well by the manager and the apparent discord it has caused (for both Duke and other players) is also a big story, especially when the team has completely fallen apart since the trades.
I’m not saying that JR is to blame for the poor performance, but even if you don’t blame him, when was the last time a non-rookie manager’s job was considered to be safe following a 100 loss (or damn close to it) season? So combine that with the potential player unrest related to yanking Zach and I think DK found a legitimate story line.
That said, the bit about depreciating Duke’s arbitration position is over the top for me.
Good day.
by Uncle Nate on Sep 29, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, here’s how I see it. They sent him out in the 9th to give him a chance to get the shutout. When he lost that opportunity, what’s the point of keeping him in? Sure, he could still get the complete game, but he’s probably our best or 2nd best pitcher right now, and there’s no need, considering he’d already thrown 103 pitches, to let him stay in to get 1 more out in a game we’d locked up long ago.
Sure, it would’ve been nice to see Duke get the complete game, but I seriously doubt money had anything to do with the decision to take him out. If you want to criticize Russell for taking Duke out, then you may have a legitimate beef, but when there’s less than no evidence of Nutting or Huntington playing any part in it at all, it’s entirely uncalled for to criticize them.
by Akshay R on Sep 29, 2009 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Dejan . . .
is trying to win a Pulitzer. He annoys me.
by Scranton on Sep 29, 2009 12:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If he is...
…he had a better shot before he started resorting to this crap.
by Vlad on Sep 29, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duke
I’m not sure why Duke was pulled with a blowout win. I don’t buy into the conspiracy ideas. Pulling him is certainly not going to hurt him in arbitration.
But the pitching choices have been awful over the past few weeks. Putting weak or injury-prone pitchers into close games, Jackson, Hacker, Dumatrait, Bautista. It almost looks like they are trying to lose for the #2 pick.
Also, I’m just baffled that JR didn’t say, “I didn’t like his stuff. He looked tired.”
Story closed. I think his stupid answer has turned it into a story.
by Bernie6666 on Sep 29, 2009 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
worked out for Zach!
Look he was able to keep his era under 4. He is leading the league in giving up hits. An era under 4 in today’s Major’s is a good thing. Especially a pitcher who has pitched full-time since opening day. It’s all good for a change, lol!
by jon6er on Sep 29, 2009 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This conspiracy theory bullcrap...
is definitely a low point for DK. This is by far his worst piece of reporting since I’ve been reading him.
by Slick1 on Sep 29, 2009 3:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
