Loading ...Let’s discuss tonight’s titanic struggle as Sean Casey and the Pirates come to town. Brandon Claussen takes the hill versus Bucs righthander Ian Snell.
What kind of a reception will Casey get from the Reds faithful? I imagine we’ll be able to hear it all over the east coast. And rightly so; Casey was a wonderful representative of the Cincinnati organization for a long time.
I may even give him a standing ovation in my living room. And then I’ll watch him ground into a double play for the Pirates.
Amen to the last paragraph!!
Womack will probably boot the ball and he’ll be safe at 1B.
Tough to get a GDP with runners on 2nd and third, so he popped up instead. Great job by Claussen after his first pitch of the season hit the leadoff batter, and allowing the double to Wilson.
RBI Griffey, 1-0 Reds. They scored first! All they needed was a scoreless first from their starter – they’ve scored in the bottom of the first each of their first three games now.
Tony Womack for President!
Nice start by Felipe Lopez tonight. Double and a single in the first two innings.
Junior up with runners on the corners.
Bases loaded for Dunn after Junior walks. This could be nice.
Boy, Claussen looks sharp through three innings, doesn’t he?
Yes, he does.
I love to think about what might happen if Dave Williams can be average or slightly better (and that isn’t beyond possibilities) and if Milton could just pitch to his career averages.
We might actually get enough pithching to compete.
Make that “pitching.”
You were right; Casey got a great ovation in the first inning. That was great to see.
Double by Kearns!
This team can hit!
Two runners on, I’d like to see Claussen pull an Arroyo here and go deep.
Oh well. I guess we can’t expect our pitcher to hit a homerun every night.
But that was a terrible third strike call by the home plate umpire.
You think we’re negative? Check out the comments to the game thread at this Pirates site. They’re positively disgusted with their team.
Man, its odd seeing Casey in that Pirates Uni!
Yes, it is odd. It will take some getting used to.
With good reason. They haven’t been anywhere near decent, or even interesting, since Bonds left.
Why is Aurilia hitting 5th instead of Kearns? Did he have a bigger spring or something?
Seeing Joe Randa again reminds me how much I came to like him last year. I’m glad they traded him, but he grew on me.
Well, after that HR, I’m wishing I hadn’t seen Randa again.
Who jynxed Claussen?
Because Aurilia is awesome, Gage. Jerry Narron loves him. That one good year he had about a decade ago proves that he’s great.
Tony Womack for President! Woo-hoo!
Why is Lopez sacrificing in the 4th with a guy who can supposedly steal a base on first. That makes no sense at all
It makes sense to Jerry Narron. That scares me.
Another terrible call. I don’t think Junior went around on that third strike.
Maybe I’m wrong. Replay made it look closer than I thought.
Dunn caught a fly ball!
Is anyone else just happy that baseball is back?
Yes.
Pinch-hitting for Claussen after five. Claussen has more gas left in the tank, but it’s a tactical move by Narron that is defensible.
Let’s just hope that the bullpen doesn’t blow it. They have a habit of doing that, you know.
Come on, Encarnacion! We need some runs!
Big hit by Encarnacion! Reds lead and Claussen can get the win now.
I see that Phil Dumatrait pitched six innings of one-hit ball for Chattanooga tonight. Nice.
Burns looks like he’s about to get hit hard, after watching the first two hitters make good contact.
What a monster shot by Dunn! Between the stacks!
I hate have to pay attention to the game with gamecast I’m jealous of you who can watch live
Way to be patient, Scott.
Impeach Tony Womack!
How could they possibly miss that? It wasn’t even a trap where the glove hides the bounce. Unbelievable.
That’s better
That’s that – 6-5 win. Hurrah for Adam Dunn!
This one belongs to the Reds !!!
Does anybody track no decisions by starters? This team could set some sort of record.
This Rick White thing isn’t looking any better than it did when they signed him. I know I keep saying not to make any decisions based on a small sample, but if that decision is to dump a guy you never should’ve had, I relax my rule.
What a fun ballgame, in a lot of ways.
This Rick White thing isn’t looking any better than it did when they signed him. I know I keep saying not to make any decisions based on a small sample, but if that decision is to dump a guy you never should’ve had, I relax my rule.
Comment by Chris — 4/6/2006 @ 10:25 pm
Like I said in another area — I think the “Rick White thing” is just another example of Krivski buying time. He is going to do that until a guy like Wagner or Shackelford or Standridge or someone from outside the organization is ready to be consistently productive.
Bill –
Is there anything the Reds could do that you wouldn’t defend?
Good question.
Maybe they could’ve used someone like this.
I’d rather have Shackelford than White on the roster.
I don’t have a big problem with White, but he’s essentially replaceable chaff. If Narron’s going to run him out there every other night, though, we may be in trouble.
Yeah, I don’t see any reason that Shackelford should have been sent out.
On a more positive note, Weathers has certainly looked good early.
Bill –
Is there anything the Reds could do that you wouldn’t defend?
Comment by Jimmy James — 4/7/2006 @ 12:15 am
I don’t know that what I am doing could be called as “defending” the Reds moves — so much as “seeking to understand” them without being hyper-critical of nearly everything. I find it really funny to read some folks here talking about how they can obviously see things that Jerry Narron cannot — all the while choosing to NOT see things that don’t support their position (such as two ugly substance abuse issues). I’d like to at least see folks try to understand why Narron might make a move that they wouldn’t make — because he is in a better position to see things they cannot see.
Bill, you keep trotting out the substance abuse problem. Okay lets assume Freel does have one. So what? If he can hit better than Womack drunk, hungover, stoned or otherwise who cares? I mean would you have made David Wells a LOOGY (or cut him) and not have gotten his perfect game? Baseball is different from the rest of the business world.
We aren’t ignoring the ideas that don’t agree with our positions. We just see them as illogical to winning games (runs are all that matters, drunk, stoned or otherwise). We don’t claim to see things Narron doesn’t, but we don’t actually have a clue what he is seeing in starting Womack. I mean look at the following comparison.
Neutrals
Defense is equal.
Pros for Freel
Freel is a far superior offensive player.
Freel is a fan favorite.
Freel is younger.
Pros for Womack
Freel may have a substance abuse issue.
Womack is a veteran (and a subcategory under this is that he “knows” how to win).
What other strengths does Womack have, that Freel doesn’t?
Plenty of stars have played the game quite effectively hungover, drunk, or otherwise intoxicated – Ruth, Mantle, etc., etc. Freel’s two citations should not keep him out of the lineup. As everyone here knows, he’s going to get on base a LOT more than Womack and will steal 50+ bases if healthy.
Joe Nuxhall and the whole mid 50’s Reds LOVED drinking, Just give “We Played the Game” a read and find out what is then acceptable (public drunkeness)is now termed as “substance abuse”
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t… mumbling about it is what cops call “Bar room Talk” not much merit in it and it’s borderline gossip.
But lets not forget that drinking and baseball are entrapped, so much in Cincinnati’s past that Waite Hoyt quit announcing the Reds games when they switched from being sponsered by Burger Beer (for Hudy)
He said he didn’t feel it was right after pimping Burger all those years. Waite knew a bit about “substance abuse” and was famous for his Cold Beer quote at Ruth’s funeral and for vanishing on a bender in the mid 40’s (a jaunt that the Reds covered up)
Bill, you keep trotting out the substance abuse problem.
I keep “trotting out the substance abuse problem” in response to that which you and many others keep asking. You keep pondering why Narron might be playing Womack(so far)– you gusy keep asking for some reason why that may be so. I keep telling you a very valid reason — and you just respond with more questioning.
I’ve read responses like “baseball is different” and “drinking used to be sociably acceptable” and “some guys play quite well drunk” — but I don’t see too many folks acknowledging that to have two incidents involving alcohol (as Freel has had now) may very well be the reason why this is playing out among the Reds top brass as it is.
That’s really all I have offered — and for that, I have gotten allot of condescending lectures and high school level rationalization.
I’ll say it again — Womack may be playing because of Freel’s two ugly alcohol-related incidents. Most employers would take what has happened into account.
What more do you guys want?
To think that Freel’s PT is being limited b/c of an off-season off the field issue is so off the charts it’s hardly even worth discussing.
All Narron cares about is who is going to win the most ball games for this team, that’s the only way he’s going to keep his job.
So, are you saying that Freel’s two alcohol related issues (one of which was either dismissed or reduced and from reports was due more to an over-zealous police officer than Freel) make Womack more likely to contribute to this team’s success than Freel?
Joe Nuxhall and the whole mid 50’s Reds LOVED drinking, Just give “We Played the Game” a read and find out what is then acceptable (public drunkeness)is now termed as “substance abuse”
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t… mumbling about it is what cops call “Bar room Talk” not much merit in it and it’s borderline gossip.
But lets not forget that drinking and baseball are entrapped, so much in Cincinnati’s past that Waite Hoyt quit announcing the Reds games when they switched from being sponsered by Burger Beer (for Hudy)
He said he didn’t feel it was right after pimping Burger all those years. Waite knew a bit about “substance abuse” and was famous for his Cold Beer quote at Ruth’s funeral and for vanishing on a bender in the mid 40’s (a jaunt that the Reds covered up)
Comment by Baseball_Minutia — 4/7/2006 @ 4:04 pm
Henstly — I can’t believe that I’m reading some of this.
Denial, on the other hand, occurs on a level below consciousness—on a subconscious or unconscious level. It is a psychological process that acts to block out reality—that is, to block out conscious awareness within the individual of something that feels threatening to that individual. People honestly do not know when they are “in denial.” It’s not that denial is invisible. It isn’t. We can often see denial as it occurs in other people; we just can’t see it in ourselves.
In terms of problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse—be it our own or that of someone who is close to us—denial manifests in one or more ways. These include the following:
Failure to see that a problem exists at all (total blindness).
Failure to recognize the extent or severity of the problem (partial blindness).
Failure to see the connection between the substance abuse and the problems that it precipitates (an astigmatism).
Failure to understand that one needs help dealing with the problem (false pride).
Denial is so common among individuals who have become addicted to alcohol and other drugs that addiction has been referred to as the disease of denial. Indeed, people in recovery from substance abuse are typically surprised at the depth of their denial as it unfolds before them during the recovery process.
Denial can be the fatal aspect of addiction. This is true because it leaves the alcoholic/addict vulnerable to taking greater risks for longer periods of time. It impairs judgment and results in self-delusion, preventing the addict from seeing and understanding the implications and consequences of his or her behavior until it is too late. An example is the person who honestly believes that he or she can drive just as effectively under the influence of alcohol or drugs as he/she can sober and straight. Even documented evidence to the contrary won’t persuade the individual differently.
Wait, are you saying we are denying the “obvious” in that Freel is on the bench for the “valid” reason of a two off-the-field drinking incidents. Because I haven’t denied that he may be a drunk. What i have denied is that its a valid reason. We have accepted that you may believe that its a valid reason. But if Jerry Narron believes it as valid, then I don’t want him as our coach. We have also pointed to why we don’t see it as valid, baseball is different than the regular world, baseball players have a history of performing drunk, stoned, and hungover, and finally Freel’s offense is so far superior that not having him in the game is a crime against nature.
Why do you see it as a “valid” reason for benching a far superior offensive player?
Why do you see it as a “valid” reason for benching a far superior offensive player?
Comment by Pinski — 4/7/2006 @ 9:11 pm
(1) Because two incidents do constitute a problem with a vast majority of occupations.
(2) Baseball is not “different” — that is either simply stupidity or denial — possibly both.
(3) Offense isn’t the only consideration.
(4) Narron, Krivsky, etc must all see it more my way than they see it your way — for reasons you cannot or will not see.
Baseball is totally different. I don’t go to work and have a bucket full of greenies available for me to consume if I want. There isn’t two types of coffee. My boss would fire my co-workers that were clearly violating the law while representing the company. My boss would never suggest violently attacking a competior with a 90 mph fast ball to the head. I don’t get booed on a bad day.
If you truly believe that those above items don’t make baseball any different than the “real” world, then maybe we just have to disagree. Maybe baseball should be treated like other jobs, and until you can put together the argument that it is I will believe that baseball like other sports is not like the rest of the business world. But calling me stupid is in itself unfair, condescending, and high schoolish.
Okay then what are the other considerations? Defensively they are equal. Offensively Freel is superior. That leaves off-field incidents, that do not seem to affect the onfield performance. So I am assuming that your argument off-field considerations are more important than the on field performance. If both Narron and Krivsky, etc follow that logic then we are in for a long season.
Henstly — I can’t believe that I’m reading some of this.
Right back at you, micromanage the mans life from your PC and let me know how that turns out for you.