I knew you would help me.

Unfortunately, I'm at the age where I suffer from CRS (can't remember sh*t). I'll forget, and use that wrong spelling, soon enough.

Don't take it personally. It's all that weed I smoked when I was a kid.

<<we get this: A pitcher that did a fine job is pulled for the next guy for no real reason>>

it is what it is because that's the way he drew it up.

back-to-back games calling for the same scenario -- 7,8,9: Dotel, Benoit, Valverde -- the liklihood of them ALL being effective both times is low %. with no margin for error in one run games,
an effective Dotel or 7th inning guy should be kept in.

"Hence, it does not matter what I think. You guys are arguing against 2012 baseball logic that is shared by every manager in the league right now."

I don't think every single manager manages their bullpen the same exact way. I will disagree with you on this.

"So...we should never question ANYTHING and just Sunshine each decision made or style of play adopted?"

There are no bad managers in the game. Everyone does a great job!

"that's the way he 'drew it up'. Dotel-Benoit-Valverde."

I think having it drawn up before the game has started is silly. What if Dotel is getting lit up? Do you leave him in to lose it? What if Benoit get injured on the first pitch? Who do you bring in? What if Smyly has an economical pitch count and is in command? Do you pull him after 6 innings, because that's what the plan was before the game?

I want a fast thinking manager that can adjust to certain situations as they come. Not someone who can lazily make up a plan and follow it. Everything doesn't always come together the way you want it to.

Put in a reliever and leave him in until he gets tired or batters figure him out. Heck, if you want to play the match ups, go ahead. There are some pitchers who can't get lefties out and vice versa. I'm cool with that.

Designating an assigned inning to a reliever is very, very, very, silly if you ask me.

Leyland is very robotic. He doesn't know how to adjust if something goes wrong. We've also seen it in his lineups.

<<<<< Leyland is very robotic. He doesn't know how to adjust if something goes wrong. We've also seen it in his lineups. >>>>>

I can't argue with you on that one...It'll drive you nuts if you let it...

<<Designating an assigned inning to a reliever is very, very, very, silly if you ask me>>

we're talking about Leyland here...this is what you get with the man

"Leyland is very robotic. He doesn't know how to adjust if something goes wrong. We've also seen it in his lineups. "

I agree with this, especially in regards to his bullpen moves. I thought Porcello would have been a good bring in the 8th yesterday (Lord knows he should be fresh). But Leyland stays so much by "the plan" it is sickening at times.

I think he is better at adjusting lineups than people give him credit for, but many people would like more knee jerk reactions when people are under peforming (ala Raburn/Inge). I can understand that for sure. But this doesn't bother me as much as the bullpen moves.

""I agree with him. Leave in successful pitchers until they're not so successful. THEN replace him with the next guy."

Yeah, so wait till the game is lost then replace him? I disagree 100%"

How did you get that out of what I wrote?

But that requires deviating from the plan he drew up.

He's not going to do that.

It's worked two of the six years. I think adjustments need to be made.

He won't do that, and I'm just a fan wishing he would.

Pretty much. It's how it's going to be.

So by interpreting "not-so-successful" as an extreme, you negate an entire strategy on its face? Got it. I can't argue with that logic.

For shame! Nobody says "barber" anymore. He is your hair stylist.

<<Quite easily. Two run game, "not so successful"= at least one run,>>

Not necessarilly. At that point in the game, he should have guys at the ready to come in, and watching his guy on the mound very closely. Two base-runners with less than two outs. No runs in. Pull him. Bring in his next pitcher depending on the situation, ie leftie vs. leftie, righty vs. righty, and/or play the percentages of how successful his guys are vs. the guy coming to the plate.

The plan is: Look at who is coming to the plate the next inning, and determine who is likely going to have the most success against the lineup coming up up to five hitters deep in that inning.

Obviously, that's just one scenario. If he's got a man on 2nd with one out, setup the double-play, and bring in his best chance to get it. And so on.

You've created a single scenario to make your point. That's fine - but there are many things that can happen in an inning whereas a pitcher gives up no runs, but it's time to pull him.

That's leaving a guy in who was successful until he's not so successful.

"So by interpreting "not-so-successful" as an extreme, you negate an entire strategy on its face?"

In my opinion, the discussion most of us are trying to have is about as important AND even as the designated hitter rule. I would not negate either side of this issue - and this type of debate is what sports message boards SHOULD be having.

Sure. It's what 2nd guessing is all about!

JL will make some bad decisions. It's bound to happen. I'm ok with that, so long as he tries, meaning that he may deviate from his "set plan."

Problem is: He pretty much never does. He's rather predicatable. Most managers are - certainly to that teams' fan base, and to the other managers.

What he wants are six good innings. The seventh is a bonus, because it makes the 7th inning guy available for some other time in the game, or for the next game. This doesn't apply to Verlander, but pretty much every other starter. He then goes to his setup guy and then Valverte.

That was a problem in the ALCS last season, and it was exposed.

Has it been dealt with?

Two words: Daniel Schlereth.