The real question is why Hector Sanchez ever started catching Tim Lincecum in the first place this year.
Yeah, Lincecum got off to an awful start this year with Buster Posey catching him. But who made that about Posey? Matt Cain and Madison Bumgarner certainly didn’t have any problem with Posey. And Lincecum was extremely successful throwing to Posey in 2011, amassing a 1.55 ERA in 62 2/3 innings.
If Lincecum has a legitimate problem with Posey — and there’s been speculation to that effect — he needs to get over it. And it’s part of Bruce Bochy’s job to make sure that happens.
Lincecum did have some early success throwing to Sanchez this year, but in the end, it really didn’t matter much. There was an ERA difference: Lincecum had a 4.87 ERA working with Sanchez and a 5.46 ERA working with Posey, but nothing really backed that up. The league hit .255/.341/.414 against Lincecum with Sanchez catching and .258/.340/.429 against him with Posey catching. In pretty much the same number of innings, baserunners were 18-for-20 stealing against Lincecum-Sanchez and 6-for-6 against Lincecum-Posey.
Plus, Lincecum did just great in relief throwing to Posey in the postseason, pitching four scoreless innings in two appearances.
But there was Sanchez behind the plate for Thursday’s Game 4 against the Cardinals. It did Lincecum no good, as he gave up four runs in 4 2/3 innings to take a loss, and Sanchez ended up going 0-for-4 with three strikeouts at the plate. He also dropped a relay on a play at the plate in the fifth, opening the door for a two-run inning. He did manage to throw out a would-be basestealer, but that was the only highlight of the night.
This should put an end to the foolishness, anyway. If the Giants do come back and win the NLCS, one imagines that Posey will be the choice to catch Lincecum in the World Series. And if they don’t, the Giants need to work out whatever differences Lincecum and Posey have, as this arrangement simply can’t be allowed to linger into 2013.
The Reds will roll with manager Bryan Price for at least one more season. Per MLB.com’s Mark Sheldon, Price has been extended through the 2017 season with a club option for 2018. He won’t be the only familiar face leading the team, as the Reds have reportedly asked the entire coaching staff to return as well.
This is Price’s second consecutive season with 90+ losses since Cincinnati signed him to a three-year contract back in 2014. While he hasn’t been able to replicate the same kind of success that former skipper Dusty Baker found in 2012 and 2013, he’s been saddled with a team that’s still in the throes of rebuilding, not one that looks on the cusp of playoff contention. It is, after all, the same team that has not seen a healthy season from Homer Bailey since Price’s arrival, one that unloaded Jay Bruce for a pair of prospects earlier this year and one whose pitching staff set a single-season record for most home runs given up by a major league team.
Justifying Price’s extension requires a different kind of yardstick, one that measures player development and individual success over the cumulative win-loss record. Here, Price has overseen solid performances from contributors like Adam Duvall, who is batting .244/.297/.506 with 2.9 fWAR in his first full major-league season, as well as young arms like Anthony DeSclafani, Brandon Finnegan, and Michael Lorenzen, among others.
From comments made by Reds’ CFO Bob Castellini, Price’s success within a rough rebuilding process appears to have cemented his place within the club, at least for the time being.
I like the young, aggressive team Walt and Dick have put together with players from within our system and from recent trades. […] Bryan has been here seven seasons now. He’s comfortable with the direction we are heading with our young players, and we are comfortable with him leading us in that direction.
When the Nationals fired Matt Williams a year ago, it might’ve been a safe assumption that they were going to go with that new breed of young, handsome recently-retired player-turned-manager who, despite a lack of experience, allegedly knows how to deal with modern players better and knows how to handle a clubhouse. Those assumptions have proved largely off with these guys — Williams was a disaster, Matheny wins despite himself and Ausmus looks like he’s perpetually on the verge of a breakdown — but that’s the all the rage these days anyway.
Instead, the Nats hired Dusty Baker. Though Baker had tremendous success as a manager everywhere he went, he was maligned by some for some pitcher handling stuff in Chicago (which said pitchers have long denied was an issue, but let’s let that lie). He was also, more generally, thought of as a “retread.” Which is what people who prefer younger folks for jobs tend to call older people, even if the older people know what they’re doing.
And yes, I will cop to thinking about managers that way a lot over the years, so I’m not absolving myself at all here, even if I was pretty OK with the Dusty Baker hiring. I’ve evolved on this point. In no small part because of how Dusty Baker has done in Washington. Flash forward a year, the Nats are division champions and Baker may be a top candidate for Manager of the Year. That, in and of itself, should show you how wrong the haters were.
But if it doesn’t, this sure should:
I have no earthly idea what that means and Castillo gives no further context. All I know is that it sounds cool as hell and of any current manager, only Dusty Baker could say that and pull it off.
Because he’s Dusty Baker and has nothing to prove to you. And if you don’t like it, shoot, he’ll just go back home to his winery or whatever and live out the rest of his days being cooler than you.