Add new comment

Carrying the double shot of DH is NOT reason to laud Wak for his ingenuity.  Point of fact, the roster construction removed 90% of the roster moves available to other managers, which meant after filling out the lineup card, the only decision Wak really had was which pitcher and when to call for a sac bunt, (which the Ms led the league in last I looked).
And it is VERY selective memory to not recall the ENTIRE MONTH OF MAY, when there was a long-running multi-monologue about the egregiously stupid choice to NOT send Sweeney to the DL at his first twinge.  Why?  Because they were forced to play Burke at first base for a single game.  I completely agree that many of the arguments about defensive purity are overstated.  But, perhaps that is necessary, so as to not overlook the impact of the OFFENSIVE sacrifices when the short bench bites. 
Replacing your .900 OPS 1B with a .750 backup due to injury is unfortunate.  Replacing your .900 OPS 1B with a .550 backup catcher is just plain stupid.  And if your roster puts you in a position where this is your BEST choice ... then it is not the choice of playing Burke at 1B that is stupid, it is the roster construction that is stupid.
Me?  I'm an NL guy.  I EXPECT to see at least one PH every game, and am not shocked to see two, or even three.  In the AL, with the DH, the need for pinch-hitting isn't there.  But, if you only have 1 positional backup for IF, and 1 for OF, then if you use either, and they come into the game, then you are completely out of backups for those positions.  Why are managers loathe to PH for catchers, (even the .600 OPS backup who is playing today)?  Because the situation "could become" desperate if an unexpected injury pops up, (pun intended).
In truth, when the club was struggling the hardest to score runs, there were REPEATED complaints that Wak never pinch-hit ... even when there was an obvious case where one of the reserves seemed to be a much better critical-situation matchup than the starter.  But, in 2009, the bench essentially became a tool SOLELY used for giving starters rest when minor injuries cropped up.  The ABILITY to utilize in-game strategies was effectively removed from the rookie managers table.  He COULDN'T screw up by making a dubious lineup change during a game, because all options were removed.
Perhaps this was by design.  It's certainly a novel way to simplify the managers job.  Wak was placed in a position where he could ONLY concentrate on pitching and defensive choices.  And by and large, he did a stellar job.  The question then is, can you move a team to the next level without those in-game options?  Personally, I have my doubts.  If you hope Wak will develop into a Cox or LaRussa or Torre or Pineilla ... then at some point, he's going to need to have EVERY weapon possible available in his arsenal, and you'll have to trust him to make more good choices than bad.
2009 was a sim-league OOTP season.  You pick your starting lineups for platoon purposes, set your small-ball setting to max, and then let the game engine churn thru the 162 games with no thought whatsoever for in-game machinations.  And Seattle probably buried the speedometer of success for that model.  But, the next step is MUCH harder than the first one.  And you can't take that step if you refuse to allow yourself to risk having more weapons at your disposal.