Look, if we want to have a reasonable discussion about how managers misuse their relievers, I’m all for it. By now you should know that I agree in general with that premise.

But using over the top rhetoric does not further the discussion, and in fact often clouds it. What we are really talking about now is not whether Girardi did something that was inexplicable (i.e., unexplainable, incomprehensible, etc.). Rather we are speaking about the much more mundane: that Girardi does not rise above very predicable tendencies of most MLB managers.

Now that we have dispensed with the hyperbole, we can continue the discussion, and focus on what then is the real issue: managers use their relievers incorrectly, and Girardi appears to be no cleverer in this regard.

Go to it.

If most managers would make that decision, how is it inexplicable?

And yet, as demonstrated earlier, Coke DID have fine numbers v. LH batters this year, though he has been prone to the long ball. If Marte could not go, Coke was not the worst option, in my mind. At that point Girardi has one lefty to go to against the meat of their order.

Now I for one am not so hung up lefty-righty match ups, an i would have gone with Hughes (probably). But eliminating the reductio ad absurdum of jumping out a window to save time, using your one lefty available in the pen to go after their tough lefties is by no means *inexplicable*within the context of typical baseball strategy, as employed by managers these days.

In all serious, semantics aside, the Coke decision was a pivotal mistake, in my opinion.

Mistake or not, I agree…he ended up allowing to lead to balloon to a much tougher deficit.

[48] It is reasonable, but the first part turned out to be wrong. If the second part does to, then Girardi will deservingly take a lot of heat.

Girardi had no reason to think that Coke’s left handedness made him the right man for the job, so using that a reason is as inexplicable as the decision itself.

In all serious, semantics aside, the Coke decision was a pivotal mistake, in my opinion.

When *isn’t* he insufferable?

He really tailors things to fit his opinion and not the other way around. Talking about Rivera for three innings, he says Rivera said he “doesn’t know” if he can pitch three – then Francesa says “that’s what makes it such an interesting question”. Really? The guy honestly says he doesn’t know if he can do it and that makes it attractive to you? I’m sure if Francesa started with the idea that no way should Rivera pitch three, he’d take that comment as evidence to support his point there too.

Not to pick nits, but your own analysis of the situation betrays part of your conclusion. His decision to pass over Hughes for Coke may be inexcusable, but it is not “inexplicable”—you provided one possible explanation!

I guess I don’t view using Coke to get the lefties as a good reason

Again, my point was not that it was a good reason…only that it was the obvious reason (to my mind). I am not justifying the decision, I am pointing out that is is explicable.

And see, you and I have now provided two potential explanations.