Tony LaRussa: Consistency Is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds--Not for Geniuses Like LaRussa and Obama

Did you think I was exaggerating about Tony LaRussa in last night's entry? I was not.


Segue to today, where the Cardinals have already started playing the New York Mets. LaRussa has yanked Kevin Lohse after 2 and 2/3 innings, during which Lohse has given up 5 runs--trailing 5 to 0. Meanwhile, LaRussa refused to yank Pineiro last night, during a FOUR RUN firth inning for the Mets (when Pineiro had already given up 3 runs before), even though the Cardinals LED 4 to 3 going inot last night's 5th innning--meaning they were definitely still in the game if the amount of runs allowed could be kept down. Today, in contrast, there is little reason to belive that the game is not already lost (although you can't give up, and a comeback is certainly not impossible--see last night). Does it make ANY sense to yank Lohse this early, while NOT yanking Pineiro last night? I can see none, other thatn LaRussa seems to act on impulse rather than any kind of consistent "principles".


You say that maybe Lohse was injured, or so obviously laboring that it would have been cruel to leave him in? Maybe. But you forget that I follow the Cardinals. LaRussa does this sort of thing ALL OF THE TIME. One time, as with Wellemeyer in the last series against the Mets, LaRussa will leave a pitcher like Wellemeyer in to face a batter he should not face, as late as the sixth or seventh inning IN A TIE GAME, and the next time LaRussa will remove Wellemeyer in the 4th inning. As I said last night, it basically seems to be a function of STUBBORNNESS and pique/eccentric impulse, instead of any consistent prinicple at work. You may, by the way, get the idea that Wellemeyer is a BAD major league pitcher this year, and you would be right. The Cardinals do not have a 5th starter worthy of the name, and Lohse has not been a reliable 4th starter since coming off the DL. (He wasn't that good BEFORE getting hit by a pitch, and going on the DL). If Pineiro turns erratic again, or if something happens to Carpenter, the Cardinals are suddenly going to be HURTING for pitching. That does not change the ERRATIC way LaRussa appears to handle pichers (erratic to us non-geniuses, at least non-genius in baseball if the reference is to me--although genius in other areas). I can't telll you how many times LaRussa has pulled pichers beforfe the end of the 5th inning--healthy pitchers--even while inexplicably staying with pichters that are bein HAMMERED (like Pineiro, last night). Pineiro has been pitcing well, but last night wasridiculous.


I stand by what I said last night about managers (and it applies to most football coaches). It is enough to give an unsuspecting fan gray hairs (if mine were not already entirely gray, probably because of previous actions by managers and coaches of teams I have followed).


Yes, I know. Obama has gotten away, so far, with saying totally opposite and inconsistent things on a vritual daily basis--often DENYING what he previously said. See the health caere debate, the deficit, and taxes; but this blog has cited MANY other instances.


And LaRussa himself has been a consistent WINNER, despite what I consider rather consistent inconsistency. I thought, for example, that LaRussa's managment of the Cardinal bullpen last year was pretty bad, but vastly exceeded by his BIZARRE statements attempting to excuse that bullpen performance (statements I think I can safely say were believed, and shared, by NO ONE else in baseball, or who follows baseball).


We know President Obama has gotten away with total inconsistency because of a refusal by the mainstream media to call him on it, and because of the implosion of the Republican Party. It seems obvious that the exlpanation for LaRussa is even simpler. In sprots, on a professional level, it does not matter "how you play the game". Winning is the ONLY thing (to quote Vince Lombardi). In a way, there is something comforting about that. You don't have either a mainstream media or political class able to make excuses (in the long run). If you win, you are a success. If you don't, you are a failure (although you inexplicably might get chance after chance, which I have never understood--that is, I have never understood why FAILED managers and coaches keep getting rehired elsewhere, as if experience AT FAILURE were a job qualification).


Therefore, what I say is not gong to affect the standing of LaRussa. I stil find many of his decisions and statements bizarre and inconsistent.


P.S. I am NOT salying that winning through CHEATING and/or self-destructive behavior is all right. Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and the rest SHOULD have a stigma attached to their accomplishments. As this blog has said, Alex Rodriguez had better watch out. In this Age of Obama, people might start questioining whether he "deserves" the money he is making. Even if it is not decided to specially TAX steroid using baseball players, or those who made their big bucks because of steroid use, sports figures are part of the "rich" who are the target of Obama, Pelosi and the rest--even though Obama, Pelosi and many of tghe rest are part of teh SUPERRICH themselves.