Called in with lots of intelligent viewpoints, but Rongey talked right over him and assumed what he was going to say and then shouted it down.

Ancillary Douchebag to Rongey, which goes without saying. In full apology mode for Peavy because he doesn't really understand baseball. First, nobody said Peavy was "awful" tonight. He was just a fucking loser. Let's go back about four hours ago. A game was about to occur featuring Peavy and Doug Fister as the two most important players. Not Peavy and Walter Johnson. Not Peavy and Bob Gibson. Not Peavy and Justin Verlander. Not even Peavy and Max Scherzer. Peavy and Motherfucking Doug Fister. In the most important game of the season thus far for both of them. Fister stepped up. Peavy didn't. Don't talk about "run support." That's just what Peavy allowed and what Fister didn't.

Rongey should have heard DeAndre out. He might have learned something.

I tend to be a sabermetrics guy, but the way people throw around the term "run support" has robbed it of any explanatory power it may once have had. Exactly how many runs worth of "support" does a pitcher need before we can reasonably expect him to win? Two? Three? Six? Who knows? It's just a crutch for lazy people who want to excuse a guy for taking a loss. Fister went 7.0 and gave up 2, which was good enough to win. Peavy went 5.2 and gave up 3, which wasn't. Regardless of what Baghdad Bob would have you believe, there's really not much more to it than that.

Also, how the fuck can a guy dismiss pitcher's wins and losses and then talk about "quality starts"? A "quality start" is simply another arbitrary construction, much like a pitcher's win, but with less rigorous standards.

Well, Quality starts does remove any direct connection to the offense.

However, playoff crunch is like the black hole in the baseball universe, the laws all change. In this type of situation (playoff run against the team chasing you) I demand nothing less than shutout baseball from my 17 million dollar pitcher.

I think this is what DeAndre was trying to get at. That you go into a game like this with a lot on the line, you can't expect a lot of "run support." When the games are this meaningful, the other guy is good too. And it doesn't get easier from here.

Exactly how many runs worth of "support" does a pitcher need before we can reasonably expect him to win? Two? Three? Six? Who knows? It's just a crutch for lazy people who want to excuse a guy for taking a loss. Fister went 7.0 and gave up 2, which was good enough to win. Peavy went 5.2 and gave up 3, which wasn't. Regardless of what Baghdad Bob would have you believe, there's really not much more to it than that.

You are right. So in tight, important, games like these...it is probably wise to bunt more. Get em on, get em over, get em in.

As dumb as I think "smallball" is, I probably wouldn't object nearly as much if they had someone who could actually get a bunt down.

[
If you have those type of players in that type of park, fine. But, to play smallball in a launching pad, with a lineup full of mashers, is dumb.

with a guy who hasn't bunted, no once, the entire year

Hawk and Stone were basically calling Robin a dumbass from the booth yesterday

Of course there are cases like Jason Marquis in his Cardinals days where an offense carries a pitcher for a whole season.