As my colleague Will Brinson explained last night, the Reds managed to beat the D'Backs last night despite Dusty Baker's best efforts. If Baker had it his way, Edwin Encarnacion would have laid down a sacrifice bunt instead of hit a three-run home run. But Encarnacion, who has never successfully laid down a sacrifice bunt in his entire career, bunted the first two pitches foul before being forced to man up and just take a hack. That hack, of course, resulted in a three-run homer ... just like Baker envisioned all along. Wait, what? Yep, that's how he's telling it. From John Fay's blog for the Cincinnati Enquirer:
"You can't let him swing in that situation," Baker said. "He was struggling. I told (coach Chris Speier), 'I kind of hope he doesn't get it down so can hit a three-run homer, and he hit a three-run homer."
Say what you will about Encarnacion, he hits with runners on. He led the team with a .360 average last year.If Encarnacion is "clutch," than how come "you can't let him swing in that situation?" Isn't swinging in situations like this exactly what makes a player clutch in the first place? And how can Encarnacion already be struggling -- this was the second game of the season, he only had five freaking at-bats up to that point!
"Being on the other side, he was one of the guys I didn't want to see up there in that situation," Baker said. "He's a clutch man."
The strange part is that I'm amazed Baker is able to see both sides of the argument yet amazingly doesn't connect the dots: if he didn't like to see Encarnacion swing the bat when he was the opposing manager, why wouldn't he think it was a good idea to see him swing it now? It's like trying to explain colors to a blind man.
ADVERTISEMENT
_thumbnail.jpg "NASCAR Cowboy Hats")
