Well, I often think the answer is yes. The A's have been burned every which way by these late inning conundra the past two nights-- Cust and Thomas get removed for pinch-runners on back to back plays in the 8th last night-- and we lose their bats for extra innings. And tonight we get the two fer-- the deciding run is scored by a player Geren decided to walk intentionally (set up by a double steal) and the deciding misplay is made by a player who was shifted to that OF position due to a pinchrunning/defensive replacement in the previous inning.

simply bad luck-- or, as the title of this thread suggests-- would we simply be better off hardly ever making these moves? Or are the ghosts of Art Howe and Eric Byrnes destined to doom this franchise forever for the move that wasn't made in the 7th inning of that memorable October night ove 6 years ago?

Start with pinchrunning. in Cust's case, as happened tonight, geren kills two birds with one pinch-running stone because he also removes Cust from the OF. That was as much his motivation tonight with a 1 run lead as attempting to score an insurance run. But obviously it backfired. Generally i believe that pinchrunning is an ill-advised move, except perhaps in the 9th inning of a tie game. That is the one situation where I think the scales tip in favor of assisting a one-run strategy with maximum payoff over the loss of one of the team's biggest bats in the event of the lineup coming around again. Last night was a close call-- he pulled Cust to get a faster runner on base to score the tying run-- and it paid off when Thomas singled and the runner was able to reach third. then he had to pull Thomas for fear that a groundball could be turned into a force play and deny the A's the tying run.

But even in the extreme example of Thomas I believe that the actual odds of that faster baserunner being able to score a run that Thomas wouldn't-- either on a hit and a fly ball, or a double in the gap or down the line, or even two base hits-- are not worth the loss of production that gets created in the lineup. now at DH with sweeney the A's do have the luxury of pinchhitting for the fast guy the next time through so the loss of Thomas is not so harmful, but with Cust the falloff is more severe. The key point being that if it is one run you need-- and you're trailing-- all the pinchrunner does is ensure a tie game-- AT WHICH POINT THE NEED FOR THE BAT THE NEXT INNING OR TWO IS STILL PRESENT-- if you bust the game open, then you don't need the bat, but of course then you almost certainly wouldn't need the runner.

The late inning defensive replacement (two of the more infamous non-moves were the failure to pull Buckner in Game Six of the 1986 WS and the failure to pull Luzinski by the Phillies in the 9th inning of a key playoff game vs the Dodgers in 1977) makes more sense, because then you are guarding a lead.

But what about the IW? i basically feel it is almost always a mistake with the lead. Behind when you need a double play or want to avoid their best hitter or a bad platoon matchup, OK. But ahead when you've just put another baserunner in play? i don't like it.

Think of the standard situations--

In the NL there's walking the 8 hitter to get to the pitcher. Clear advantage to get out of the inning, but at the cost of not starting the next inning with a near automatic out. And since this strategy generally applies in the early to mid innings only-- since by the 7th or later a pinch-hitter will be used in most situations-- I think it risks too much damage in a big inning.

In the AL there's the lefty-righty move to get a good hitter/platoon option out of the way and get a more favorable matchup. And the double play none out or 1 out play-- usually with men on 2nd and 3rd. Or a combination. (Or the desperate bottom of 9th move with a runner on 3rd and none or one out, where the IW does make sense)

Tonight the A's intentionally walked Carlos Pena (it wasn't their original strategy but evolved after a double steal)-- barely above the Mendoza line-- in order to set up a r/r situation with Longoria with one out. The next hitter-- and the one that whose misplayed hit would decide the game-- was a switch-hitting catcher, navarro. Aside from the fact that Pena hasn't been hitting well and was hitless tonight, and that Longoria won the game last night with an extra inning bomb-- I don't like this move. Now you can argue that but for emil brown's screw-up it would have worked. But why not take your chances with Pena-- even concede the tying run on a  ground ball to 2nd or short-- and then still have the r/r situation with devine facing longoria with 2 outs?? As it was you are putting tremendous pressure on a  reliever to throw strikes-- and I generally think it's not worth it. Not with a lead. If Pena is Barry Bonds or Chipper Jones this year, fine. But he's a guy that you should get out.

Anyhow it's been rotten luck the last two nights-- but in general if i had to choose I'd have geren never make these moves rather than being as active as he's been.