Reds take a 10-8 win over the Cubs, and Craig Counsell’s sixth-inning bullpen call comes under fire

The Cincinnati Reds scored the runs they needed to defeat the Chicago Cubs 10-8, and the spotlight in the aftermath is on the Cubs’ bullpen usage in the sixth inning. In an opinion piece published after the game, Yahoo Sports writer Nick Cammett questioned Craig Counsell’s choice of relievers at a critical juncture, arguing that the managing decision may not have matched how the inning was unfolding.

Cammett’s argument is narrower than a box-score debate about who “should have pitched.” Instead, it is rooted in the idea that Counsell, who has handled Chicago’s severely thinned bullpen over much of the season, made a decision that did not work out as well as his usual pattern of bullpen management. Through the season, the article says Cammett has praised Counsell for resting the right arms and for giving productive opportunities to pitchers who, because of injuries, were forced into larger roles than they normally would have had.

That context matters because the Cubs’ approach to injury-stretched pitching has been a defining storyline. When a bullpen is disrupted, it changes the manager’s job from “match best relievers to the highest-leverage situations” to “make the best of constrained options while keeping tomorrow’s outs available.” The piece frames Chicago’s season as one in which Counsell has generally navigated those tradeoffs effectively, which makes the sixth-inning call stand out more sharply than it might have in a vacuum.

The sixth inning is often the pivot point for both teams, particularly in games decided late by marginal bullpen swings. According to the opinion, the specific reliever sequence Counsell used at that moment is where the Cubs could have done something different. The critique does not claim that the entire game turned on a single pitcher, but it does suggest that this was a moment where the manager’s usual “injury bullpen” logic may have been misapplied.

Even with the Cubs’ injuries and adjustments, Counsell has remained a central reference point for how Chicago has tried to win close games. The article’s broader theme is not that the Cubs lack pitching, but that in a season where bullpen depth has been tested, managers cannot afford misreads of leverage. The Reds’ ability to score and hold the margin is what gives the sixth-inning bullpen choice its after-the-fact weight.

There is, however, a limitation to how far any single-management critique should travel without more detailed verification. Opinion writing can be illuminating, but bullpen decisions are often influenced by things a reader cannot fully see, such as pitch counts, handedness matchups, recent availability, catcher-game plan, and a manager’s assessment of who was best equipped to handle the next batter sequence. Without the full sequence of matchups from that sixth inning, the criticism should be taken as a question, not a final verdict.

For Cubs fans, the practical takeaway is straightforward. After a 10-8 loss to Cincinnati, it becomes fair to ask what the team wants from its bullpen in innings where the game can tilt quickly. For everyone following the Reds and Cubs, the immediate question going forward is whether the Cubs adjust their late-inning bullpen patterns in a way that protects key arms while still being aggressive when an inning starts to slip away.

Ultimately, the game result gives the story its headline, but the managing decision gives it its spark. Counsell’s season-long reputation for making the most of a damaged bullpen is what makes the sixth inning a point of contention, and it will continue to color how people evaluate Chicago’s pitching choices in close games until the bullpen picture changes.