and why did Kensing come in??????? what if we hit extra innings and lost him as well???

 

Kensing is faster than Olsen.

I think the game was pretty well managed, except for the fact that Hanley had no business bunting with 2 strikes on him.

None of this even matters. Lets say Hanley does bunt. There's 1 out. And the next two guys struck out, so the run wouldn't have scored anyhow.

 

 

you can't say that because uggla could have taken a totally different approach at the plate. instead of looking for a hit he tries to lift the ball and get a sac-fly.

 

bingo.

 

he is just looking for something he can put in the air, not necessarily get a hit out of it.

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

And running on two strikes is the appropriate call too, but a manager on a team full of Matt LeCroys would be fired by the end of the week if he followed the book with that talent.

Seriously, why not advance the runners via steal with no outs and try to bring them in by swinging away?

 

 

and thats a better % than the bunt how?

Because considering all the variables you aren't giving away an out.

 

Right handed batter, Lo Duca has a bad arm and is hurting, Reggie has decent speed. It was worth the risk and if Reggie did get thrown out the Marlins could still have had a RISP with one out.

 

variables werent considered before, but now they are.

 

awesome!

 

 

*rearranges stats to suit my arguement*

 

They were indeed last night. :thumbup

 

Wagner is the first NL closer I would want to face and I would trust the Marlins hitters swinging away on him.

 

And since when did you become Moses on top of the mountain?

 

I'd rather be facing Lidge right now.

 

I brought in variables last night, you dismissed them. However, now to suit your stealing third arguement, you bring them up becuase its suits your arguement. Awesome.

 

I never professed to be Moses. He isnt nearly powerful enough.

None of this even matters. Lets say Hanley does bunt. There's 1 out. And the next two guys struck out, so the run wouldn't have scored anyhow.

 

 

you can't say that because uggla could have taken a totally different approach at the plate. instead of looking for a hit he tries to lift the ball and get a sac-fly.

 

bingo.

 

he is just looking for something he can put in the air, not necessarily get a hit out of it.

Exactly.

 

A lot of pressure is lifted from a hitter's shoulders when all he has to do is get the ball in the air instead of going out looking for a knock. Especially in this situation. And especially for a rookie.

and why did Kensing come in??????? what if we hit extra innings and lost him as well???

 

Kensing is faster than Olsen.

Then why was Olsen in at all?

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

 

Well said.

HA! Not with TWO strikes. Wanting to bunt him over is one thing...but actually making Hanley do it with two strikes (after hitting a HR tonight...oh, and doesn't he kill left-handed pitching and has hit into only a handful of DPs the whole year) is laughable. It is soooo wrong, it is absurd. Even if he hits into a double-pay, you have Uggla up with the tying run on either second or third. If you want to avoid a double play, you could have tried a double steal...which would have at least taken away the double play, and with Reggie's speed maybe even moved BOTH runners without giving away an out.

 

 

What makes this whole thread great is that it was actually started as a "OMG I love Girardi thread"

so then we're going to get Kensing tired on the basepaths and then pitch???

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

And running on two strikes is the appropriate call too, but a manager on a team full of Matt LeCroys would be fired by the end of the week if he followed the book with that talent.

If Hanley does his damn job before he gets to two strikes it really doesnt matter. I agree that Hanley needs to be swinging away with 2 strikes, but beforehand its still the absolute right call.

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

Did he have many other options?

Dude... watch it.. you're on thin enough ice for starting a thread like this before the end of the game.

 

 

Willis could have come in. Herges. Any of the pitchers who pitch-ran (wtf was that about?!) in the 9th.

Even though the bunt call was questionable (not wrong), the rest of the game before and after that was brilliantly managed. Different managers would've made a different call. Both sides have a good argument.

As a tenured member of this community under various usernames you should know such threads are not made before the end of the game.

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

 

Well said.

HA! Not with TWO strikes. Wanting to bunt him over is one thing...but actually making Hanley do it with two strikes (after hitting a HR tonight...oh, and doesn't he kill left-handed pitching and has hit into only a handful of DPs the whole year) is laughable. It is soooo wrong, it is absurd. Even if he hits into a double-pay, you have Uggla up with the tying run on either second or third. If you want to avoid a double play, you could have tried a double steal...which would have at least taken away the double play, and with Reggie's speed maybe even moved BOTH runners without giving away an out.

 

 

What makes this whole thread great is that it was actually started as a "OMG I love Girardi thread"

 

i really dont think the double play scenario was a factor. Rather the getting the man to third with less than two outs is the factor in play.

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

And running on two strikes is the appropriate call too, but a manager on a team full of Matt LeCroys would be fired by the end of the week if he followed the book with that talent.

If Hanley does his damn job before he gets to two strikes it really doesnt matter. I agree that Hanley needs to be swinging away with 2 strikes, but beforehand its still the absolute right call.

but Hanley cant bunt

 

I dont care if he is supposed to be good at it, HE ISNT.

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

And running on two strikes is the appropriate call too, but a manager on a team full of Matt LeCroys would be fired by the end of the week if he followed the book with that talent.

 

Bunting isn't a talent. It's learned, you can't teach speed.

 

At some point you have to hold the players responsible, THEY are the ones playing the game. Hanley Ramirez should know how to bunt. Men on first and second, 0 outs, down a run, 99% of the managers do the same exact thing Girardi did. Hanley should have taken the time to learn how to do bunt but he clearly hasn't and it cost the team today.

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

Did he have many other options?

Dude... watch it.. you're on thin enough ice for starting a thread like this before the end of the game.

 

 

Willis could have come in. Herges. Any of the pitchers who pitch-ran (wtf was that about?!) in the 9th.

Even though the bunt call was questionable (not wrong), the rest of the game before and after that was brilliantly managed. Different managers would've made a different call. Both sides have a good argument.

As a tenured member of this community under various usernames you should know such threads are not made before the end of the game.

I've seen it done before tonight.

so then we're going to get Kensing tired on the basepaths and then pitch???

 

How you he get tired out?

 

If somebody singles he would have jogged to 2nd base. If somebody doubles, he scores and he doesn't have to pitch.

Hanley should have gotten a bunt down before he had 2 strikes on him. If he got the bunt down with 2 strikes Joe would have been a genius. So....

 

:lol :lol :lol

 

Joe would not have been a genius. Joe and genius will never be uttered together

 

He has a team with a 15 million dollar payroll playing nearly .500 ball.

 

Joe Girardi is a genius.

 

his in game management leaves much to be desired

 

give me a break.

 

you and everyone else will always complain about "in game management". I don't think i've ever heard a fan give props to a manager for their "in game management".

 

if he lets hanley swing away and he hits into a double play......

 

"why wasn't he bunting??!?!?!?"

 

he needed to bunt, but not with two fricking strikes!

 

 

i agree with two strikes you let him swing, but looking at things from girardi's perspective, sooner or later your players need to excecute fundamentals...ramirez sucks at it, yes, but who's fault is that? it's hanley's.

 

you really think ramirez isn't going to put time in the batting cages after essentially blowing this game for us? he's going to take this loss hard and hopefully in the long run, it pays off with him not being an atrocious bunter.

So good management is stubbornly jeorpordizing your teams chances of winning in order to prove your point? If Messenger is wild, do you put him in with the bases loaded and a 3-0 count just to show him that missing the strike zone is bad? I mean come on dude. There are other ways of teaching than doing so at the expense of the rest of the team.

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

And running on two strikes is the appropriate call too, but a manager on a team full of Matt LeCroys would be fired by the end of the week if he followed the book with that talent.

If Hanley does his damn job before he gets to two strikes it really doesnt matter. I agree that Hanley needs to be swinging away with 2 strikes, but beforehand its still the absolute right call.

If Girardi does his damn job of utilizing his available talent to win ball games, Hanley doesn't bunt.

 

Interesting twist on this conversation: Girardi has stressed that he's not afraid to press the kids to win this year. Yet tonight he takes the opportunity ina game-impacting situation to teach a lesson for the future?

if Joe wanted someone to bunt, why have someone who sucks at it up there?

 

 

hanley needs to learn to bunt. its a basic fundamental of the game and unexcusable for a leadoff man to not be able to get a simple sacrifice down.

no sh*t he needs to learn how to bunt...

 

BUT IF WE KNOW HE SUCKS AT IT, WHY DOESNT JOE?

 

its the right call. period.

 

 

if you want to play the blame game, blame hanley for not being able to perform one of the simplest things at the plate.

 

Well said.

HA! Not with TWO strikes. Wanting to bunt him over is one thing...but actually making Hanley do it with two strikes (after hitting a HR tonight...oh, and doesn't he kill left-handed pitching and has hit into only a handful of DPs the whole year) is laughable. It is soooo wrong, it is absurd. Even if he hits into a double-pay, you have Uggla up with the tying run on either second or third. If you want to avoid a double play, you could have tried a double steal...which would have at least taken away the double play, and with Reggie's speed maybe even moved BOTH runners without giving away an out.

 

 

What makes this whole thread great is that it was actually started as a "OMG I love Girardi thread"

 

So you would rather have a runner on third with two outs than a runner on second and first with one out and Cabs on deck? Interesting. Maybe Girardi figured his usual leadoff hitter could execute a simple sac bunt given three chances. Or maybe he felt there was a higher likelihood of Hanley striking out down 1-2 against Wagner or GIDP. Either way, there is no excuse for Hanley not laying down that bunt. Completely unacceptable.

I blame it on Hanley for not being able to drop down a simple bunt. If he had, and we had runners on second and third with one out, an easy fly ball would have got the job done and tied it up and all of you would be praising Girardi. However, why he had him bunting with two strikes is beyond my comprehension, but who knows, maybe that was Hanley's call.

I don't see why he should have been bunting at all. The run was already in scoring position. Double play? No. Just move the runners via steal. It MAY NOT cost an out and it avoids the double play.

 

I don't care if Hanley can bunt or not. He shouldn't have been doing it at all.

 

Well we know you hate sac bunts, everyone knows.

 

It's the right call to sac bunt there up until 2 strikes IMO.

Hanley should have gotten a bunt down before he had 2 strikes on him. If he got the bunt down with 2 strikes Joe would have been a genius. So....

 

:lol :lol :lol

 

Joe would not have been a genius. Joe and genius will never be uttered together

 

He has a team with a 15 million dollar payroll playing nearly .500 ball.

 

Joe Girardi is a genius.

 

his in game management leaves much to be desired

 

give me a break.

 

you and everyone else will always complain about "in game management". I don't think i've ever heard a fan give props to a manager for their "in game management".

 

if he lets hanley swing away and he hits into a double play......

 

"why wasn't he bunting??!?!?!?"

 

he needed to bunt, but not with two fricking strikes!

 

 

i agree with two strikes you let him swing, but looking at things from girardi's perspective, sooner or later your players need to excecute fundamentals...ramirez sucks at it, yes, but who's fault is that? it's hanley's.

 

you really think ramirez isn't going to put time in the batting cages after essentially blowing this game for us? he's going to take this loss hard and hopefully in the long run, it pays off with him not being an atrocious bunter.

So good management is stubbornly jeorpordizing your teams chances of winning in order to prove your point? If Messenger is wild, do you put him in with the bases loaded and a 3-0 count just to show him that missing the strike zone is bad? I mean come on dude. There are other ways of teaching than doing so at the expense of the rest of the team.

 

that isn't why girardi does it, it's just a silver lining.

 

he does it because with men on 1st and 2nd with no out, you bunt, period. it doesnt matter if treanor is up, if ramirez is up, if God himself is up, you bunt.

 

if ramirez gave a damn about bunting he would have been in the batting cage learning how to do it months ago...but he doesn't, and he didn't. he deserves the responsibility if anyone, not girardi.

 

i'm not going to blame hanley either, though. in a game where you have 4 errors and are horrible yet again with men in scoring position, no one in particular is at fault. we deserved to lose.

I don't see why he should have been bunting at all. The run was already in scoring position. Double play? No. Just move the runners via steal. It MAY NOT cost an out and it avoids the double play.

 

I don't care if Hanley can bunt or not. He shouldn't have been doing it at all.

 

Well we know you hate sac bunts, everyone knows.

 

It's the right call to sac bunt there up until 2 strikes IMO.

I agree with the Boss.

why do we have to take the bat out of Hanley's hands though?

 

he's been playing well recently

Hey....let's see if we can keep this second-guessing thread going on all night. Won't be with me though. I'm gone for tonite. Last comment. Giraldi should be manager of the year....looking at the season as a whole.