Just some food for thought.

 

-Same situation as last night in the 9th today in the 9th.

-1 on, no outs.

-This time, Amezaga doesn't bunt, like I was asking for, and he gets a hit. Runner moves to 2nd.

-Helms up to bat like I was against, and he strikes out.

-Then Hanley dies out and Uggla gets the good hit and bring in 2 runs.

 

Thank you Fredi for proving to myself that I was right.

 

the situation with Amezaga was a lot different. We weren't DESPERATE for a run in the 9th inning tonight. Leading by 3, is a big difference as opposed to trailing by 1 (especially when you're facing a tougher pitcher...the opposing team's closer last night).

Disparate or not, it's not like you get more opportunities against a hard pitcher. Since it is so much harder to get a hit, wouldn't that mean that we should try even harder to get one? Try even harder not to get an out?

 

Remember, statistically (read factually), you are more likely to get a run with a man on 1st and no outs than a man on 2nd with 1 out (or 2 outs for those who felt that Rabelo was an instant out).

 

 

I will agree that Hanley Ramirez batting changes those stats a bit though .

 

 

Honestly, it's irrelevant since we won tonight.

 

BUT, this team has struggled getting clutch hits. Trying to manufacture a run, knowing you can avoid a DP to bring your best hitter (Hanley) up in the inning + the bullpen advantage was in our favor if Capps blows the save, and we tie it.

 

I liked the call.

...I'm not the only one.

Not everyone has the same managerial styles, although I've seen a good % of managers do this in 1 run situations with a hitter like Amezaga up in the 9th.

Just some food for thought.

 

-Same situation as last night in the 9th today in the 9th.

-1 on, no outs.

-This time, Amezaga doesn't bunt, like I was asking for, and he gets a hit. Runner moves to 2nd.

-Helms up to bat like I was against, and he strikes out.

-Then Hanley dies out and Uggla gets the good hit and bring in 2 runs.

 

Thank you Fredi for proving to myself that I was right.

 

the situation with Amezaga was a lot different. We weren't DESPERATE for a run in the 9th inning tonight. Leading by 3, is a big difference as opposed to trailing by 1 (especially when you're facing a tougher pitcher...the opposing team's closer last night).

Disparate or not, it's not like you get more opportunities against a hard pitcher. Since it is so much harder to get a hit, wouldn't that mean that we should try even harder to get one? Try even harder not to get an out?

 

Remember, statistically (read factually), you are more likely to get a run with a man on 1st and no outs than a man on 2nd with 1 out (or 2 outs for those who felt that Rabelo was an instant out).

 

 

I will agree that Hanley Ramirez batting changes those stats a bit though .

 

 

Honestly, it's irrelevant since we won tonight.

 

BUT, this team has struggled getting clutch hits. Trying to manufacture a run, knowing you can avoid a DP to bring your best hitter (Hanley) up in the inning + the bullpen advantage was in our favor if Capps blows the save, and we tie it.

 

I liked the call.

...I'm not the only one.

Not everyone has the same managerial styles, although I've seen a good % of managers do this in 1 run situations with a hitter like Amezaga up in the 9th.

For the record again, Amezaga since 2003 has only bunted in this situation a total of two times. Once at home, and once on the road(last night). It didn't work either time.

As far as I'm concerned 4/22 is over.....whatever we did didn't work. That doesn't mean something else would have, or that what we did will never work again, but it does mean it was ineffective on 4/22. Anyway let's move on, unless this game really mattered that much to anyone that they plan to debate its strategy for weeks.

As far as I'm concerned 4/22 is over.....whatever we did didn't work. That doesn't mean something else would have, or that what we did will never work again, but it does mean it was ineffective on 4/22. Anyway let's move on, unless this game really mattered that much to anyone that they plan to debate its strategy for weeks.

Well, now that the name calling ended, it is just a discussion between me and Erick about philosophy.

FWIW (I haven't been in this conversation sans the chart I brought to aid Rab) I cannot under any circumstance advocate giving up an out. There are too many variables, even in a sac bunt, there is still the chance of a DP, having the lead runner thrown out, getting to 2 strikes and forcing the hitter to try to hit with 2 strikes. In the long run, it just proves counterintuitive to the two primary goals of a hitter, which are... a) don't make outs, and b) drive in runs... my 2 cents

As far as I'm concerned 4/22 is over.....whatever we did didn't work. That doesn't mean something else would have, or that what we did will never work again, but it does mean it was ineffective on 4/22. Anyway let's move on, unless this game really mattered that much to anyone that they plan to debate its strategy for weeks.

Well, now that the name calling ended, it is just a discussion between me and Erick about philosophy.

 

 

 

Which is great, as long as the name calling is over. We're all fish fans.

 

In my opinion, for what it's worth, there is a lot of luck involved in this game along with skill. If any given call works, it's genius and if it fails it was stupid in the fans eyes. I don't believe there is a set strategy for any given situation, you play by your players strengths and sometimes just try to catch the other guys off guard.

 

Like I said....on 4/22 it didn't work but it may in the future. You can't do the same thing all the time.

So because he was halfway decent in '06, I have no right to point out how egregious his numbers are thus far in '08? Over Rabelo, I agree I would have gone with Helms, especially after what he did two days ago. But the guy is far from receiving a free pass just because he's somewhat of a clutch hitter.

If you're gonna complain about a sub 200 avg in less than 15 ABs and just cast aside that the guy hit over 320 over a whole season for us, much of it in exactly this role (late inning PH), well, I guess you do have a right to say whatever you like. But I have the right to dismiss it and say how ridiculous you sound.

HEY, Andino's SLGing 625, we should PH him for Hermida next time he comes u0p with men on base!! See how silly that sounds when you get worked up over a small sample size?

 

But let me add that it's not fair to measure Helms solely based on his 2006, but not on his very bad 2007 and his very slow start this year.

That's fair enough, but consider the difference in the role he played here in 06 vs in Philly in 07. If you figure every decent player has a niche where they perform best, I think Helms's place is here coming off the bench late in the game. Just my opinion. But even if you take into account his 07 #s, he still isn't somekind of sub 200 hitter.

I completely agreed with you that I would have definitely gone with him over Rabelo. But, as someone else said, you're being biased, basing your opinion solely based upon what he did in 2006. Looking over his career stats, he's a very average hitter at best when he plays in the role he's in this season. He was Milwaukee's utility infielder in 2004 and he hit .264 with a .692 OPS in 274 ABs. There's more reason to think he's not going to do what he did in '06 this year than there is to believe that he has another year like that in him.