I can't can't stomach Belichick. He was shown to be a cheater. But I love his Coaching, and perfectly happy to watch the Pats win all these playoff games and Super Bowls. But Belichick is one pain in the behind... but few care, ( including me ) as he wins.
More than anything players... hitters, batters... want some consistency on how the ump calls balls and strikes. Each ump has their style of game they call. Some umps give pitchers some lattitude, while some have a rather " small strike zone " for the game they are working. Hitters over the course of the game begin to adjust as to the strike zone tendencies of te partucular ump working the game that day, or they know the tendencies of the umps strike zone by reputation.
I'm not blaming the home plate ump for this loss, but he was very inconsistent all day, imo. With both teams. He definately had a wider strike zone in the later innings than eartlier in the game , imo. Maybe the heat temps were getting to him, and we wanted to get the game over quickly, who knows... but he squeezed some hitters in this one, especially Ross in his last at bat... with a more than liberal strike zone, and much more liberal strike zone than the ump had in earlier innings, imo.
I don't always start threads, but when I do, I prefer to make classics.
I'm the most interesting thread starter in the world.
I would have had Melancon warming up, who since his two terrible games to start the season has been used for one mop-up inning over the past week. If he's already relegated to Bobby V's doghouse and isn't going to enter a game with less than a 10-run advantage then I'd kinda like Jed Lowrie back.
But I digress...why couldn't he bring in Albers to face Longoria?
Classic number 2 this week. The "Randy's dream come true" one was pretty epic as well.
Keep it on coming, it's making this place a little more interesting.
My proclivity for the classics goes back many a year....
That one was much more fun before Randy and Gazoo got banned.
Thats Old School Baseball. back int he day, everyone used to do that.
is Valentine a little MLB rusty?
Its irrelevent if your sole focus is on winning that game. However, if you want to develop Bard into a pitcher that can get a critical out in the seventh then you had better push him to do so. The great thing about baseball is that no strategy works 100% of the time or even 50% of the time. We now know leaving Bard in failed. My guess is that bringing in either of the pitchers that were warming would have failed at an equal percentage as leaving Bard in. In that case at least Bard got some valuable experience. I can completly see, on the other hand, your strategy as being sound. My point is the Sox were in a difficult position and were faced with no great strategies. My biggest issue with your post is that you pretend the move was an obvious mistake because there was some fullproof plan otherwise.
Actually, the strategies I liked least was sending Ross in the seventh and Pedroia in the 9th. My feeling was that the Sox needed to get Shields pitch count higher so they could take a shot at that pen in the 8th. In the 9th they needed to force Tampa to pitch to Ortiz because he has been their best hitter. But again I will never know if my strategy would have been better only its fun to speculate.
Ted, it's not as though Bard hasn't been in tight situations before or is in need of getting himself out of jams. He's done both before for the Sox, but just not as a starter.
While I agree there is an element of risk in any move a manager makes, this one was patently obvious to make and that included Valentine admitting it later on.
There are two key elements in yesterday's game that should be considered.
First is that Bard is developing as a starter. That is, his innings, if following some plan to have him around toward season's end, has to have some limits. And innings should always be dependent upon the total number of pitches thrown.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the overall object is to win games. Valentine took a gamble that calls into question both points.