That's what I've been talking about, my little stat reciting robots!

A little bit like somebody else's Brandon Belt thread when he was struggling eh?

;-)

Well I am an opportunist, even if there is some predictability involved. Like the predictability of the fact that Casilla gives up to many longballs. He almost did it yesterday, but lucked out on the ground rule double, but today was a no doubter, challenge fastball down the middle of the plate. It's how he steals his strikes, as opposed to Romo, who makes them swing and miss at something out of the zone. He's a more dangerous pitcher to have in their in a close game! How many times do I have to say it people!

Just winding you up.

I don't know why Ricci couldn't have just bumped one of his other threads but oh well.

Because Aussie it was too sweet an opportunity to pass up. It had to have it's own thread, new and alive, instead of an almost dead thread.

Romo could do better. See my argument is my opinion, based on some fact, Romo's stellar stats. And your argument is based on your opinion and very little fact. Although both are opinions, because Romo isn't used as the closer, so how could either of us know for sure.

Goodnight all, being right about something all along can be tiring, (yawn). But I will sleep well my children, with the comforting thoughts that you all can eat some crow!

Romo has been used as more than a specialist. He has pitched innings to right handed and left handed hitters. Just because someone has been used a lot in a role, doesn't mean that's the only role they have been used in, just like Casilla. Casilla and Romo are relief pitchers first and role players second. So every time they face a batter that is a stat. Figure it out genius. Plus my main argument is that Romo gives up less HR's than Casilla. That is a fact that can't be argued. And lastly, I can see by just how both pitchers pitch, that it's harder to square up Romo's pitches and hit them out. Therefore, in an example of linear thinking, Romo is safer to have in, in a close game situation

"eat some crow."

Really? So if somebody said Melky is a bust and he goes 0-4 one day, that means eat some crow? Slumps happen.

Closer role:

CASILLA > ROMO

It's not the same. Could any of Melky's 0 for 4's, as rare as they are be directly attributed to the Giants losing a game, like Casilla's 3 blown games and 2 almost blown games. My point again, isn't that players don't have bad games, it's about putting a player in a role that's the best for a team to get a win and Romo is better for that than Casilla.

"it was too sweet an opportunity to pass up."

So like someone else did with Belt, you are rooting against Casilla. You actually are enjoying the loss. That's sick.

You got it all wrong, pal. I never enjoy a Giants loss. I do enjoy lording it over all you naysayers that say I'm wrong about Casilla. Believe me, when I tell you, I'd much rather, at the end of the season, if Casilla stays in his role as closer, have him save every game, from here on in, so the Giants could win as many games as possible and make the playoffs. Then I would say you guys are right and I was wrong, but I could still be happy about it, 'cause I'm a Giants fan, okay?

Where were you when Romo picked up the loss vs the Mariners?

~MrGPAC

"I do enjoy lording it over all you naysayers that say I'm wrong about Casilla."

Yea, but you are still wrong about him. Having a bad game or a bad weekend doesn't change that.

+1