Down by four in the 9th? No problem. - Page 2

MouseWife · 09-19-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

How sporting. This is how you react when that happens to your team.

http://tommykingman.ytmnd.com/

I love the Pads but, really, that is exciting playing.

I didn't watch the game. Too bad they waited on Hoffman. Are they trying to make the other guy they did bring in the next Trevor? Meaning, make him as important/to be feared/etc.?

Ghoulish Delight · 09-19-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MouseWife

I didn't watch the game. Too bad they waited on Hoffman. Are they trying to make the other guy they did bring in the next Trevor? Meaning, make him as important/to be feared/etc.?

Nope. The role of a closer is very specific, they only come in in "save" situations. The definition of a "save" situation is 'If the number of men on base + the next 3 batters is equal to or greater than the lead, then a pitcher that comes in and prevents the other team from tying or leading gets a save."

So with a 4 run lead going into the bottom of the ninth, it's not a save situation, therefore no reason to bring in your closer. Hoffman's old and, apparantly, having some shoulder fatigue. And he made a lot of pitches (for a closer) on Sunday night. So they don't want to use him if they don't have to.

Moonliner · 09-19-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

In 1926, the Cardinals brought in Grover Cleveland Alexander to seal the deal in a sticky situation against the Yankees in game 7. Alexander was ancient by those standards, he had won his start the night before, and, as legend has it, he was probably hung over. He took care of business.

1926??? I think the game has changed enough since then to make this kind of comparison meaningless.

However I would freely speculate that Hoffman's performance (or lack there of) was as much mental as physical. These youngsters have been told over and over again that they are "finely tuned machines" or words to that effect. Eventually it sinks in so that they believe they can only be "on" if they follow their exact warm-up ritual. The players of 1926 were not burdened with this preconceived notion of perfection.

MouseWife · 09-19-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Nope. The role of a closer is very specific, they only come in in "save" situations. The definition of a "save" situation is 'If the number of men on base + the next 3 batters is equal to or greater than the lead, then a pitcher that comes in and prevents the other team from tying or leading gets a save."

So with a 4 run lead going into the bottom of the ninth, it's not a save situation, therefore no reason to bring in your closer. Hoffman's old and, apparantly, having some shoulder fatigue. And he made a lot of pitches (for a closer) on Sunday night. So they don't want to use him if they don't have to.

I see...it wasn't a 'save' until those two homeruns?

Poor Trevor. He is still so young but having problems. I like him. Not being a big fan of the game I am a fan of the players and how the fans love them. I have a few friends with season tickets and more that just have to be at the home games.

Aw. Hoffman.

Thanks for the explanation.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-19-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

The players of 1926 were not burdened with this preconceived notion of perfection.

But neither were they being asked to throw the kinds of pitches that are thrown today. Beating major league hitters requires a level of precission and control that does merit rigorous physical and mental preparation. They aren't just rearing back and throwing a ball hard and straight at a target. In 1926, movement on pitches was the exception, thrown every once in a while to fool the batter. Now, even your fastball better have movement on it, and that movement requires near mechanical perfection to avoid mistakes. Because, as evidenced yesterday, major league hitters will quickly make you pay for those mistakes.

I'd say it's a fair bet that even the best hitters of 1926 wouldn't stand a chance against today's pitchers, and vice versa.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-19-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MouseWife

I see...it wasn't a 'save' until those two homeruns?

Poor Trevor. He is still so young but having problems. I like him. Not being a big fan of the game I am a fan of the players and how the fans love them. I have a few friends with season tickets and more that just have to be at the home games.

Yup. Actually, had they brought him in after the first home run it would have been a save opportunity. But if he wasn't ready after the second home run, he definitely wouldn't have been ready after the first, and with a 4 run lead, no nead to panic after one run, so the theory went.

SacTown Chronic · 09-19-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

How sporting. This is how you react when that happens to your team.

http://tommykingman.ytmnd.com/

And here's how you react when your fans suck. (NSFW!)

Strangler Lewis · 09-19-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In 1926, movement on pitches was the exception, thrown every once in a while to fool the batter.

Not counting the handful of grandfathered spitballers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'd say it's a fair bet that even the best hitters of 1926 wouldn't stand a chance against today's pitchers, and vice versa.

Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby worked fanatically on their hitting as did Ted Williams a generation later. Since hitting is not just about being yoked up a la Barry, (see Wade Boggs), I think they'd do fine, although there would be a period of adjustment.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-19-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby worked fanatically on their hitting as did Ted Williams a generation later. Since hitting is not just about being yoked up a la Barry, (see Wade Boggs), I think they'd do fine, although there would be a period of adjustment.

With time and coaches, most likely. But left to their own devices, with no knowledge of the kinds of pitches thrown today, they'd have no clue what hit 'em.

What the hell was the point of all this again?

Alex · 09-19-2006, 01:57 PM

And conversely modern players would probably throw a fit about batting without batting gloves (and what would Barry do without being able to wear 4-inch-thick armor) and fielding with gloves barely larger than their hands and the mound five to eight inches taller.

But yeah, comparing players across eras is difficult. Better to compare win shares.

09-19-2006, 01:57 PM	#20
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And conversely modern players would probably throw a fit about batting without batting gloves (and what would Barry do without being able to wear 4-inch-thick armor) and fielding with gloves barely larger than their hands and the mound five to eight inches taller. But yeah, comparing players across eras is difficult. Better to compare win shares.
	Submit to Quotes