what's the Series records of teams that walked 17 guys in one inning?

what's the Series records of teams that walked 17 guys in one inning?

I'll get back to next week.

And so Ron Washington rides off the cliff without using his best reliever, because his best reliever has a scarlet C on his chest. His best reliever... Is A Closer.

Would it cause too much of an uproar to fire a manager during the World Series? Soon after? Win or lose?

9-0. My god.

He was down just 2-0 and he had his 4-5-6 hitters coming up in the 9th, with Vlad on the bench. Feliz has, what, 5 days of rest? And an off day tomorrow?

I half expected Washington to have Feliz warming down 9-0. Instead it was Huntter.

How do you decide that saving your best reliever for a save situation is worth more than trying to keep your team in the game? With a save
situation, by definition, there is a margin for error. When you're down 2-0 there really isn't.

(Also, not sure why Treanor can't catch a pitch cleanly.)

He was down just 2-0 and he had his 4-5-6 hitters coming up in the 9th, with Vlad on the bench. Feliz has, what, 5 days of rest? And an off day tomorrow?

It was inexplicable. Agreed. Of course, if Texas wins game 3 then it's on again.

Yup, mirror image of Joe Girardi's tactics in Game Three of the ALCS, which were much criticized for helping turn a pitchers' duel into a laugher. The Parade of Nondescript Relievers was incredible, though now they all get to tell their grandchildren about how they pitched in a World Series.

Although maybe not; you don't really want to hear: "Grandpop, what does ERA 67.50 mean?"

The Rangers bullpen shut down the Giants in the 6th and 7th, and got two quick outs in the 8th. The next thing you know, they were walking the ballpark and the lead ballooned. By the time Feliz was warmed up and ready, the lead would have already widened: at that point, what's the difference between 5-0 and 9-0, the odds are long either way.

Does it really matter which pitchers he used? They didn't score any runs.

I'm assuming someone has already used some variation of the the "Cain is Able" headline?

Does it really matter which pitchers he used? They didn't score any runs

True that; the real story of the game was that good pitching beats good hitting. Cain was really, really sharp.

I really don't like how Washington has used the bullpen. The scrub relievers are getting way too many appearances. Just stick with the O'Day, Oliver, Ogando, and Feliz grouping unless you NEED to go to others - a la a bad Tommy Hunter start. I know those guys haven't been perfect in the playoffs, but they are our best relievers for a reason.

I don't want to see Mark Lowe or Clay Rapada in a game unless they're they last ####### reliever. Got it?

Rapada was taken off the roster for the WS, no?

I didn't think Cain looked any better than CJ Wilson. Obviously, they both looked very good, but this is a game the breaks went SF's way, but the Rangers still had a chance until that ########### in the 8th.

Rapada was taken off the roster for the WS, no?

Yes, presumably for Lowe who wasn't on the earlier rosters. Why the #### are you using the 25th man in key situations (he was doing it with Rapada last series against Cano)? He's the 25th man for a reason. Nippert, Rapada, and Lowe (25th man, last reliever on the club) have as many combined appearances as Feliz in the playoffs (5).

I like Washington as a manager because of how the team plays for him, but jesus he needs to start putting the best guys out there for more extended periods of time.

Giants use Cain, smack Rangers into 2-0 hole

I see what they did there.

The Rangers bullpen shut down the Giants in the 6th and 7th, and got two quick outs in the 8th.

Wilson was a reliever last year but he started this particular game. I obviously didn't get a close look, but I didn't see anything on Wilson's finger that looked like it merited taking him out of the game. They had a close up talking about a "blister" but I only saw callous. Oh, well.

Please, Texas, make this a series. I'm rooting, very slightly, for the Giants, but, geez, I'd like to not see 4 straight laughers.

Does it really matter which pitchers he used? They didn't score any runs

We weren't going to win that one (despite my handle, I've been a franchise fan since '67 or '68). Before the WS, I would have wanted to go with a rotation of 3 only: Lee, Lewis, and Holland, with Wilson and Hunter, recently ineffective, in long relief. Kudos to CJ-- he gave Texas a great chance to win. I am perplexed by some of Ron Wash's moves - I would have wanted Kinsler moved up to third when none were out after his double in a scoreless tie - that's the right thing to do!? None of that likely mattered though - very disappointing but I still feel like it's what Kinsler said after the game: "We've GOT to win. We've got to win."

The Rangers just need a shot in the arm--I'm predicting Ron Washington inserts Jeff Francoeur, who goes 4-4 with 2 homers in Game 3.

Baseball might be the only team sport where rising up the depth charts can mean a decrease in playing time (down to 4th in the order, promoted to closer).

Well, sabermetricians don't call any of this "luck" when they can find a way to make a pet theory into a jeremiad (ducking...), but that's hardly news. Spivey is actually the closest to the point that (IMO) should be addressed: why was it necessary to go to a lefty against Nate Schierholtz? OK, O'Day gave up a hit to Posey. So?

And does anyone know that Schierholtz actually possesses an incredible reverse-platoon split and that his OPS is more than 200 points higher against lefties than it is against righties??

Nate Schierholtz career splits

I am perplexed by some of Ron Wash's moves - I would have wanted Kinsler moved up to third when none were out after his double in a scoreless tie - that's the right thing to do!?

Don't know if (m)any will agree with it being the right thing to do, Vern, but it's something that Washington has certainly been known to do, and it's kind of strange that he didn't do it.

I didn't second-guess the non-bunt in the top of the 5th as it was happening. I guess I thought, like Wash, that Murphy had the best chance among the lower-half-of-the-order guys to drive in the run. He simply didn't.

I'm convinced Ron Washington alone will cost the Rangers this series.

And does anyone know that Schierholtz actually possesses an incredible reverse-platoon split and that his OPS is more than 200 points higher against lefties than it is against righties??

In 155 PAs.

The Rangers bullpen shut down the Giants in the 6th and 7th, and got two quick outs in the 8th. The next thing you know, they were walking the ballpark and the lead ballooned. By the time Feliz was warmed up and ready, the lead would have already widened: at that point, what's the difference between 5-0 and 9-0, the odds are long either way.

Not sure what game you were watching, but Wilson pitched the 6th, and Oliver relieved him after he walked the first hitter of the 7th. Oliver allowed the inherited runner to score. So, not only was there not a "shut down" 6th inning from the bullpen, but there wasn't a shut-down 7th inning either.

And I don't know what you mean when you say the lead would have already widened by the time Feliz would come into the game. You can bring him in to start the 8th, rather than starting the inning with O'Day. You can warm him to start the inning and bring him in rather than Holland, once a runner reached. The difference is not "between 5-0 and 9-0"; if you handle the inning properly, the difference is between 2-0 and 3-0.

It's about time for people to stop defending this kind of idiocy. There is no reason your best reliever working on 5 days of rest with an off day the next day can't pitch the 8th there (at a minimum). If you get a scoreless 8th you give yourself a chance in the 9th. What are you saving him for, exactly?

Based on history, what happens after a team goes up two games to none in the World Series. (And yeah, I know I screwed up saying the '86 Mets won the first championship in franchise history. And that should say 1958 Yanks instead of 1958 Braves when I list teams that came back).

Does it really matter which pitchers he used? They didn't score any runs.

Unless he was psychic and knew his offense wasn't going to score in the 9th, then, yes, it really does matter which pitchers he used.

It means he's incompetent. It means he doesn't know how to give his team an optimal chance to win.

---

And by the way (this isn't directed at you), it's irrelevant that the bullpen imploded and gave up 7 runs. The walks and hits and 7 runs are distracting everyone (as they distracted Neyer last night). You expected the non-Feliz relievers to give up 1 or 2 runs if they didn't have it, not 7. The point is that 1 or 2 runs is bad enough, because it basically shuts the door on you.

I didn't second-guess the non-bunt in the top of the 5th as it was happening. I guess I thought, like Wash, that Murphy had the best chance among the lower-half-of-the-order guys to drive in the run. He simply didn't.


In that situation, my thought would only be this and never waver - that one run can win you the game. You just make sure you get that man to third with one out. That is the best way to win the game, just in case your CJ and fire(gasp gasp)men keep the Jints there. I certainly questioned that move instantly. Wash's whole approach with the pitching has not been good obviously, either, and #3 above but another example. As I hinted above though, I didn't think Holland would crumble like that this time out. O'Day was way better - you never know with this bunch and right now I am not even confident about Feliz.

I'm convinced Ron Washington alone will cost the Rangers this series.

I really hope that's not an obvious conclusion once all is said and done - that will/would be just awful. Right now I only like Washington for his jersey (Rangers on the front, Senators on the back - remember the old Nats!)

I also thought the decision to start Cain game 2 this series was big. Bochy did an equally smart thing starting him game 3 of last series - the point was obvious - to try to get Cain to pitch at his home park as much as possible. A few of those hits he gave up last night could have been homeruns in Texas (Kinsler's off the top of the wall, Kinsler's deep fly to right field in the 2nd, Hamilton's deep fly to left center in the middle of the game, and Treanor's deep fly to right field late in the game that Schierholz almost dropped).

That said, Texas is built for their park the same way that SF is built for theirs. Texas had a great home field record this year. I also don't think the Rangers look worse, though they have been outplayed and outmanaged. It's time to step up, but I think they certainly can.

Edit: I'm also glad Murphy didn't bunt. He's a good hitter, and hit a hard line drive that happened to be right to a fielder. I'd have considered having Kinsler try to steal 3rd with 1 out though and Treanor up after the Murphy out. Kinsler is a very good stealer of 3rd base, one of the best in baseball. But, Cain did seem to be paying some attention so maybe he just didn't think he could.

#15 Wilson's finger was ripped open, the way he tells it. The Super Glue gave out. Buck and McCarver know about as much as any spectator about what is happening on the mound. It looked like a blister from there, so it's as good a guess as any.

The last time the leverage was higher than normal (according to LI) with the Rangers in the field was when Wilson was pulled in the 7th. One can make an argument to bring in Feliz then, and he wouldn't even have to have been wamring up already given the blister. But is Feliz really better than Oliver?

The bottom of the 8th was a very low leverage situation starting out (0.21 LI), and O'Day is also a very good reliever. Feliz should probably have been brought in instead of Holland.

But this really isn't the classic case of a manager refusing to use his closer in a high leverage situation in the 8th. There was no high leverage situation in the 8th.

It's the World Series. Every situation where you're within a couple runs late in the game is high leverage.

But this really isn't the classic case of a manager refusing to use his closer in a high leverage situation in the 8th. There was no high leverage situation in the 8th.

Focusing on "leverage" may work over a full season, where you expect your strategy to be better over the long haul. But in a short series where you can only afford to lose three games, you have to try to win the games you're within striking distance of winning; you may never have a higher "leverage" situation to use Feliz in this series than you had last night down 2-0 in the 8th -- as Girardi found out when he made the same mistake with Rivera. The bottom line is that you have a reasonable chance to score 2 runs in the 9th to tie the game, and there is no reason not to use your best reliever in furtherance of that.

He's rested, and there's an off day today. There is no reason not to use him. What is the reason? You're saving him for a save situation you may never get to because your lesser pitchers couldn't get you there?

A save situation may be higher "leverage" than down 2 runs in the 8th. **But you have to get there.**

It's the World Series. Every situation where you're within a couple runs late in the game is high leverage.

Eggs-actly.

But Feliz hadn't pitched in 5 days and has an off day today. Using him there wouldn't have affected his future usage at all. It's like not starting Josh Hamilton so you can have him come off the bench to pinch hit in a high leverage situation.

The bottom line is that you have a reasonable chance to score 2 runs in the 9th to tie the game, and there is no reason not to use your best reliever in furtherance of that.

He's rested, and there's an off day today. There is no reason not to use him.

This is precisely right. There is no reason to not use Feliz in the 8th. None whatsoever.

This is precisely right. There is no reason to not use Feliz in the 8th. None whatsoever.

I really do like Wash, but it felt like he was punting the game. When Holland came in the game, you'd think it would be SOP to have an arm warming up behind him, just in case. I think, to put it simply, Wash choked. Still, the Series isn't over so there's plenty of time for redemption all around. Anyone writing the Rangers off is nuts. I'm just hoping the sharp Sanchez shows up.

Aren't O'Day and Oliver just as good as Feliz? As I wrote above, I think the mistake was bringing in Holland instead of Feliz.

If O'Day gets Posey out, no one complains.

The bottom line is that you have a reasonable chance to score 2 runs in the 9th to tie the game, and there is no reason not to use your best reliever in furtherance of that.

What's reasonable? 5%?

The only chance the Rangers had to win is if they scored at least 2 runs in the 9th and then close out the Giants in the bottom of the 9th. If the Rangers scored 2-4 runs in the 9th, they'd have a high leverage bottom of the 9th to pitch. Any "reasonable" path to victory for the Rangers involved having a high leverage relief appearance in the 9th (and potentially extra innings).

The only chance the Rangers had to win is if they scored at least 2 runs in the 9th and then close out the Giants in the bottom of the 9th. If the Rangers scored 2-4 runs in the 9th, they'd have a high leverage bottom of the 9th to pitch. Any "reasonable" path to victory for the Rangers involved having a high leverage relief appearance in the 9th (and potentially extra innings).

But you can't worry about what you'll do IF you tie the game. When you're losing you lose the luxury of planning moves ahead of your opponent. And if Perez gets them out of the 8th, then he would have done so efficiently enough to bring him back for the 9th. If he wasn't efficient in the 8th, then the game really is out of hand, anyway.

What's reasonable? 5%?

Sure. Why not? It's the World Series.

If you get a scoreless 8th you give yourself a chance in the 9th. What are you saving him for, exactly?

Texas could have scored at least 10 runs but no more than 12 in the top of the 9th to create a save situation, making it acceptable for Washington to have Feliz pitch the bottom of the 9th.

That am just be the way baseball do go.

But you can't worry about what you'll do IF you tie the game. When you're losing you lose the luxury of planning moves ahead of your opponent.

Exactly. The Rangers were in no position to be planning ahead. They had to do everything possible to hold the Giants right where they were right then, because that's what would give them the best possible chance to tie or go ahead in the 9th. The Rangers were in the situation of having to focus every possible resource on right now, the future be damned.

And whether the back-end relievers shut the Giants down in the 8th, or spectacularly imploded as they did, is irrelevant to the question of whether Washington should have used Feliz in the 8th. Feliz was their best option, they were in a situation of not being able to afford to use anything other than their best option, and they didn't use their best option.

Danny, you're making the same mistake that Washington did, only you're tossing around fancy words like "leverage" to do it. It's putting lipstick on a pig.

Aren't O'Day and Oliver just as good as Feliz?

They are, but: not double-switching when Oliver came in with the pitcher's slot leading off the 8th meant that Oliver could only go one inning. (I didn't think of that at the time, but then that's why I'm not a major-league manager :) And I wonder how often AL managers get caught on that in interleague play.)

Going to O'Day is fine, but going to a succession of anonymous pitchers after O'Day gives up anything at all is a recipe for trouble, because the more guys you use in an inning, the more chances one of them just won't have it. In the postseason, as everybody's been saying, you need your top few guys to step up. If you're going to get beat, you want to get beat with your very top guy on the mound at the end.

If you're going to get beat, you want to get beat with your very top guy on the mound at the end.

Absolutely right.

Mindworm, thanks. I had the sound off, talking to Dad. The camera work was misleading. They showed a zoom closeup of his finger and it looked like...a finger. No discernible problem. But that is hardly conclusive, I admit.


Yes, Wash should have gone to Feliz. But that is hardly tantamount to him costing them the game. Washington has not cost Texas any games yet (though he could have if things had broke another way). Texas' inability to hit, pitch or catch the ball has cost them the two games. Seriously, I appreciate the analysis and think those questioning Washington's decisions are mostly in the right. But in a 9-0 game, sorry, that isn't on the manager. The biggest decision, or, I should say, most costly, is using Vlad in RF in game 1 and it's still hard to say that "cost them the game".

It's easy to want to blame one guy but, so far, these games are on the team as a whole (yes, including the manager).

It's really not that hard. Play your best players.

I'm assuming someone has already used some variation of the the "Cain is Able" headline?

A brief Google News search shows at least six articles with some variation on that headline, including one that isn't even about baseball.

Wrong thread. Dammit.

I work until 2AM, and the only thing on the radio during my drive home is the BBC's "World Today" broadcast. They're Londoners, and only rarely do any American news stories penetrate their coverage. And I've never heard a sports story before last night. But after a recap of this game from an American-sounding correspondent, the Brit said, "9-0? Sounds like the Mets were playing."

I absolutely couldn't believe the overseas Mets hijack (and smackdown) in that context. It was very close to the last thing I expected the radio guy to say.

Also, if the Series continues to play out like this, from my selfish vantage point, this is a story of the mystery of why teams slump suddenly. I saw the Twins, who had an effective offense through most of the regular season, look like they were not able to score at all in the Yankees series. I saw the Yankees, who had a dominant offense in the regular season and made the Twins look bad overall in the first round look as helpless as I've ever seen them offensively. Seriously, the Mel Hall teams were able to score on occasion. And so far, I've seen these Rangers who killed the Yankees look hopeless offensively. Is there something about offdays between series? Is there something else that I haven't considered here?

I've seen these Rangers who killed the Yankees look hopeless offensively. Is there something about offdays between series? Is there something else that I haven't considered here?

The Giants have better pitching than the Yankees?
The difference between NL and AL is completely overblown?
Just your standard crapshoot of a few game sample?

Frankly I think this was considerably less defensible than Girardi's failure to use Rivera in Game Three. In that case you had to balance the risk of using a 40 year old reliever for 15-20 pitches in the first of three games in three days. With Feliz having not pitched in several days and the off day today there was virtually no downside to using Feliz there.

If the "problem" is that Holland has to pitch the 10th inning, that's a problem I think the Rangers would have gladly dealt with.

look hopeless offensively

The Rangers scored seven runs in Game One, making Tim Lincecum look pretty mortal in the process. Cain was just a whole lot better in Game Two. My prediction for Game Three is that just about anything might happen.

Any of those might be true, Stanks, or some combination of all of them.

But I can't remember total domination of one team in one series, backed up by being dominated in the next series, like we've seen so far this October. It's like the teams are made up of completely different guys in uniform every round.

The Giants have better pitching than the Yankees?
The difference between NL and AL is completely overblown?
Just your standard crapshoot of a few game sample?

The Giants do have better pitching than the Yankees, but, of course, they also have vastly inferior hitting.

Explanation #3 is obviously the overwhelmingly correct one. We try to read vastly too much into the results of a tiny handful of games. Just because they're taking place in October (or November, criminy) and we place all kinds of weight on the outcomes doesn't make the Laws of Probability go into suspension. The postseason tournament does not provide, and never has provided, anything remotely close to dispositive proof about the relative quality of the teams participating.

It ain't over, Bob, and my apologies if my posts read like it is. But my opinion from watching this series is that the Rangers offense has not shown up in a timely manner yet - a lot of those runs in Game One were scored, IMO, when the game was essentially out of reach, and may not have been scored if the Giants had been more interested in containing runs than in getting outs.

I can't remember total domination of one team in one series, backed up by being dominated in the next series, like we've seen so far this October

Not to contradict, but the 1990 Oakland A's are the type specimen here.

Edit: and yes, I totally agree that this kind of phenomenon looks and feels really strange; it's just that it happens often enough in postseasons, and the three-round system allows them to happen more and more often. But it used to happen even with just one round; the 1966 World Series is just kind of inexplicable. (The Orioles were very strong, in retrospect, but to go through Drysdale and Koufax for a shortcut like that still seems weird, and certainly did at the time.)

My prediction for Game Three is that just about anything might happen.

I'm betting on it, big time.

The postseason tournament does not provide, and never has provided, anything remotely close to dispositive proof about the relative quality of the teams participating.

Agreed. But you and I have been through this before, Steve. I continue to respectfully press my point that playoff baseball is a lot more than the sum of a bunch of coin flips. I think that hitting slumps spread to other team members, and perpetuate themselves. I believe in some form of narrative about a series; though not nearly as strongly as the mainstream sports media do. Beating another team in a short series does not imply moral superiority to them, but I don't think it's a Strat-O-Matic tournament either. It's somewhere in the middle there.

Not to contradict, but the 1990 Oakland A's are the type specimen here.

Good call. Certainly the Cardinals in 2004 looked like they'd give the Red Sox a fight, and did not. There are examples; this happens. But (I'm sorry for not articulating it too well above) it seems to be happening a lot this year, and to a lot of teams. I can't think of a postseason where there were sudden turnarounds of fortune every single round.

But my opinion from watching this series is that the Rangers offense has not shown up in a timely manner yet

You're attempting to extract far more predictive value than the microscopic sample of PAs can possibly deliver. The Rangers hit Lincecum pretty damn hard, and they sure didn't look too fooled by Wilson either. Cain shut them down, which he does to a whole lot of opponents on a regular basis.

I see nothing to draw any conclusions from.

1969 Orioles? That team won 109 games and walked all over the Twins in the first round. And then they lost to the Mets in 5.

Beating another team in a short series does not imply

///pet peeve time. Not to pick on this post, but how is a best-of-7 series "short"? Compared to what?

The 2001 Mariners, after winning 116 regular-season games, had a dogfight of a series with the Indians in the ALDS, then lost pretty convincingly to the Yankees in the ALCS.

pet peeve time. Not to pick on this post, but how is a best-of-7 series "short"? Compared to what?

Short compared to the standard three game series you get during the regular season. :)

Kidding aside, it's short compared to the 162 game marathon they already completed.

how is a best-of-7 series "short"? Compared to what?

Compared to the regular season, obviously. Compared to any sample of games large enough to be expected to provide a reliably accurate reading of team quality.

Seven-at-most games between two top MLB teams isn't anything close to that large.

making Tim Lincecum look pretty mortal in the process

I think of greater concern is that the Giants made Cliff Lee look worse.

Seems silly to call the biggest series length in MLB in like 90 years "short"

"Short series" may not be the best description but its more comfortable to say in conversation than "statistically meaningless length of time" which is what seven games is.

Sorry, Nate. The word "short" there is redundant. I think the ultimate evaluative tool for any team is regular-season record. By definition, every series is a short one.

To veer off topic a bit, that's exactly why I hate the Wild Card so much. It can allow an inferior team to short-circuit the divisional race structure of the game and reap baseball's ultimate rewards by being hot for a month.

of greater concern is that the Giants made Cliff Lee look worse

I need no reminding :) My point is only that the Rangers offense showed up OK for Game One; they've been absent for only nine innings now. It's not like they've conclusively turned into the Hitless Wonders.

Sorry, Nate. The word "short" there is redundant. I think the ultimate evaluative tool for any team is regular-season record. By definition, ever series is a short one.

No need to apologize, I see it all written that way all the time here (and elsewhere). I think of best-of-5 or in-season series as short, and best-of-7 as regular.

In first, now back to it.

On Washington's bullpen management.

Do you have Feliz start the 8th? The answer is probably yes but you can make a case for O'Day.

Do you have Feliz relieve after Posey's hit? The answer is probably yes with the second-best answer probably being to leave O'Day in but you can make a case to switch to the lefty.

Do you bring in Feliz after Holland has walked two batters on 8 pitches? ####, man, at that point you bring in Mark Lowe if you have to.

At the very latest, you have to start warming Feliz (and another pitcher) when Holland comes into the game in case Holland implodes just like he did. What are you waiting for? At that point, you only need one more out to get out of it so Feliz is perfectly ready for the 9th. And two batters, with some catcher/manager delaying tactics if necessary, is plenty of time to get a pitcher warmed up.

But as someone above points out, Feliz in the 7th to protect the 1-run deficit probably makes the most sense.

On Washington and losing the series ... c'mon, it's 20-7 ... 20-4 if you skip the Giants' own bullpen meltdown with a comfy 7 run lead. That's not all on the manager, that's not even mostly on the manager.

On Murphy and bunting ... no way do I bunt there with a LHB up (unless the 3B is playing back). He's probably as or more likely to ground out to 2B than get a bunt down anyway. You've got to consider pinch-hitting for Treanor there though ... and why Treanor was 7 and Moreland 8 is beyond me, another small Washington mistake.

And then they lost to the Mets in 5.

Bah. I'm still waiting for the replay official to confirm J. C. Martin was out. Series resumes top of the 11th score tied, Orioles down 2-1.

Not a great situation to be sure, but there's still hope (and don't bother about game 5 -- obviously doesn't count because game 4 wasn't over)

On Washington and losing the series ... c'mon, it's 20-7 ... 20-4 if you skip the Giants' own bullpen meltdown with a comfy 7 run lead. That's not all on the manager, that's not even mostly on the manager.

Agreed. Washington's issues have been on the margin. The Rangers' ace pitcher got his rear end handed to him. The Rangers' relievers have pitched like crap, and whether they're optimally deployed or not, they still aren't supposed to pitch like crap. And the Rangers' hitters have a SLG of .303; that ain't gonna cut it. None of that is Washington's fault.

Hmmm. Let's look at this for a minute.

The first reliever was Oliver, in the 7th. His first batter faced was Huff, who was excellent against both righties and lefties this year but who is inferior against lefties on his career. His second batter was Uribe, who had a reverse platoon split this year and who has been better against righties on his career. Uribe singled, driving in Ross, who was at second. It could be argued that O'Day should have been brought in to face Uribe, due to O'Day being lights-out against righties this year (more in a bit). Feliz could also be argued for, as well--he's better at keeping the ball out of play than O'Day. It was a high leverage situation--runner at second with one out in the 7th. But we might be accusing Washington of overmanaging if he had brought Feliz into the 7th there. I'd say he handled the 7th fairly well.

Bringing in O'Day to face Torres, in the 8th, was pretty foolish (Torres has done all of his damage this year against righties). They should have left Oliver in. But it worked out. O'Day against Sanchez was smart (Sanchez was great against lefties and crap against righties). That also worked out. Then Posey singled. Here's where it gets interesting. Statistically Feliz and O'Day were nearly identical over the regular season, except that Feliz had the decisive edge in strikeouts. O'Day's OPS against righties was 50 points better than Feliz's. So it's an open question as to which pitcher would be better suited to face Posey. There was nobody on base, with two out. It's not as though they badly needed a K there. So Posey singled.

Here's where Wash's dumbassery becomes indisputable. Feliz was much better than Holland on the year--even against lefties. And, as Ray noted, Schierholtz has the reverse platoon split. You're only down two runs. Prevent that from becoming more. It's the ####### World Series. Bring in Feliz. As you all note, he'd be fresh the next time they played anyway. But no--Washington has to bring in Holland. Then stick with him. And with him. And with him. Then, Mark Lowe. Wash treated Feliz like the worst mop-up man in the league.

Bringing in O'Day to face Torres, in the 8th, was pretty foolish (Torres has done all of his damage this year against righties). They should have left Oliver in.

Yes, but as someone pointed out above, Washington had already messed that up by declining (forgetting?) to double-switch when he brought in Oliver, even though the pitcher's spot was due to lead off the 8th. So he was forced to pinch-hit for Oliver.

Yes, but as someone pointed out above, Washington had already messed that up by declining (forgetting?) to double-switch when he brought in Oliver, even though the pitcher's spot was due to lead off the 8th. So he was forced to pinch-hit for Oliver.

Which means that potentially the move was due to something just as dumb. Though I'm too lazy to check who the Giants should have brought in as a pinch hitter.