|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Sui caedere, caedere
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not ours, you see
I’m not just saying this to rile up unhappy Angel fans. That’s a bonus.
...Erick Aybar had nine bunt singles this year, twelfth-most in the Major Leagues despite appearing in fewer than 100 games. He knows how to bunt, and ahead 2-0, with a buntable fastball almost certainly on the way, Mike Scioscia had to believe that his shortstop would be able to get the ball down. Instead Aybar stabbed at the ball and missed it, leaving the runner out to dry and ending Anaheim’s threat. Their win expectancy dropped well below 50% and never recovered, as it wasn’t long before their season would end.
Scioscia, though, shouldn’t be blamed, at least not for this. I think he made the right decision. Scoring that run was of vital importance, and Erick Aybar sucks, so rather than cross his fingers and hope for a miracle, Scioscia got burned for siding with probability. #### happens, but a bad result doesn’t automatically mean it was a bad idea.
Repoz
Posted: October 07, 2008 at 11:58 AM | 90 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
angels,
red sox
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (57 - 3:16am, May 26)Last: bjhankeNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1834 - 3:06am, May 26)Last: SpiveyNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (8 - 2:43am, May 26)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (8 - 12:40am, May 26)Last: The Gurus DO NOT BourbonSamuraiNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (86 - 11:59pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (27 - 11:16pm, May 25)Last: baudibNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris E
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. TomH Posted: October 07, 2008 at 12:33 PM (#2973051)Like the NFL, good call = one that works, bad call = one that does not. Life is tough.
I thought the squeeze was a horrible call with 1 out. With 2 outs, it's worth trying... And you'd have had Figgins up there to do the bunting; presumably he's just as capable as Aybar.
I'd have to say enough guys get stranded at third with less than two outs over the course of the season _ how many do the Sox strand in a given week? _ to think that a fly ball is never that much of a certainty. I think Shredder is right. Squeeze after Delcarmen shows he's willing/capable of throwing a strike.
A squeeze with 2 outs isn't a squeeze, it's a bunt single attempt. And I disagree on the "wait til he throws a strike" It was a 2-0 count, and you're Erick Aybar, he's gonna throw you something good. If it goes to 2-1, you're not necessarily gonna see a buntable again that AB.
To set up a squeeze in the 9th inning of a tied, low scoring, must-win playoff game? It's very defensible.
It wouldn't have gone to 3-0. If the squeeze isn't on, that's ball 3. Clearly, throwing a strike to Aybar was not a high priority.
Brandon wood have been a better candidate for a strikeout. He strikes out ~30% as it is. Add in the pinch hitting penalty, a cold October night (he's from Arizona, this might have been the coldest baseball he's ever played), a reliever throwing 97, the platoon disadvantage...
Robb Quinlan would be the guy most likely to get a fly ball, but I wasn't complaining about sticking with Aybar, he seemed to have the best chance of making some kind of contact.
At least it wasn't a sweep, and at no point did the Angels roll over and die. This series was winnable, the Angels can hold their heads high for making it a good series. Time to jump on the Tampa Bay bandwagon.
And yet, the Angels were damn close to taking the thing back to Anaheim. You might have been certain, but I sure as hell wasn't. The Angels scared the crap out of me, and that was the least confident I've felt in any winning series since the 2004 ALCS.
I think AROM is saying Rodriguez pitches the ninth instead of Shields. Which, of course, is exactly what would have happened.
I'm just saying that if you felt Aybar wasn't going to get a sac fly or a hit, think about PH. If that doesn't work, try the bunt then with 2 outs if you think Figgins can't get a hit.
I had forgotten about the giveaway out to get the guy to 3rd base. Defensible, sure. But to me Soscia's whole mindset there looking at the Kendrick/Aybar/Figgins batters coming up with 0 outs and a speedy guy on 2nd was: squeeze first, everything else a distant second. To me that's a screwy mindset.
I assume you mean it would have gone to 3-0. Still, the pitch was eminently hittable. Aybar looked like he missed a sign or something, like he thought it was the safety squeeze. He didn't come close to getting the bat on the ball, when the only thing he could have done wrong in that situation was miss the pitch entirely.
Figgins was on deck, right? I don't think the Red Sox were pitching around Aybar in any meaningful way. Figgins would have been awfully hard to double up.
They almost lost in four. Two of the three wins came in their last at-bat.
Yeah, I initially wrote 2-0, then went back and corrected the wrong part.
I don't think they were pitching around Aybar. I think they were pitching around the suicide squeeze.
Kevin, I was planning to write a post contending No. 23, but you're either being willfully ignorant or just trying to piss off Angels fans, neither of which is worth responding to.
I'm pretty sure that was Ramon Hernandez, and it was with the bases loaded, and it was in extra innings, Oakland. And I'm right!
Calling for the squeeze strikes me as a very bad decision by Scioscia.
Because that pitch was certainly going to be 3-0.
If you think Figgins can put the ball in play, its a terrible play. Figgins is too fast to get doubled up on all but 1/10 ground balls.
But Shredder, the Angels weren't down a run in an elimination game, the game was tied in the top of the 9th. I'll grant you a bunt try by Figgins isn't as surprising as one by Martinez in the 2003 ALDS, but I don't think the Red Sox would have played the corners up in that particular situation, and even if they do, that helps if you think Figgins can get a hit by slapping it past them.
My main point is that Soscia's whole mindset was on the suicide squeeze play from the moment he PR Willits at 2nd with 0 outs, and to me that mindset is really screwy, as there are a number of different ways to play that situation out that would work at least as well--and probably better--than a suicide squeeze. And all of this doesn't even take into account that the Red Sox did seem to think a squeeze was coming, and pitched accordingly to make the play harder, knowing that a walk to Aybar isn't the worst thing to have happen in that situation.
Sorry, but Soscia gift-wrapped that win with his small-ball world view. I'll take it, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear some Angel players are pissed that he went that way.
Glad you could recognize that. The Red Sox are really going to have to ramp up their game if they're going to beat Tampa Bay.
Wait, has someone been requesting the "factually false" posts? Can I ask you to stop?
So in order to avoid one of those factually false posts, you're ignoring Game 1 for the purpose of this entry.
No, he wasn't. He was pitching up and in on purpose.
Well, here you've nailed it for me. The Angels played a very sloppy series. They made multiple mistakes on the basepaths and in the field, and had their pen take the loss in 2 games. They didn't play as crisply as the Sox did and they lost the series because of that. The Sox outplayed them because they didn't make as many mistakes. Not much else to say.
Plus, a ground ball at an infielder isn't an out at first. Ask anyone who watches the Angels on a regular basis, and they'll tell you that the Angels simply do not hold runners at third on infield grounders. They waste more outs via the contact play than any team I've ever seen.
Look, there's all sorts of things that could have happened that would have been preferable for the Angels compared to what happened. But they had a good bunter at the plate, a fast runner at third, and they only needed one run. You have to have faith that your guy can execute a skill play there. He didn't get it done. That's the way it goes.
But then I guess that's his point.
Let me descend to his level by saying that I hope he's smiling when the Rays obliterate the Red Sox in four or five.
All the Rays have to do is play their normal game to beat the Sox in 5 or 6 games. They beat them 10 out of 18 this year.
I just can't bring myself to put anyone on ignore. Just. Can't. Do. It.
Would that I weren't so weak.
Come to the dark side, it's fun.
Me neither, though I apologize for providing the backdoor entry around your k-chip.
Pretty cool. I've never used the ignore list before, but life is better not reading its filth.
Me neither. Never even considered it actually.
I, like most people who are not Red Sox fans, will be rooting for the Rays. But if I had to put money down, I would say Red Sox in 6.
I would cut Lackey some slack here. This is the kind of thing players say sometimes when they are frustrated and pissed off, as the Angels must be.
Wow, you're an #######.
I dunno; the actual quote is pretty damning:
"[On Monday], they score on a broken-bat ground ball and a fly ball anywhere else in America [except in Fenway Park]. And [Pedroia's] fist-pumping on second like he did something great."
That's a arsehole thing to say, honestly, not to mention inaccurate. I know it's tough to take when you're season's just come to an end, but Lackey looks like a prick here. And the way he was stomping around on the mound last night looked pretty bush as well. I'm sure his fielders must not appreciate him showing them up like that.
I know that everyone hates the cliche "Nuke LaLoosh" answers but in this instance, cliches or shutting up is the better option. Were the Angels a better team? I would say that they might have been. But they weren't in this series.
Sorry John. The Red Sox beat you in 3 outta 4 contests. Next time, just say we played hard and had a really good team but we didn't get the breaks in this series. It says the same thing but you don't come sound like a dick if you say it.
On another topic, the Lackey quotes did seem a bit over the top, though perhaps dead-on honest (for which we should credit Lackey for speaking his mind instead of giving weak cliches). That said, who the better team is doesn't matter here, since it's not like folks get to vote on this and then they award the WS trophy to the highest vote-getter. They have to play the games, and sometimes the "better" team doesn't win. That's true in baseball, it's true in all sports, its true in life.
I stopped commenting here a while ago. I still lurk, but I just don't pay attention to a few selected posters.
I didn't watch a lot of the Angels series because the games seemed to run late. Even being on the west coast, 8pm comes early with a 4 month old baby. While the Angels got handled in the first couple of games, the last two were exciting and close. I wouldn't call the series an arse kicking.
I am glad there is fire in this team. I hope they hold onto that, and come back for vengeance next year. Hopefully with Teixiera and at least one more solid bat in an outfield corner.
Better than the lackadaisical end to last year, where Garret Anderson with the eye infection takes BP under the stands, and doesn't find out his eye can't handle the outfield sun until halfway through the game.
There are times that I really dislike the Angels (it's more the media than the team). That said, I hope, hope, hope they hold on to Big Tex.
But if Aybar and Kendrick are upset that Lackey was demonstrative, then too bad. Make the damn play and you don't have to worry about it. Actually, just make some of the plays. I think he showed the type of frustration that builds after error upon error.
Of course I'm still rooting for Tampa Bay to reach the WS.
I suppose that's true. But the most egregious gaffe in the series, letting the popup fall for 3 runs, happened on Sunday night, and the Angels went on to win that game, and it wasn't even Lackey's start. Seems odd to mention it at all.
But I agree that Lackey was simply very upset after the game and reacted emotionally. Kendrick in particular seemed to have an awful series in the field.
EDIT: and thanks to AROM as well.
Willets should have played that on the bounce instead of going all Jimmy Edmonds on the play. By giving himself up like that and missing the ball, that could have been an inside the park HR had the ball not bounced into the stands. Willets pulls up and plays the angle, and chances are he holds Bay to a single.
Its interesting that you think you've made distasteful comments since in my impression ARom is a model of class and dignity. Always a fan but never a fanboy.
Plus, if this happens against, say, the A's, who Lackey typically b!tchslaps, he probably lets it go. He'll just get the next guy. But it's against a team that has had his number. There's that sense of impending doom, and when the at bat ends with a weak grounder up the middle, he has to feel like he's escaped another inning, only to have his teammates screw it up and put him in more danger. He's an emotional guy. I think he can turn the page and say "hey, stuff happens". But when it happens, and happens, and happens, and happens again, disappointment turns to frustration turns to anger. I can't blame him. I was pretty damn angry, too.
The ball bounced like ten rows back into the stands. It wasn't close at all to being an inside-the-parker. But yeah, he should have played it on the hop and kept the runner at first.
I suspect most rightfielders, even those who remain upright, would have had difficulty keeping that ball in the park. If you don't catch that ball, a double's damn near inevitable.
Exactly right. To stop the momentum of the ball going toward the line and subsequently into the stands, Reggie would have needed to be near the foul line to make the play - if that was possible Bay would have been trotting back to the dugout after an F-9.
I haven't seen the replay since last night, but I am not so sure about that. If Willets takes the angle to play the bounce, I thought it was a shorter route -- or did the ball skewer further to his left? Without diving, wouldn't he have had more time to play the ball on the bounce?
kevin, three of the four games were damn close and decided in late innings. This was a close series, lost in part due to a handful of unusual mistakes made by the Angels. I thought the teams were close in quality coming in, and nothing I saw made me change my mind on this. But your behavior and bizarre commentary sure make you hard to defend against the hordes that can't stand you.
Lackey's comments aren't, by and large, exactly what I would have liked him to say, but his frustration and anger is justified. He pitched his ass off in two games (well, I assume he did last night, though due to the wonder that is Time Warner Cable I was only able to see the game from the fifth inning forward) and left everything he had out there. I think you gotta cut a guy some slack in that situation.
Yeah, that's true. I just think the idea that Willits could have held Bay to a single in this case are off the mark. That ball is either an out or a double, with the only possible variation is if Willits gets a piece of the ball and redirects it into the corner.
to me the series looked pretty darn close, the angels kept throwing away their chances and that's the story.
Anyway, sorry Angels fans. But I bet that your team has the highest odds of being in the 2009 playoffs.
I know it's his job to get that call right, but umpiring so routinely gets blasted in the post-season it seems just to point out when an ump got it right on a pretty tough call. It would have been easy to blow that one after the ball bounced away, but Welke nailed it. Nice job there.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main