To Err Is Human, To E6 Is FanFreakinTastic
What a freakin' miserable day for a miserable freakin' ball game. It was cold, windy, constantly rainy. I think I now have pneumonia, or some sort of ailment. And it was all for naught.
I really don't know who to make the Lame Duck. It's really a tossup in my mind, so I'll throw it out to the crowd, even though I suspect I know where you'll go! (Just leave your choice in the comments)
To me, the choice is like a bizarro 1985 MVP race. That year, Rickey Henderson got on-base like some sort of omnipotent being. And Don Mattingly knocked him around like he was Wil Cordero's wife. Who gets the award? The man who does the setting-up or the man who does the delivering?
1985 Don Mattingly: Cristian Guzman
Pros
-- A soul-crushing, hands-on-your-head, gutteral-NOOOO-inducing throw.
-- A miserable craptacular offensive performance with another pointless sacrifice.
Cons
-- The field was as sloppy as I've ever seen it. You could literally see the lights reflecting in the puddles on the infield.
-- It was a bad throw, but Nick Johnson probably could have done a little more to knock it down, or come off the bag sooner. Ron Darling said that the mud was caked on the ball when he threw it, which would be a big factor.
-- I was at the game, and I thought that Vidro gave up on the play -- that he didn't make an A+ effort to get to second for the game-ending forceout to give Guzman an out. Watching the replay, I'm not sure if that was the case.
1985 Rickey Henderson: Chad Cordero
Pros
-- After trying to give up the game last night, he did his damnedest to do it this afternoon.
-- Walked the freakin' go-ahead run!
-- Allowed hits to the first and third batters on 0-2 pitches. 0 and freakin' 2! And neither hit was a blooper. The second hit was so hard, in fact, that Chipper didn't even think about scoring on it.
-- Is it really fair to give an arsonist credit for fighting a fire?
Cons
-- Sloppy balls in his hands.
-- If Guzman makes the play, he survives.
As the obnoxious TV personality says, "What Say You?"
WTF Frank Senior Moment
Frank Batting Guzman second no longer qualifies under this category. It's just accepted, much as gravity is.
4th inning nil-nil. Brad Wilkerson leads off with a double and Guzman bunts him to second. I turn to my friend and start whining.
I know I have some bunt fetishists amongst my readers, so let's walk through it. We're going to make some assumptions that we can hopefully all agree on.
1. Guzman hits mostly groundballs.
2. A ground ball hit to the right side would move Wilkerson to third.
3. When he bats left-handed, as he did against the right-handed Smoltz, he's more likely to hit a ball to the right side.
4. There's a chance that a ball hit to the right side could produce an error or go through the infield for a hit.
Given that, why have him bunt? He's probably going to slap it to the infielder anyway, and the net result would be the same.
If they had let him swing away Wilkerson might move to third, or if the Gods are in a particularly zany mood, might even come around to score on a grounder to the outfield.
Even worse, the bunt contributed nothing. The run scored, but it would have regardless of the bunt. Jose Vidro scorched a grounder to Marcus Giles, which held Brad. And Jose Guillen's base hit, would've scored Wilkerson from second anyway.
The bunt contributed zippo to the inning, other than an easier-than-usual Guzman out.
Other Nats Crap
--They've made some improvements to the game-watching experience. The music is much quieter. They now display the game performances of batters on the video screen. Pitch speed is now displayed on the god-awful K-Kounter. And the centerfield ribbon boards each display a different league's out of town scores, instead of mirroring each other. Well done!
--John Patterson looked solid. He had 5 Ks, but none after the third inning, relying on a bunch of groundouts. He seemed really uncomfortable with the footing on the mound, but he survived.
--Hector Carrasco looked solid in his season debut. (His first game since 2003) I was surprised that Frank threw him right out in the fire, but he definitely earned a second look at filling the job that Antonio Osuna was signed for.
--Bobby Cox made a double switch to bring in Andruw "Gold Club" Jones and Danny Olb ('Cause there's no K, Vidro excepted) in the place of Ryan Langerhans (who really needs some more As in his name to be authentic). Jones made a terrific sliding catch off a Carlos Baerga liner. Langerhans isn't bad, but I'm not sure if he would've had that one. If that drops, we've got the tying run on first, or maybe second. It didn't. And we didn't.
--Blogger is a tool of satan. And it's post-eating ways must be destroyed. This is about the third time I had to write this. Thankfully, I had some of it saved!
I really don't know who to make the Lame Duck. It's really a tossup in my mind, so I'll throw it out to the crowd, even though I suspect I know where you'll go! (Just leave your choice in the comments)
To me, the choice is like a bizarro 1985 MVP race. That year, Rickey Henderson got on-base like some sort of omnipotent being. And Don Mattingly knocked him around like he was Wil Cordero's wife. Who gets the award? The man who does the setting-up or the man who does the delivering?
1985 Don Mattingly: Cristian Guzman
Pros
-- A soul-crushing, hands-on-your-head, gutteral-NOOOO-inducing throw.
-- A miserable craptacular offensive performance with another pointless sacrifice.
Cons
-- The field was as sloppy as I've ever seen it. You could literally see the lights reflecting in the puddles on the infield.
-- It was a bad throw, but Nick Johnson probably could have done a little more to knock it down, or come off the bag sooner. Ron Darling said that the mud was caked on the ball when he threw it, which would be a big factor.
-- I was at the game, and I thought that Vidro gave up on the play -- that he didn't make an A+ effort to get to second for the game-ending forceout to give Guzman an out. Watching the replay, I'm not sure if that was the case.
1985 Rickey Henderson: Chad Cordero
Pros
-- After trying to give up the game last night, he did his damnedest to do it this afternoon.
-- Walked the freakin' go-ahead run!
-- Allowed hits to the first and third batters on 0-2 pitches. 0 and freakin' 2! And neither hit was a blooper. The second hit was so hard, in fact, that Chipper didn't even think about scoring on it.
-- Is it really fair to give an arsonist credit for fighting a fire?
Cons
-- Sloppy balls in his hands.
-- If Guzman makes the play, he survives.
As the obnoxious TV personality says, "What Say You?"
WTF Frank Senior Moment
Frank Batting Guzman second no longer qualifies under this category. It's just accepted, much as gravity is.
4th inning nil-nil. Brad Wilkerson leads off with a double and Guzman bunts him to second. I turn to my friend and start whining.
I know I have some bunt fetishists amongst my readers, so let's walk through it. We're going to make some assumptions that we can hopefully all agree on.
1. Guzman hits mostly groundballs.
2. A ground ball hit to the right side would move Wilkerson to third.
3. When he bats left-handed, as he did against the right-handed Smoltz, he's more likely to hit a ball to the right side.
4. There's a chance that a ball hit to the right side could produce an error or go through the infield for a hit.
Given that, why have him bunt? He's probably going to slap it to the infielder anyway, and the net result would be the same.
If they had let him swing away Wilkerson might move to third, or if the Gods are in a particularly zany mood, might even come around to score on a grounder to the outfield.
Even worse, the bunt contributed nothing. The run scored, but it would have regardless of the bunt. Jose Vidro scorched a grounder to Marcus Giles, which held Brad. And Jose Guillen's base hit, would've scored Wilkerson from second anyway.
The bunt contributed zippo to the inning, other than an easier-than-usual Guzman out.
Other Nats Crap
--They've made some improvements to the game-watching experience. The music is much quieter. They now display the game performances of batters on the video screen. Pitch speed is now displayed on the god-awful K-Kounter. And the centerfield ribbon boards each display a different league's out of town scores, instead of mirroring each other. Well done!
--John Patterson looked solid. He had 5 Ks, but none after the third inning, relying on a bunch of groundouts. He seemed really uncomfortable with the footing on the mound, but he survived.
--Hector Carrasco looked solid in his season debut. (His first game since 2003) I was surprised that Frank threw him right out in the fire, but he definitely earned a second look at filling the job that Antonio Osuna was signed for.
--Bobby Cox made a double switch to bring in Andruw "Gold Club" Jones and Danny Olb ('Cause there's no K, Vidro excepted) in the place of Ryan Langerhans (who really needs some more As in his name to be authentic). Jones made a terrific sliding catch off a Carlos Baerga liner. Langerhans isn't bad, but I'm not sure if he would've had that one. If that drops, we've got the tying run on first, or maybe second. It didn't. And we didn't.
--Blogger is a tool of satan. And it's post-eating ways must be destroyed. This is about the third time I had to write this. Thankfully, I had some of it saved!
27 Comments:
I'm going to go with Cordero. Understanding the conditions on the mound were suspect at best, however, Cordero was up 0-2 on Giles and decided to challenge him with a pitch right down the middle. Waste a pitch and hope he swings at it on 0-2 and if he holds off, you can challenge him on 1-2. The walks in th 9th by your closer are unacceptable unless your name is Mitch Williams, and the Nats really don't want a modern day Wild Thing.
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 7:53 AM
I haven't seen a crowd ignore someone's sins like this since Barrabas! ;)
It's 2-2! C'mon anonymous readers... chip in!
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 8:26 AM
I have been having trouble with Blogger too, but it is only eating part of my post.
Also, this one is on Guzman. He is only in the lineup because of his fielding and he completely blew it. It looked to me like he panicked out there.
By WFY, at 4/22/2005 9:16 AM
I'm not counting your vote twice Yuda! Stop stuffing the ballot box! :)
Guzman certainly panicked. The best move clearly would've involved him eating the ball. And I think he had more time than he thought he did, but he hurried because his feet slipped.
I just can't let go of the fact that the closer caused a bases-loaded 0 out situation. What's the run expectancy on that? 1.5 runs or so?
3-2 for Guzman, so far!
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 9:20 AM
I didn't realize it was that high. I would've guessed 1.8 or so.
So, if it's 2.2 runs, can't we say that Guzman saved us .2 runs then? ;)
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 9:55 AM
Yeah, he gets credit for the two clutch Ks, but that's much less significant than the 3 runners he allowed.
After a drunken night of debauchery, if your friend pukes on your shoe, do you give him credit for wiping it off?
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 9:58 AM
With apologies to Seinfeld [through clenched teeth, with disdain]:
"Guzman."
By Anonymous, at 4/22/2005 10:01 AM
As much as I'd like to, I can't blame Guzman for that play. I was shocked he even got to the ball--it looked like a basehit to me--and coming up with a muddy handfull of ball it's really tough to fault him for a bad throw. I would've preferred if he had just held on to it and left us with a tie, but meh, I wouldn't be saying that if he made the throw. He was at least trying to win the game for us.
In the Guzman-Cordero race, I have to cast my vote for Cordero--you can't let three men on base to start the 9th and blame someone else for a blown save. But I would also nominate the umps for the Lame Duck award. That game really should've been called, there were huge pools of water on the infield, it clearly was not in playable condition. And it's always more fun to blame someone who's not on our team.
By Anonymous, at 4/22/2005 10:07 AM
Unfortunately, I'm only awarding it to the players.
Otherwise Big Frank would be at about 3 now! :)
Actually, I'd probably give it to that L'enfant guy. That damn bastard built the city in a non-draining swamp!
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 10:10 AM
Can we please give Joey Eischen an honorary Majority Whip for his ESPN quote regarding Peter Angelos last night?
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 10:20 AM
"He's just going to have to suck on it and like it."
http://www.oldmatador.com/thiswebsitestinks/downloads/suck_on_it.mp3
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 10:23 AM
replace "downloa" with
downloads/suck_on_it.mp3
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 10:24 AM
Patterson ... he pitched as well as the conditions would allow
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 10:27 AM
I suspect you're trying to trap me Yuda, but it's Patterson in a pretty easy call.
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 10:31 AM
Disagree wholeheartedly with "Nationals Bill." His point about pitchers going longer is moot. They don't do it. They don't train that way in spring training. They are conditioned on their off days to work out enough to be ready to give 100-120 pitches. Patterson was at 105 after 7, he clearly tired and it would make no sense to bring him back out for the 8th. If he had "Nationals Bill" would have ripped Frobby for leaving him out there too long.
A betterquestion is this, do you have to stick rigidly to your closer always comes in for a save situation in the 9th? Carrasco pitched well (and briefly) in the 8th. Would anyone consider it wrong to bring him back out for the 9th?
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 10:44 AM
Carrasco looked solid, but I was shocked they threw him out there in a one-run game in the first place.
I don't have any problem with bringing Cordero in in that situation. He IS our best reliever (hypothetically).
It's not like they were bringing in Joe Mesa just because he's a 'proven' closer.
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 10:46 AM
I guess I'm just not a member of the camp that says you HAVE to bring the closer in every time. I as well thought Carrasco was an odd choice in the 8th but he seemed to be OK with the horrendous mound conditions whereas Cordero seemed uncomfortable out there. Just playing the 20/20 hindsight sportstalk question.
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 10:49 AM
I have no problem with the fact Cordero was brought in yesterday but sometimes I think managers fall into a pattern of just going to closer regardless. Sometimes sticking with the hot hand is the way to go.
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 10:56 AM
"Rueckel Held Hostage" enters what day again Basil?
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 11:00 AM
Cordero.
Ninety percent of baseball is pitching. Cordero was the pitcher. He gets it.
By Anonymous, at 4/22/2005 11:39 AM
Actually, it's "Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical"
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 11:43 AM
Geez! What a grumpy bunch of literalists here! :)
Take your frustrations out on Guzman, not my anonymous commenters! :P
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 11:47 AM
I'd settle for a closer who doesn't walk the go-ahead run and give up liners on 0-2 pitches, actually ;)
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 11:54 AM
Can we force Frobby to please please please please put Johnson back into the #2 hole permanently? Why the hell was Johnson batting 7th against a RHP?
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 11:55 AM
I think we're getting close to the point where we need to sit FRobby down and have a talk like we would with Grandpa about the new home he's going to.
(Especially before someone finds him wandering around Anacostia in his underwear!)
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 11:57 AM
Chris - I think it's time for co-lame ducks. Spread the love to both Chad and X-tina
By Brian, at 4/22/2005 12:10 PM
I'm hesitant to split it. I'm nearing a decision though...!
By Chris Needham, at 4/22/2005 12:27 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home