From: Chuck on 12 Apr 2010 17:08
On Apr 12, 2:56 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 9:58 am, alanjenkins1...(a)msn.com (John Jones) wrote:
> > I know this purely subjective. What I mean when I consider a game blown
> > is by losing by two runs or less. Blowing the game because of a lack of
> > a clutch or fundamental play. Such as leaving runners on third with less
> > than two outs more than once in a game. Making an error that cost the
> > team a run. Or walking multiple guys late in a game. I also would add in
> > mental mistakes that lead to runs. Guys moving up on blown cutoffs and
> > such. What I really mean is lack of fundamental execution on a few plays
> > that night.
> > I really don't consider a positive like hitting a grand slam late as a
> > game blown by the Cubs. Subjective, I know.
> > My three pet peeves in blowing games are failure to get runners in from
> > third with less than two outs during any point of the game. Also,
> > pitchers that walk multiple guys from the 8th inning on. I would also
> > add in pitchers who fail to shut down the opposition after his team
> > scores the previous inning as a biggie. Momentum shifts are a reality
> > stat men can't calculate. That is why that Harang/Votto mental blunder
> > was so big on opening day. The Reds were trailing 3-0 and Carpenter was
> > sailing along until the Reds shifted momentum and scored on two solo
> > shots. The very next inning Harang gave a run back with an idiotic play
> > that squashed any momentum the Reds had just previously won back.
> > I think this thread should be dropped since many people have different
> > interpretations on blown games. That is what is wonderful about
> > baseball, the game can turn on the least little play. I always try to
> > provoke thought. Whether you agree with me or not, I try to make people
> > think.
> heres the 2010 version of one of my yearly post:
> It always amazes me that some persons tend to have this mindset with
> regards to sports that whether a certain team wins or loses a contest
> depends soley on what that team does or fails to do, i.e., the talent
> level and execution of the opposing team has nothing to do with the
> outcome of the contest. Thats really the ultimate in subjectivity.
> For instance, in your tale of the Harang/Carpenter game, its the Reds
> who "shifted momentum" and its harang who "squashed" the momentum,
> giving the game to the Cardinals. Didnt Carpenter have any say in that
> game? Maybe its actually Carpenter who 'shifted" the momentum in favor
> of the Reds by making bad pitches, and he later in the game "squashed"
> the Reds momentum by resuming his usual practice of making good
> pitches. No?
> I can make a fair argument that both the Cubs and Cardinals have more
> talented squads than do the Reds. Therefore, is it reasonable to think
> that the Reds would fare no better than 3 wins and 3 losses after
> facing those 2 clubs? I think so. If those clubs have the most talent
> in the respective contest then isnt it safe to assume that they
> actually have the greater control over the outcome of the contest, and
> that any "blowing" of a game would come from thier end?
> Cutting to the chase Mr Jones - there are 2 teams on the field trying
> to win the game, and the outcome does not depend 100% on what only one
> team does or does not do.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Getting deep this early in the season? LOL Baseball is a simple game
and I like simple things . I am happy with the first week!