Games Blown?
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: fire dust already.
Next: Cabrera and Votto
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! |