Games Blown?
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: fire dust already.
Next: Cabrera and Votto
From: john smith on 11 Apr 2010 21:58 Lets look at the first six games objectively. The game blown so far has to be yesterday's fiasco. I would love to have a running count all season long and add to this thread when everyone thinks a game is blown. If you have more than two of these a month it can be the difference between a contender and a pretender. Oh and it doesn't have to be a bullpen mistake to make this list. I have see one blown game so far. They should have come out of here 4-2.
From: John Kasupski on 11 Apr 2010 23:16 On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:58:53 -0700, eddygdvd(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: >Lets look at the first six games objectively. The game blown so far has >to be yesterday's fiasco. I would love to have a running count all >season long and add to this thread when everyone thinks a game is blown. >If you have more than two of these a month it can be the difference >between a contender and a pretender. > >Oh and it doesn't have to be a bullpen mistake to make this list. I have >see one blown game so far. They should have come out of here 4-2. Hmm...I was going to say they should be 2-4 right now the way Leake struggled early in today's start. I gotta give him a lot of credit because the Cubs had the bases loaded with nobody out in the first inning and got out of it. Then he went on to finish with seven walks and a wild pitch. He could easily have gotten chased in that first inning...and if that was the Cardinals I have to think he probably would have been. The series opener against the Cubs probably should also have been a loss but Caridad couldn't get anybody out until after the first four guys he pitched to all scored on Stubbs' grand slam. On the other hand, if Rhodes doesn't serve up a gopher ball to Baker in the game on Friday, they might still be playing that one - and the bullpen coughed up four runs in the seventh inning of Wednesday's game against the Cardinals, without which the Reds win that game. So I guess it all washes out. They're probably right where they should be, 3-3, which is also where they were last year after six games. So now it's off to Florida for four night games with the Marlins, who have started the season at 4-2. Cueto starts tomorrow (Monday) against Nolasco, then it's Arroyo vs. a lefty, Robertson, on Tuesday. Bailey pitches against Volstad on Wednesday, and on Thursday it's Harang against Johnson. JK
From: HTP on 12 Apr 2010 11:46 On Apr 11, 6:58 pm, eddyg...(a)msn.com (john smith) wrote: > Lets look at the first six games objectively. The game blown so far has > to be yesterday's fiasco. I would love to have a running count all > season long and add to this thread when everyone thinks a game is blown. > If you have more than two of these a month it can be the difference > between a contender and a pretender. > > Oh and it doesn't have to be a bullpen mistake to make this list. I have > see one blown game so far. They should have come out of here 4-2. Now John, just to be fair, will we also be counting "games blown" by the opposition, or do you consider those games to have been won by the Reds in come-from-behind fashion?
From: John Jones on 12 Apr 2010 12:58 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.
From: HTP on 12 Apr 2010 14:56
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. |