Jump to content

Wotherspoon Gives It Up, Os Lose 5-3


weams

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Jumping Wotherspoon over several names on the 40-man with major league experience is the first Elias move that has not worked out and may have cost a game.

Not all of his moves will work to plan of course, but coming off a down year in AAA, it still was a little surprising that he was called up over Ynoa, Phillips and Ramirez or even Rogers for that matter. 

I think given the nature of what would happen (one game and done), he figured it would be better to use Wotherspoon for that over any of the names you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glenn__davis said:

 

I think that it's kind of an unfair headline for Wotherspoon, no ???  I mean he wasn't great, but the headline makes it sound like he gave up the lead.  

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

It seems that way to me. Who knows if Mancini would have hit a 3-run homer if the score had been closer ??? We probably would have seen Giles instead of Hudson to start the 9th if the score of the game was still 2-0.     

 

o

 

Yes, that's the "Cause and Effect" principle in sports ........ it is somewhat similar to when a runner gets thrown out trying to steal 2nd base, and then the batter proceeds to hit a home run. Some fans will then assert that it would have been a 2-run home run if the runner had stayed put, but that's not necessarily true. If the runner were still on base, the pitcher would have been pitching from the stretch, he probably have thrown a different pitch, the batter may have been looking for a different pitch than the one that he got, etc.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

Yes, that's the "Cause and Effect" principle in sports ........ it is somewhat similar to when a runner gets thrown out trying to steal 2nd base, and then the batter proceeds to hit a home run. Some fans will then assert that it would have been a 2-run home run if the runner had stayed put, but that's not necessarily true. If the runner were still on base, the pitcher would have been pitching from the stretch, he probably have thrown a different pitch, the batter may have been looking for a different pitch than the one that he got, etc.

 

o

No, he might have walked and the next batter may have hit an Earl. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Yes, that's the "Cause and Effect" principle in sports ........ it is somewhat similar to when a runner gets thrown out trying to steal 2nd base, and then the batter proceeds to hit a home run. Some fans will then assert that it would have been a 2-run home run if the runner had stayed put, but that's not necessarily true. If the runner were still on base, the pitcher would have been pitching from the stretch, he probably have thrown a different pitch, the batter may have been looking for a different pitch than the one that he got, etc.

 

o

 

 

4 minutes ago, weams said:

 

No, he might have walked, and the next batter may have hit an Earl. 

 

o

 

Correct. 

It might have wound up being a 5-run inning, or they might not have scored at all.

There is no way of telling what would have happened after the fact, because of what I explained in my previous post.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

Seems that way to me.    Who knows if Mancini would have hit a 3-run homer if the score had been closer?    We probably would have seen Giles instead of Hudson in the 9th.     

I'm aware that Giles would have been pitching if the score stayed the same.  It just rubs me the wrong way that Hyde mailed it in by putting in Wotherspoon in a 2 run game.  The win expectancy before the bottom of the 8th was 94%.  Not great, obviously, but around 1 in 20.  The win expectancy after the bottom of the 8th was 99.4%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hallas said:

I'm aware that Giles would have been pitching if the score stayed the same.  It just rubs me the wrong way that Hyde mailed it in by putting in Wotherspoon in a 2 run game.  The win expectancy before the bottom of the 8th was 94%.  Not great, obviously, but around 1 in 20.  The win expectancy after the bottom of the 8th was 99.4%.

I was just talking about the thread title, suggesting Wotherspoon gave up the win.    I certainly can see how you could question using Wotherspoon in that game situation.   Probably it was Hyde wanting to save some innings of other relievers for the Yankees series rather than maximizing the chances of holding down the Blue Jays and hoping for a comeback.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I was just talking about the thread title, suggesting Wotherspoon gave up the win.    I certainly can see how you could question using Wotherspoon in that game situation.   Probably it was Hyde wanting to save some innings of other relievers for the Yankees series rather than maximizing the chances of holding down the Blue Jays and hoping for a comeback. 

I get that, and I asked earlier if we had some off-limits relievers.  I know Buck was pretty forthcoming about relievers that were off limits at least in the post-game.  Hyde seemed to just give standard post-game BS about it.  Perhaps this is one of the downsides of using openers too frequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hallas said:

I get that, and I asked earlier if we had some off-limits relievers.  I know Buck was pretty forthcoming about relievers that were off limits at least in the post-game.  Hyde seemed to just give standard post-game BS about it.  Perhaps this is one of the downsides of using openers too frequently.

I think only Fry should have been off-limits.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...