Jump to content

100% of the shots you don't take


Daddy-O's

Recommended Posts

Was anyone else frustrated that Mancini did not try to score on the flyball to right.  I get not attempting on the single to center, no outs had to make sure it wasn't caught.  I know the fly ball was not deep but that was the second out and a below average hitter due up and the Yankees start their at bat with a runner on 2nd. Failing this attempt was not going to ruin their playoff hopes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

Was anyone else frustrated that Mancini did not try to score on the flyball to right.  I get not attempting on the single to center, no outs had to make sure it wasn't caught.  I know the fly ball was not deep but that was the second out and a below average hitter due up and the Yankees start their at bat with a runner on 2nd. Failing this attempt was not going to ruin their playoff hopes.  

I was, a little bit.  If Judge had been in RF I wouldn’t have tried it, but Stanton isn’t a particularly good OF and hasn’t played there much this year.   And, you have to consider that the next batter up is hitting .159.    It’s not like we had one of the better hitters coming up, and we were out of position players on the bench to pinch hit.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I was, a little bit.  If Judge had been in RF I wouldn’t have tried it, but Stanton isn’t a particularly good OF and hasn’t played there much this year.   And, you have to consider that the next batter up is hitting .159.    It’s not like we had one of the better hitters coming up, and we were out of position players on the bench to pinch hit.  

I thought Davis retired.  I would say that is a 3B coaching decision and not Mancini.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sevastras said:

I thought Davis retired.  I would say that is a 3B coaching decision and not Mancini.  

I agree it was a coaching decision, and I think it highlights a lack of aggressiveness from the coaching staff.  I understand we are undermanned in the talent department, but we do not have to be overmatched in the desire department.  I thought the throw from center in the bottom of the inning also lacked urgency.  There is nothing to lose at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Daddy-O's said:

I agree it was a coaching decision, and I think it highlights a lack of aggressiveness from the coaching staff.  I understand we are undermanned in the talent department, but we do not have to be overmatched in the desire department.  I thought the throw from center in the bottom of the inning also lacked urgency.  There is nothing to lose at this point.

Kind of hard when you know there is no chance of throwing him out.  Mullins has played enough baseball in his life to know when a runner is past X, he cant throw the ball hard enough to beat him home from Y on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The throw from Mullins illustrates his one weakness, which is that he doesn’t have a very good arm. The throw also wasn’t very accurate.

Regarding Mancini, if the throw had been accurate he would’ve been out, and Mancini doesn’t run well. So I understand the impulse to remain at third. However even at the time I wanted him to go, especially after Stanton fumbled the ball, simply because of an awareness that Tate was going to falter in the next half inning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daddy-O's said:

I agree it was a coaching decision, and I think it highlights a lack of aggressiveness from the coaching staff.  I understand we are undermanned in the talent department, but we do not have to be overmatched in the desire department.  I thought the throw from center in the bottom of the inning also lacked urgency.  There is nothing to lose at this point.

Yeah there is. We could lose the #1 pick in the next MLB draft to the Diamondbacks.

I know you're making a totally different point about effort and winning habits. But I'm not all that worried about a losing play that very well may have helped us get the top pick in the draft next year.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Mateo hit his homerun and Stewart pinch hit for Jones, if Stewart got on who was going to hit for Wynns? If Stewart got on you couldn't let Wynns bat, or was it all or nothing, Stewart hits a homer? Seemed like a strange move, why not let Jones bat and hit Stewart for Wynns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 10:36 AM, Philip said:

The throw from Mullins illustrates his one weakness, which is that he doesn’t have a very good arm. The throw also wasn’t very accurate.

Regarding Mancini, if the throw had been accurate he would’ve been out, and Mancini doesn’t run well. So I understand the impulse to remain at third. However even at the time I wanted him to go, especially after Stanton fumbled the ball, simply because of an awareness that Tate was going to falter in the next half inning.

 

Pitchers go through off-season training to increase fastball velocity. Sometimes they do gain velocity between seasons. That doesn't mean that the training program is responsible for the velocity gain; maybe it happened for other reasons. There appear to be quite a few baseball insiders, however, who believe this kind of training can be effective.

Can position players with weak throwing arms --OFers like Mullins or IFers like Mountcastle when he played 3B or like Jones. apparently -- undergo the same or similar training programs to increase the velocity and distance (which is primarily a function of velocity and trajectory) of their throws? Are there reasons that this sort of training can't work for or is problematic for position players, like the possibility of interfering with their batting strokes? Do some position players do this stuff, and I've just not heard about it?

I've asked this question before, but never seen an answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Pitchers go through off-season training to increase fastball velocity. Sometimes they do gain velocity between seasons. That doesn't mean that the training program is responsible for the velocity gain; maybe it happened for other reasons. There appear to be quite a few baseball insiders, however, who believe this kind of training can be effective.

Can position players with weak throwing arms --OFers like Mullins or IFers like Mountcastle when he played 3B or like Jones. apparently -- undergo the same or similar training programs to increase the velocity and distance (which is primarily a function of velocity and trajectory) of their throws? Are there reasons that this sort of training can't work for or is problematic for position players, like the possibility of interfering with their batting strokes? Do some position players do this stuff, and I've just not heard about it?

I've asked this question before, but never seen an answer.

 

Of course programs exist for both optimizing throwing mechanics and building arm strength for position players.

But considering the players are in the majors, I would think they have already availed themselves of resources of this kind.    The team should already be providing this type of service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But considering the players are in the majors, I would think they have already availed themselves of resources of this kind.    The team should already be providing this type of service.

Last off season Means, Harvey, and Zimmerman went to performance clinics. Is that something the team can pay for? I thought they did it on their own. After this season I would think Akin, Kremer, Lowther would consider going as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Posts

    • Btw, i understand what he could mean to the team. He could put a ring on our fingers if he can be healthy and be there where and when we need him in October.    That’s the conundrum.
    • It’s just the up and down roles. I agree the opener aspect is the best way to go(to keep him on routine) but you are going to go from pitching 1-3 innings and then hoping he can go 5-6 again, when he is already likely to wear down because of the total workload. It’s all a big risk. I mean, there is a reason he has whatever deal with the WS he has and that if they went against that, he wanted an extension. Even he understands that it’s a risk.
    • You’re actually making the most sense of just about anyone on here.   Hate to say it.  Lol
    • If you use him as an opener, it’s not really “relieving”.  I guess I don’t get the issue.  If a pitcher gets hurt and misses a period of time, are you saying it’s risky to ramp him back up to a normal innings load?
    • Ah. So you can only get one pick per player? That’s a bummer. Reasonable, I suppose. But a bummer nonetheless 
    • It's true that this has been discussed, and there are differing schools of thought.  Some, like myself, feel that the resources required in a Crochet deal, might be better served addressing a more impactful need for 2024: a ToR starter.  As a starter beginning next season, it's likely Crochet's impact will be higher as a strong ToR starter through the final two years of control.  In the meantime, there are quite a few very solid veteran late inning relievers that we could deal for in order to satisfy that need, and that wouldn't require near the cost of a Crochet.
    • It makes sense to me for multiple reasons. 1) IMO we do not have the requisite pitching talent in order to matchup favorably against the leagues best in a 7 game series in October. That needs to change. 2) We don’t need extra offense IMO. Nor a back up catcher. We will be fine offensively if we don’t have one considering without both we are number one in the sport. 3) We could resign Burnes with that 50 million (not sure where you are getting that number). But so many here believe it will be a bad deal. And having another #1 in house protects us from having to be leveraged against signing him.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...