Jump to content

Was anyone else thinking what I was thinking?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

9th inning, game is tied, Hyde decides to bring the closer Bautista in to pitch.  Gregg Olson wonders why Hyde would bring in the closer in a tie game on the road.  In Toronto.

And all I can think of is Buck’s decision not to use Zach Britton in a tie game on the road in the 2016 wild card game.  In Toronto.

I’ve never blamed Buck as much as many other people did.  But I was glad to see Hyde go for the jugular, and to see Bautista come through.  

Deja vu?  No thank you!

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the new extra innings rules really give an advantage to teams with relievers who get a lot of strikeouts.    This might especially be true for a road team--you can play for just one run in the top of the 10th, knowing that your closer has a good chance of stranding the inherited runner because of his ability to get strikeouts.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Three Run Homer said:

Not sure if 2016 played into his reasoning; I'm guessing that he was willing to use him for two innings  instead of one today because he was going to be unavailable for Sunday regardless.  

I didn’t mean to suggest that 2016 entered into Hyde’s thinking.  But it sure entered into mine.  I agree with your point in the second post about the effect of the ghost runner rule.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think Buck remembered using Jim Johnson in a tie game with NYY in the playoffs in 2012.  JJ, in a non-save situation, coughed up 5 runs. I remember saying to the person sitting next to me, "the game is over because Buck used JJ" in that situation. I really think that experience affected Buck's Britton decision in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AnythingO's said:

I still think Buck remembered using Jim Johnson in a tie game with NYY in the playoffs in 2012.  JJ, in a non-save situation, coughed up 5 runs. I remember saying to the person sitting next to me, "the game is over because Buck used JJ" in that situation. I really think that experience affected Buck's Britton decision in 2016.

Though that game was the top of the 9th in a tie game, a situation where it's pretty standard to use the closer since there's no chance of a save situation later. You could say Buck played it "by the book" both times, use your closer in the 9th in a tie at home, save him for the save on the road. 

Tonight, I think the call was influenced by the fact that Springer/Bichette/Guerrero were due up in the 9th. If it was the weaker part of the lineup instead, Hyde may have considered going to someone else that inning and saving Bautista til later. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did think about Buck in 2016 when Olson said that. After the game though, Hyde said he would have gone to Voth if they hadn't scored in the 10th. Can't understand that reasoning. Seems like you'd be even more inclined to stay with Bautista in the 10th if you needed a zero just to avoid a loss. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

If Gregg Olson were Jim Palmer, how much would he have talked about going 2.2 IP and 39 pitches in Game 160 of 1989

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR198909290.shtml

Though Olson did get the Blown Save for not stranding the runner inherited from Ballard.

1989 Olson yielded 1 HR in 85 innings.

Yea, with Olson talking, I thought of the last series in 89, not 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Frobby said:

9th inning, game is tied, Hyde decides to bring the closer Bautista in to pitch.  Gregg Olson wonders why Hyde would bring in the closer in a tie game on the road.  In Toronto.

And all I can think of is Buck’s decision not to use Zach Britton in a tie game on the road in the 2016 wild card game.  In Toronto.

I’ve never blamed Buck as much as many other people did.  But I was glad to see Hyde go for the jugular, and to see Bautista come through.  

Deja vu?  No thank you!

 

I think you manage to your options and Ubaldo Jiminez was never a good option.  I don't there is an Orioles fan who having watched him pitch the previous four years wanted him throwing in the playoffs with a game on the line.  Period.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SemperFi said:

I think you manage to your options and Ubaldo Jiminez was never a good option.  I don't there is an Orioles fan who having watched him pitch the previous four years wanted him throwing in the playoffs with a game on the line.  Period.    

For sure. That is one of several moments in Os history I have sort of blocked out of my mind and don't think about unless it is brought up in a thread like this. Just seeing Ubaldo come into the game there the pain hit as much as when the ball left the park, because you knew it was going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tbone83 said:

For sure. That is one of several moments in Os history I have sort of blocked out of my mind and don't think about unless it is brought up in a thread like this. Just seeing Ubaldo come into the game there the pain hit as much as when the ball left the park, because you knew it was going to happen.

It was a hard pill to swallow, and we haven't been in a playoff game since. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

9th inning, game is tied, Hyde decides to bring the closer Bautista in to pitch.  Gregg Olson wonders why Hyde would bring in the closer in a tie game on the road.  In Toronto.

And all I can think of is Buck’s decision not to use Zach Britton in a tie game on the road in the 2016 wild card game.  In Toronto.

I’ve never blamed Buck as much as many other people did.  But I was glad to see Hyde go for the jugular, and to see Bautista come through.  

Deja vu?  No thank you!

 

I’ve questioned some of the pen moves this year but it was the right decision to go to Felix in the ninth. 
 

I don’t like assigning roles to the guys in the pen. I’d rather just pitch the best guys in the highest leverage situations. 
 

We know that people have to go to make room for Tate and Givens but man, this bullpen is going to be absolutely filthy (filthier) if Tate and Givens perform to their abilities. 

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

    • Brecht has TOR upside.  We’re good at finding #3-#5 types just in developing them, but we need that TOR arm upside and develop. 
    • I thought Baker had a better chance of getting a strikeout. Even though he created that mess it looked like he could have worked out of it.  Generally not in favor of bringing in guys for bases loaded situations unless they’re absolute nails and have an extremely high K rate.  Akin’s K rate is higher this year but I still don’t believe he was the better option than Baker. 
    • We’ve been picking really athletic types when not picking high in rd 1. Position player wise.   2023 - EBJ, Horvath, Josenberger, Cunningham, Etzel Not that are prior picks haven’t been athletic, if you know what I’m trying to say. We don’t take plodders as position players. 
    • Your complete mischaracterization of Os players aside, Miller is likely nothing more than a 60-70 IP reliever with high arm injury potential. (Note: when I say nothing more, I mean that as I don’t think they convert him to a starter next year or even if they do, I think he’s a ticking time bomb) I don’t care how old Kjerstad is, he’s a high end prospect that you control for 6 years and Stowers is an everyday OFer with big power potential. Sure, in a perfect world you get younger talent and if so, that’s fine..but if they got offered that and that was the best deal on the table, they should make the deal. FWIW, I think that deal would get beaten or they would get someone that maybe isn’t ranked as high as Kjerstad but someone younger and maybe more all around upside even if they come with a bigger risk.  
    • 100% in on Kirby. Wouldn’t require much on the prospect front. And has some track record.  That’ll require the Rangers to throw in the towel. Not sure they’re there, yet.
    • Yes to Crochet, absolutely not for Miller, yes to Skubal. Skubal will require a haul, though.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...