07-28-2009, 05:06 PM
<!--quoteo(post=52826:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:39 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 28 2009, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=52824:date=Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Jul 28 2009, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->As Coldneck and others keep saying, it was foolish to not use Fox instead of Fontenot when it's a tied game in the 9th and you've officially used 4 bats off the bench in just 1 inning. What's the point? He's coming into the game anyway, and he just so happens to be a better hitter than Fontenot. It shows Fox that Lou doesn't have a lot of confidence in him, which he probably figured anyway since he rarely starts.
You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.
Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.
What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. Show some confidence in your players.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boom! Ping! Bam! Pow!
I might as well go ahead close the thread now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, Clapp's arguing points I haven't made certainly has shut the door on this one. (that's not a shot at you Clapp, as you made some very good points, and made them eloquently, but they were not in response to the point I've been trying to get through to Butch).
Look Butch, I don't know how else I can put this. Lou choosing a strategy which you deem less likely to yield the result you want, does not, by itself, make that strategy stupid, assinine, or retarded. You used at least 2 of those words to describe it last night.
Clapp arguing (successfully)that letting Fox hit was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) that not squeezing there was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) the complexities of roster management in extra innings does not change that.
In fact, in my opinion, he SHOULD have batted Fox instead of Fontenot. But the fact that he didn't choose that option doesn't make him an idiot, an ass, or a retard, as his decision, while not optimal, is defensible. So had the Cubs lost last night night, you would have (yet again) hung it on Lou, because he made a defensible choice you didn't agree with. You would not have hung it on Fontenot for shitting the bed (let alone Johnson or Theriot for going 0-12). It would have been "On Lou". Which is silly. It would have been on the offense. And a significant portion would be "on" Fontenot.
You've likely fucked yourselves for extras in the matter of one inning, and that's exactly what ended up happening when Blanco had to pinch-hit and failed, we were completely out of position players. Zambrano is our next extra bat, he was used already of course. How about just going with Fox instead of Fukudome? Instead Lou burned 2 position players before Fox when Fox had to come into the game anyway. Use Fox first, then use the others as you need them.
Fontenot failed badly at getting the bat on the ball, that's bad. No doubt. I'm not excusing him for it because it's something you are taught at a very young age. About every practice in high school, we'd do a drill where you have to get the bat on the ball on a squeeze or the team would run like hell. But what if he does and bunts it hard back to the pitcher? Force out at home. What if he pops it up(which happens frequently in any bunting situation)? Double play. All you need is a flyball somewhere, which he ended up hitting, a groundball with the infield drawn in, or a walk which was looking quite possible considering Valverde was all over the place that inning and had just walked the previous batter.
What might piss me off the most in all of this is it's a move Lou's making because he's seen our offense fail to get the run in most of the year in a situation like that, so he tries to sneak a way to get that run in. Show some confidence in your players.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boom! Ping! Bam! Pow!
I might as well go ahead close the thread now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, Clapp's arguing points I haven't made certainly has shut the door on this one. (that's not a shot at you Clapp, as you made some very good points, and made them eloquently, but they were not in response to the point I've been trying to get through to Butch).
Look Butch, I don't know how else I can put this. Lou choosing a strategy which you deem less likely to yield the result you want, does not, by itself, make that strategy stupid, assinine, or retarded. You used at least 2 of those words to describe it last night.
Clapp arguing (successfully)that letting Fox hit was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) that not squeezing there was a better option does not change that.
Clapp arguing (successfully) the complexities of roster management in extra innings does not change that.
In fact, in my opinion, he SHOULD have batted Fox instead of Fontenot. But the fact that he didn't choose that option doesn't make him an idiot, an ass, or a retard, as his decision, while not optimal, is defensible. So had the Cubs lost last night night, you would have (yet again) hung it on Lou, because he made a defensible choice you didn't agree with. You would not have hung it on Fontenot for shitting the bed (let alone Johnson or Theriot for going 0-12). It would have been "On Lou". Which is silly. It would have been on the offense. And a significant portion would be "on" Fontenot.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.