I wonder if Henderson should consider defensive replacements

At any rate it's hard to criticize a player for not making a web gem of a play that a lot of MLB players would have had a hard time making. And I don't think we can just assume that Tanner Poole would have made that play. That was a really difficult play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetEdDawg

Possibly. Maybe it was 8-9 feet. Either way height had nothing to do with it. Rowdey could have caught the ball. It was about timing and positioning not height. All I'm saying is it was a damn difficult play and for us to assume Poole makes that play is ridiculous.

At this point there is nothing Poole does good enough for me to sacrifice Rowdey Jordan. Not one thing. I'll also say that my guess is the majority of people asking for Poole to defensive sub don't coach or never have coached baseball or played baseball at a high level. You only see that when there is a significant difference between the two and there isn't here. Especially if we have to turn the lineup over again.

What people really should be mad at are the relay throw and the throw home. Those both were god awful. Cost us the run 100%. Not Rowdey. Ask any legitimate OF and if they tell you the truth that play gets made at best 50%, especially when you consider there's not warning track because the field is all turf.

---

I suppose mlb managers aren't managing at a high level bc they routinely defensive sub every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

At any rate it's hard to criticize a player for not making a web gem of a play that a lot of MLB players would have had a hard time making. And I don't think we can just assume that Tanner Poole would have made that play. That was a really difficult play.

---

The point isn't that play in particular. Rowdey has shown he is an outstanding hitter (a freaking great hitter), but very shaky in the field. The situation was rowdey got the final out of the 8th, we had a 1-run lead, our best reliever on the mound, and a better defensive outfielder on the bench. To say that it is dumb to think Poole should be a defensive replacement in that situation is crazy. Is it the right move? Maybe, maybe not... who knows? To say someone should be banned for even suggesting it is ridiculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Rowdey is a star in the making. I love the kid, but he struggles in the OF. His fielding % is .951 (4 errors). This doesn't even tell the whole story bc he gets bad reads all the time on balls. This kid should play despite that though bc he can flat out smash. When you need 3 outs though with the CWS on the line, I play the better defender bc you take a glove to LF, not a bat

---

This is when you dig in like a tick. I hate defensive subs unless you got Salvy Perez playing CF with Andruw Jones on the bench. We need our best 9 hitters in the lineup if we're gonna keep winning this year. We aren't gonna magically become a good defensive team late in games no matter who we put in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

I suppose mlb managers aren't managing at a high level bc they routinely defensive sub every day.

---

Those players have completely different skill sets and situational understandings. Defensive subs in the majors are usually for players who are unequivocally better on defense. That was not the case here.

This is classic case of a fan base trying to put their hands on something they don't understand. Too many damn micro managers. I swear I think some would rather be right and us lose than be wrong and us win. Why in the world would we start doing things different? Putting Poole in doesn't guarantee that play happens. 8 feet up against the wall with no warning track to help timing. It's just not a good decision. And not one damn soul on here has ever made a comment about Rowdey's defense until that play. Prisoner of the moment to judge a kid for not catching a ball that hit 8 feet up a wall.

Major league folks can do it because usually the defense is significantly better and the offense is only marginally worse. This case was the opposite. Doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetEdDawg

Those players have completely different skill sets and situational understandings. Defensive subs in the majors are usually for players who are unequivocally better on defense. That was not the case here.

This is classic case of a fan base trying to put their hands on something they don't understand. Too many damn micro managers. I swear I think some would rather be right and us lose than be wrong and us win. Putting Poole in doesn't guarantee that play happens. 8 feet up against the wall with no warning track to help timing. It's just not a good decision.

Major league folks can do it because usually the defense is significantly better and the offense is only marginally worse. This case was the opposite. Doesn't make sense.

---

Babble babble babble... I have repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) said the decision wasn't clear cut. To act like it dumb to even suggest it is ridiculous. The only ones saying they are right and the other side is dumb are you guys. A message board is for discussion, and I think this should be a good one. Unfortunately, one side calls the other dumb for no reason... argue on merits, not name calling and pronouncing yourself smarter than everyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Babble babble babble... I have repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) said the decision wasn't clear cut. To act like it dumb to even suggest it is ridiculous. The only ones saying they are right and the other side is dumb are you guys. A message board is for discussion, and I think this should be a good one. Unfortunately, one side calls the other dumb for no reason... argue on merits, not name calling and pronouncing yourself smarter than everyone

---

Where was the word dumb in my post? I feel like I'm discussing. I don't agree with your assessment. That's ok. But I never called anyone dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MetEdDawg

Where was the word dumb in my post? I feel like I'm discussing. I don't agree with your assessment. That's ok. But I never called anyone dumb.

---

You sure didn't. I apologize. It was back in the thread where someone said posters should be banned for even suggesting Poole be a def replacement. Again, I was wrong for misquoting you... sorry

I don't think it's accurate to just assume Pool makes that catch cause he's taller. Rowdey's height wasn't the issue. He just started to close his glove before he caught it and it clanked of the side of his glove. It's not like there's a sample size of Poole making that same type of catch over Rowdey. It's a 1 in 100,000 type of play. We won't see a similar one till 2028.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

You sure didn't. I apologize. It was back in the thread where someone said posters should be banned for even suggesting Poole be a def replacement. Again, I was wrong for misquoting you... sorry

---

Thank you. I at least understand the argument. I just think the play looked at under a microscope is one that a lot of OF wouldn't make. Tough play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

The point isn't that play in particular. Rowdey has shown he is an outstanding hitter (a freaking great hitter), but very shaky in the field. The situation was rowdey got the final out of the 8th, we had a 1-run lead, our best reliever on the mound, and a better defensive outfielder on the bench. To say that it is dumb to think Poole should be a defensive replacement in that situation is crazy. Is it the right move? Maybe, maybe not... who knows? To say someone should be banned for even suggesting it is ridiculous

---

Again, it's probably not the right move because of how close our games are and the fact we seem to play in extra innings a lot. But I'm not going to call out a player's defense as being shaky because he didn't make a play on a ball that probably had about a 20% chance or less of being caught in the first place followed by two bad relay throws.

And I didn't call anyone dumb or say anyone should be banned. Even though it's not the right opinion to have.