Two issues I had with today...

[Okrastar1]

First how does Gentry come in with that scenario in the 5th? Logical pick to me has to be one of the Mitchell's, both of which have been in heavy pressure moments in big time games. I just didn't feel that moment was set up for a frosh submariner....
Second, why in the hell does the field have to get hosed down and be so damn wet? Frazier lost footing in a mud puddle and Lindgren slipped when he hurt his ankle? Stupid I know but damn it was still wet after the game was over

[taylor]

Gentry brought in to get ground ball, he did that.

[RTO Dawg]

ground ball not a rope triple.......

[HereComesTheSpiral]

That inning was just a big shit sandwich that everyone got to take a bite out of

[taylor]

ground ball not a rope triple.......

i didnt think it was a rope, just hit in a lucky spot..........of course, i am curious why they werent playing the corners on the lines????

[engie]

i didnt think it was a rope, just hit in a lucky spot..........of course, i am curious why they werent playing the corners on the lines????

Corners infielders were in for the 3-2-3 or the 5-2-3 double play.

You don't play corner outfielders on the line and give up the gap, a place that the ball is far, far more likely to be hit statistically speaking.

[taylor]

Corners infielders were in for the 3-2-3 or the 5-2-3 double play.

You don't play corner outfielders on the line and give up the gap, a place that the ball is far, far more likely to be hit statistically speaking.

i was referring to the infielders taking away the line. Understandably, Cohen played for the double play, instead of playing against the big inning with the lead. I would have guarded the lines, jmo.

[engie]

i was referring to the infielders taking away the line. Understandably, Cohen played for the double play, instead of playing against the big inning with the lead. I would have guarded the lines, jmo.

You say that in hindsight after you know what happened -- if you didn't call it a mistake in advance, then you can't talk about coaching decisions. If he had everyone playing "safety"(trying to take away doubles -- essentially what you are suggesting) at that point in the game, everyone would have ripped Cohen a new one for that move BEFORE the ball down the line was hit.

3rd and first were playing up for the home-first double play. Middle infielders were at double play depth for the traditional 6-4-3 or 4-6-3 double play. Rea playing back would not have likely prevented that ball from getting down the line -- and you NEVER play "safety" in the 5th inning of a game. It makes the holes too big.

[Todd4State]

That triple was almost foul- like a centimeter. We don't hose down the infield where Lindgren slipped and Frazier more or less lost his balance rather than straight up slipped in a mud hole.

[taylor]

3rd and first were playing up for the home-first double play. Middle infielders were at double play depth for the traditional 6-4-3 or 4-6-3 double play. Rea playing back would not have likely prevented that ball from getting down the line -- and you NEVER play "safety" in the 5th inning of a game. It makes the holes too big.

You have said exactly what my problem with the defensive alignment was. The alignment suggests he was playing for a home first double play. Absolutely terrible decision imo. Play the percentages, you have a 2-0 lead, and expect your team to score more. What we needed there was an out, even if it meant giving up a run. I think Rea has a good chance at that ball if he was 2-3 steps back. Big difference in your reaction time between being one step in front of bag, compared to one step behind. I can call it in advance, I would play my 1B and 3B men a step back in that situation (AT HOME) EVERYTIME!!!!

[Todd4State]

They still likely would have gotten a run on a double play up the middle. I think anyone would play for a home first double play in that situation if you can get it. Based on where the ball was hit, your defensive alignment still wouldn't have prevented the triple. The mistake was not bringing in Ross. Not the defensive positioning. We also had an error that compounded things as well. Lindgren not being able to field the bunt hurt us as well- not his fault because he fell down- it was just a shit luck inning.

[engie]

You have said exactly what my problem with the defensive alignment was. The alignment suggests he was playing for a home first double play. Absolutely terrible decision imo. Play the percentages, you have a 2-0 lead, and expect your team to score more. What we needed there was an out, even if it meant giving up a run. I think Rea has a good chance at that ball if he was 2-3 steps back. Big difference in your reaction time between being one step in front of bag, compared to one step behind. I can call it in advance, I would play my 1B and 3B men a step back in that situation (AT HOME) EVERYTIME!!!!

"Playing the percentages" calls for you to bring in the corners in that situation. Common, common baseball situation -- and exactly how it is handled 99.9% of the time.

You are, again, trying to look at it in hindsight. What we needed there was an out? Obviously. Would you be pissed if we had gotten the home to first dp and then gotten out of the inning unscathed? Of course not. The only reason you are pissed is because a guy hit a triple that COULD NOT have been prevented by ANY infield alignment inherent to the situation. Again, you are calling for "no doubles" -- which would have been an absolutely idiotic alignment in that situation and is generally only something used late in close games with nobody on base.

Again, you are going to bring in the corners almost every time -- because it's an easier DP to turn for a first baseman and just as easy for a 3b. Nevermind that it puts a 1b in front of the runner where he can actually see the play developing and get a good jump on the pitch. The reaction time you gain from being back is most often lost from your vision being blocked by the runner -- resulting in an almost zero gain scenario. Think about it -- when does a 1b ever play behind a runner at first? Not very often.

[taylor]

"Playing the percentages" calls for you to bring in the corners in that situation. Common, common baseball situation -- and exactly how it is handled 99.9% of the time.

You are, again, trying to look at it in hindsight. What we needed there was an out? Obviously. Would you be pissed if we had gotten the home to first dp and then gotten out of the inning unscathed? Of course not. The only reason you are pissed is because a guy hit a triple that COULD NOT have been prevented by ANY infield alignment inherent to the situation. Again, you are calling for "no doubles" -- which would have been an absolutely idiotic alignment in that situation and is generally only something used late in close games with nobody on base.

Again, you are going to bring in the corners almost every time -- because it's an easier DP to turn for a first baseman and just as easy for a 3b. Nevermind that it puts a 1b in front of the runner where he can actually see the play developing and get a good jump on the pitch. The reaction time you gain from being back is most often lost from your vision being blocked by the runner -- resulting in an almost zero gain scenario. Think about it -- when does a 1b ever play behind a runner at first? Not very often.

Not looking in hindsight at all, just the opposite. Percentages are that the closer the infielders are to homeplate the less chance they have of making a play for an out, basically they only make the play if the ball is hit right at them. It is a sign of desperation.

I agree, that playing the corners in gives us the best chance of getting the lead runner at home, imo, that wasnt the greatest priority under that situation.