How the f@&k do you leave Fitts in when he can barely throw it?

[confucius say]

This is for everybody who wants to take that 2-0 pitch in that situation. There are times where I might would consider it. But with this team struggling, at this point in the season, for a regular season conference win? No way do I take. He doesn't even have to get a hit to win. It didn't work. I understand that but there would not have been one person question the decision if he does anything with the ball that scores. Not a one of you would have been harping about how that was a poor decision. You can't always look at the result of the situation to make these poor call, good call judgements. You have to base the judgement to swing before you know the result. Now if this is for a tourney or regional win, I may make a different call. Doubt it but you have to be flexible as a coach. But last night, when a knock in winning run would have given my team a ton of confidence, I swing away and have full confidence that I am right. And my player would agree as well. If I am going to fail then it's going to because of my effort or my call, not waiting on someone else to fail.

Unh? His at bat in the 9th? There were two outs. He did have to have a hit to score, unless you mean error. No chance at sac fly or fielders choice there. Whole argument is based on flawed premise.

[confucius say]

So even though you have the gift of hindsight at this point, I'll ask. Who would you have put in? Exactly when would you have put him in?
Cohen/Butch didn't trust anyone else to throw strikes. They thought their best chance was to let the senior gut it out. I agreed with that decision, but I definitely understand that some people disagreed.

The first question is easy. Mintz.

[whosyourdawgy]

Exactly. Needed to make him throw ONE strike at 2-0 then get aggressive. Hindsights a bitch. So is running the bases undoubtably

[Really Clark?]

Yes with two outs you don't have to get a hit to score a run. Obviously errors or indecision does come into play but it is a low percentage. But I was talking about both at bats where people complained about him swinging on 2-0 both times. And like I said he hits and we score, nobody questions the coaches decision. Nobody on this board makes the argument he should have taken that pitch if he suceeds. Nobody. There are a lot of things you can question after the fact. That's understandable, but it was a good aggressive call before the pitch, then even after the failure it's a good call. Especially with a struggling team. Everybody has griped and griped about taken the bat out of players hands and you want to do it when it is on the line? A team with no confidence, just got whipped by our rival, showing life against a good opponent, and now you want to tell your player don't swing with the game on the line? Bad message in our situation with the team and how we have been playing. And it was a good pitch to hit above all of that. It is not like he swung at a breaking ball or change. I don't mind and normally stay way away from all the picking each decision apart because like or not is coaches makes bad calls. We also make good calls that the player doesn't execute. Doesn't mean it was a bad call.

Its like saying the football coach should have went for a first down instead of going for a field goal if the ball is in the kickers range. If the kickers miss do you question going for it? No. Let the players make a play has been pounded and pounded and pounded. Rightfully so. So don't change that concept just because the player didn't execute. It was the right call and nobody argues against it if it suceeds. Nobody.

[confucius say]

Yes with two outs you don't have to get a hit to score a run. Obviously errors or indecision does come into play but it is a low percentage. But I was talking about both at bats where people complained about him swinging on 2-0 both times. And like I said he hits and we score, nobody questions the coaches decision. Nobody on this board makes the argument he should have taken that pitch if he suceeds. Nobody. There are a lot of things you can question after the fact. That's understandable, but it was a good aggressive call before the pitch, then even after the failure it's a good call. Especially with a struggling team. Everybody has griped and griped about taken the bat out of players hands and you want to do it when it is on the line? A team with no confidence, just got whipped by our rival, showing life against a good opponent, and now you want to tell your player don't swing with the game on the line? Bad message in our situation with the team and how we have been playing. And it was a good pitch to hit above all of that. It is not like he swung at a breaking ball or change. I don't mind and normally stay way away from all the picking each decision apart because like or not is coaches makes bad calls. We also make good calls that the player doesn't execute. Doesn't mean it was a bad call.

Its like saying the football coach should have went for a first down instead of going for a field goal if the ball is in the kickers range. If the kickers miss do you question going for it? No. Let the players make a play has been pounded and pounded and pounded. Rightfully so. So don't change that concept just because the player didn't execute. It was the right call and nobody argues against it if it suceeds. Nobody.

I agree that you should not always judge the prudence of a decision on its result. But I disagree with green lighting the worst hitter in the lineup (it's holland or gridley) in that situation. The guy at the plate and the situation matter. Yes, I want my playmakers making plays. Brown, Vick, Collins, Reynolds, rea, hump, robson all have green light there. I'm telling holland to track it and time it and sit on same pitch 2-1. But it's ok to disagree.

[Really Clark?]

I agree that you should not always judge the prudence of a decision on its result. But I disagree with green lighting the worst hitter in the lineup (it's holland or gridley) in that situation. The guy at the plate and the situation matter. Yes, I want my playmakers making plays. Brown, Vick, Collins, Reynolds, rea, hump, robson all have green light there. I'm telling holland to track it and time it and sit on same pitch 2-1. But it's ok to disagree.

Inside your post you give a .230 hitter with more SO the green light and a guy whose average is 30 points higher but has had 80 less AB over a .246 hitter. You let a guy who has a bigger chance at a swing and miss go ahead and swing over someone who has for the season made better contact. That's a lot of green lights (which I agree with) but everybody acts like he is hitting .150. Look it's not an ideal batter but it's him or a pinch hitter. I like my chances with him better. And this idea that if he takes he gets the same pitch, you have no guarantee he will see a pitch any better than the one he swung at. He hasn't struck out in what the last 4 games. A ball in play gives me a chance and everybody knows that in a pressure situation the chances for errors go up even if he doesn't get a good hit. In other situations with a different team, I can see the point but not this team right now. You have what, 30 point higher batting average at 2-0 than you do 2-1 as well. And your walk rate drops from like .300 to .170. And just because he has a green light everybody is assuming he swings at anything. I'm telling my player it has to be your pitch in your location only. It is still being very selective.

[basedog]

What? I guess most coaches can win without talent? Wait, I see that an LSU buddy said that to you. That explains it. That's the dumbest thing I've read on here all day. Congrats to your buddy for that observation.

Yes, Fitts was done. I'm sure your LSU buddy hasn't watched our bullpen all year. I have, and I agreed with John/Butch that exhausted Fitts was still our best option at that point. I understand that most people are disagreeing with that. But at this point in this season, most people just want to bitch and complain.

What? You missed his point, he was saying Lsu game mangement has been bad all year but they over come it with talent. He was saying Cohen doesn't have the talent to overcome his game management by not making a change regardless who would have come in on that situation. Hell, at least walk the guy to at least set up a double play! Cohen was saying Fitts had struck him out twice but he wasn't thinking about the batter coming up for the third time and making adjustments.

I shouldn't even disagree or argue cause like I said earlier, it doesn't matter we are done, well done.

[War Machine Dawg]

I respect your opinion, but I think Cohen/Butch thought exhausted Fitts was their best option. So, given that that was their thinking, shouldn't you go with what you think is your best option?

Who cares what they were thinking? They were wrong. Everyone but them could see it. Fitts was no longer the best option. It was obvious. Having the power to make the decision doesn't make it the right decision. Look at the last batter Fitts faced: 2 wild pitches and a hung breaking ball letter high BEFORE the pitch that was gapped. At some point a guy is DONE and Fitts was at that point. It wasn't about nutting up and making pitches, because there was literally nothing left for Fitts. He was doing good to get it over the plate at all. Mintz or Hudson should have been brought in.