Starting Verlander

[B]

Do you think this is the right move?

 

I do not think it's a bad move. I'd do the same thing if I was Jim Leyland.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's fine. They have to win 3 games. Verlander has to pitch one of those.

[soccer10k]

I have the same feelings as well.

[AubCubFan]

I personally go with the gambler. If you don't win game 5, you don't have to worry about the next one. I make the elimination game the most important. I treat every game like it is the last. If you go with the gambler and win, then go with verlander, then go with ever. Always shoot your best bullet, or in this case, play your best hand. He held his ace and lost. Yes, verlander is good and won alot of games, but I go with Kenny.

[Mizzou]

It's fine. They have to win 3 games. Verlander has to pitch one of those.

I'm surprised there has been only a few posts on this topic.

 

I think it was dumb to start Verlander, for a couple reasons. First off, this game was a must win. Rogers had been unhittable all postseason. Verlander hadn't pitched too well. You absolutely have to go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win in an eliminateion game, and Rogers was clearly that guy. If Rogers won, then Verlander could've started game 6... at home. I imagine his nerves would've been calmer pitching in front of his home town, rather than pitching in a cold and rainy Busch Stadium.

 

You can't think about how you have to win three games. You have to win one game before you can think about the next two.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's fine. They have to win 3 games. Verlander has to pitch one of those.

I'm surprised there has been only a few posts on this topic.

 

I think it was dumb to start Verlander, for a couple reasons. First off, this game was a must win. Rogers had been unhittable all postseason. Verlander hadn't pitched too well. You absolutely have to go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win in an eliminateion game, and Rogers was clearly that guy. If Rogers won, then Verlander could've started game 6... at home. I imagine his nerves would've been calmer pitching in front of his home town, rather than pitching in a cold and rainy Busch Stadium.

 

You can't think about how you have to win three games. You have to win one game before you can think about the next two.

 

Who do you think was more likely to be rattled pitching in Busch stadium, Verlander, or the guy who got caught with pinetar on his hand? You live around St. Louis, you had to have heard every single fan and quasi-fan talking about it. Rogers pitching in Busch would have been a hellacious environment.

 

Rogers would also benefit more from Comerica than Verlander, given their respective approaches and stuff.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

[Mizzou]

It's fine. They have to win 3 games. Verlander has to pitch one of those.

I'm surprised there has been only a few posts on this topic.

 

I think it was dumb to start Verlander, for a couple reasons. First off, this game was a must win. Rogers had been unhittable all postseason. Verlander hadn't pitched too well. You absolutely have to go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win in an eliminateion game, and Rogers was clearly that guy. If Rogers won, then Verlander could've started game 6... at home. I imagine his nerves would've been calmer pitching in front of his home town, rather than pitching in a cold and rainy Busch Stadium.

 

You can't think about how you have to win three games. You have to win one game before you can think about the next two.

 

Who do you think was more likely to be rattled pitching in Busch stadium, Verlander, or the guy who got caught with pinetar on his hand? You live around St. Louis, you had to have heard every single fan and quasi-fan talking about it. Rogers pitching in Busch would have been a hellacious environment.

 

Rogers would also benefit more from Comerica than Verlander, given their respective approaches and stuff.

Rogers is 40 something years old, surely he's learned how to pitch in a hostile environment by now. And he dealt with the whole cameraman incident just a year or two ago, so I'm sure the fans in opposing stadiums let him have it when he returned from that suspension. I don't see Rogers, who had been incredibly intense this postseason, faltering because of some booing Cardinals fans.

 

Verlander has never pitched in that big of a game before. He would've been much better off to start in a familiar environment.

[snoodmonger]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

:x

[baseball7897]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

[treebird]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

i dont think it's okay to suggest that you want to punch other posters in the face

[baseball7897]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

i dont think it's okay to suggest that you want to punch other posters in the face

 

I think it's okay to do. Considering he is seemingly bringing it up in every thread on this site.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Some might suggest violence is pretty immature. In fact, most therapists would.

 

I think it's pretty idiotic to want to punch someone in the face. ;)

[baseball7897]

Some might suggest violence is pretty immature. In fact, most therapists would.

 

I think it's pretty idiotic to want to punch someone in the face. ;)

 

I just find you very annoying. You don't no when to stop.

[Mizzou]

Why do I get the feeling that baseball7897 is going to (undeservedly) get banned soon?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Some might suggest violence is pretty immature. In fact, most therapists would.

 

I think it's pretty idiotic to want to punch someone in the face. ;)

 

I just find you very annoying. You don't no when to stop.

 

no  /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adverb, adjective, noun, plural noes, nos, verb

–adverb

1. (a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)

2. (used to emphasize or introduce a negative statement): Not a single person came to the party, no, not a one.

3. not in any degree or manner; not at all (used with a comparative): He is no better.

4. not a (used before an adjective to convey the opposite of the adjective's meaning): His recovery was no small miracle.

–adjective

5. not a (used before a noun to convey the opposite of the noun's meaning): She's no beginner on the ski slopes.

–noun

6. an utterance of the word “no.”

7. a denial or refusal: He responded with a definite no.

8. a negative vote or voter: The noes have it.

–verb (used with object)

9. to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of.

–verb (used without object)

10. to express disapproval.

 

or

 

know  /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, knew, known, know‧ing, noun

–verb (used with object)

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?

3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.

4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.

5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.

6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.

7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.

–verb (used without object)

8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.

9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.

–noun

10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.

 

That's important to know!

[baseball7897]

Some might suggest violence is pretty immature. In fact, most therapists would.

 

I think it's pretty idiotic to want to punch someone in the face. ;)

 

I just find you very annoying. You don't no when to stop.

 

no  /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adverb, adjective, noun, plural noes, nos, verb

–adverb

1. (a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)

2. (used to emphasize or introduce a negative statement): Not a single person came to the party, no, not a one.

3. not in any degree or manner; not at all (used with a comparative): He is no better.

4. not a (used before an adjective to convey the opposite of the adjective's meaning): His recovery was no small miracle.

–adjective

5. not a (used before a noun to convey the opposite of the noun's meaning): She's no beginner on the ski slopes.

–noun

6. an utterance of the word “no.”

7. a denial or refusal: He responded with a definite no.

8. a negative vote or voter: The noes have it.

–verb (used with object)

9. to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of.

–verb (used without object)

10. to express disapproval.

 

or

 

know  /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, knew, known, know‧ing, noun

–verb (used with object)

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?

3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.

4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.

5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.

6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.

7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.

–verb (used without object)

8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.

9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.

–noun

10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.

 

That's important to know!

 

This is exactly my point.

[soccer10k]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

I thought CubsBullsBears got banned already. Apparently not.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Just sharing knowledge.

[baseball7897]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

I thought CubsBullsBears got banned already. Apparently not.

 

I dont know what I did to be even considered to be banned? Someone has been pushing my buttons over something really stupid. Maybe if that source would stop, I would stop. He is the one bringing up the Weaver thing in seemingly every thread now.

[soccer10k]

It's fine. They have to win 3 games. Verlander has to pitch one of those.

I'm surprised there has been only a few posts on this topic.

 

I think it was dumb to start Verlander, for a couple reasons. First off, this game was a must win. Rogers had been unhittable all postseason. Verlander hadn't pitched too well. You absolutely have to go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win in an eliminateion game, and Rogers was clearly that guy. If Rogers won, then Verlander could've started game 6... at home. I imagine his nerves would've been calmer pitching in front of his home town, rather than pitching in a cold and rainy Busch Stadium.

 

You can't think about how you have to win three games. You have to win one game before you can think about the next two.

 

Yeah, Verlander would have gotten to pitch in an even colder and potentially rainy (remember there was rain/snow in the forecast for Detroit for Saturday and Sunday) Comerica Park.

[soccer10k]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

I thought CubsBullsBears got banned already. Apparently not.

 

I dont know what I did to be even considered to be banned? Someone has been pushing my buttons over something really stupid. Maybe if that source would stop, I would stop. He is the one bringing up the Weaver thing in seemingly every thread now.

 

Because you are saying you want to punch Vance in the face.

[baseball7897]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

I thought CubsBullsBears got banned already. Apparently not.

 

I dont know what I did to be even considered to be banned? Someone has been pushing my buttons over something really stupid. Maybe if that source would stop, I would stop. He is the one bringing up the Weaver thing in seemingly every thread now.

 

Because you are saying you want to punch Vance in the face.

 

Well, I just find it annoying that he would continue to bring up the whole Weaver subject. Its over with. Just drop it.

[soccer10k]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

I thought CubsBullsBears got banned already. Apparently not.

 

I dont know what I did to be even considered to be banned? Someone has been pushing my buttons over something really stupid. Maybe if that source would stop, I would stop. He is the one bringing up the Weaver thing in seemingly every thread now.

 

Because you are saying you want to punch Vance in the face.

 

Well, I just find it annoying that he would continue to bring up the whole Weaver subject. Its over with. Just drop it.

 

When somebody (and by somebody I mean you) is so obviously wrong and yet refuses to admit they are wrong, it is hard to drop. Either way, you don't say you want to punch another poster.

[baseball7897]

Weaver is such a good pitcher, it didn't matter who the Tigers would've started.

 

Time to grow up. You're sounding like an immature high school student. Someone who you just want to punch in the face.

 

I thought CubsBullsBears got banned already. Apparently not.

 

I dont know what I did to be even considered to be banned? Someone has been pushing my buttons over something really stupid. Maybe if that source would stop, I would stop. He is the one bringing up the Weaver thing in seemingly every thread now.

 

Because you are saying you want to punch Vance in the face.

 

Well, I just find it annoying that he would continue to bring up the whole Weaver subject. Its over with. Just drop it.

 

When somebody (and by somebody I mean you) is so obviously wrong and yet refuses to admit they are wrong, it is hard to drop. Either way, you don't say you want to punch another poster.

 

How was I wrong? I am just asking you. I am not trying to push this subject any further. All I said was Weaver was a better pitcher in the post-season than Verlander was, and I would have taken Weaver over Verlander in the playoffs. The way Verlander was pitching in the playoffs, I would have taken alot of other guys over him too. It was just my opinion. I dont see how I could be wrong if that's my judgement.