Monroe started against a righty today!!!

[abuck1220]

To answer abuck's query, Kendall has struck out 7 times with men on 1st+, the same as his number of DPs.

 

Which makes it the right call. Lou trusted his best contact hitter to simply make contact anywhere on the field.....and he didn't. He trusted one of his better judges of the strikezone to not strikeout...and he did.

 

But we're still not factoring in the odds that he hits a liner or a soft flyball that turns into two or even three outs... which squarely place the move back in "wrong" category.

 

the chances of him hitting an infield ground ball are still higher.

 

if he hadn't started the runners and had grounded into a dp, i think a lot of people would have a different opinion on that decision.

[CubColtPacer]

To answer abuck's query, Kendall has struck out 7 times with men on 1st+, the same as his number of DPs.

 

Which makes it the right call. Lou trusted his best contact hitter to simply make contact anywhere on the field.....and he didn't. He trusted one of his better judges of the strikezone to not strikeout...and he did.

 

But we're still not factoring in the odds that he hits a liner or a soft flyball that turns into two or even three outs... which squarely place the move back in "wrong" category.

 

Or the factors that the fielders out of position results in a better chance for a hit and that the runners moving means a better chance of scoring on a hit. There are 100 factors here, some of which support the runners moving and some of which don't.

[jersey cubs fan]

To answer abuck's query, Kendall has struck out 7 times with men on 1st+, the same as his number of DPs.

 

Which makes it the right call. Lou trusted his best contact hitter to simply make contact anywhere on the field.....and he didn't. He trusted one of his better judges of the strikezone to not strikeout...and he did.

 

But we're still not factoring in the odds that he hits a liner or a soft flyball that turns into two or even three outs... which squarely place the move back in "wrong" category.

 

the chances of him hitting an infield ground ball are still higher.

 

if he hadn't started the runners and had grounded into a dp, i think a lot of people would have a different opinion on that decision.

 

I think the original call was fine. But after he weakly fouled those 2 pitches off, they needed to stop the runners. Give him one more chance to sac bunt if need be, but that at bat had disaster written all over it once he fouled off the first 3-2 pitch. Kendall was overmatched and not looking good in that at bat. The lighting was odd and considering he couldn't even get a bunt down, you had to think his odds of striking out were much higher than normal. Fontenot was not going to get a good jump when everybody in the house knew he was going and the pitcher was doing a good job of holding him. In that situation, Kendall's patience isn't really an advantage because he was going to feel pressure to swing at anything remotely close. A called strike 3 was definitely going to be a double play. I was begging for them not to run after the 2nd foul ball.

[TheDude]

He should have taken ball 4. But I don't have a problem with Lou's hit and run attempt. Managers aren't required to go by the book every time, and if he was going to try that gambit, Kendall was as solid a hitter to try it with as any.

 

My real issue with Lou's decision making that inning was pinch-running Pie for Ward. I really thought Pie should have pinch-ran for Fontenot, even before the Ward hit.

 

DeRosa was available to play 2nd, Jones slides to RF and Pie in CF should the game tie or better.

 

Pie might have been safe whereas Fontenot was not, but who knows.

[SouthSideRyan]

He should have taken ball 4. But I don't have a problem with Lou's hit and run attempt. Managers aren't required to go by the book every time, and if he was going to try that gambit, Kendall was as solid a hitter to try it with as any.

 

My real issue with Lou's decision making that inning was pinch-running Pie for Ward. I really thought Pie should have pinch-ran for Fontenot, even before the Ward hit.

 

DeRosa was available to play 2nd, Jones slides to RF and Pie in CF should the game tie or better.

 

Pie might have been safe whereas Fontenot was not, but who knows.

 

The problem with that is Lou's plan was to bunt the 2 runners to 2nd and 3rd in which case you'd probably like your faster runner on 2nd to score on a hit rather than on 3rd for the sac fly.

[JGalt73]

If you need only 1 run, the bunt is the better option. It reduces the probabilty of a bigger inning, but is more likely to get a run in.

 

Runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs = at least 1 run scores 64.1% of the time.

 

Runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out = at least 1 run scores 69.5% of the time.

[rawaction]

He should have taken ball 4. But I don't have a problem with Lou's hit and run attempt. Managers aren't required to go by the book every time, and if he was going to try that gambit, Kendall was as solid a hitter to try it with as any.

 

My real issue with Lou's decision making that inning was pinch-running Pie for Ward. I really thought Pie should have pinch-ran for Fontenot, even before the Ward hit.

 

DeRosa was available to play 2nd, Jones slides to RF and Pie in CF should the game tie or better.

 

Pie might have been safe whereas Fontenot was not, but who knows.

 

The problem with that is Lou's plan was to bunt the 2 runners to 2nd and 3rd in which case you'd probably like your faster runner on 2nd to score on a hit rather than on 3rd for the sac fly.

 

yeah, and if Ward or Derosa, the only other option on the bench is at 1B, they most likely get thrown out at 2nd, ending with the same result. Plus, Pie isn't the best basestealer, who knows if he'd have gotten a good enough jump to steal either.

[TheDude]

He should have taken ball 4. But I don't have a problem with Lou's hit and run attempt. Managers aren't required to go by the book every time, and if he was going to try that gambit, Kendall was as solid a hitter to try it with as any.

 

My real issue with Lou's decision making that inning was pinch-running Pie for Ward. I really thought Pie should have pinch-ran for Fontenot, even before the Ward hit.

 

DeRosa was available to play 2nd, Jones slides to RF and Pie in CF should the game tie or better.

 

Pie might have been safe whereas Fontenot was not, but who knows.

 

The problem with that is Lou's plan was to bunt the 2 runners to 2nd and 3rd in which case you'd probably like your faster runner on 2nd to score on a hit rather than on 3rd for the sac fly.

 

That makes no sense. If you pinch-run for Fontenot before Ward even hits as I suggested, you can't predict the Ward hit and Kendall bunt scenario. You're basing decision making on future known results.

 

Right after Fontenot's hit, I was looking for the fastest guy on the team to replace him on the bases as the tying run. Play to tie.

[cubfan1955]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

[abuck1220]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

 

why?

[CUBZ99]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

 

why?

 

Not sure if this is a serious question or not. Generally, it has to do with who has the last opportunity to win the game. If you play it safe at home and get a tie, you guarantee yourself another opportunity to bat.

[jersey cubs fan]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

 

why?

 

Not sure if this is a serious question or not. Generally, it has to do with who has the last opportunity to win the game. If you play it safe at home and get a tie, you guarantee yourself another opportunity to bat.

 

And this is generally how Lou has played it this season, or at least it seems to be the case.

[CubinNY]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

 

why?

 

Not sure if this is a serious question or not. Generally, it has to do with who has the last opportunity to win the game. If you play it safe at home and get a tie, you guarantee yourself another opportunity to bat.

 

I think the point is why ever play for a tie?

[CubColtPacer]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

 

why?

 

Not sure if this is a serious question or not. Generally, it has to do with who has the last opportunity to win the game. If you play it safe at home and get a tie, you guarantee yourself another opportunity to bat.

 

And this is generally how Lou has played it this season, or at least it seems to be the case.

 

I disagree. Lou always seems to be playing for the win. That's why the criticisms of him never having any players left on the bench for extra innings pop up. He puts his players in the best position to win in 9 even at the expense of having problems in extra innings because as he has said repeatedly, he hates extra innings and will do anything possible to avoid it.

[SouthSideRyan]

Sorry, Dude, missed the "before the Ward hit" part. I echo the sentiment about playing for the win there. The onyl way you worry about the speed of your runner on 1st is if Ward hits a double(I'm not putting in Pie there to steal 2nd). If Ward hits a double you have runners on 2nd and 3rd with no outs. You shouldn't need a fast runner on 3rd to get the run in for that situation.

[cubfan1955]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

 

why?

 

Because if the home team scores in the bottom of the inning you don't get another chance. Not everyone will agree on this. That's just the way I view it.

[CUBZ99]

Playing for a tie on the road is not a good idea. You play for the tie at home when you get the last AB.

 

why?

 

Not sure if this is a serious question or not. Generally, it has to do with who has the last opportunity to win the game. If you play it safe at home and get a tie, you guarantee yourself another opportunity to bat.

 

I think the point is why ever play for a tie?

 

No team ever plays to finish the game in a tie. But, there are some situations where you might play it safe to ensure at least a tie, instead of going for the big inning and getting nothing.

[abuck1220]

it's just one of those old baseball sayings that people continue to repeat even though no evidence supports it...at least that i'm aware of.

[hawkeyecub]

it's just one of those old baseball sayings that people continue to repeat even though no evidence supports it...at least that i'm aware of.

 

Because there are so many factors at play, I don't think any evidence would be conclusive enough either way. Each instance depends on the makeup of your team, your bullpen, your bench and those of the opposition.

All things being equal, it's just a strategical philosophy.

[imb]

it's just one of those old baseball sayings that people continue to repeat even though no evidence supports it...at least that i'm aware of.

 

It's basketball too. Go for the three on the road, go for the two at home. It makes even less sense in that sport.