But you'd put two runners in scoring position with Lo Duca up next. Single ties the game, something that Paul does pretty well.
Counting on a big hit from Floyd there was too much to ask. The only thing he was trying to do in that at bat was crush the ball 450 feet. Imagine how scared Wainwright would be with 2 runners in scoring position up by two runs. He'd be terrified.
That is 100% right, you could look back to two (bad) calls by the umps in the 9th that if called differently(correctly) might have changed the outcome of the game. The strike you mentioned and the ball called during the Rolen at bat.
Tough to say. Maybe getting the first out settles him down a bit. If it was a 1 run game with a runner on 2nd and no outs I agree you've probably got to lay one down but I didn't have a problem with him swinging away there. If he goes 2-1 on Floyd maybe he grooves one or just walks him.
I can see that. Lot of things can happen with a bunt. There was a wet field, tough grib. If the bunt is anything above average, it could easily be booted. I forgot that it was Reyes THEN Loduca who would've had the chance to tie in that scenerio. I can easily see a single from one of those too. Reyes ended up almost gapping one if it was ten or so feet to the right.
What the fuck man, I never said anything about it being a one man game. Here I am, giving an honest and open comment about the Mets, not slanting it in any way, and take a shot at me. I could snap back at you, but as I'm not in the mood, I won't.
You could second guess alot of things(such as leaving Heilman in or not PH'ing for Valentin in the 6th) but I was on board with the decision at the time. A quick check of the Run Expectancy Matrix reveals that you actually slightly lower your expected runs in the inning with men on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out compared to 1st and 2nd with 0 outs. Of course the actual result of the Floyd AB was worse then a sac bunt, but I had no problem with the Mets taking that chance.
but a succesful bunt puts both runners in scoring position, thus the bunt would have put them in a good position to get both runs. bunting with only 1 player on base wouldn't have made sense, but with 2 on getting them into scoring position makes all the sense in the world. I'm not saying Willy was wrong, it was simply a matter of which strategy you choose. hit the pitcher who seems shakey or play it safe. Willy took a risk, I am not going to fault him for that even if I would have preferred the bunt.
Yeah, it is just strategy. IMO, I think the out is more valueable than putting runners in scoring position. The pitcher at the time was in the middle of getting rocked. I think you play for the kill. But either way is not really wrong.
Anyone who has a job and is paid to do it has their performance evaluated all the time. I'm not quite sure what tune that is going to change. perhaps we should hand out Capri Sun and orange peels after games and not keep score...and not hand out multi-million dollar pay days.
The out is certainly more valuable when you need multiple runs and are down to your last 3. Even if the Mets sac bunt there, they still need to get a hit(which they didn't) although players might've been pitched differently etc.
Way to come back with an absurd non sequitor. There is no way that every action you make at work is evaluated, with the expectation that if one of them doesn't work out you deserve to have your manhood questioned - especially if you're in a business where you fail more than 2 out of 3 times. (And if there is, you should get a new job.) I often don't agree with Shade, but I'm with him on this one - the only thing embarrassing I've seen is the reeking of entitlement attitudes that I've seen from some people.
