Master Index of Archived Threads


Game 7 Rehash

Frayed Knot Oct 20 2006 09:51 AM

Two big decisions here: - Heilman or Wagner? I stated a preference for Heilman in the IGT and, despite the outcome, have no reason to second-guess myself. And the reasoning has nothing to do with thinking that the closer is a worse pitcher (for all the Wagner-bashing he gives up fewer runs & baserunners than the rest of the supposedly beloved parts of the pen) or that it was a "non-save" situation; in general, pitching is pitching and those seeing connections between the two likely wouldn't find that their conclusionw would stand up to much scrutiny. I favored sticking w/Heilman because - being a tied game and all - you have no idea how long this would all last and so discarding a pitcher based simply on the inning seems like a waste, as does bringing in the closer to face the bottom of the order only to be PH-ed for the very next time u meaning that BOTH the top guys (plus Bradford) would be gone at that point. Prior to the single/HR combo, Heilman didn't allow any balls out of the infield, sandwiching 3 Ks and a groundout around a pitch-around to Pujols. No reason to run and hide from Yadier Freakin Molina at that point, especially for a hurler who's probably MORE likely to give up a HR if and when he gets hit. - To Bunt, or not to bunt? Again, I jumped on 'NO!' in the IGT, mainly as a reaction to it being Cliff up there. The real question would be whether PH-ing someone else (Woodward?, AndyHernandy?, Gavine??) and (hopefully) make it into a 2nd & 3rd/1-out situation. I suspect a lot of people (maybe not here) would opt for the bunt thinking it creates an easier shot at 2 runs with just a single. The stats, on the other hand, say it's just about a wash. League Avg stats (1999-2002 numbers) show that: * The odds of scoring '2 or more' runs starting from a '1st & 2nd/0 out' = 42.1% * Change that to '2nd & 3rd/1 out' and it drops to 41% and that, of course, assumes that the bunt does what it's supposed to do which it sometimes doesn't. I still kind of like playing it straight up in this case despite the danger of letting a limping Cliff swing away and hit into a GiDP, although the call is closer to even here. We had the players we wanted coming up and if Reyes's shot takes off at a slightly different angle it's still rolling as we speak. Ya gotta hit and we didn't.

Edgy DC Oct 20 2006 10:01 AM

My main problem with Cornelius was (1) the threat of a doubleplay and (2) brother is out of practice. But it's not like Franco is that much safer. Clff hits 100 grounders and 90 of them are DPs. With Franco, it's 80. Is that the edge we're looking for? Cliff got a dubious high-strike call for strike two, and it seems to be a recent theme with Mets batters (particluarly Franco), that they let a bad called strike screw up their approach and they don't know what to swing at after that. If anything, that ending highlighted the reality that the Cards had the stronger and more versatile bench.

metsmarathon Oct 20 2006 10:10 AM

i retrospect, the emotional reward of seeing cliffy win the game all gimpy-like skewed my perception into overvaluing that as compared to the risk of something else happening - a something else that was almost certain to result in an out, and could have resulted in a pair of outs. we had good speed on the bases. we could easily have put up handyandy, i think, to bunt, and with second and third and one out, reyes then becomes a real threat. i felt the whole game like the first base line was screaming out for a metly bunt, and that would've been the perfect opportunity. but it woulda been so cool for cliffy to come through. heilman vs. wagner is easy. stick with heilman for that inning, as neither offense is really getting much done, and there's a good chance of extra innings wherein wagner is less well suited. and its not like a second inning of heilman is something you'd typically consider riskier than a wagner inning. i'm cool with that move. yeah, you can partly blame willie for going fort he gusto with cliffy there, but in the end, we still had plenty of chances afterwards. just didnt get it done.

Edgy DC Oct 20 2006 10:13 AM

Funny though. Your setup man gives up a ninth-inning go-ahead homer to catcher coming off a crappy year, and people maintain their perspective. Your closer does the same thing...

Frayed Knot Oct 20 2006 10:14 AM

In my mind, the question ins't Cliff vs a different PH-er as it is swinging vs bunting w/a different PH-er. If I'm swinging there I def want Cliff.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 20 2006 10:15 AM

Tim McCarver was speculating whether or not Cliff would bunt, which was ridiculous. If you wanted a bunt, you'd choose Woodward or someone else. Willie was playing for the three-run homer.

metsmarathon Oct 20 2006 10:21 AM

or at least the gapper.

Edgy DC Oct 20 2006 10:25 AM

I was looking for Reyes's rip to be that gapper. If Edmonds is shaded to left, maybe we're delirious this morning.

Rotblatt Oct 20 2006 10:33 AM

Good call, Edgy. Reyes tagged that ball. What happened to Wright? Whatever it was, he needs to fix it. Delgado was walked FOUR TIMES and Wright only managed a little bloop single. They simply had no fear of Wright, and it allowed them to contain Delgado. I thought Heilman & Cliff were the right calls by Willie. If Wagner had been at all effective this series, I'd have gone with him, but Heilman looked damned good. Unfortunately, he & LoDuca got a little change-up happy and Molina was able to sit on it.

HahnSolo Oct 20 2006 10:47 AM

Wainwright was ripe to be picked. He was up in the zone, gave up 2 hits, a walk, and a screaming liner by Reyes. To bunt or not to bunt...I think Willie had Cliff in the on deck circle thinking Cliffy would be the tying run. In that case you send Cliff up and hope he turns on one. I don't think Willie really thought through what he would do if the second runner got on. I think you have to bunt--whether it's Woodward, Hernandez, or a pitcher--and get the top of your lineup up with 2 runners in scoring position. Like I said, Wainwright could have been had. Shea would have been insane if Reyes was up with the tying run on second. Enormous pitch...Welke giving Wainwright the high strike call against Cliff. Borderline pitch that changed the whole tenor of the at bat, and of the inning. Bad job by both Cliff and Beltran not knowing that this kid will go to the hook with 2 strikes...he did it to Valentin just two days ago.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 20 2006 10:47 AM

I liked Cliff enough there, and good point about the questionable strike call seeming to destroy him. I had muted the broadcast at that point so I didn't hear McCarver even suggesting he might bunt (how crazy is that?). Perfectly fine with sending Cliff up there and swinging for the win. I do have to say I was secretly hoping Delgado would bunt Beltran over an inning earlier. I know that's crazy! I also officially gave up hope when Wright whiffed that inning, and so the HR in the 9th was not at all surprising. Wright was flat-out awful in this series with just 2 hits with any authority, and 1, the HR, apparently captured while Reyes was tipping his delivery (and looked like tit too). We should have that benefit concert for him.

Vic Sage Oct 20 2006 11:03 AM

i've done a 180 on Willie, this series. I thought he did a great job. He let his hitters hit, and didn't give away outs with 1-run strategies. Unfortunately, the hitters who hit all year stopped hitting (except for Delgado and Green). He didn't have any better options on the bench for Valentin and Chavez, so their lack of production (along with Wright's paralysis) dragged down the bottom 1/2 of the lineup. When Reyes and Beltran hit at the top, we won... when they didn't, we lost. Willie also yanked his starters at the first HINT of trouble. He handled Maine especially well, i thought, and his use of the bullpen (overall, despite some quibbles) was good, too. His faith in Perez was apparently well placed. he stayed positive and focused and the team played well, despite the death of their lumber. Despite my whining all year about the starting pitching, it turned out to be the hitting that was our achilles heal. Valentin and Chavez came back to their career averages at the worst possible time, and the kids played like kids do when their under pressure. Only the Blue Jay contingent stepped up and played with assurance. Next year, we need another bat in the OF (and i don't want us to count on Milledge) and i don't want to rely on another miracle year from Valentin. Okay, Willie. I hereby retire "WWSB" (at least until you have beltran sacrifice bunt in the first inning next year). next year,

Centerfield Oct 20 2006 11:07 AM

I did a 180 on Willie this postseason too. The only time I questioned him was his decision to start Perez over Trachsel and we all saw how that one panned out. I also like that he had the big balls to tell reporters "You guys are going to have plenty of chances to second guess me, I'm going on gut." Gutsy to start Perez, then leave him in to face Rolen. Gutsy to pinch hit Floyd and go for it all. From now on, he's Wild Willie Big Balls.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 20 2006 11:10 AM

Kudos to Willie from me, too. During the course of this season I started thinking that I liked his way of handling the team in the dugout and the clubhouse, even though I didn't always like his in-game decisions. But his in-game decisions have been pretty good too lately. I'm glad we have him. I hope he keeps doing what he's been doing recently. The regular season Mets were a terrific team. But because of injuries and some poor roster decisions, the postseason Mets were a battered team, and getting them a close to the World Series as he did was a real achievement. I hope he's the Manager of the Year, but it'll probably go to Girardi.

Edgy DC Oct 20 2006 11:12 AM

Well, let's be honest. It was the wrong move to leave him in to face Rolen. It's not like what Endy did was within the realm of what was considered when he made the choice. Luck is the residue of design, except in that case.

metsmarathon Oct 20 2006 11:13 AM

willie's balls grew two sizes when he left perez in there. there should, from this point forward, be no more talk of willie's (or anyone's) balls.

Vic Sage Oct 20 2006 11:31 AM

="Edgy DC"]Well, let's be honest. It was the wrong move to leave him in to face Rolen. It's not like what Endy did was within the realm of what was considered when he made the choice. Luck is the residue of design, except in that case. actually, i thought it was the wrong move to let Perez hit leadoff the inning before. He'd already given us a solid start, and we needed to get a big inning going. However, since, he'd already decided to give Perez more innings by letting him hit, apparently he wasn't going to lift him the next inning at the first sign of trouble. Which, i think, just compounded the error. but as i said before, i like what he's done overall this post-season, and i'm sorry i gave him such a hard time all year.

seawolf17 Oct 20 2006 12:00 PM

HahnSolo wrote: Bad job by both Cliff and Beltran not knowing that this kid will go to the hook with 2 strikes...he did it to Valentin just two days ago. Shit, bad job by Beltran... because he did it to Cliff two batters ago! Hell, even I called the curveball there! Either way... I'm fine with Heilman -- I didn't want Wagner there, but I thought Cliff was a terrible mistake. (Of course, if he makes contact with that first swing he took, he's Kirk Gibson, but whatever. It's still a play I don't like.)

Mr. Zero Oct 20 2006 12:07 PM

I too have grown to like Willie's managing style. And in particular, negotiating the the pitching staff this post season. Though I think he went with his "gut" one too many times. The Perez vs Rolen escape was total luck for the manager. But going for it all by batting a hobbled Floyd was way too much of a longshot. I would have much rather have had runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out and two chances at a game tying single. There was too much on the line at that point.

smg58 Oct 20 2006 12:16 PM

I can't really blame Randolph for sticking with Heilman or going with Floyd. They were gut calls, and Willie's gut calls worked more often than they didn't but those two just didn't work out. What kills me about Beltran's strikeout is that Molina was signalling rather vehemently for Wainwright to get that pitch down, but Wainwright hung it and Beltran still looked at it.

Vic Sage Oct 20 2006 12:21 PM

its the bottom of the 9th. You've got 2 men on and nobody out. So, with 3 outs left in your season, you want to give one of those few precious gems away to employ a 1-run strategy when you're down by 2? you do realize bunting there increases your chances of scoring 1 run, but REDUCES your chances of scoring more than one run... don't you? reasonable people can disagree, but i definitely liked Willie's approach of "the hell with that... I'm sending up a big bopper to win this friggin game". That's the moment he went from WWSB to WWBB.

Mr. Zero Oct 20 2006 01:29 PM

]its the bottom of the 9th. You've got 2 men on and nobody out. So, with 3 outs left in your season, you want to give one of those few precious gems away to employ a 1-run strategy when you're down by 2? I do generally agree with the non-sacrificing of outs approach. BUT. He sent up an injured Cliff Floyd. His only purpose was to hit a home run—in a close game where the Mets had barely been able to scrape out even the measliest of hits against Cardinal pitching. He's a threat, but he had what, 11 all year? Whats that? 1 in every 30 ABs? He had not swung the bat very much at all in the playoffs and, oh yeah, he couldn't run. His chance of making an out, much less two, were terribly high. It was definitely a ballsy move and I was totally excited by it while it was happening. but it didn't work. He went for it and I appreciate it (and his newly engorged nut sack), but, in dreaded hindsight, considering available options and conditions was it the best move?

Edgy DC Oct 20 2006 01:39 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 24 2006 10:57 PM

I honestly don't know what the best move was. The book says to play for the tie at home. Also, having the deeper pen (presumbably) is a reason to play for the tie. But he went for the win.

Yancy Street Gang Oct 20 2006 02:03 PM

This may have been discussed in the IGT, and if so, I apologize, because I haven't read most of it. But late in the game I was wondering about the rain. If the skies opened up and it rained for six hours and soaked the field, the game would have had to be called and it would have ended as a 1-1 tie. And Game 8 would have been on Friday night. And your Game 8 starter would have had to be Trachsel or Oliver. I woke up too late this morning to read the paper, so I was reading the Daily News on my lunch hour today. My edition was an early one which went to press before last night's game ended. Because of that, there was still speculation about the Mets in the World Series. Adam Rubin had an item that's probably no longer on the News' web site. It was saying that Orlando Hernandez was likely for the World Series roster, but may not be ready for Game 1, and that the Mets were considering replacing Trachsel on the roster with Dave Williams, who would have gotten the Game 1 start.

Elster88 Oct 20 2006 02:14 PM

]Bad job by both Cliff and Beltran not knowing that this kid will go to the hook with 2 strikes...he did it to Valentin just two days ago Come on. Let's have a clue here. Floyd got two fastballs at 1-2 before Wainwright threw the curveball. You don't predict pitches when you're hitting.

Willets Point Oct 20 2006 03:10 PM

I honestly don't think the Mets made the wrong moves. Suppan and Wainwright made the right pitches and the Mets couldn't hit 'em. We lost on the field not in the strategy.

Frayed Knot Oct 20 2006 03:12 PM

Rechecking the numbers I posted in the leadoff post on this thread, the edge shifts more towards the favor of bunting than I originally posted The higher odds I showed of scoring [u:2d33a85028]'2 or More' by NOT bunting[/u:2d33a85028] is somewhat skewed because it includes the higher odds of the team having BIG innings - like 4 runs or more - which, in this case, wouldn't happen. What you really want to look at is the odds of scoring [u:2d33a85028]exactly 2 or 3 runs[/u:2d33a85028] to either tie or win the game. 1st & 2nd/0 outs: 2 runs = 16.5%, 3 runs = 12.7%, Total = 29.2% 2nd & 3rd/1 out: 2 runs = 21.8%, 3 runs = 10.1%, Total = 31.9% So you do a decent job at increasing the odds of tying the game, somewhat reduce the odds of winning it outright, and slightly increase the total odds of doing either. Now that 1st case takes the starting point into consideration, meaning that it includes those cases where teams both bunted AND didn't bunt. The 2nd assumes that your bunt attempt would have been successful - something that doesn't always happen. Then the question for those opting for the bunt becomes WHO you would have sent up? - Woodward? maybe ... Anyone ever seen him try? - A-Hernandez? I've already heard many declare that he's a good bunter although I seem to recall him looking bad the only time I saw him. I think it's often just assumed that all speedy, MI-types can bunt, but any answer is probably based on a small sample. - a pitcher, most likely Glavine Other factors weighing in FOR a bunt: - Wet field and the possibility that the defense screws up the play thus loading the base w/0 outs. - decent speed at 2nd (Val), good speed at 1st (Endy) AGAINST: - Good fielders at 3rd and behind the plate (the fielders of many bunts) - replacing Cliff with any of the above virtually SCREAMS to the Cards that the bunt is on, making it easier for them to defense.

Elster88 Oct 20 2006 03:12 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 24 2006 10:43 PM

I'd like to discuss the bunt play a little more. The stats someone posted somewhere (maybe the IGT) say that you: 1) score 2+ runs 42.5% of the time with 1st and 2nd, no out 2) score 2+ runs 41% of the time with 2nd and 3rd, one out. So the argument that the bunt is ONLY made to play for one run is blown to flaming dust right there. Looks like basically even money to score two. Then someone made the point that you're assuming the bunt works.....which is a good point......BUT.....you're also assuming the Cards execute the play with a rookie pitcher (who may not be used to fielding bunts), and a soaked ground, and an injured Scott Rolen who already threw one into the mezzanine. So I think the risk that comes from executing the bunt evens out, too. Maybe it's even in our favor given the factors above and (IIRC) AndyHandy is a heck of a bunter. Maybe he even beats it out. Then of course, you get a different type of at-bat out of Reyes and Lo Duca...all they need is a dinker to win the game....which Lo Duca is very good at doing. Hell maybe they even intentionally walk Reyes and the possibility of walking in a run with one out comes into play. ----------------- This is more of a theoretical application, not an attempt to bash Willie Big Balls. But the more I think of it...and throwing in Floyd's poor history of pinch hitting....the more I think the bunt was the right play. Edit: typo

Elster88 Oct 20 2006 03:14 PM

]The higher odds I showed of scoring '2 or More' by NOT bunting is somewhat skewed because it includes the higher odds of the team having BIG innings - like 4 runs or more - which, in this case, wouldn't happen. What you really want to look at is the odds of scoring exactly 2 or 3 runs to either tie or win the game. This is incorrect. The numbers would not be skewed due to the game being ended at 3 runs. You should be looking at percentage chance of "scoring enough runs to win or tie the game". That includes scoring more than 3, because those scenarios win the game for the Mets. ---------- Other than that we made those two posts at the exact same time with basically the same thoughts.

Frayed Knot Oct 20 2006 03:41 PM

Yeah, I guess you're right. I was thinking that NOT bunting leads to more big innings because, by not giving away an out, you increase the odds of getting those eternally successful innings where a 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th runs are tacked on because you still have the out to play with that you didn't give away earlier, and that those kind of innings would be pretty much irrelevent to this scenario since the game would end with run #3. But, you're right, to get to that 4th, 5th, etc run, you'd have already reached the magic 3rd run. So we pretty much stay at: * Less than 2 runs (Loss): NO Bunt = 57.8%; Successful Bunt = 59.0%; UNsuccessful Bunt = 73.5% * Exactly 2 runs (Tie): NO Bunt = 16.5%; Succ Bunt = 21.8%; UNsucc Bunt = 11.0% * 3 or More (Win): No Bunt = 25.6%; Succ Bunt = 19.2%; UNsucc Bunt = 15.4% In any case, these numbers are generic (MLB 1999-2001) and would rise and fall due to specific conditions. Theoretically at least, they'd be even higher with hitters like Reyes, LoDuca & Beltran due up, but they would do so for all options.

Edgy DC Oct 24 2006 11:41 AM

Here's a dumb rehash, but what the heck. Let's say Wilie sends Glavine up there instead of Floyd and he successfully moves the runners over. The Cards, playing against the single instead of the double, maybe cheat up tighter in the outfield. Any chance that drive by Reyes (assuming, for the sake of argument, that his at-bat comes out the same) gets by Edmonds? I doubt it, but that's one unspoken benefit to the bunt in that situation. It can force the defense to have to play more aggressively, if only for one out.

Elster88 Oct 24 2006 10:41 PM

I never really understood the concept of no doubles defense. But never mind that, also the successful bunt possibly means an IBB for Jose? I think that would've seriously fucked up Wainwright...but then again it didn't fuck him up when he faced the bases loaded with two out. ---- PS. Fun with the English language. "Two outs" uses "out" as a noun. What does "two out" use "out" as? I assume it's short for "two are out". In that case is "out" a verb or an adjective?

Edgy DC Oct 24 2006 11:02 PM

No doubles is for when you absolutely don't want one run to score, up by one or tied in the ninth or so. It takes at least three singles to score a run, but one double and a single will do the trick. So, by playing the no-doubles, you decrease the chance of a double by, say 10%, even if you perhaps increase the chance of a singe by 15%. Because it'll take two more singles to get that single home, but only one more to get the double home. You really don't want that double, because one more hit --- rather than two --- can turn the game.

Elster88 Oct 24 2006 11:05 PM

I'm too tired to pose any counterarguments that would probably be wrong anyway. If I'm going to be dead wrong, I like to be awake at the time. (New thread! New thread!)