Bochy, Me, and Abrue

[klaiggeb]

I have posted dozens of times, how much Bochy exhasperates me.

And he did it again the other night.

Abrue whacks a ball into the LCF gap, and, by NOT thinking/hustling, runs a double into a single.

The, he compounds the problem by getting picked off on, I believe, a 3-2 pitch.

Krukow commented how that is inexcuseable for a vet, and I agree.

Hey, everyone makes mistakes.

And as Kuiper said, it's easier for a manager to live with physical mistakes than mental ones.

Abreu makes a habit of this, as he did last night, twice, with opportunities to move a runner along... and didn't.

My problem ISN'T that he DIDN'T move the runner along, but rather, with his approach at the plate.

He didn't have one.

See ball, hit ball, that's what he did.

That's what he does.

Tony has some decent skills, but they become null and void without having the brain in sync with them.

From my perspective, he showed a decided LACK OF A PLAN, in both at bats, and THAT, from a veteran, can simply not be tolerated.


He's a vet. That can'be allowed to happen.

I would have sat his fanny down, and run someone else out there.

Bochy didn't because IMHO, he doesn't hold players accountable.

I can't stand the Dodgers, but I LOVED what Mattingly did with Puig.

Screwed upon by NOT thinking on the bases, and then non-chalants a fly ball... and his fanny was on the bench.

Managers need to set the tone.

Come to ready to play.

Think.

Have a plan at the plate.

Understand the situation, and do your best to execute it.


Continually show me you can't do that, you're gonna get some splinters in your backside...

That's one of the many differences between my game, and Bochy's.

I'm aggressive, and I darned well will hold veteran players to a higher standard.

boly

[Islandboagie]

The bigger issue to me is why is Abreu even playing? He should be released and Noonan should be playing instead.

[klaiggeb]

The bigger issue to me is why is Abreu even playing? He should be released and Noonan should be playing instead.

---boly says---

Boagie, now you're singing my song!! I totally agree!

Why this moron is even IN the lineup baffles me.

Bochy! We're done!

Play the darned kids!

The large portion of the regulars had 130+ games to prove if they could get it done or not.

And based upon our record, they proved they can't.

At least not this year.

Pull your head out!

boly

boly

[allenreed]

We're on Abreu, but not a word about Pablo striking out with the bases loaded on a pitch over his head. And he didn't even get a good swing. And it sure isn't like this is an infrequent occurence.

[rxmeister]

I don't think Noonan is very good, and he's lefty, so I have no problem with Abreu playing against a lefty. "Playing the kids" is something you want to do, but it's done with an eye towards 2014. Bochy said yesterday that Scutaro will need lots of days off next year and they need a decent backup. They have to find out if Abreu can be that player, so starting him is not a waste of time.

[klaiggeb]

I don't think Noonan is very good, and he's lefty, so I have no problem with Abreu playing against a lefty. "Playing the kids" is something you want to do, but it's done with an eye towards 2014. Bochy said yesterday that Scutaro will need lots of days off next year and they need a decent backup. They have to find out if Abreu can be that player, so starting him is not a waste of time.

---boly says---

Please file this away in everyone's memory for next year.

Abreu is NOT, repeat, NOT that player.

He's bounced around to too many teams(already 4 teams since 2007) for a reason.

And I contend that reason is completely mental.

Look, it's not that he isn't talented. He is.

It's just that I've simply lost count of the number of times he's either done something stupid; done something he shouldn't have done, or done something without thinking at all.

And even if you don't agree with me on that, consider this; do we REALLY need another hacker on a team full of hackers?

I want the back up for Scutaro to SHOW ME baseball smarts; show me performance on a consistant basis, and Joaquin Arias has done ALL OF THOSE.

We've all watched Abreu boot routine plays too often. Has Arias done that?

No, he hasn't, and he's played a ton more.

Thinking this clown can be Scutaro's back up, IMHO, isn't just foolish, it's downright stupid!

boly

[Islandboagie]

Aren't you being a little hard on him? I don't like Abreu that much either but he was just a spring invitee to add some infield depth. You're acting like we traded Zack Wheeler for him.

For next season I would look into bringing back Uribe if the price is right.

[sfgdood]

has there ever been a Giants manager that DIDN'T exasperate Boly?

~Dood

[klaiggeb]

Aren't you being a little hard on him? I don't like Abreu that much either but he was just a spring invitee to add some infield depth. You're acting like we traded Zack Wheeler for him.

For next season I would look into bringing back Uribe if the price is right.

---boly says---

Actually, Boagie, all I was pointing out the differences between MY style of managing, and the babying-molly-coddling way of managers today.

Now I don't advocate the Billy Martin/Bobby Valentine methods, that's for sure, but the manager sets the tone; the manager establishes what is and isn't acceptable.

Bochy, for the most part, does.

But in the case of Abreu, he did not. He acted like it was all "okay," which, for me, it is not.



But back to Abreu the Arse. No, I don't believe I am being too hard on him, and I woudn't bring him back. Not a chance.

He has had opportunities with his 4 previous clubs, and he's had ample opportunities with us... and, from where I sit, has been a huge disappointment.

Boagie, I expect more... no check that, I DEMAND more from a 4 year veteran in the mental area.

boly

[klaiggeb]

has there ever been a Giants manager that DIDN'T exasperate Boly?


---boly says---

Actually, Randy, there is one; Roger Craig. HE was my style of guy.

Aggressive, and using his entire team to maximize what talents he had.


But to be honest, I've ALWAYS had problems with leadership, and I'm not talking just baseball.

I believe it's a leader's job to lead by serving.

The leader sets the tone, and adjusts to his personnel.

The leader does NOT sit high on his throne and dictate.

The leader also does NOT lead by committee.


For each of the managers that we've had I've had very specific complaints.

Baker-Would not give younger players a chance. Stayed with veterans way too long and had NO CLUE how to manage the arms in the bull pen.

Alou-Another manager that didn't understand the art of pitching, or how to manage a pen. Even with Montreal, he would often do things that even his players didn't understand. Another guy who wouldn't give the kids a real shot regardless of how poorly his veterans were playing.


Bochy-He is OUTSTANDING at managing his bullpen. Likely the BEST Giant manager, in this respect, I've ever seen.

A GREAT manager of people.

But for me, he's simply not aggressive enough, and he does NOT maximize the speed he does have on the team.

All too often he sits back and waits for the 3 run HR, or simply plays statin-to-station.

I mean, I've lost count of the times we've been IN must run situations, or should run, situations... with guys who CAN steal bases, and he doesn't.

I mean, for Heaven's sake, Blanco with ONLY 12 steals?

I mean, roll me over in dough, and powder-sugar my fanny but THAT is assinine!

Same with Pagan. WHEN he was healthy, he SHOULD HAVE BEEN running, but mostly wasn't.

not acceptable.

Thus, he exasperates me.

boly

[allenreed]

Sept 5, 2013 16:33:24 GMT -5 sfgdood said:

has there ever been a Giants manager that DIDN'T exasperate Boly?

Allen- Has there ever been a Giants manager that didn't easperate all of us at time. Bochy has certainly been less exasperating to me than his two predecessors.
I agree with boly that the Giants simply need to make more use of their speed. Blanoco, Pagan, Torres ( if he's back, which I doubt) , Arias, even Pence, should all be running far more than they are.
The thing with Abreu, yes and no. Most players are fundamentally weak today, especially when it comes to things like moving runners along. Many just go up there
and swing from the a**, with little regard to count or game situation.
I'd still rather have Abreu than Uribe though, especially when one considers price.

[Islandboagie]

I just became a fan when Craig took over, so I wasn't that knowledgeable during his tenure. But I liked the aggressive nature he managed with. I liked the set lineups and the faith he put in young players. I have no disagreements with the way he managed but again, I wasn't that knowledgeable.

Baker was good with the lineup but he didn't have much faith in young players. Often times we saw too much of Charlie Hayes and not enough of Bill Mueller. He obviously was not good with pitchers.

Felipe Alou was just bad all around. At his age he had no leadership qualities left, and young players got almost zero chance.

We all have our disagreements with how the club is being managed.

I've had many disagreements with Bochy too. Using Aaron Rowand and over other options. The flip flopping lineups...Ect. But at the same time the number of disagreements I've had with Bochy, I can honestly say he's come out on top more often than me. Uribe dropping the grounder in Sanchez's no-hitter was the cherry on top for me, he would have been gone that night. Edgar Renteria wore thin on me, he would have likely been gone long before the 2010 post-season. And of course the pitching. Zito would have been released by many posters here long before 2012. Also some in game situations where I've question Bochy have gone Bochy's way more times than not.

The previous managers I've questioned have always made me feel like I could run the ballclub better. Not with Bochy. Often my conversations with other Giants fans where the management is questioned usually end up with me yielding to Bochy and Sabean's track record over the last few years. The results really do speak for themselves here. When me and Bochy and/or Sabean don't see eye to eye on something, I no longer question their knowledge, I question my own.

That doesn't mean I still won't keep disagreeing with some moves Sabean makes or some lineup cards Bochy writes up. But, the difference now is the first time since becoming a fan, I'm 100% certain that Bochy and his staff have a greater knowledge of the game than anyone on this board.

[allenreed]

IMO the biggest part of the manager's job is stuff the fans never see. Handling player's egos and making sure the ship runs somehat smoothly. I think Bochy does this very well. You hardly ever hear about internal strife on the Giants, or really any unhappy players,
I was always amazed at Baker's strategic shortcoming and his inability to manage a pitching staff. He was a good motivator though. I would pretty much agree with you on Alou. I think the Giants were not the team for him. I think he would have done better with a developing team, like Montreal was when he was there.

[sfgdood]

I don't think baseball managers have to be great strategists, especially if they have competent staff under them. People skills, motivation, the ability to manage a group of men for one common objective and talent/skills evaluation are the factors I look at as being key. My point is no manager, living or dead, is going to be seen as perfect for every fan.

Rog thinks it's all about luck but personally the best way I know to judge a manager is by division titles, playoff appearances, pennants and world championships. Yes the team needs talent to achieve these things but lots of very talented teams came up short throughout the years.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Rog thinks it's all about luck

Rog -- Argue with me, but get what I say right.

Randy -- but personally the best way I know to judge a manager is by division titles, playoff appearances, pennants and world championships.

Rog -- I think judging managers is pretty tough, since we don't usually know what goes on behind the scenes. Ideally, we would judge a manager by how his team does with the talent it has. That can included the things you mention, but a good manager can be one who makes a poor team better.

Randy --Yes the team needs talent to achieve these things but lots of very talented teams came up short throughout the years.

Rog -- Which is where the luck comes in.

Bochy has begun getting his due since the Giants won the World Series in 2010, but do you think that without Brooks Conrad, they would even have made the NLCS?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1993#ixzz2eAyQeLug

[sfgdood]

Randy --Yes the team needs talent to achieve these things but lots of very talented teams came up short throughout the years.

Rog -- Which is where the luck comes in.

Bochy has begun getting his due since the Giants won the World Series in 2010, but do you think that without Brooks Conrad, they would even have made the NLCS?

Dood - it dopesn't matter. Nobody forced the Braves to put Conrad on their roster or in the game lineup. Nobody put a gun to Brooks' head and forced him to kick those balls. The Giants made the plays and the Braves--Conrad was a Brave--didn't. It's that simple. Therefore the Giants earned the right to play in the NLCS by virtue of being the better team. They then justified that by winning the NLCS and the World Series.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Dood - it dopesn't matter. Nobody forced the Braves to put Conrad on their roster or in the game lineup.

Rog -- Actually, the injury to Martin Prado prety much did, but that's not really relevant anyway.

Randy -- Nobody put a gun to Brooks' head and forced him to kick those balls.

Rog -- You're right here. But the point is that the GIANTS had almost nothing to do with those two circumstances. And if Brooks hadn't kicked those balls -- and an umpire kicked the call when Buster Posey tried to steal second base -- the Giants aren't likely to have won the series. Until last season, we would have been talking about them in a much different light than we did.

Randy -- The Giants made the plays and the Braves--Conrad was a Brave--didn't. It's that simple.

Rog -- Yes, it is. But just as pitcher's won-loss record is to some degree beyond his control, a team doesn't have complete control over winning or losing. The Giants had control over how WELL they hit the balls that Conrad booted, and they didn't hit them well.

Brooks bailed out the Giants' poor performance on those balls by kicking them -- and the Braves' chances -- away.

A starting pitcher can control how well he throws the ball -- but then he loses control, and has almost none in the other half of the inning.

A team can control how well it hits, pitches and fields the ball -- but it can't control how the other team reacts to those factors or how well their opponents do with that reaction.

Without the failures of Brooks Conrad -- failures the Giants had little to do with -- the Giants likely would have been just one more Giants team that made the playoffs but frustrated us by not advancing far enough.

You could look it up.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#14733#ixzz2eDbyDAtF

[sfgdood]

Without the failures of Brooks Conrad -- failures the Giants had little to do with -- the Giants likely would have been just one more Giants team that made the playoffs but frustrated us by not advancing far enough.

You could look it up.

Dood - this is the kind of crap I hear from other morons who never played the game. It was ONE game in a five game series. The Braves lost 3 of them. Even if you want to argue that that one game was won by luck--which I still disagree with because the Giants still could have won regardless--the other two wins were not and making the leap to saying Brooks Conrad was trhe ONLY reaqson the Giants advanced is simply idiotic.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Rog -- Without the failures of Brooks Conrad -- failures the Giants had little to do with -- the Giants likely would have been just one more Giants team that made the playoffs but frustrated us by not advancing far enough.

You could look it up.

Dood - this is the kind of crap I hear from other morons who never played the game. It was ONE game in a five game series. The Braves lost 3 of them.

Rog -- Well, let's take a look:

I mentioned both Conrad's fielding (FIVE errors in the four-game series) and the missed call that allowed Buster Posey to steal second base. Buster's steals led to the Giants' winning run in their 1-0 win in the series opener.

Now, the Giants still might well have won that game even if Posey had correctly been called out. Certainly the Braves weren't going to win without scoring even one run. In fact, the home team Giants had more likelihood of winning. But there was also a significant chance they would have lost.

The "one" game you likely referred to was game three, when the Giants scored two of their three runs as a result of Conrad's errors. They won the game, 3-2, so you can see how they likely would have fared without the two unearned runs.

The Giants won the final game 3-2 as a result of Alex Gonzales' error, with the winning run being unearned.

So the Giants benefited from luck in EACH of their three wins.

Game 1 -- missed call allows Posey to score the game-winning run.

Game 3 -- Conrad's two errors allow the Giants to score their first run and then their third run in their 3-2 win.

Game 4 -- Gonzales' error proves to be the difference as the Giants once again win, 3-2.

In other words, the run that made the difference -- and two runs in Game 3 -- were the result of a missed call and Braves' errors.

If you don't think the Giants benefitted significantly from errors, well, then you just don't think. EACH of their three wins was aided by an error or errors from the Braves' infield or by the umpire.

Randy -- Even if you want to argue that that one game was won by luck--which I still disagree with because the Giants still could have won regardless--

Rog -- The Giants might have won both game 1 and game 4, since without their luck, they still would have been tied, but they would have lost game 3. In other words, if the Giants had lost EITHER game 1 or game 4, it would have been THEY who lost the series 3 games to 1 instead of the Braves.

And even if they had WON both games 1 and 4, they would have had to win game 5 to win the NLDS. If you don't think the Giants benefited from luck, you just don't think. You could look it up.

Randy -- the other two wins were not and making the leap to saying Brooks Conrad was trhe ONLY reaqson the Giants advanced is simply idiotic.

Rog -- No one SAID Conrad was the ONLY reason. But without Conrad, Gonzales and the missed umpire's call, the Braves would likely have won the series. It would actually be idiotic to feel otherwise.

Look at the game play-by-play, Randy. You will see what I have said here is right on the money. Indeed, you could look it up.

But only if you want to understand the situation.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#14744#ixzz2eH6DkjOO

[sharksrog]

Boly -- I mean, I've lost count of the times we've been IN must run situations, or should run, situations... with guys who CAN steal bases, and he doesn't.

I mean, for Heaven's sake, Blanco with ONLY 12 steals?

Rog -- I too would like to see the Giants -- and pretty much all teams -- steal in specific situations, usually based on two outs or two strike counts.

But, really, the only player who has benefited the Giants much with his stealing is Hunter Pence. Hunter has stolen 21 times while being caught only twice. Now THAT provides value to his team.

But you mention Gregor Blanco. Gregor has stolen only 12 bases in 18 tries. At that rate, he has slightly HURT his team. If had been given the must-go sign more often, it seems likely his percentage would have dropped even lower, hurting his team even more.

Angel Pagan is only 8 for 12. He too has slightly hurt the team with his stealing. As with Blanco, his percentage also would have likely gone down with more must-go signs. Players do their best stealing when they can pick their spots -- choosing whom to steal against and on which pitch to go, even bluffing if they don't get a good jump.

The only two guys who have helped the Giants much with their stealing are Pence and to a much lesser extent, Brandon Belt, who is 5 for 7 and has helped his team slightly. And it appears that both Pence and Belt owe most of their success from being able to pick their spots.

I understand the desire to be more aggressive. I too would like to see the Giants be more aggressive -- but mostly when running the bases, not trying to steal them.

How many times have we seen the Giants clearly HURT by having runners thrown out stealing? We tend to look at how stealing helps, while more or less ignoring how being CAUGHT can hurt a rally.

In theory I agree with you, Boly. But in practice, there is nothing to show that the Giants would likely have benefited from running more. I am open to a counter argument, but when guys are successful only two-thirds of the time even when some of their steal attempts likely come from their own decisions to steal, there doesn't appear to be a high chance that their percentage would be improved if they were ORDER to go.

In fact, their success rate -- already marginal -- would likely decline.

I agree the Giants should steal more situationally. But I don't think a blanket comment that they should steal more can be demonstrated to be correct.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eHCrOI3M

[rxmeister]

Rog, I see your points about errors being a huge reason the Giants beat the Braves in 2010. However, I don't like your choice of the word "luck." The Giants weren't lucky the Braves made errors and they didn't, it was because the Giants were solid defensively and the Braves weren't. That has to do with the way you've build your team, and luck is not involved there. The Braves got men on base and hit balls at Giants defenders too, and the Giants caught them. They weren't lucky to do so. I also reject your assertion that the Braves would have probably won the series without that Conrad error. First of all, the series didn't even go five games! Game five, if necessary, would have gone back to SF with still ace Tim Lincecum on the mound. And if you want to say the Braves would have won game three without Conrad's error, then I'll mention that the Giants lost game two in extra innings and the only run Matt Cain allowed in that game was unearned due to a Pat Burrell error. You throw that out like you threw out Conrad's and they go to Atlanta up 2-0 and that series is essentially over, Conrad or no Conrad.

[sfgdood]

That is the biggest pile of steaming dung you have ever posted here, Rog...I gotta give you credit...I didn't think you could outdo your own record...well done.

To call the missed call on the Posey steal "lucky" is about as desperate a ploy as I've ever seen you use, and that includes all manner of unfounded stats geekery. If you want to go THERE, it could then be extrapolated that no team ever won a postseason game without it being attributable to pure dumb luck. Umpires blow calls on a regular basis. Strike zones are fickle creatures in any game...even in the big leagues. It's part of the game. I don't really like it but that's part of the deal and everyone knows it. Using that as a means to call the Giants postseason win all luck is the very definition of absurdity. Was it also "lucky" that Lincecum struck out 14 Braves and allowed no runs and just one hit?

Your despersation is as sad as it is predictable.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Mark -- Rog, I see your points about errors being a huge reason the Giants beat the Braves in 2010. However, I don't like your choice of the word "luck." The Giants weren't lucky the Braves made errors and they didn't, it was because the Giants were solid defensively and the Braves weren't.

Rog -- I would agree with your statement that "the Giants weren't lucky the Braves made errors and they didn't" if you changed the word "and" to "or."

The Giants certainly weren't lucky that THEY didn't make errors. They EARNED it.

But they WERE lucky the Braves made errors. The Giants themselves had almost nothing to do with that.

In the long run, one would hope that luck evens out. But in the short run, if games are close, luck can make a TREMENDOUS difference -- and that clearly the case in that critical Braves series.

If there were skill involved in flipping a coin, when heads came up instead of tails, luck wouldn't be involved or at least would be minimized. But since it's a 50/50 proposition, whether the coin comes up heads or tails IS the results of luck.

Since the Giants had no control over how Atlanta fielded the ball once the Giants hit it, it was luck that the Braves kicked it around at important times.

Randy is absolutely right that it would be wrong to say the Giants won that series ONLY because of luck. At the very least, they played well enough to keep the games close enough that the Braves' errors mattered.

But if we look at each of the three Giants wins, play by play, we see that with all other things being equal, the Giants would have lost the third game and gone to extra innings in games 1 and 4. The odds are that they would have lost the series, and they might even have been swept.

The most likely outcome -- which assumes the Giants would have split the two extra-inning games -- is that the Giants would have lost in four games. On the other hand, they could have won in five games.

They couldn't have won in four as they did, since without Brooks Conrad's errors in game 3, the Giants lose 2-1 instead of winning 3-2.

I'm not saying the Giants were a bad team in 2010. I'm not saying they won ONLY because of luck. But I am saying that the 2nd-base umpire who missed the call in game 1, Brooks Conrad in game 3, and Alex Gonzales in game 4 had more of an impact on the series than did some of the Giants themselves.

The Giants didn't win that series SOLELY because of luck, but man it certain didn't hurt. In fact, it appears to have been a significant factor.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#14760#ixzz2eJQNQN5H

[sharksrog]

Mark -- I also reject your assertion that the Braves would have probably won the series without that Conrad error. First of all, the series didn't even go five games!

Rog -- Yes, but without Brooks Conrad's gaffes in game 3, it WOULD have. Or at least we HOPE it would have. Without the win in game 3, the Giants COULDN'T have won it in less than five. On the other hand, the Braves could have won it in 3, 4 or 5.

Allen doesn't seem to grasp this concept, but game 3 WAS a two-game game.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eJU5susb

[sharksrog]

Mark -- Game five, if necessary, would have gone back to SF with still ace Tim Lincecum on the mound.

Rog -- In that instance, the Giants would probably have won the series -- although chances of a Giants win would have been far from 100%.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eJV3HL5I

[sharksrog]

Mark -- And if you want to say the Braves would have won game three without Conrad's error, then I'll mention that the Giants lost game two in extra innings and the only run Matt Cain allowed in that game was unearned due to a Pat Burrell error.

Rog -- You make a very nice point here, Mark. The Giants didn't lose that one due to bad luck, though. They lost it because of an error they could have prevented.

When a team wins or loses because of its own efforts, their decision isn't a lucky one. If it wins or loses because of events that have left its control, their decision IS a lucky one.

That isn't to say that only luck went into the decision. But let's take a look at how the games would have been WITHOUT the umpire's blown call and the errors by Conrad and Gonzales (events the Giants had virtually no control over):

Game 1 -- extra innings.

Game 2 -- Giants lose

Game 3 -- Giants lose

Game 4 (if necessary) -- extra innings.

The result of that series WASN'T really an unlucky one for the Braves. The only thing I can remember that was unlucky for them was the umpire's blown call on Posey's steal of second base.

But the win WAS a lucky one for the Giants, in that they benefited from luck on the call and on the errors by Conrad and Gonzales.

The Braves MADE the errors, so that didn't make them unlucky. But the Giants benefited from the errors, even though they had no control over them. That's why the Giants WERE lucky.

I have pointed out here how just because one team was lucky doesn't mean the other team was UNlucky. With the exception of the blown call at second, the Braves didn't lose the series because of luck. They lost it because they didn't play well enough.

But the blown call and the errors by Conrad and Gonzales were beyond the Giants' control, and thus they benefited from luck even as the Braves were hurt by performance.

Do you see how the Conrad and Gonzales errors were luck on the part of the Giants and bad play on the part of the Braves? In a sense, it could be said that the Giants had already flipped the coin, but the Braves just didn't catch it.

The Giants had lost control of those plays, while the Braves clearly had them IN their control.

This isn't as simple as the two-game game, but it isn't hard, either.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eJVcz4C9

[sharksrog]

Randy -- To call the missed call on the Posey steal "lucky" is about as desperate a ploy as I've ever seen you use

Rog -- SERIOUSLY? How much control did the Giants have over it? Posey should have been called out.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eJYhm4iO

[sharksrog]

Randy -- If you want to go THERE, it could then be extrapolated that no team ever won a postseason game without it being attributable to pure dumb luck.

Rog -- Actually, it couldn't Randy. Your logic is false here. In order for a result to be cause by PURE dumb luck, a team would have to have virtually no control over the events, as would be the case in a coin flipping contest.

That is why I have never stated that the Giants won ONLY because of luck, although just as your logic was flawed in the above, you have somehow interpreted that I did so.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eJZP4UXt

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Umpires blow calls on a regular basis. Strike zones are fickle creatures in any game...even in the big leagues. It's part of the game.

Rog -- And also part of why luck is also a part of the game. When an umpire blows a call, it is good luck for one team and bad luck for the other. At the point at which the umpire makes the call, BOTH teams have lost control.

Announcers sometimes imply as much when they say "That call could have gone either way."

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eJabjVOU

[sharksrog]

Randy -- I don't really like it but that's part of the deal and everyone knows it.

Rog -- Then why don't they understand that luck is also part of the deal? Put one umpire on the field, and Buster Posey is called safe at second base. Put another umpire on the field, and he is called out (as he should have been).

The Giants have no control over which umpire is chosen; thus on a play that close (or even, occasionally, on plays that AREN'T that close), the result is in part luck.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1993&page=1#ixzz2eJbYXIyP