Author Topic: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3  (Read 16030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #25: October 03, 2010, 02:38:18 PM »
I've been mindfacting, lately, the notion that Rizzo is so intent on Morgan staying on the roster because he wants to prove that he made a good, positive trade last year...rather than trading our Milledge garbage for Pittsburgh's Morgan garbage.

No other reason makes sense for his devotion to Morgan on this team.  It's certainly not talent.
I don't know that I agree with you, but I do think Rizzo is seeing what we're all seeing.  Like I said, every GM has access to everything we do and more.  He knows Nyjer has not been amazing defensively this year (he's been okay, but not great), he knows he's never hit for power and has a terrible arm, he knows that Morgan's frequent stunts reflect badly on him and the team, he knows that Morgan has almost no trade value.  What I'd have to guess is that he doesn't think Bernadina would be an improvement (and I have to agree with him), so he may think keeping Morgan in center is the best option short of getting a really quality CF elsewhere.  I don't know that any amazing native CFs are on the market this off-season.

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7666
  • ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    • Photos
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #26: October 03, 2010, 02:39:11 PM »
Statement: Willie Harris should be back next year.  He's a good player to have on your bench.

Discuss.

:lmao: He's done. He's crossed the Mendoza Line.

Thanks for the memories Willie but it is time for you to go.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 15923
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #27: October 03, 2010, 02:39:12 PM »
Offensively, the only real difference this year from prior years for Nyjer is a .050 point drop in BABIP.  That is what drove down the OBP from .350 to .310.  His walk rate and K rate are the same as his career MLB averages (7% / 17%).  he is fast.  There is little reason not to expect him to get some of his BABIP back.  He is probably not a good leadoff hitter, but he is also probably not a bad 7th or 8th guy, either.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #28: October 03, 2010, 02:40:58 PM »
Offensively, the only real difference this year from prior years for Nyjer is a .050 point drop in BABIP.  That is what drove down the OBP from .350 to .310.  His walk rate and K rate are the same as his career MLB averages (7% / 17%).  he is fast.  There is little reason not to expect him to get some of his BABIP back.  He is probably not a good leadoff hitter, but he is also probably not a bad 7th or 8th guy, either.
I agree that he isn't as bad as he has been this year.  But I also think his ceiling is probably Juan Pierre, who isn't very good.  And as a CF, which is a premium defensive position, he isn't outstanding.  He's fast but he gets picked off too much to make his steals benefit the team.

Of course, as I say that, Morgan makes an amazing defensive play.  That notwithstanding.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 36918
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #29: October 03, 2010, 02:50:14 PM »
Five pitch inning for Pelfrey.  This team couldn't possibly be more checked out than it is in this last game.

The season should have only been 161 games.  :|

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #30: October 03, 2010, 02:51:12 PM »
Five pitch inning for Pelfrey.  This team couldn't possibly be more checked out than it is in this last game.

The season should have only been 161 games.  :|
Wouldn't have been fair to the Padres.  I'm still rooting for them to pull off the upset.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #31: October 03, 2010, 03:02:01 PM »
Why is Livan coming out of the game?  Is it because we want to make sure Clippard gets over 100 IP?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 48678
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #32: October 03, 2010, 03:05:02 PM »
Five pitch inning for Pelfrey.  This team couldn't possibly be more checked out than it is in this last game.

The season should have only been 161 games.  :|

This season was 100 games too long for the Nats.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #33: October 03, 2010, 03:18:53 PM »
Hey Desmond

Learn to take a freaking walk.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 36918
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #34: October 03, 2010, 03:20:13 PM »
Ian Desmond needs to spend some time in the Arizona Fall League too.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #35: October 03, 2010, 03:21:06 PM »
I hate to say it, but even as a pure hitter I'm not sure I buy into Desmond's season.  I wish that weren't the case but I don't.

Ugh.  And that is why I don't buy into him as a plus plus defender.  He really does have great range but it is MORE than negated by plays like that.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #36: October 03, 2010, 03:24:24 PM »
Why are we IBBing David Wright.  There is absolutely no reason to do this.  If he were Barry freaking Bonds there would be no reason to do this in this situation.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 2958
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #37: October 03, 2010, 03:28:44 PM »
It was a smart move


Why are we IBBing David Wright.  There is absolutely no reason to do this.  If he were Barry freaking Bonds there would be no reason to do this in this situation.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #38: October 03, 2010, 03:31:22 PM »
It was a smart move


Would you still have been calling it a smart move if Burnett had walked Ike Davis (as he was about to do)?  Just because it worked this time doesn't mean it was a smart move.  Especially with the wind blowing in like it is today.  It's not like he was on a hot streak this game either--he was 0 for 3 before the IBB.

Online DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17441
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #39: October 03, 2010, 03:35:05 PM »
Would you still have been calling it a smart move if Burnett had walked Ike Davis (as he was about to do)?  Just because it worked this time doesn't mean it was a smart move.  Especially with the wind blowing in like it is today.  It's not like he was on a hot streak this game either--he was 0 for 3 before the IBB.
It was a smart move.  Burnett's a groundball pitcher, gave the opportunity for a double play.  Walking Davis wouldn't have really changed anything.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #40: October 03, 2010, 03:37:12 PM »
It was a smart move.  Burnett's a groundball pitcher, gave the opportunity for a double play.  Walking Davis wouldn't have really changed anything.
Bases loaded one out significantly increases the odds that a runner will score, whether you're a groundball pitcher or not.  I don't understand how walking Wright was a good idea in that situation.  But okay.

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10466
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #41: October 03, 2010, 03:37:18 PM »
Poor blobson.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 15281
  • In Matt We Trust!
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #42: October 03, 2010, 03:38:06 PM »
thank you Nyjer for runing Dunn's walk-off moment.  Sigh....

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 36913
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #43: October 03, 2010, 03:40:00 PM »
Ugh it's not over yet? I have to watch. Come on!

Online DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17441
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #44: October 03, 2010, 03:40:41 PM »
Bases loaded one out significantly increases the odds that a runner will score, whether you're a groundball pitcher or not.  I don't understand how walking Wright was a good idea in that situation.  But okay.
Trying to set up a double play for a guy that induces a lot of groundballs.  It's not that difficult.

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 2958
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #45: October 03, 2010, 03:40:51 PM »
Huh ?


thank you Nyjer for runing Dunn's walk-off moment.  Sigh....

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #46: October 03, 2010, 03:42:47 PM »
Trying to set up a double play for a guy that induces a lot of groundballs.  It's not that difficult.
Man on 1st with 1 out becomes RISP with 1 out.  That is a flat-out worse situation.  Take a look at the run probabilities.  If it were really as clear-cut as you make it sound, Burnett would IBB whenever there was a runner on first, but he doesn't.  It's all about who Wright is, and he is not enough of a threat to make it worth IBBing him.  Besides that, Burnett is not just a GB guy, this season he is also a strikeout guy.  By IBBing someone you completely eliminate the potential for the K, which is obviously the best outcome.

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10466
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #47: October 03, 2010, 03:44:33 PM »
Man on 1st with 1 out becomes RISP with 1 out.  That is a flat-out worse situation.  Take a look at the run probabilities.  If it were really as clear-cut as you make it sound, Burnett would IBB whenever there was a runner on first, but he doesn't.  It's all about who Wright is, and he is not enough of a threat to make it worth IBBing him.  Besides that, Burnett is not just a GB guy, this season he is also a strikeout guy.  By IBBing someone you completely eliminate the potential for the K, which is obviously the best outcome.
What?  1B was open wasn't it?

Online DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17441
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #48: October 03, 2010, 03:45:21 PM »
Man on 1st with 1 out becomes RISP with 1 out.  That is a flat-out worse situation.  Take a look at the run probabilities.  If it were really as clear-cut as you make it sound, Burnett would IBB whenever there was a runner on first, but he doesn't.  It's all about who Wright is, and he is not enough of a threat to make it worth IBBing him.  Besides that, Burnett is not just a GB guy, this season he is also a strikeout guy.  By IBBing someone you completely eliminate the potential for the K, which is obviously the best outcome.
Except that's not what the situation was.  Reyes was on 2nd with 1 out.  First was open.  If Reyes had still been at first, it would have been a whole different situation.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #49: October 03, 2010, 03:45:50 PM »
What?  1B was open wasn't it?
Oh yeah, forgot about the sac bunt.  Still not a good decision IMO, but at least it makes marginally more sense.