Jump to content
Grand Central Mets
  • Create Account

IGT - 4.30.25 - Burnes vs. TBD

Centerfield

By Centerfield
in Archived Game Threads

 Share

Recommended Posts

Frayed Knot FCL Mets

Frayed Knot

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted


Five ABs (plus an IW) with the bases loaded: two in the 1st inning, three more in the 9th inning

Not a single batter got the ball out of the infield. None even came close. K - GO - K - GO - IW - GO

But at least they got two solo HRs


Gwreck Draft Eligible

Gwreck

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted


=Centerfield post_id=191330 time=1746064337 user_id=65]
Don't agree with Mendy giving this kid a second inning.

roger_that College Ball

roger_that

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted


Well, in retrospect, sure, but it wasn't a save situation and I can't blame Mendoza much for giving Devensky an extra inning and keeping Diaz on the bench if the Mets managed to tie it up first.



The umps killed us again. Ruling Winker's foul ball as a fair groundout ("Who, me? I didn't see nuthin', bosss, no, sir, not me") cost us big time as it turned out. This game makes me even more adamant than I had been about the wisdom of giving managers a limited number of non-reviewable plays that they can ask to be reviewed.


Frayed Knot FCL Mets

Frayed Knot

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted


Whether that ball hit Winker's foot or not (probably did, but hardly definitive) a review wasn't going to change the call. And the non-call still got a run in and moved the other two runners up which was more than any other AB did that inning, so calling it a 'do-over' was no guarantee of a better result.



So blame the umps, blame the relief pitching (Stanek was more unlucky than bad) or even the choice of relief pitchers. But the Mets got 7 hits (three for XB) plus 9 walks and were somehow able to turn that into a whopping 3 runs. They went 0-for-10 w/RiSP including 0-for-5 w/bases loaded (three of those w/< 2 outs) but were able to score only via two solo HRs plus an infield dribbler.

They had the leadoff batter on in five different innings but scored just one of them, and he had to drive himself in (Taylor solo HR).

They put three of the first four batters on in the 1st and failed to score, then had the first four batters reach in the 9th and scored on just the HR.


batmagadanleadoff College Ball

batmagadanleadoff

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted


Frayed Knot wrote:

Whether that ball hit Winker's foot or not (probably did, but hardly definitive) a review wasn't going to change the call. And the non-call still got a run in and moved the other two runners up which was more than any other AB did that inning, so calling it a 'do-over' was no guarantee of a better result.



So blame the umps, blame the relief pitching (Stanek was more unlucky than bad) or even the choice of relief pitchers. But the Mets got 7 hits (three for XB) plus 9 walks and were somehow able to turn that into a whopping 3 runs. They went 0-for-10 w/RiSP including 0-for-5 w/bases loaded (three of those w/< 2 outs) but were able to score only via two solo HRs plus an infield dribbler.

They had the leadoff batter on in five different innings but scored just one of them, and he had to drive himself in (Taylor solo HR).

They put three of the first four batters on in the 1st and failed to score, then had the first four batters reach in the 9th and scored on just the HR.


Yes. Plus, the replays shown during the broadcast were all inconclusive. So if the replays were inconclusive, how does everyone know that the ball did hit Winkler's foot?



Also, I'm not so sure that I'd trade a run for the second out of that inning, which was the end result of Winkler's at-bat. Perhaps I'd make that trade if it was the first out. That second out cost the Mets more than they gained from the run.


Frayed Knot FCL Mets

Frayed Knot

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted


Not saying that I'd trade it if given a choice.



But the result was a run in AND the winning run moved into scoring position vs Winker still up and still with one out but also down two runs and with a 1-2 count.

The bottom line is that it's not like the call 'cost us the game' as it wouldn't have guaranteed them anything, especially given the rest of the ABs in that inning. It's nice to think that Winky would have gotten the ball out of the infield but if he did he would have been the first in the inning to do so aside from Taylor.



The other good result from the foul/not-foul call is that none of the runners assumed foul ball (as Gary did) and wound up non-running themselves into a game-ending DP.

THAT was my immediate thought once it was apparent that no foul call was made, that somebody screwed up and was standing in the middle of the baseline somewhere wondering why someone in a DBacks uni was chasing him.


roger_that College Ball

roger_that

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted


Frayed Knot wrote:

Whether that ball hit Winker's foot or not (probably did, but hardly definitive) a review wasn't going to change the call.


You know this how? Looked pretty definitive to me, as did Winker's instantaneous reaction.



As with all hypotheticals, giving Winker an extended at-bat rather than calling him out means that any number of outcomes (other than the ones in which he makes an out) are good ones for the Mets. But we'll never know what might have happened, and I'd prefer the umps (or Chelsea) decided to let him continue batting in that situation.


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
The Grand Central Mets Caretaker Fund
The Grand Central Mets Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Mets community on the internet.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    209
    Total Members
    48,845
    Most Online
    Scott Cooper
    Newest Member
    Scott Cooper
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...