IGT 5/4 - Mets/DBacks

[Zvon]

[Gwreck]

I'm going to call this a BIG Win ™.

Despite two errors on our part; despite at least 2 blown calls on the bases by the ump; despite an inconsistent strike zone.

Very very pleased to have taken 2 from the Diamondbacks.

Willie looking smart today:
1. Leaving Alou in after he batted in the 7th rather than going to Endy for defensive replacement purposes.
2. Intentionally walking to get to the pitcher's spot with Santana at the end of his rope.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah, very big win. Two of three from the Baggs at their place was good no matter how shaky we looked. (Or sounded, such as it was for me, as I heard this mostly in the car).

The Phillies were meanwhile winning 2 of 3 from the Giants at CBP, despite being outplayed by them, so it happens.

The West has some pitching this year.

[Guest AG/DC]

How different does our lineup suddenly look?

1) With Churchie batting second, it's the other guys worrying about situational strategy, and not us.

2) Brenly going to his lefthander in the pen in the sixth, and having to get past Alou before he faced Delgado and Schneid... well, Brenly and Slaten survived that spot, but you know they pooed themsleves first.

3) Delgado getting in gear but still sliding down the lineup as Alou returns is some comfort. It's not unreasonable to think he's still enough of a threat to bat sixth.

4) Yeah, we're still giving away too many outs at catcher and second, but (a) now they're seventh and eighth, ( Schneider's hit as well, when healthy, as we had a right to hope, © we can get some lefty-righty flip-floppage if/when Castro gets back, and (d) if Castillo's main remaining job is trying clearing the pitcher, and secondarily being occasionally in scoring position when Reyes comes around, well, he's probably good enough.

Much remains to be seen, health can certainly upset this apple cart at any moment, and Beltran's been looking lost, but I liked the lineup's look this weekend.

[DocTee]

Melvin, not Brenly.

[Guest AG/DC]

Him too.

Bigheaded west-coast catchers-turned-managers named Bob. Can you blame me for not keeping up?

[metirish]

Yeah this was a good series win , during the game last night when Owings pinch hit Gary mentioned that Melvin would more than likely use Micah as the DH during IL road games , and that there were internal talks about playing him at first base at times although that was scraped , fascinating . As mentioned during the game even though he's a pitcher he has to be ready like any position player every day . I suppose all players do but Owings is likely to PH as much as any player.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm much happier with Castillo as an 8 hitter than as a 2. As an 8, I think he's pretty "Old Mutual." He might be one of the better 8th-place hitters in the league. (And no, I don't know who the other 15 are, but my off-the-cuff guess is that he's probably in the upper half.)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: ="TheOldMole"]I think a bunt with no out and runners on first and second is often a good idea. As do I, particularly if it's late in the game and you're dying for just 1 or 2 runs. It's just that doing it into Castillo virtually removes the option of scoring a run via a productive out. The IF would be in killing the ground ball RBI and batting LH he's not likely to hit a long-enough fly ball. Oh well, it worked out for the best.

Successfully bunting a runner who is on second base with nobody out over to third base is the only instance where, on average, you increase your chances of scoring one run - but only one run in the inning. As you already noted, this strategy is more effective in the very late innings of a tie game because with less innings remaining, a small lead is that much more insurmountable, especially for the Mets these days because Wagner has been unhittable all season long.

The problem with Randolph's use of that tactic yesterday was, as you also noted, the part about leaving it to Luis Castillo to deliver the big one out productive out. With one out and runners on second and third, Randolph was clearly hoping for at least a fly-out hit deep enough to allow the lead runner to tag up and score. But ironically, Castillo might be the worst player in all of baseball suited to that task, of course not including pitchers. Castillo is a notorious gropund ball hitter, more so than almost every other player in baseball, and is therefore one of the least likeliest to hit a fly ball - let alone a fly ball deep enough to get the run in (It's Castillo we're discussing). This season, for example, Castillo has the fourth highest ground ball to fly ball ratio in the Majors, and the three players ranked above him are significantly better at not making an out in the first place. If we were able to watch Castillo hit under those exact circumstances over and over again, the same way we could flip the same coin over and over again, Castillo would likely waste an out without delivering the desired run more often than is tolerable. I wonder what Willie was thinking when he sac bunted before Castillo's at-bat, what Willie knew that we didn't know if anything, and what Willie did not consider - intentionally or from ignorance? In other words, just how informed was Willie's decision to sac bunt in that inning.

Of course, Castillo was then walked intentionally and Marlon Anderson then followed with a run producing single, bailing the Mets, and possibly Willie, too. So ultimately, things worked out for the best for the Mets. Maybe in spite of Willie Randolph.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Guest

[Centerfield]

I was thinking when watching this that we'll be ok with Willie Randolph so long as the opposing manager is even worse.

[Guest AG/DC]

I'm sticking to my guns. If that strategy is right or wrong has little to do with Castillo coming up. As ill-equpped as Castillo is to provide a deep fly, he's just as ably equipped to drive a grounder through a drawn-in infield, and to avoid the worst of likely outcomes --- a strikeout.

All this changes if Bob Melvin has the guts to do what Chuck Tanner once did against Wally Backman in a silmilar situation: pulling one of his outfielders in and making Backman hit against a five-man infield.

[Frayed Knot]

Hey I was against the bunt before it was even attempted -- but just to play devil's advocate
here for a second (or AG/DC advocate as he mentioned it several times) you're getting Castillo's
slap-hitting ground-ball skills against a drawn-in infield thereby increasing the odds of a single
through a hole somewhere.


** on edit: slow typing




Or maybe Willie was counting on the IWW - although it certainly never crossed my mind.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: I was thinking when watching this that we'll be ok with Willie Randolph so long as the opposing manager is even worse.

Could be. Or maybe Willie anticipated the intentional walk to Castillo. I doubt this to be the case and so refuse to give Randolph that benefit of the doubt. Of course, this is just my hunch, nothing more. Maybe, with the go-ahead run already having been delivered prior to Castillo's at-bat, Willie sac bunted mainly to reduce the douple play risk. I'm stretching here and of course, this then questions Randolph's use of Castillo as the #2 hitter earlier this season with such a hypothetically meager vote of confidence.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: I'm sticking to my guns. If that strategy is right or wrong has little to do with Castillo coming up.

How can you say that? Context is everything. Would it be the same to have Wright sac bunting for Beltran to come up with one out/second and third?

[Guest AG/DC]

Because...

I wrote: As ill-equpped as Castillo is to provide a deep fly, he's just as ably equipped to drive a grounder through a drawn-in infield, and to avoid the worst of likely outcomes --- a strikeout.

[batmagadanleadoff]

And you also wrote

="AG/DC"]if that strategy is right or wrong has little to do with Castillo coming up.

It can't be about Castillo and not about Castillo simultaneously. Pick one and go with it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Pick one and go with it.

Me personally, I like the idea that Willie was setting up Castillo for the grounder that might get through a drawn in infield. Or maybe we would've seen a squeeze play but for the intentional walk. Castillo is a terrific contact hitter, putting aside the quality of his contacts.

But how can you say that the infield was in on Castillo when he was intentionally walked?

[Guest AG/DC]

This seems much simpler than the way you're framing the logic. Castillo's assets offset his defecits, to my thinking, so issues of Castillo cancel each other out. I didn't say it was about Castillo. I'm saying Castillo is a neutral factor.

[Guest AG/DC]

="batmagadanleadoff"]But how can you say that the infield was in on Castillo when he was intentionally walked?

I didn't. Frayed Knot wrote that the infield would be in.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gotcha.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gotcha again.

="AG/DC"]This seems much simpler than the way you're framing the logic. Castillo's assets offset his defecits, to my thinking, so issues of Castillo cancel each other out. I didn't say it was about Castillo. I'm saying Castillo is a neutral factor.

But it seems that it was about Castillo. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Guest AG/DC]

...

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gotcha as in "got it", "I get it", "I understand you". Not as in "I caught you".