Mike Scioscia is an utter moron

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

LOL, WTF? No I don't. I want you to go back to being the cool guy I knew, rather than the holier than thou cantankerous dick you've become on this board.

so if i vote for Obama and say Sarah Palin is a fool and Mike Scioscia is an idiot and Isreal sucks I am back to being cool? My entire contention was that Aybar was the goat for missing the pitch, not Scioscia for making the call. you may or not agree about the call but you have to agree that Aybar is to blame for not even making contact. He is a freaking major leager starter who is an excellent bunter and he whiffs? The call may or not have been the right one, we can never really know, but the lack of execution was the screw up. If believing this makes me a dick then so be it.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I'd like to know how Mike managed this mediocre team to 100 wins. I guess it's a pretty weak division, but still that's pretty good for this bunch. Santana has the heart of a ladybug. I don't know how he somehow managed that one into winning 16 games. See, I would know how he did it if it was watchable, but I just can't seem to make it through a full Halo game during the regular season.

[alysheba4]

botton line is i am f$%king tired of the played out red sox.......the california angels are complete choke artists, v.g needs to go, see ya k " choke " rod......looks like a ratings disaster between the rays and philly.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I'd like to know how Mike managed this mediocre team to 100 wins. I guess it's a pretty weak division, but still that's pretty good for this bunch. Santana has the heart of a ladybug. I don't know how he somehow managed that one into winning 16 games. See, I would know how he did it if it was watchable, but I just can't seem to make it through a full Halo game during the regular season.

.......just think if they were in the hapless n.l. he might have won 135

[declansharbor]

Bottom line. This 3 page thread wouldnt even exist if Aybar makes contact with the ball. (foul ball bunt even, as it would have changed the complexion of the count.)

Would there be a thread devoted to the Halo's manager if the call worked? (which it should have) I, for one, agree with the call. It just didnt turn out the intended way.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by alysheba4

botton line is i am f$%king tired of the played out red sox.......the california angels are complete choke artists, v.g needs to go, see ya k " choke " rod......looks like a ratings disaster between the rays and philly.

And what if Manny and the Dodgers end up playing the Red Sox? Would that be ratings nirvana?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

Bottom line. This 3 page thread wouldnt even exist if Aybar makes contact with the ball. (foul ball bunt even, as it would have changed the complexion of the count.)

Would there be a thread devoted to the Halo's manager if the call worked? (which it should have) I, for one, agree with the call. It just didnt turn out the intended way.

It was probably the worst situation of the entire series in which to try it. I don't give a **** if it worked or not. If it had worked, I would've shrugged and said, 'hey, that was a pretty stupid decision to make, but at least it worked.' You 'agree' with the call? Why? And don't give me that nonsense about Aybar having nine sacrifices. There are plenty of great bunters in baseball, but most managers would have the sense to not be that needlessly risky when everything is on their side.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

And what if Manny and the Dodgers end up playing the Red Sox? Would that be ratings nirvana?

.....THAT IT WOULD.

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It was probably the worst situation of the entire series in which to try it. I don't give a **** if it worked or not. If it had worked, I would've shrugged and said, 'hey, that was a pretty stupid decision to make, but at least it worked.' You 'agree' with the call? Why? And don't give me that nonsense about Aybar having nine sacrifices. There are plenty of great bunters in baseball, but most managers would have the sense to not be that needlessly risky when everything is on their side.

I shouldn't have said that I necessarily 'agree' with the call, but I sure as $hit can't knock it either. Yes, the risk factor was through the roof, but when the potential winning run got to third, he assumably talked to his staff, checked out the defensive depth, thought of what Francona would be thinking etc and thought maybe they could snag the run. It's all too easy in hindsight.

All I was pointing out, was how close this thread came to non-existence. If Aybar even touches that ball with his bat, it changes the whole thing. Either a series "momentum" swingin' run, or a foul ball that changes the count along with the defensive positioning. It could have went either way and they caught the short end.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

All I was pointing out, was how close this thread came to non-existence. If Aybar even touches that ball with his bat, it changes the whole thing. Either a series "momentum" swingin' run, or a foul ball that changes the count along with the defensive positioning. It could have went either way and they caught the short end.

There was no momentum to swing. The Angels had it all. The crowd was dead as a doornail and the Red Sox players were noticeably tight. After that play, the crowd got back into the game and the Red Sox were playing with house money.

[dalakhani]

Pitchers pitch differently with a lead and hitters hit differently when they are playing from behind. Crowds, for better or worse, can affect performance.

These ideas are not easily quantifiable as they effect each player differently for better or worse from situation to situation.

The suicide squeeze was not a smart move in my opinion in that situation. Your team has battled back into contention and is a routine fly ball away from going up. Any move outside of the norm in that situation not only risks catastrophic error but also sends a message of desperation.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

There was no momentum to swing. The Angels had it all. The crowd was dead as a doornail and the Red Sox players were noticeably tight. After that play, the crowd got back into the game and the Red Sox were playing with house money.

As they are with Tampa.....even there own media has been picking against them with the realities of 1) Papi's wrist requiring him to literally start a swing before he sees the ball...(not exactly a recipe for success at the plate) and 2) Lowell is done for the year. They can call it "ineligible for the division series of they want but Mike Lowell likely needs a repair. (don't underestimate the potential for Lowell to develop avascular necrosis of the hip with this which would end his career ala Bo Jackson should he go on to develop this.

The Rays are the favorite buy because of the nutty 2-3-2 format the Sox have a chance if they can steal on in Florida. Rays in 6 to face the Dodgers and I hope I am wrong...

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Pitchers pitch differently with a lead and hitters hit differently when they are playing from behind. Crowds, for better or worse, can affect performance.

These ideas are not easily quantifiable as they effect each player differently for better or worse from situation to situation.

The suicide squeeze was not a smart move in my opinion in that situation. Your team has battled back into contention and is a routine fly ball away from going up. Any move outside of the norm in that situation not only risks catastrophic error but also sends a message of desperation.

Gracias.

[King Glorious]

Maybe I'm old or something but I seem to remember a time when managers didn't have to bring in a different pitcher for every batter. A guy that was left handed threw to batters on both sides. So did a guy that was right handed. Nowdays, they have totally messed the game up. If a guy gives you five innings, he's done his job. If he throws 100 pitches, he's got to come out. They use 3-4 relief pitchers to get through the next three innings then bring in a guy that can't pitch more than one inning per game and even with that, can't do it for more than five games in a row. God forbid bringing in a closer to pitch two innings. I wish there were guys like Gibson or Ryan playing today. I'd love to see them kick a manager's ass right on the mound for coming to pull them in some of the situations we see guys pulled for today.

[King Glorious]

Funny how things work. He makes the bunt and the run scores and the manager is called a genius for having the guts to call that play when conventional wisdom would have said not too. They would have been talking about how he's aggressive and takes chances. Players would have been talking about why they love playing for him. But the guy misses and it's a stupid play. I believe it was the execution of the play (or lack thereof) that was bad, not the call itself.

It reminds me of a situation some years ago in basketball. The Pistons were down by a point and had the ball for the final possession. Isiah Thomas told the team that he was taking the shot. Period. He said after this shot, he'd either be the goat or the hero but he was the one that was taking the shot. It was the right decision. I don't think that looking at results after a play can be used to determine if the play was the right one to make or not. You hire a guy like Scioscia and live with what he brings you. You trust him to go with his gut instint. Another situation that comes to mind is the 2005 NCAA basketball final. UNC was leading Illinois in a tight game and Ray Felton picked up his second foul pretty early in the first half. Now, 95% of the coaches out there would have taken him out. Roy Williams probably would have taken him out any other time. But he went against conventional thinking and left him in there and UNC went on a spurt that kept them in control and things worked out. Now, if Felton had picked up his third, Williams looks like an idiot. But instead, he looked like a genius. You just have to go with your instincts.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Pitchers pitch differently with a lead and hitters hit differently when they are playing from behind. Crowds, for better or worse, can affect performance.
These ideas are not easily quantifiable as they effect each player differently for better or worse from situation to situation.

The suicide squeeze was not a smart move in my opinion in that situation. Your team has battled back into contention and is a routine fly ball away from going up. Any move outside of the norm in that situation not only risks catastrophic error but also sends a message of desperation.

Yeah sure they do...thats why Aybar whiffed on the ball, because they were tied. If they were leading he would have been so relaxed and Shields wouldnt have been in the game. Once again the call should not be the main issue, the lack of execution should be. That is tangible, your intangibles arguement is impossible to quantify. Saying that Shields pitched differently because they didnt score is silly.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah sure they do...thats why Aybar whiffed on the ball, because they were tied. If they were leading he would have been so relaxed and Shields wouldnt have been in the game. Once again the call should not be the main issue, the lack of execution should be. That is tangible, your intangibles arguement is impossible to quantify. Saying that Shields pitched differently because they didnt score is silly.

I took you for a guy that actually PLAYED sports. If not, I at least would expect you to appreciate the fact that there is a psychology. If you don't think that execution is effected by different situations in the game, I dont know what to tell you. What you are saying defies years of research on the subject.

I do agree, as i stated in my earlier post, that it is impossible to quantify the amount of effect.

A link to a small study on the subject:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...12a243696bb035


even better:

http://www.dartsperfection.com/free%...ext%5B1%5D.pdf

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Saying that Shields pitched differently because they didnt score is silly.

Seriously, have you ever played baseball?

[Mortimer]

I have .....don't ya know.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I took you for a guy that actually PLAYED sports. If not, I at least would expect you to appreciate the fact that there is a psychology. If you don't think that execution is effected by different situations in the game, I dont know what to tell you. What you are saying defies years of research on the subject.

I do agree, as i stated in my earlier post, that it is impossible to quantify the amount of effect.

A link to a small study on the subject:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...12a243696bb035


even better:

http://www.dartsperfection.com/free%...ext%5B1%5D.pdf

Ok baseball genuises, why exactly would Shields have been pitching if they had the lead? All this crap that you spew is theory. The facts remain the failure of execution of a fundemental task were the reason the play didnt work. Why is it so hard for you two baseball gurus to understand? All the possibilities that you assume are just that, assumptions. The FACT is that the play wasnt properly executed which is what led to them not scoring, NOT LOSING!!! In baseball you cant even assume the double play, let alone the next inning. Exactly how many non playoff games do you watch? Did you watch the previous game? Did the Angels pitchers throw differently when the blew a three run lead by misplaying a flyball?