if you already hated hinch then that obviously says everything we need to know as far as discussing anything with being biased or close to objective. this team obviously thinks otherwise. that has a little more credibility than you. you're just mad cause you got called out on your bs and the only thing you can come back with is someones board name lol. which has absoutely nothing to do with what actually gets posted. good one
Then you can't critcize him for being unlucky either. It works both ways. Good pitchers give up runs sometimes. It just happens. It's baseball. Hinch at the time made the decision he did with all of the information available to him in a rational way. That's all you can ask for in baseball. We are not talking about this if the ball is a half an inch higher or lower located. We can't obsess over the marginal, we'll go crazy in baseball.
Not mad one bit and I’m a huge Verlander fan but that was a **** move. Plenty of people agreed with me. Hinch was getting torched on espn earlier about it as well, but yeah you’re right
@YOLO you know you were pissed off when he made the move, but since we won you’re ready to suck on hinch’s Teet lmao
actually wasn't. when we were watching, we brought it up ourselves that it wouldnt be surprising if verlander came in after boston decided to go with sales.
so what. they decided they didn't want to put themselves in that position for a must win. just bc you're not desperate doesn't mean you still dont do whatever you can to end the series and take care of business
You have no idea what any other pitcher(s) would have done in that situation or over the course of the rest of the game. What we factually know is that while he did give up a home run and the lead, he also gave up nothing else over the next 8 outs. We factually know they won the game. How "nails" was Musgrove when he gave up the 3 run HR Sunday? So, at the time it was certainly a controversial/questionable decision. In the end the decision, whether or not anyone agrees with it, ultimately helped win the clinching game in the ALDS. I fail to see, in retrospect, why anyone thinks this was a bad decision, The only negative (if you can call it that), is that Verlander will pitch game 2 instead of game 1 and, if it's against the Yankees, the Astros may prefer Keuchel starting game one anyway.
And, and........ Verlander gave up only one hit. I KNOW it was a frickin' big hit....... but plan A was to obviously protect a 2-1 lead. But plan B, assuming plan A failed, was to avoid letting the game spiral out of control as it had done Sunday. Keep it close and give this offense a chance to win it. They've done it soooooooooo many times this year. And that's exactly what Verlander did. 9 up & 9 down after the HR, including keeping 1-3 off base in the 7th. In terms of WHEN he did it.... Pedoria and Bogaerts had collectively been abysmal all series. Beninetendi slightly better; their 4-6 hitters, though: nails. I don't think he wanted those guys to get a third crack at Morton.
Right...that was such an easy catch. Anyway, you have never told us what the result of the game would have been had any other pitcher come in (or Morton left in). Please tell us. Would the Astros have won? Would they have lost? Please present factual evidence (not speculation) to prove your point as to what the final result would have been. Here's a hint. Don't waste your time. No one, absolutely no one knows what would have happened. They may have won 18-1. They may have lost 6-3.
Sorry. I don't see where you provided factual evidence as to what the final result (win or loss) of the game would have been if Verlander had not pitched. I see where you said he gave up the lead, but I don't see where you stated what the final outcome of the game would be.
