Listening to Palillo's show from yesterday, he outright said JV should be longman if Morton struggles. Anyone surprised Charlie would be smart?
Check at the time of this tweets and compare the reply on top to all other replies when that homer happened at that time. If the Astros will lose the game, I am pretty sure most of the replies here will be the same as the other replies in that tweet.
By this logic, we should not have a message board to discuss sports after events have happened. Of course those questions are moot, but why wouldn't we discuss this move? Morton struck out the side in the 4th. I believe Hinch over managed there, just as he did by removing Peacock the day before. I like that Hinch was aggressive, but putting Verlander in with a runner on, just as putting in Liriano in a similar situation is a lot to ask for career starters. Why have this enormous bullpen if you're not going to use it?
Of course the move was discussion worthy, but it worked out in the end without any noticeable negative impact (unless one considers Keuchel then Verlander is negative to Verlander then Keuchel in the ALCS). It also helped them win in 4 games rather than coming down to a one game playoff in which anything can happen. Also, not use the bullpen? The 'regular' bullpen guys (not counting Verlander) have pitched 14 out of a possible 35 innings. Of the 16.2 innings the relievers have pitched only 2.2 have been pitched by non-bullpen guys.
I was thinking of Will Harris. Lifting Peacock after 2 and a third innings threw everything out of wack.
You are correct. The discussion is certainly worthwhile. It is the negativity that is moot since things worked out positively.
The only complaint I've had this series is leaving McCullers in for that 4th inning. He has been solid for 3 innings in each of his last 4 games (including Sunday). It is the 4th where real problems have started.
thank you thank you thank you. Morton was dealing yes but you still felt unsure, as soon as JV was up I knew we were going to win. Yeah he gave up that HR to Nintendo, but I still knew we were going to win.
it wasnt luck tho, it was a move you make to win a series. Legit teams make these moves, weather it fails or not they make these moves.
Whether you win or not doesn't determine whether it was a good move. They won not because of that move but in spite of that move because of plays by other players. You can't assume the events that followed the move given a different move at the time.
Just like any errors or poor plays would have been part of the win. It's like the rain was part of the win because it happened during the win.
But, again we don't know what would have happened had the move not been made. We do know they ultimately won the game. It wasn't a "bad" move at the time. It wasn't a "good" move at the time. The team eventually won in part due to Verlander shutting them down after the home run. Simple question, knowing how everything turned out, would you rather Hinch had made a different move not knowing what the end game result would have been?
Verlander held them scoreless for 2.75 innings. He played a crucial role in keeping the team close and giving the offense a chance to win late. And if you disagree, spend a few minutes reviewing game 3, when a 4-3 deficit turned into a 10-3 deficit.
There are statistically good moves and statistically poor moves. You want to play do you want to win with bad moves or lose with good moves without making the assumption that good moves win games more often than bad moves. So I'd prefer a different move and a victory to this move and a victory because when managers make bad moves and they work it just gives them the irrational confidence to make more bad moves. Just like when a hitter swings at a ball two feet outside and gets a hit. If he swings at that pitch 100 times he might get 5 hits. So do you want him to swing at that pitch? No. Are you glad he got a hit? Of course. We all knew Benintendi gave Verlander the most trouble in his first start. It was a poor move to put Verlander in to face him like that and that poor move was confirmed when Benintendi hit a home run.
How in the hell could anyone answer that. I was asked who I rather have come in and I said I wouldn’t pull Morton yet or I would use musgrove or will Harris. I can’t say what the outcome would have been because i’m not miss Cleo
Right, that was the game Hinch put in Francisco Liriano and every fan watching nearly lost his mind. The same game that Devenski was pitching his 3rd game in 4 days. Great moves. And I'll give you that Hinch has to make moves with a bullpen that isn't very good but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I think we would have all preferred a different move and a victory, but that wasn't the question. Knowing that the Astros won the game and clearly NOT knowing what would have happened had Verlander not come in when he did, would you rather Hinch had done something different?
I agree.. None of us know what would have happened. But, I'll ask you the same simple question I asked CometsWin: Knowing that the Astros won the game and clearly NOT knowing what would have happened had Verlander not come in when he did, would you rather Hinch had done something different?
