Why are you taking out Sipp if you want him to definitely face 2 out of the 3 batters in the inning? Its not a "different" discussion... its the reason the entire move was made.
Out of the two players, I'd rather have the one who plays the OF on a regular basis in a one run game. It wasn't a "routine" catch... but still one that should have been made.
So you're basically presuming that Sipp going to the OF, and then coming back to pitch "helped" him? Or that bringing in Williams, which led to the walk, "helped" the Astros? Sorry, this is why I disagree that the move is a good one simply because the results ended up ok, and the team ended up winning. Good results happened despite the moves, not because of it.
Personally, I think replacing Sipp with Williams in ANY situation where you're trying to get an out is a bad move, but that's probably too simplistic for this argument. It all worked out in the end, but I do think Porter over-managed unnecessarily.
The "different" discussion I was referring to was making Williams the RHP brought out of the bullpen. But that's a personnel issue, not a "put a pitcher in LF" issue. Goldschmidt has an OPS 80 points higher vs. lefties than righties. You've got a lefty pitcher who played outfield in the ACC. It's not like we put Joba out there. I guess it just makes sense to me. Also, knowing your posting history and tendency to play devil's advocate, there's no doubt in my mind that if Goldschmidt had jacked one off of Sipp you'd be criticizing Porter for not bringing a RHP in.
My problem with the move is that it significantly made the defense worse in a one run game, both with Sipp in the outfield and later with Gonzales in the outfield. As noted, since they won the game and we don't know what would have happened had Porter made different moves, the moves were successful and contributed to a win. There have been a few occasions where Porter has worsened the defense in one run games. At least a couple of times he has had Gonzalez run for Dominguez. It would be different if Gonzales was actually a fast runner, but there is no way that the difference in speed makes up for the difference in defense.
I guess you have to weigh your options. What is more likely to result in a run: A Sipp/Marwin miscue or one of Goldschmidt/Montero capitalizing on a pitching matchup? Hell, we SAW a Marwin miscue that didn't come back to bite us. One bad b**** from Sipp to Goldschmidt (again, who hits lefties very well) and the game is tied.
Well, the problem with this reasoning is that everybody hits Williams well. This move only makes any sense if Sipp struggles against righties and dominates lefties, and this certainly isn't the case. Even against Goldschmidt, Sipp was the better option, and that's not to mention the defense was compromised for the rest of a very close game. Sipp intentionally walking Goldschmidt would haven given us abetter chance to win. Porter just got lucky this bad move didn't cost us, and he sure a hell doesn't deserve credit for it.
Which goes back to my original point... If you know you want Sipp in to face two of the three hitters, and the one you don't want him for happens to be their best hitter, you go ahead and instruct him to pitch around him. Had Sipp, or anybody, given up a game winning hit to Goldschmidt, I would have been upset at the decision to pitch to him when you didn't have to. I've always believed that you never let another teams best player beat you.
And, from looking at the 5 pitches Williams threw, it looked like he was doing what you suggested Sipp do - pitch around him. Even the 3-0 strike looked like a misfire compared to where the catcher set up.
