Per the usual, The Cat references a player that has little to no similarities to the player that he is comparing. If they aren't doing everything they can to win the game when they have the obligation to do so for their league (something one of the coaches said pregame... believe it was Francona) then what is the point of even playing the game and especially why put stakes on it? Sure, the game isn't going in the W/L column for any of the players, but to at least one player on each team the outcome will mean something to their teams. This was a big time game, whether you want to label it an exhibition or not. Brad Lidge blew it. The two batters that singled didn't bother me. Walking the bases loaded did. Brad Lidge finds a way to get rattled and eventually lose in big high pressure games.
Since it's per the usual, can you show me a few other examples of me doing this? Thanks in advance. If you want something more directly comparable, how about Eric Gagne blowing a save in the All-Star game in the midst of his 84-game streak? Hmm. A typical game is guaranteed to mean something to their team. The All-Star Game has a 1 in 7 chance, at best. Which do you think is bigger? If the All-Star Game is a big game, then every game in the regular season is. And in the regular season, he's 20-for-20 with a 1.12 ERA. Let's look at this from an objective standpoint. As someone already talked about, there are at least seven teams in the NL with legitimate World Series aspirations. So, you start, best-case scenario, for it to have a 1/7 chance of having an impact on your team. But, to truly have an impact, the series needs to go to Game 7. Odds of that? Pretty small. Multiply that by the 1 in 7 chance, and that's roughly the odds that tonight's loss has of meaning something to the Phillies. Meanwhile, baseball is a sport where pennant races routinely go down to the final days. The NL East is an incredibly competitive division. In fact, the Phillies won the NL East by -- get this! -- one regular season game last season. So, you tell me which is "bigger" to the success of the Phillies -- a regular season game, or the ASG? To anyone who understands the game, it's a no-brainer. I've got a challenge for you guys. I've already asked this question to numerous baseball players, and the response has been unanimous. Try and find me one single player who says the All-Star Game is equal to or greater than in significance to a standard regular season game. You can't, because it's not. If the All-Star Game is a "big, high pressure game," then every game of the entire season is. And in those -- 20-for-20, 1.12 ERA. Spin it all you want -- he's as good as they come.
I hate even responding to this like this exhibition means anything, but... Or maybe, just maybe, one of the league's most disciplined hitters worked a long at-bat with one of the game's better pitchers and laid off a 3-2 pitch that dipped out of the zone. It was a very competitive AB. There's no conspiracies. There's no mental flashbacks. Tough at-bat, and Drew laid off a tough pitch. That's baseball. Then, when he should have been rattled (by your theory), he beared down on Young, made his pitches and induced a weak fly -- shallow enough that Hart gunned down Morneau at the plate. It's not Lidge's fault that MLB needed the game to end and blew the call at the plate. In addition, Lidge tossed around 100 pitches in the bullpen before even entering the game. But no, it couldn't have anything to do with that being an absurd workload for a closer. It couldn't have anything to do with J.D. Drew, a very disciplined hitter, working a walk. It couldn't have anything to do with the game being an exhibition. No, that's far too logical. Conspiracy! Headcase! Well, except when the games actually matter, that is -- then, he's 20-for-20 with a 1.12 ERA.
To recap, we're dealing with a closer who has been perfect at his job for the entire season with a microscopic 1.12 ERA, labeled as a choker by a few because he gave up a run in an exhibition game. And the person defending the player with the perfect track record in actual games has the bias issue?
Clint Hurdle waited far too long to put Lidge in there. I heard on ESPN he threw over 100 pitches during warmup? Oh well, it was for the best. At least the Astro players had a nice showing: Berkman with the sac RBI, Tejada with the slick base-running and fielding.
The Cat, you're arguing just to argue. Eric Gagne has nothing to do with Brad Lidge's situation... Eric Gagne at that point in his career didn't have the history of blowing up in big situations that Lidge obtained here in Houston. I haven't paid much attention to Gagne lately, though I know he's had troubles recently. I don't care it's an "exhibition" game. Pretty much anyone that follows baseball watches the All Star Game. This has been one of the most hyped All Star Games ever due to it being the final year of Yankee Stadium. The game went 15 innings, which I believe they said during the telecast tied the longest All Star Game ever. Brad Lidge's team is leading their division, albeit by a game. This has the potential to mean something to his team. It's not like he came in and blew a lead to get the loss. But it wasn't really a surprise to many people here that Brad Lidge came in and the game ended. The Home Run Derby is an exhibition event. When MLB put the stakes they did on the All Star Game, it became less of one despite what the players say or how they claim they approach it.
I really don't think the American League is any better than the National League right now. What the National League is suffering from is the stupid rule that every team has to have an All Star. Given that we have 2 more teams, and a lot of smaller market teams, the chances that we will have scrubs up to bat in the later innings is more prevalent, i.e. last night when we have like 4 guys who can take it deep or make something happen in the late innings. Whereas, the AL has their homerun leader and BA leader just getting tons of AB's in crucial moments. It's just a horrible way to decide who gets homefield in the World Series.
The Cat, All I'm saying is that all the pitchers prior to Lidge were lghts out, even Webb who had pitched 108 pitches just a few nights before had a good outting. If you are trying to say Lidge did not give that inning he pitched 100% of his stuff you'd be lying to yourself. And you need to understand that when people talk about him "choking" or not coming through in "big games", they aren't refering to his SO FAR great season, but a few of his games in previous seasons with the Astros. I would think that would go without saying though.
How hilarious that you would dismiss all of the statistics for the last 2 years that show that Lidge was mental as too small a sample size but you're here pushing a half season's worth of statistics to defend your boy. You're a fruitcake dude. Lidge has never lost a game that you couldn't give five different excuses for why it happened. Brad Lidge is the new Chris Simms.
LOL. You're a riot. See, the inherent problem in your argument is that you argue under the inherent assumption that if Lidge fails, it must be mental. It can't be due to other factors -- the hitter making a play, injury, mechanics -- you name it. I haven't at all dismissed Lidge's statistics from the past two years. They're valid, and they show he wasn't an effective closer in those years. However, that's not what you're trying to argue. You're trying to take it a step further and claim his problems are mental, and statistics alone can't tell you that. You have to combine that with observation. I also love the Lidge-Simms analogy. Last I checked, Lidge was arguably the NL's premier closer in 2004 and 2005, and has been so far this year as well. That's 3 of the past 5 years that he hasn't just been good, but the best in the game. When in the world was Simms anywhere close to that level?
Umm, might want to look a little closer. Morneau's foot barely beats McCann's glove to the plate, but the problem is that he comes in toes-first, and that edge of his foot is clearly in the air. It's not even debatable. A split-second later, the heel of his foot touches home plate, but by that point he's been tagged. Upon further review, as I said, Morneau's foot did beat McCann to the plate. The problem is that it didn't touch.
Stats don't show that he was mental. Stats showed he wasn't performing well. There are lots of reasons why one doesn't perform well. You can only infer as to what those causes are. But the stats themselves don't show you what the cause is.
Yeah, and they watch the same way we do with the Pro Bowl and NBA All-Star Game -- for entertainment purposes. Until Brad Lidge gave up a run, I had never met a single person in my entire life who took the All-Star Game seriously -- and that includes numerous baseball players and people in the game. I follow baseball as much as anyone, and I could care less about the ASG -- I only watched the final innings because I came in at 11:30 and it happened to still be on. But, I'll make my point one more time. See, you're doing it again -- the potential to impact his team. Guess what? Every game in the regular season is guaranteed to impact his team! I'm really struggling to see how the All-Star Game is even remotely equal in stature to a real game, much less more important or bigger, which you imply by calling it a "big game." If the All-Star Game is a big game, then every other game is just as big or bigger -- and in those, he's 20-for-20 with a 1.12 ERA. It's not really a surprise to fans with a sound baseball IQ for Lidge to come in and have the game end either -- he's been perfect at it all season, in games that actually matter. You know, the "big" ones.
Did any of the pitchers prior to Lidge throw 100 pitches in the bullpen? Sorry, if you're trying to compare throwing pitches 2.5 or 3 days before to excess work just minutes before going into the game, that's a faulty comparison. I'd be fine with the "big game" thing if we're talking about prior seasons -- but it was pretty clear that several posters here were labeling the All-Star Game as a big game, which is just absurd.
By the way, I love the irony here. You're the one who at random took a personal shot unrelated to the subject and never provided examples when called on it, yet I'm the one arguing to argue. That's a good one.
