Or if Burke was playing 2B so there is a guy who can make a decent turn..... So many sides to the same story. DD
Alright, I might have gone a little too far with the luck thing, but it really is irrelevant. Like you said, Qualls is known for being inconsistent. Why, as a manager, would you leave him in when he has already given up three runs and does not have his best stuff? Does him giving up those runs not hint that taking him out might be a good idea? I think it does. I don't claim to know everything about baseball and I'm pretty sure you know a lot more than me, however it seems to me that taking Qualls out in that situation is the most logical thing to do.
I would take almost anybody out of the pen, sans maybe Moehler, if Qualls had already given up three runs.
You must have missed his meltdowns last week... he's got a 6+ ERA, while Borkowski has been serviceable since the Oakland series. Its still a tie game... Garner will need multiple innings from whomever he puts in there at this point (since you don't have to pinch hit for pitchers in the AL game). Wheeler should be preparing to pitch the 10th. Lidge will be used if the game is still going on after Wheeler's stint, or we need the save.
Obviously, leaving him in after giving up 3 runs was the right thing to do since he got the next guy out.
He gave up five runs in one inning. I'm sure a large percentage of the relievers in the majors could have done better than that.
First of all, 2 of those runs belonged to Samson. If you just look at Qualls' inning, as if he entered with nobody on base, he walks one man, gets a groundball to SS (that Loretta was nowhere near... Everett possibly makes a play), gets a DP ball, and gets a fly out. There's 3 outs... no runs scored. But, the inning went differently... runners were already there, bad hops, groundballs with eyes, and bloops. Qualls didn't have his best stuff... but didn't have awful stuff (where they hit the ball all over the place, with authority). As somebody else said... the only way you would have been happy is if Qualls had struck everybody out... and that's an unreasonable expectation for any bullpen pitcher. They put the ball in play, we didn't make the plays that we're accustomed to making, they benefited off some fortunate breaks (just like the Astros benefitted on the Loretta non-tag at home, on the botched rundown).
You'll take Borkowski over Qualls on any given night? Sweet. Could you please become a GM of the Brewers, and make some trades to the Astros with more of that logic? Thanks.
Actually I would have been satisfied had he simply not given up the lead. He walked the bases loaded, gave up three hits, threw a wild pitch, and was scored on five times in one inning. If none of that leads you to believe that he should have been taken out I don't know what will.
No, I'll take Borkowski after Qualls has been scored on three times, because as you mentioned earlier he's inconsistent. Thus, once I realized he was having an off night I would have taken him out. Which is what I said Gar should have done after the Angels scored to make it 9-7.
But when do you want to take him out? After the walk? (to a pretty dangerous hitter, with men already on base) After the slow bleeder past Loretta? After the botched DP ball? After the sac fly? Because after the 3 "hits"... he got the next guy out... so what would have taking him out at that point accomplished?
That would be after the botched DP ball... that should have been made. The Angels have 17 hits tonight... they had 14 before Qualls ever came in... this wasn't some isolated "freak" incident, where it was all the pitchers fault.
FRACK !!! They get high choppers, slow rollers....and Morgan SMOKES the ball....and they catch it. UGH ! Let's get a WP or a walk......... DD
There's this game in a nutshell... Lee and Ensberg hit the ball RIGHT ON THE SCREWS that Figgens is able to spear. They hit soft grounders that bounce all over the place past our fielders.
Don't you know that's because their pitcher is lucky, ours is unlucky, and our manager should have realized that.
