What in the world did last night have to do with a "mental block?" He made absolutely the best pitch he could make. It had outstanding movement. It was out of the zone. What in the world could he or should he have done better? If he had missed his location (like he did with Pujols) or in any way didn't make his pitch, you could make the "mental" argument. He didn't. The fact is he's looked extremely comfortable all year, with the exception of the first three weeks when he was experimenting with a cut fastball that ultimately didn't work. That includes time as a closer. Last night he made a great pitch, and an outstanding hitter just hit it. It happens -- that's why it's a game. Nothing's ever 100 percent.
His woes were all of one bad year (2006) where he had poor mechanics, influenced heavily by his participation in the World Baseball Classic. Other than that, he's been outstanding, as he has been for most of this season. Even the best pitchers on rare occasions have their best pitches crushed. That's baseball. It's almost as if you guys think anything but a 100 percent success rate is garbage.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you honestly believe Lidge can be an effective middle reliever but not an effective closer, then clearly you believe he lacks the mentality to remain composed and make his pitches in the ninth inning. You believe he has the talent to get hitters out, but struggles in pressure situations. The struggles usually manifest themselves in the form of hanging sliders, elevated fastballs, and in general making mistake pitches. Now, with that said, let's go back to last night. Where did any of this take place? The pitch to Braun was a slider with outstanding movement. It dipped well below the knees, almost to his feet. So, he went with his best pitch AND got a hitter to go after his best pitch when it was well out of the strike zone. Lidge didn't make a mistake with his plan, and he didn't make a mistake with his pitch. Both were perfectly executed. But even when you're perfect, great hitters can sometimes make great swings, and that's what happened. How any of this relates back to psychology or "mentality" boggles my mind.
when's the last time brad lidge pitched in a meaningful situation before last night. I'm not going to argue mechanics when we can simply argue results.
Each of his seven saves in the past three weeks, to name a few. Furthermore, arguing short-term results in baseball is just stupid. You can't measure yourself in baseball by a few results; it's too random of a game. You can hit balls as hard as possible but they might go directly at a fielder. You can make as good a pitch as possible (Lidge last night) but have it sent out of the ballpark. These things even themselves out in the long-term, but short-term, you have to evaluate players with things fully in their control. Luke Scott is another example. People talk about his resurgence since the All-Star break... it should've been very easy to see coming. He was hitting the ball hard for the entire first half; he just had some rotten luck in a small sample size, and that was easily reflected in his low BABIP. But over time, it's evening out, and he's becoming the very good hitter most expected him to be entering this season. Arguing based on strictly results in a small time-frame is silly.
well "meaningful situation" is subjective, but what I'm refering to is the fact that they were playing the brewers while there is a slim hope of getting into the playoff race. what I'm refering to is hanging on to a one run lead in this situation.
But it wasn't meaningful when they were playing the Cubs with slim hope of getting into the playoff race? This is essentially the Mack Brown haters syndrome: it's only a big game if you lose. Furthermore, if you're specifically referring to last night, explain what he could've or should've done different.
saving the game edit: and let's not act like he only gave up 1 run, its more than one pitch. so there is a whole laundry list of things he could have done not to be in that situation, its a silly argument.
actually its more like the chris simms syndrome, some people just can't see he doesn't have the mentality
You're right, it's more than one pitch. The two runners on base reached with routine ground balls to third, reaching because of a stupid decision to have Wigginton on the line as well as Wigginton's complete lack of any range. What a horrible pitcher he is... how dare Lidge induce two routine grounders. He should be cut for that. Also, if I had come out of the press box and thrown a 45 mile per hour heater to Braun and had him line the hardest hit in the history of baseball directly at a fielder... would you rather have me out there than Lidge? Or could it simply be ridiculous luck?
well if I provide an answer to your question, and you're just gonna go with the sarcastic, "he should be cut" then we'll just have to agree to disagree. but lidge isn't a closer on a contending team imo. I just wouldn't trust him. he's on a long list of astros who've had one good run on this team and management will miss their chance to get something valuable out of them.
I'm as much of a Chris Simms fan as anyone, and the two situations aren't even remotely comparable. With Simms, his admiration by some fans was in large part related to his talent. His results were fairly good, but hardly among the elite in the game. With Lidge, you're talking about a guy whose results were among the elite of his sport for multiple years, and even in his "down" year of 2006, he still had 32 saves. Not comparable, sorry.
Sarcasm aside, what's wrong with a routine grounder to third? Lidge did his job last night. But as a pitcher, sometimes even your best and doing your job isn't enough. That's why it's a game.
Much like Lidge, though, his good big games (at Kansas State (finished top 6), LSU (national champions the next year), at Nebraska... etc. weren't considered "big games" because Texas won them. It was only a big game if Texas lost. It's the same scenario here. All the games on this homestand were huge. Lidge pitched two brilliant innings against the Cubs in high-pressure situations, but the Astros won, so they're considered not a big deal. He has one inning where the luck doesn't go his way, and that was a "big game" because they lost. How about this: for future reference and debate, give me criteria I can use to determine whether a game counts as "big." Something we can always refer back to, not something you can make up as you go.
here's one criteria, when people actually start talking about getting back into the playoff race. media, or even just these threads.
They were talking about it before the Cubs series just as much... did you not hear people talking about the possibilities if the Astros took care of business on this homestand? What made those two games "not big" but last night's "big"?
or Oklahoma, or colorado, whom you'd just crushed earlier in the season in the big xii championship to get to play in the national title game and not to have a game so bad you had to be pulled, and have mack talk for you during the press conference.
talk about revisionist history, its just this week, the brewers lost 4 games in a row while the astros were beating the cubs, no one was talking playoffs till this series started.
