I'm not at a TV now, and won't be for another hour, so can someone who's watching the game answer a quick question for me? With a 4-2 lead in the bottom of the 5th with 2 outs, why in the hell did we pitch to Barry Bonds and let him tie the game? I know that it would've moved the runner to second, but this is Barry Bonds... come on.
C'mon. Did y'all complain the 3 times they didn't walk him in Tuesday's close game, where every at bat was crucial? A great HR hitter hit a HR against the Astros. It happens.
Actually, it really is foolish to pitch to Bonds. Baseball Prospectus had one article that mentioned a fun truth: If a runner is on, it's statistically advantageous to walk Barry Bonds this year any time. The rest of the Giants team is quite weak. Aurilia, Bonds, and Kent are dangerous... but there's not much else. There's always the chance Kent will make you regret it... but it's worth the risk.
Just a guess here, but, I don't think that pitch was where Miller wanted it. Right down the middle? Asmus was set up low and away. They were not supposed to give him anything to hit. Bad pitch by Miller. It happens.
No, we have to do what puts the Astros in the best position to win. When dealing with someone like Bonds, pitching to him is a bad decision. It's not just the Astros though. Most MLB teams have given Bonds way too many pitches to hit.
given bonds too many pitches to hit? He's going to set the Major League record for walks, what are you talking about.... this was only the 5th inning..if there was no one on and two outs, yeah i agree that you should pitch around him...but in that situation, you shouldn't intentionally walk the tying run on...what if he gets on and kent homers? or if it ballons to a huge inning? quit being a chickensh!t, have some balls and challenge him...
Quit being an idiot. You have the best chance to beat him if you walk him. Sorry, that holds true more often than not. It's been demonstrated statistically that if more than one man is on base, it's best to walk bonds. Kent's good. But bonds is FABULOUS. An intentional walk neutralizes him to one base, and no possiblity for an RBI. The rest of the lineup after Kent is weak. So if you get Bonds, one batter and you're almost free and clear. Winning baseball isn't the type with the most testerone. It's playing the odds. Baseball is quantified more than any other sport. You can add a player's contributions up, and pretty much define his value statistically. "Intangibles" are bull****. They simply don't exist from season to season. Teams with horrible "chemistry," often kick butt. So figure out what gives you the best chance to win in a situation, and do it. Then laugh at the people who say it was a "cowardly" thing when you win. Was Ben Davis a "chicken ****" for bunting during a no-hitter? Hell no. In an era of 6 run 9th inning comebacks, is it wrong to steal when you're up by 5? Hell no. Use your head.
Pitching to Bonds, you have around a 50% chance of getting him not getting on base (his OBP is .500). You have a 68% chance of getting him out (his avg. is .318). I say pitch to him.
Intangibles are bull****? LOL That's going to live right up there with other incredibly stupid Haven quotes such as Patriotism being single-minded brainwashing.
rm95: That only considers OBP. His slugging is in the .800's. Now, with nobody on base, that means it's best to pitch to him. But if someone is on base, the % chance for a run scoring increases too high to make it worth it. Timing: Once again, irrational assertions. Do you even bother to think logically? I love people who argue without syllogisms. They should all be gagged and bound to prevent communication.
BTW, did anyone notice Barry Bones posing on routine fly ball outs in games 1/2. I thought that was pretty hysterical and just another example of why Bones is so despised around the league.
<B>That only considers OBP. His slugging is in the .800's. Now, with nobody on base, that means it's best to pitch to him. But if someone is on base, the % chance for a run scoring increases too high to make it worth it. </B> I disagree. It may be true in certain circumstances, but not in others. For example, tie game, 2 on, 1-out, you pitch to Bonds. Otherwise, you bring the winning run to 3rd base with 1-out and Kent doesn't even need a hit to win it. It's not clear cut that you don't pitch to Bonds with people on base. In this case, the chances of of Jeff Kent hitting a single/double/triple/HR are higher than Bonds hitting a double/triple/HR. Those are the two ways a run scores in this situation (ignoring future outs). Other factors to consider: * Walking Bonds increases your chances for a big inning, as well as bringing the winning run on base. * The team as a whole had excellent success on Bonds over the previous 2 1/2 games. He was swinging at some bad pitches and possibly pressing. * This team may have to pitch to Bonds in a playoff situation. You want them to know first-hand what works, what doesn't, etc. Walking him all the time doesn't help in that respect. I don't think this situation is nearly that cut-and-dry. Bottom line, he burned us this time, but we got him several times throughout the series -- he did have 4 Left-On-Bases. If we walked him each of those 5 times, chances are Kent would have made us pay at least once. As it was, we paid once anyway.
