Sports Radio thread

[Just the facts ma am]

In defense of Mike and Mike (10/16):

They tore the Dodgers a new one re. not covering third base.

They concurred that Donnie would and should be fired.

They speculated that Ethier should have dropped the foul ball that allowed a runner to to tag and score.

 

[playthrough]

You can make some good points and still have an overall unlistenable show.

 

[DSzymborski]

I missed like an inning of that game arguing that Ethier should have dropped the foul ball with people on Twitter who disagreed.

 

[ChrisLong]

I've seen a lot comments about whether Ethier should have purposely dropped it.
Absolutely not, at that point in the game.
It was the fourth inning, way too early to give away outs (look at how many outs the Blue Jays got against the Rangers in the seventh inning). The Dodgers had threatened every inning and were a hit away on several occasions from some scoring innings.
I messaged a old coaching friend, who works in the Rockies organization. I said I didn't think Ethier should have dropped it on purpose. He said, "Same because I didn't know that Familia & Syndergaard would be unhitable for 3 innings."
Incidentally, I covered a JC playoff game many years ago that ended in the bottom of the 10th. One out, runner on third, foul fly down the left field line. The left fielder tore over and made a diving catch while he skidded into the bullpen. Runner on third tagged up and trotted in. It was a great, game-losing play. That would be the only situation where you intentionally don't catch one.

 

[DSzymborski]

I disagree very strongly as the count is a very big deal. There's about a 75% chance that on an 0-2 count, d'Arnaud makes an out that doesn't successfully advance anyone - it's not trading a run for an out, it's trading a run for a *quarter* of an out simply because batters are absolutely terrible after 0-2 counts. Even the best two-strike guy I can ever remember seeing, Tony Gwynn, had a career .575 OPS after an 0-2 count. On a 2-0 or 3-0 count, the risk/reward changes significantly. You can't trade getting the pitcher out (that's about how one would expect d'Arnaud to hit against Greinke on an 0-2 count) for a run in a close game in any inning.

 

[Batman]

I disagree very strongly as the count is a very big deal. There's about a 75% chance that on an 0-2 count, d'Arnaud makes an out that doesn't successfully advance anyone - it's not trading a run for an out, it's trading a run for a *quarter* of an out simply because batters are absolutely terrible after 0-2 counts. Even the best two-strike guy I can ever remember seeing, Tony Gwynn, had a career .575 OPS after an 0-2 count. On a 2-0 or 3-0 count, the risk/reward changes significantly. You can't trade getting the pitcher out (that's about how one would expect d'Arnaud to hit against Greinke on an 0-2 count) for a run in a close game in any inning.

I can totally see Ethier sitting down, breaking out his laptop to process all of that data, maybe sipping a latte, while the ball is hurtling toward him.

 

[BDC99]

I understand not wanting to give up an out, but I really think he should have let the foul ball go. The odds of getting out of the inning (75% or more?) are far better than throwing Murphy out at the plate (almost nil).

 

[DanOregon]

Eh. It's the fourth inning. Maybe in the 7th or later you let it drop.

 

[JC]

I can totally see Ethier sitting down, breaking out his laptop to process all of that data, maybe sipping a latte, while the ball is hurtling toward him.

Was the infield playing in?

 

[Doc Holliday]

My first thought was to let it drop. Science has proven that our initial thoughts are almost always correct. It's when we second guess ourselves that we screw up. I was right. He should have dropped it.

 

[ChrisLong]

My first thought was to let it drop. Science has proven that our initial thoughts are almost always correct. It's when we second guess ourselves that we screw up. I was right. He should have dropped it.

You were wrong, he should have caught it. The reasons are stated above. Go back and read them.

 

[JC]

My first thought was to let it drop. Science has proven that our initial thoughts are almost always correct. It's when we second guess ourselves that we screw up. I was right. He should have dropped it.

Science has proven that?

 

[Ace]

Either this is the worst Sports Radio Thread ever, or we are convinced Sports Radio sucks and would rather talk about dropping balls.

 

[Doc Holliday]

You were wrong, he should have caught it. The reasons are stated above. Go back and read them.

Listen asshole, I read the damn thread and I read the ****ing reasons. He should have dropped the ****ing ball. Don't tell me how to think.

Science has proven that?

Yes it has. I don't just make **** up like most of the clowns on here.

Why we're right to trust our gut instincts: Scientists discover first decision IS the right one

 

[JC]

Is this what Colin Cowherd has you thinking?

 

[JackReacher]

Listen asshole, I read the damn thread and I read the ****ing reasons. He should have dropped the ****ing ball. Don't tell me how to think.



Yes it has. I don't just make **** up like most of the clowns on here.

Why we're right to trust our gut instincts: Scientists discover first decision IS the right one

GO GET 'EM, HOSS!

 

[SFIND]

Either this is the worst Sports Radio Thread ever, or we are convinced Sports Radio sucks and would rather talk about dropping balls.

We could talk about the commercials.

An analysis of the worst sports talk radio commercial ever | PFT Commenter

 

[ChrisLong]

Listen asshole, I read the damn thread and I read the ****ing reasons. He should have dropped the ****ing ball. Don't tell me how to think.



Yes it has. I don't just make **** up like most of the clowns on here.

Why we're right to trust our gut instincts: Scientists discover first decision IS the right one

In the 55 or so years that I've followed baseball, I've NEVER seen an intentional miss in a situation like that. NEVER. So, baseball has been doing it wrong just about my entire life. Go ahead, Doc, rewrite the baseball book.

 

[bigpern23]

I've seen a lot comments about whether Ethier should have purposely dropped it.
Absolutely not, at that point in the game.
It was the fourth inning, way too early to give away outs (look at how many outs the Blue Jays got against the Rangers in the seventh inning). The Dodgers had threatened every inning and were a hit away on several occasions from some scoring innings.
I messaged a old coaching friend, who works in the Rockies organization. I said I didn't think Ethier should have dropped it on purpose. He said, "Same because I didn't know that Familia & Syndergaard would be unhitable for 3 innings."
Incidentally, I covered a JC playoff game many years ago that ended in the bottom of the 10th. One out, runner on third, foul fly down the left field line. The left fielder tore over and made a diving catch while he skidded into the bullpen. Runner on third tagged up and trotted in. It was a great, game-losing play. That would be the only situation where you intentionally don't catch one.

Not for anything, but that Rockies coach didn't know that Syndergaard and Familia would be unhittable for three innings? Really? There may be valid reasons to take the out instead of the run, but not foreseeing that Syndergaard and Familia could be unhittable for three innings ain't one of them.

Hell, Mike Francesa said on Sports Radio (tying it back into the thread!) earlier that day that the Mets needed the game to go Harvey-Syndergaard-Familia and if anybody else pitches, they're going to lose.

 

[Central-KY-Kid]

In the 55 or so years that I've followed baseball, I've NEVER seen an intentional miss in a situation like that. NEVER. So, baseball has been doing it wrong just about my entire life. Go ahead, Doc, rewrite the baseball book.

Matt Holliday let a catchable foul ball go a long time ago ... just last year.
Was tied 3-3 in the 12th with one out and a runner on third.