Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Sunday, June 10, 2007 |
Who'll Stop The Rain? Cardinals 9, Angels 6
When Weaver's fallin'Faced with an IBB or challenging one of the NL's best hitters, the Angels picked the wrong door twice, and so ended up with a loss. Personally, I blame the rain, in which, it seems, the Angels never play well, and may have figured in his exit after the third. Rain or no, Weaver looked about as wild as he did on his previous two or three starts, and the offense was hobbled by injuries to Kotchman and Anderson. Still, it's hard to gripe about taking the series.
Don't be stallin'
Use your common sense
Before you make a throw
Walk Pujols so
He won't hit one over the fence
Labels: angels, cardinals, recaps
Comments:
The Angels lost 9-6, not 9-3. And first base wasn't open on either of the times you suggest the Angels should've IBBed Pujols, so unless you think walking the bases loaded with no outs is a sexy idea, I'm not sure why pitching to Pujols was such an awful one, especially given that he was 0-for-3 yesterday and had already struck out five times in the first two games. It made sense. Pujols was just on his game today.
Weaver looked about as wild as he did on his previous two or three starts
In his last start, he walked one, while throwing 65 strikes against 26 balls. That's a strange definition of "wild".
In his last start, he walked one, while throwing 65 strikes against 26 balls. That's a strange definition of "wild".
Score duly corrected. And damn straight I wouldn't have pitched to Pujols. Weaver had a back injury and his command was off, official 65:26 strike:ball ratio notwithstanding; when he was outside the zone, which was often, he was all over the damn place. Without looking, most of those "strikes" were probably foul balls. I haven't seen him in a game yet this year where his command looked as good as it did last year. Throwing to Pujols with men on base in that circumstance was begging for trouble.
Without looking, most of those "strikes" were probably foul balls.
I'm not even sure what this means. Either you're saying he was really throwing pitches out of the zone that guys were swinging at anyway (which strikes me as a pretty good thing for a pitcher), or he was throwing pitches in the zone that guys weren't squaring up. Neither one of those is a bad thing for Weaver. I'm having a hard time finding your point.
I'm not even sure what this means. Either you're saying he was really throwing pitches out of the zone that guys were swinging at anyway (which strikes me as a pretty good thing for a pitcher), or he was throwing pitches in the zone that guys weren't squaring up. Neither one of those is a bad thing for Weaver. I'm having a hard time finding your point.
Ditto here, Seitz. And we're really not getting to a point where we're going to start questioning the "official" stats now, are we? As for IBB'ing Pujols, why should any pitcher feeling a tweak give Albert the Bonds treatment when he had gone 2-for-8 with five Ks up to that point in the series? Bootcheck didn't have any back problems, and he gave up a 3 run dinger to Al as well. The guys batting behind Pujols had already done more damage to us in the series, so putting another man on base with no outs really didn't make much sense. You're talking exclusively from the sweet vantage of hindsight.
It means that he's (a) throwing a ton of pitches and (b) not fooling the batter (much) on location. This is not a good thing. I fail to understand how this is not obvious.
91 pitches over seven innings is a ton of pitches? In what universe?
And I still fail to see how outside the zone and "all over the damn place" is consistent with getting a lot of foul balls.
And I still fail to see how outside the zone and "all over the damn place" is consistent with getting a lot of foul balls.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.