Greatest game in baseball history?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could you give one example in MLB history where a manager decided to walk two batters in a row with a man on second with two out with his team holding a one run lead?

Anybody can claim anything on the web.

How about if I cited you the time that Babe Ruth was intentionally walked with the bases
loaded and a 3 run lead? Would that equate it for you?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
How about if I cited you the time that Babe Ruth was intentionally walked with the bases
loaded and a 3 run lead? Would that equate it for you?

That's stupid, but not quite as stupid as putting the tying run on third and the winning run on second.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's stupid, but not quite as stupid as putting the tying run on third and the winning run on second.

It did exactly that. The bases were loaded and the Yankees trailed by 3 runs and they walked Ruth.
That decreased the lead to 2 runs and the sacks were still full.
What is the difference?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
It did exactly that. The bases were loaded and the Yankees trailed by 3 runs and they walked Ruth.
That decreased the lead to 2 runs and the sacks were still full.
What is the difference?

No it didn't. Better check your knowledge of baseball and/or math.

When you're ahead by two runs and the bases are loaded, the tying run ISN'T on third and the winning run ISN'T on second. A bloop single doesn't beat you; a wild pitch or passed ball doesn't tie it.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I would and I tell you why.
With two outs, I now have a force at any base.
If the guy was going to get a hit that would score a man from second anyway,
the game is more than likely gone anyway.
However, I would have to be confident that my reliever could / would throw strikes,
in order to use that strategy.

Force at any base of of very limited use.

You may consider the game "lost" if the Cards tie it, but it would not be so. If the tying run scores there, the Rangers still have about a 40% chance of winning the game.

Plus loading the bases forces in the tying run with the walk. Walking Berkman would have been a poor move.

As for walking Pujols, regardless of their numbers at the moment, Pujols is a better hitter than Berkman. We all know that. I had no problem walking Pujols.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It lacked the story line in 1986 where the Red Sox were about to end 68 years of frustration and the Shea Stadium scoreboard had already flashed "Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox 1986 World Champions" (a "Dewey beats Truman" moment). The Mets' rally didn't contain cowardly intentional walks like the 10th here and there was nobody on with two outs an ...[text shortened]... a significant baseball history. As I said, few people will remember this game in 25 years.

Most of those are not really about baseball. The story about the Red Sox drought perhaps makes it more memorable, but as a baseball game itself, it's hard to argue that the Mets rally was as great as the Cardinals rallies. The Cards were down 3 and blew a chance to get even in the 8th.

The only thing the Mets game has over it is that there were 2 outs and nobody on and two strikes as opposed to just two outs and two strikes. That's not enough to compensate for that fact that there were two rallies instead of one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could you give one example in MLB history where a manager decided to walk two batters in a row with a man on second with two out with his team holding a one run lead?

Anybody can claim anything on the web.

Barry Bonds, May 28, 1998 - The Diamondbacks led the Giants, 8-6 in the bottom of the ninth, with two out, the bases loaded, and Barry Bonds up. Arizona manager Buck Showalter ordered Gregg Olson to issue the IBB, putting the tying run on third and the winning run on second. Brent Mayne then lined out to end the game.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_wk3.shtml

This is essentially the same scenario as your case.

Still, Lance Berkman is not Barry Bonds.

Originally posted by sh76

Barry Bonds, May 28, 1998 - The Diamondbacks led the Giants, 8-6 in the bottom of the ninth, with two out, the bases loaded, and Barry Bonds up. Arizona manager Buck Showalter ordered Gregg Olson to issue the IBB, putting the tying run on third and the winning run on second. Brent Mayne then lined out to end the game.

http://www.baseball-alman ...[text shortened]...
This is essentially the same scenario as your case.

Still, Lance Berkman is not Barry Bonds.

Ya Berkman's head is much smaller. The mullet makes it look bigger than it really is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No it didn't. Better check your knowledge of baseball and/or math.

When you're ahead by two runs and the bases are loaded, the tying run ISN'T on third and the winning run ISN'T on second. A bloop single doesn't beat you; a wild pitch or passed ball doesn't tie it.

NO, but the same hit that would score a runner from second in your scenario does.
That was my point.

Originally posted by sh76
Force at any base of of very limited use.

You may consider the game "lost" if the Cards tie it, but it would not be so. If the tying run scores there, the Rangers still have about a 40% chance of winning the game.

Plus loading the bases forces in the tying run with the walk. Walking Berkman would have been a poor move.

As for walking Pujols, regardless ...[text shortened]... nt, Pujols is a better hitter than Berkman. We all know that. I had no problem walking Pujols.

FYI, Berkman hit .430 in the WS, so I would say he was locked in more than Pujols.
However, Pujols is more apt to connect and launch one out of the park.
Basically, Pujols hit in one game during the WS. That game made a believer out of
Ron Washington.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
FYI, Berkman hit .430 in the WS, so I would say he was locked in more than Pujols.
However, Pujols is more apt to connect and launch one out of the park.
Basically, Pujols hit in one game during the WS. That game made a believer out of
Ron Washington.

In Scorecasting, the authors showed pretty clearly that how "hot" a player is, is not as good an indication of how likely he is to get a hit as is how good a player he is over-all.

http://www.amazon.com/Scorecasting-Hidden-Influences-Behind-ebook/dp/product-description/B004C43GC4

Give me the .330 hitter who is 2 for his last 19 over the .250 hitter who is 7 for his last 19 any day of the week.

Originally posted by sh76
In Scorecasting, the authors showed pretty clearly that how "hot" a player is, is not as good an indication of how likely he is to get a hit as is how good a player he is over-all.

http://www.amazon.com/Scorecasting-Hidden-Influences-Behind-ebook/dp/product-description/B004C43GC4

Give me the .330 hitter who is 2 for his last 19 over the .250 hitter who is 7 for his last 19 any day of the week.

Perhaps, but Berkman hit well all year (.301) and was an All Star as well.
I am sure you aren't saying he wasn't a consistent hitter.
He was an excellent hitter who got hot on top of it.
Plus, he had more power from the left side of the plate.
He was batting from the left side against the right hander when the situation arose.

Originally posted by sh76
Force at any base of of very limited use.

You may consider the game "lost" if the Cards tie it, but it would not be so. If the tying run scores there, the Rangers still have about a 40% chance of winning the game.

Plus loading the bases forces in the tying run with the walk. Walking Berkman would have been a poor move.

As for walking Pujols, regardless ...[text shortened]... nt, Pujols is a better hitter than Berkman. We all know that. I had no problem walking Pujols.

In his career, Pujols has hit .352 with a men on second only. Berkman has hit .345 with men on 1st and second. The difference is negligible and walking Pujols puts the winning run on base.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In his career, Pujols has hit .352 with a men on second only. Berkman has hit .345 with men on 1st and second. The difference is negligible and walking Pujols puts the winning run on base.

There is little significance to whether a player is hitting "with a man on second only." I'll bet if you looked hard enough you could find some number that would benefit Berkman. Maybe is was a Tuesday night with a full Moon when the temperature was between 60 and 70 degrees, in which scenarios Berkman hits .750 and Pujols .125.

Pujols is a better hitter than Berkman. I'll take a guy with a 170 career OPS+ over a guy with a 146 OPS+ any day of the week, although the latter is also an excellent number.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In his career, Pujols has hit .352 with a men on second only. Berkman has hit .345 with men on 1st and second. The difference is negligible and walking Pujols puts the winning run on base.

Berkman didn't hit 3 home runs the ENTIRE series.

Pujols hit 3 in ONE GAME on consecutive at bats.
One of only 3 players IN HISTORY to do so.

Walking Pujols was SMART not Gutless.