Author Topic: Noe, why did they bench Luke Scott? (Read 10301 times)

rambo2 · « **on:** August 02, 2007, 02:18:08 pm »

Scott has hit .444 in his last 10 games and around .390 since the all-star break. Scott has a history of hitting very well at this time of the season. He hit .336 for Houston last year in the 2nd half of the season and he had tremendous numbers at Round Rock in the 2nd half in 2005 and 2004.

When Purpura acquired Aubrey Huff last year he explained how Huff had a history as a great 2nd half hitter. If past history was important with Huff, shouldn't it also be important with Scott?

Why would they take their hottest hitter and put him on the bench for 6 days? I say 6 days because the next 2 starters are leftys and Garner hasn't started him against a lefty since April.

Scott's numbers aren't great, but they aren't bad either. He has one more extra base hit than Lance Berkman and his OBP is close to what Hunter Pence put up.

Scott is also a low salary guy. I think that it would be reasonable to think that he would hit .270 and have 25 homers if they let him play. What is wrong with that? With his salary, wouldn't that be a good fit?

Also, if they wanted to get rid of him, shouldn't they play him and hope that he continues to be hot and attracts interest from other teams?

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2007, 02:34:39 pm »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 02, 2007, 02:18:08 pm

Scott has hit .444 in his last 10 games and around .390 since the all-star break. Scott has a history of hitting very well at this time of the season. He hit .336 for Houston last year in the 2nd half of the season and he had tremendous numbers at Round Rock in the 2nd half in 2005 and 2004.

When Purpura acquired Aubrey Huff last year he explained how Huff had a history as a great 2nd half hitter. If past history was important with Huff, shouldn't it also be important with Scott?

Why would they take their hottest hitter and put him on the bench for 6 days? I say 6 days because the next 2 starters are leftys and Garner hasn't started him against a lefty since April.

Scott's numbers aren't great, but they aren't bad either. He has one more extra base hit than Lance Berkman and his OBP is close to what Hunter Pence put up.

Scott is also a low salary guy. I think that it would be reasonable to think that he would hit .270 and have 25 homers if they let him play. What is wrong with that? With his salary, wouldn't that be a good fit?

Also, if they wanted to get rid of him, shouldn't they play him and hope that he continues to be hot and attracts interest from other teams?

Did I miss something that would explain why this is addressed to Noe? Did he get a job with the club recently?

MusicMan · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2007, 02:39:30 pm »

While I give you credit for looking into the future, you're realing teetering on the edge of just making shit up.

"Put him on the bench for 6 days"?? As you said, Scott rarely starts against lefties (7/30, 8/1). Garner was enough of a bastard to bench him on an off day (7/31). And they are trying to keep Lamb in the mix too, so Berkman went to RF yesterday.

Scott would have helped his case greatly by hitting more than .230 for the first half.

MikeyBoy · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2007, 02:40:37 pm »

It's only been two games, one against a lefty. The Astros have a third baseman now and the nod against the righty went to Lamb over Scott. I think that's a defensible decision, don't you?

Bench · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:20:37 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on August 02, 2007, 02:39:30 pm

Scott would have helped his case greatly by hitting more than .230 for the first half.

Throw in the fielding woes he displayed on Sunday also.

MikeyBoy · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:27:27 pm »

I guess rambo didn't stick around to defend his horseshit assertion.

94CougarGrad · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:34:39 pm »

Too many guys to play the same positions. Some bat better than others, some field better than others. Until the rules change and the team can start 18 players, somebody's gotta sit on the bench, and there will always be people to ask "why... why... why."

Pretty simple, Rambo.

MusicMan · « **Reply #7 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:41:59 pm »

Quote from: 94CougarGrad on August 02, 2007, 03:34:39 pm

Pretty simple, Rambo.

Yes. Yes, he is.

Duman · « **Reply #8 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:42:31 pm »

Quote from: MikeyBoy on August 02, 2007, 03:27:27 pm

I guess rambo didn't stick around to defend his horseshit assertion.

He's around, he's just camouflaged in the bushes just waiting to take aim and miss yet again.

Navin R Johnson · « **Reply #9 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:43:40 pm »

Just FYI. This question was all the rage on Pallilo's show yesterday and on the Sanctuary of Idiocy, aka the Pinwheel Blog comments section.

94CougarGrad · « **Reply #10 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:45:22 pm »

Quote from: Duman on August 02, 2007, 03:42:31 pm

He's around, he's just camouflaged in the bushes just waiting to take aim and miss yet again.

As long as he doesn't piss on JimR's sleeping bag, he should still be among the living.

tophfar · « **Reply #11 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:48:03 pm »

im still waiting to hear why noe benched luke. he must be held accountable.

Bench · « **Reply #12 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:50:06 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on August 02, 2007, 03:41:59 pm

Yes. Yes, he is.

He's really embracing his "disappointing rookie" status.

94CougarGrad · « **Reply #13 on:** August 02, 2007, 03:54:24 pm »

Quote from: tophfar on August 02, 2007, 03:48:03 pm

im still waiting to hear why noe benched luke. he must be held accountable.

Sources report that Luke had a bout with bad gas after consuming country-fried pork chops with fried pickles and chitlins for dinner before last night's game. Immodium ain't got nuthin' on Mama Eloise's Deep Fried Cafe in Hotlanter.

TheWizard · « **Reply #14 on:** August 02, 2007, 04:04:56 pm »

None of you fools know what you are talking about. I'll wait until Noe answers.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #15 on:** August 02, 2007, 04:29:24 pm »

Quote from: Duman on August 02, 2007, 03:42:31 pm

He's around, he's just camouflaged in the bushes just waiting to take aim and miss yet again.

It could be that those steroids he got busted for with Australia have taken possession of him.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #16 on:** August 02, 2007, 04:37:09 pm »

Quote from: TheWizard on August 02, 2007, 04:04:56 pm

None of you fools know what you are talking about. I'll wait until Noe answers.

?

Ty in Tampa · « **Reply #17 on:** August 02, 2007, 04:45:39 pm »

Quote from: 94CougarGrad on August 02, 2007, 03:54:24 pm

...country-fried pork chops...

That's 'chicken-fried'. You sure you from Texas?

94CougarGrad · « **Reply #18 on:** August 02, 2007, 05:21:27 pm »

Quote from: Ty in Tampa on August 02, 2007, 04:45:39 pm

That's 'chicken-fried'. You sure you from Texas?

Of course I'm from Texas. In other places, like Atlanta, the heathens call it "country fried" because they don't know any better.

legs_of_eggs · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2007, 05:24:00 pm »

Lane in lineup tonight against Jo-Jo Reyes, as well as Burke. Ugh.

TheWizard · « **Reply #20 on:** August 02, 2007, 06:08:23 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on August 02, 2007, 04:37:09 pm

?

I guess my humor had no bang to it.

MikeyBoy · « **Reply #21 on:** August 02, 2007, 06:10:42 pm »

Quote from: TheWizard on August 02, 2007, 06:08:23 pm

I guess my humor had no bang to it.

I thought it was funny.

Ty in Tampa · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2007, 06:10:48 pm »

Quote from: 94CougarGrad on August 02, 2007, 05:21:27 pm

Of course I'm from Texas. In other places, like Atlanta, the heathens call it "country fried" because they don't know any better.

Missed the "Hotlanter part." Poor attempt at a dig. Nevermind. Move along. Nothing to see here.

rambo2 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 02, 2007, 07:48:34 pm »

Quote from: MikeyBoy on August 02, 2007, 02:40:37 pm

It's only been two games, one against a lefty. The Astros have a third baseman now and the nod against the righty went to Lamb over Scott. I think that's a defensible decision, don't you?

No, I don't Mikey. I think that is stupid to take a guy out of the lineup when he has hit .444 over his last 10 games.

MikeyBoy · « **Reply #24 on:** August 02, 2007, 07:53:14 pm »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 02, 2007, 07:48:34 pm

No, I don't Mikey. I think that is stupid to take a guy out of the lineup when he has hit .444 over his last 10 games.

Lamb has hit .300 over the last 87 games.

rambo2 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 02, 2007, 08:18:03 pm »

Quote from: MikeyBoy on August 02, 2007, 07:53:14 pm

Lamb has hit .300 over the last 87 games.

He is also going to be a free agent. Does Lamb have much of a chance of being in Houston next year?

rambo2 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 02, 2007, 08:24:03 pm »

Mikey, Footer just put a story about it on astros.com. Go check it out.

tophfar · « **Reply #27 on:** August 02, 2007, 08:29:23 pm »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 02, 2007, 08:24:03 pm

Mikey, Footer just put a story about it on astros.com. Go check it out.

and that article pretty much told you everything that was said here.

you are not very good at this game.

MikeyBoy · « **Reply #28 on:** August 02, 2007, 08:34:00 pm »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 02, 2007, 08:24:03 pm

Mikey, Footer just put a story about it on astros.com. Go check it out.

Oh, I see.

rambo2: Scott has been benched.
OWA: No, no he hasn't.
rambo2: Look...in the sky...it's a blimp.

TheWizard · « **Reply #29 on:** August 02, 2007, 08:37:37 pm »

Like a brick wall

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #30 on:** August 02, 2007, 09:15:17 pm »

Quote from: tophfar on August 02, 2007, 08:29:23 pm

and that article pretty much told you everything that was said here.

you are not very good at this game.

I wonder if Scott told Garner that his decision was stupid.

Reuben · « **Reply #31 on:** August 02, 2007, 11:23:26 pm »

Quote from: legs_of_eggs on August 02, 2007, 05:24:00 pm

Lane in lineup tonight against Jo-Jo Reyes, as well as Burke. Ugh.

Did you post in the wrong topic, or are you advocating playing Luke in CF?

remy · « **Reply #32 on:** August 02, 2007, 11:25:00 pm »

Quote from: Reuben on August 02, 2007, 11:23:26 pm

Did you post in the wrong topic, or are you advocating playing Luke in CF?

There wasn't a game thread at the time of his post, so I think he just found the nearest place to take a dump, which just so happened to be this magical thread.

rambo2 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 02, 2007, 11:51:53 pm »

Quote from: MikeyBoy on August 02, 2007, 08:34:00 pm

Oh, I see.

rambo2: Scott has been benched.
OWA: No, no he hasn't.
rambo2: Look...in the sky...it's a blimp.

No, you don't see Mikey. I just thought you would like to read the info.

MRaup · « **Reply #34 on:** August 03, 2007, 01:55:53 am »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 02, 2007, 11:51:53 pm

No, you don't see Mikey. I just thought you would like to read the info.

Why won't you just stay gone?

Honestly.

rambo2 · « **Reply #35 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:00:21 am »

Quote from: MRaup on August 03, 2007, 01:55:53 am

Why won't you just stay gone?

Honestly.

Sorry to piss you off, but I thought the benching of Scott was a stupid move and I wanted to hear what the board had to say about it because some of the people here have some outstanding knowledge of the Astros and baseball in general.

BudGirl · « **Reply #36 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:01:29 am »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 03, 2007, 11:00:21 am

Sorry to piss you off, but I thought the benching of Scott was a stupid move and I wanted to hear what the board had to say about it because some of the people here have some outstanding knowledge of the Astros and baseball in general.

but, you didn't ask the board.

JimR · « **Reply #37 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:01:53 am »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 03, 2007, 11:00:21 am

I thought the benching of Scott was a stupid move

he was not "benched." he just did not play.

rambo2 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:41:20 am »

Quote from: JimR on August 03, 2007, 11:01:53 am

he was not "benched." he just did not play.

No matter what you call it. My point is this: If Scott plays on Saturday, he would have not played for 6 days. He was hot when Garner decided not to play him. I think that it would have made more sense to play him against James and the righty pitcher. Rather than let him sit for a long period of time and cool off.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #39 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:44:06 am »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 03, 2007, 11:41:20 am

No matter what you call it. My point is this: If Scott plays on Saturday, he would have not played for 6 days. He was hot when Garner decided not to play him. I think that it would have made more sense to play him against James and the righty pitcher. Rather than let him sit for a long period of time and cool off.

Didn't somebody post the report of the discussion Scott and Garner had about this? Why are you berating the board (or Noe) about it? You can read the rationale as well as anybody here can. If it's still bothering you, go to the game and hold up a big sign that says, "Give Scott More Playing Time." Maybe Garner will see it and change his mind.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #40 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:47:49 am »

In case you missed it:

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070802&content_id=2126069&vkey=news_hou&fext=.jsp&c_id=hou

rambo2 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:48:54 am »

No, I didn't miss it smart ass. I was just responding to Jim.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #42 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:50:49 am »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 03, 2007, 11:48:54 am

No, I didn't miss it smart ass. I was just resonding to Jim.

Watch your step there, big boy.

strosrays · « **Reply #43 on:** August 03, 2007, 12:15:00 pm »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 03, 2007, 11:00:21 am

Sorry to piss you off, but I thought the benching of Scott was a stupid move and I wanted to hear what the board had to say about it because some of the people here have some outstanding knowledge of the Astros and baseball in general.

I believe Oliver Stone made a movie about this once. Can't recall the title at the moment, but it was riddled with conspiracy theories and historical innacurracies. That should narrow it down. . .

JimR · « **Reply #44 on:** August 03, 2007, 12:24:32 pm »

Quote from: rambo2 on August 03, 2007, 11:41:20 am

No matter what you call it. My point is this: If Scott plays on Saturday, he would have not played for 6 days. He was hot when Garner decided not to play him. I think that it would have made more sense to play him against James and the righty pitcher. Rather than let him sit for a long period of time and cool off.

enough, dammit. people have been standing in line to refute your bs. STFU.

VirtualBob · « **Reply #45 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:10:10 pm »

Quote from: JimR on August 03, 2007, 12:24:32 pm

enough, dammit. people have been standing in line to refute your bs. STFU.

The sleeping bag must be soggy.

TheWizard · « **Reply #46 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:19:50 pm »

Rambo, why don't you just take 5.

5 steps back from the keyboard.. and 5 years away from the TZ.

94CougarGrad · « **Reply #47 on:** August 04, 2007, 08:23:11 am »

Quote from: VirtualBob on August 03, 2007, 02:10:10 pm

The sleeping bag must be soggy.

He probably got a little dribble on it. I was kinda disappointed in the self-censorship... not that I want Jim to get his sleeping bag pissed on.

Author Topic: Noe, why did they bench Luke Scott? (Read 10301 times)

strosrays