Author Topic: Garner blew it by playing Bagwell (Read 2898 times)

astro pete · « **on:** October 23, 2005, 04:27:03 pm »

or, at least that's what Buster Olney thinks over at espn.com. Anyone waste his money and purchase ESPN insider? I'm interested in knowing what he says, because I think he watched a different game than I did.

UpTooLate · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2005, 04:33:47 pm »

I was one to question whether playing Bagwell was best for the team, but after seeing him last night, I think he did fine. I mean geez... the guy got plunked twice and that closer was flat out nasty.

Bench · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2005, 04:35:50 pm »

Quote:

I was one to question whether playing Bagwell was best for the team, but after seeing him last night, I think he did fine. I mean geez... the guy got plunked twice and that closer was flat out nasty.

Plus he put a good swing on the one he actually hit. Just got a bit under it. Not only am I happy to see him in there, I'm under the impression that it was the right choice.

astro pete · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2005, 04:37:40 pm »

That's why I'm wondering what the fuck Olney is talking about.

Fredia · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2005, 04:42:45 pm »

he almost had to play bagwell. this is probably his one and only shot at the ws. and i think bagwell was a presence.. i mean he did get hit twice which makes me wonder if there was an intimidation factor..garner and his style of managamemnt got the astros this far so i say play on

hostros7 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2005, 04:43:54 pm »

Can't post copyrighted material. Even if it's free.

Bench · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2005, 04:47:29 pm »

I guess it's not completely irrational, but it didn't "cost the Astros the game." Lamb didn't make the best decision on the ground ball with Carl at third. However, assuming Lance would make a better instant decision is a leap of logic.

Edit: By the way, I think you may want to alter your post to be a summary rather than publishing the exact material for which you or I didn't pay.

HOB · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2005, 07:40:28 pm »

Okay, in summary, Lamb as the DH is a better option because that would allow a more experienced 1B to have made a better play on Everett. Huh??? Yeah, that's what he's saying. Now, I don't fault his conclusion that an OF of Lane, Taveras, and Burke is better than having Berkman in LF along with Taveras in Lane manning their usual posts. His basic assumption is that Berkman is a better 1B than Lamb. However, it appears Olney missed every Astros game this season, otherwise he'd realize Berkman's head isn't always in the game, at least on the defensive end. Not to mention that Lamb has held his own covering 1B. He needs some work digging some of the throws but that may come with more time. All in all, I'd say it's a poor example of sports reporting.

Sambito · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2005, 07:57:11 pm »

Is it just me or have people fucking missed the number of pretty good swings Bagwell took last night; I've seen him look worse and there were times where I thought last night he was keeping his head in and trying to drive the ball the opposite way...

Lighten up on Bags Holy Shit

LonghornCDR · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2005, 08:30:35 pm »

I wouldn't say it was poor sports reporting. It was a classic case of if "ifs and buts were candy and nuts." Olney had no issue with Bagwell's bat. His point was that Gar weakened the defense by having Bags DH instead of Lamb. Simple as that. It's an interesting point to argue, especially with the no-throw when C4 was off third and the AE throw that Lamb couldn't dig. Neither was necessarily a bad play, but a more experienced 1B might have made a difference. It was all a bunch of second guessing. The only part of the article I really had issue with was the title. Gar did not "blow it."

EasTexAstro · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2005, 09:10:00 pm »

gotta weigh it out. Someone better than me might be able to come up with an answer they are comfortable with, but...

Not having Lamb and Berkman is definitely a plus on defense, no matter how they are positioned, but being able to have them with a good BAgwell in the lineup over any of the rookies. I think the offense is better, or at least more intimidating. I like good defense, but if the plus to the offense seems to be better than the plus to the defense.

Twoniner · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2005, 11:48:05 pm »

Bagwell got on base twice last night, flied out to almost the warning track, and has hit two balls pretty fucking flush tonight right at infielders. He his having pretty damn good at bats too if anyone is watching the actual game.

Col. Sphinx Drummond

Re: Garner blew it by playing Bagwell

baron

Re: Garner blew it by playing Bagwell