Baseball Etiquette
by dvd1204 on Apr 19, 2007 6:13 PM EDT
17 comments
With one out in the 7th inning, runner on first, down by 7 runs. Do you hold the runner?
That was the situation on Wednesday night and Torre chose not to hold Dellucci. The ESPN crew, mainly Hershiser, was talking about unwritten rules of baseball and the etiquette of the situation. Dellucci stayed at first and in the end it didn't make much difference. But in today's game where runs can really be scored in bunches a 7 run comeback in the 7th doesn't seem impossible (especially if you can chip one more run of the lead with a free base and a bloop single).
So I ask, whose decision is it not to take the conceded base? And whether it was Dellucci's or Wedge's decision, isn't the Tribe conceding the game by not taking advantage of the gift? Either way, I believe this is a lack of leadership from either our veteran and/or our manager. The message is clear; we've lost, so we're not going to try. This is never a message that should be conveyed in baseball where time can never run out.
Does it concern anyone else that Wedge is allowing this loser's mentality to exist? At the very least he could make an example out of Dellucci to the rest of the guys that it will not be tolerated.
0 recs |
17 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by Roger Dorn on Apr 19, 2007 7:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by JulioBernazard on Apr 19, 2007 7:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
Next series the Yankees are up about 6 runs and keep stealing bases on Victor. Just showing him up something awful. Does Wedge do anything to protect his guy? Nah, he just takes the loss.
Wedge is just like Blake. Good clubhouse guy, never comes through.
by oxforddave on Apr 19, 2007 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by mkwng on Apr 20, 2007 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
I would generally agree with this sentiment, and it goes back as far as Hargrove adn the glory years of the late 90s that other teams have generally been able to show up this team and throw at our hitters without any fear that there would be any reprisals.
by woodsmeister on Apr 20, 2007 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by woodsmeister on Apr 20, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by oxforddave on Apr 20, 2007 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
and i don't think etiquette applies to the Yankees anyway.
by nctribefan on Apr 19, 2007 7:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by MTF on Apr 19, 2007 10:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
This occured during the basketball season, where I believe Thomas complained of teams "running up the score" by keeping their starters on the floor. If he was such a man and had admitted the game was out of reach, why then would he not take his starters off the floor. (Another note on that situation, The Nuggets hadn't even hit tiple digits).
As for the situation in the Indians game, to me, it is like stealing off a closer during a 3 run game. It happens, its no big deal.
by Brandini on Apr 20, 2007 10:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
Dellucci didn't take the base for the same reason the Yankees conceded it -- it was extremely unimportant. Not so much that the extra run didn't matter, but taking that base is unlikely to generate an extra run.
You could look it up. Or better yet, you could blow it out of proportion and use it as the basis for a whole theory of Wedge's personality.
The forum is embarassing today.
by Jay on Apr 20, 2007 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
BTW, I looked it up. 25% chance of scoring from first versus 40% chance of scoring from second. If you want to argue that the difference between 6 and 7 runs doesn't matter, fine, I can accept that, but don't argue that a runner on second is not significantly more likely to score than a runner on first.
So I could mention something that I don't agree with (as you did questioning if someone should have been up in the bullpen when JoBo lost it) or you could use it as another excuse to call everyone else's comments on this forum "stupidity".
by dvd1204 on Apr 21, 2007 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
Let me also make clear, I doubt there's anyone who has a higher opinion of the quality of the overall group here than I do. You would have trouble finding a baseball forum anywhere that has a high caliber of discussion than here, let alone a team-specific forum. I've said it before, Ryan was the best Indians blogger before I ever arrived, and I'm proud of what he's written and what I've written. But the forum content is what really separates this site from the pack. That ultimately is what put me in such a sour mood about some of the posts yesterday.
Back to the main subject.
They're not holding the runner because they don't think he'l go for it. The Indians are seven runs down with only eight outs left to go. That means that baserunners and outs are more precious than in the average situation, and when you make an attempt to take second, you risk both. Not holding the runner isn't the same thing as conceding the base. It's may not even be worth increasing the chance of a LIDP, tiny though that would be.
And that's it in a nutshell -- at that point in the game, you have to be playing for multiple runs, not to maximize the chance of scoring one run at some risk of an out. The Indians know that, and the Yankees know that the Indians know that.
by Jay on Apr 21, 2007 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
It would seem that they have, although how Torre could claim he feared a 7-run outburst from us is beyond this observer.
by JulioBernazard on Apr 21, 2007 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by gaspumper on Apr 21, 2007 1:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
by Kos on Apr 21, 2007 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Baseball Etiquette
For the record, here's the non-profane part of your post:
you're a douchebag who gets off on being the bigwig of an internet message board
Well, okay, that part is also profane. It's also welll established grounds for banning or at least deleting, according to the Ground Rules. You don't have any idea what gets me off, but it's certainly not the "drama" of co-moderating a web forum. The idea of Ryan and me as "bigwigs" deserves little more than a chuckle.
I enjoy having a great place to talk Tribe with a bunch of other diehard fans, many of them more knowledgable than I am. Most if not all of my "bigwigging" is aimed directly at enhancing that experience, for me and for other contributors, not to mention thousands of readers who never post anything.
I still feel pretty new to the moderating role, but I've talked with a lot of folks who've done it for a while, and they all say the same thing. They say, after a while, you stop worrying about being fair and allowing maximum free expression. If someone's being anti-social, eroding other people's enjoyment, you just get rid of them.
We try not to do that. I occasionally send someone a little note saying, hey, you seem like a smart guy/gal, would you mind being a little less obnoxious? And usually that's all that's necessary.
Kos, I'm actually a very nice person, except that I don't suffer fools gladly, and I make no apologies for that. I probably would come off as less of a bully if I just banned people I didn't like. I'm just doing what I can to make/keep the place enjoyable for everyone.
by Jay on Apr 21, 2007 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
