I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    listened to his post game interviews, and even watched him on the mound yanking crazy Aceves..he seems relaxed and restrained...for how long??? lol
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    With Tito, he'd give the impression that he was absolutely confident in our success.

    With Valentine, it's more the sense that he doesn't know what is going on around him, almost like the record is an after-thought.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]With Tito, he'd give the impression that he was absolutely confident in our success. With Valentine, it's more the sense that he doesn't know what is going on around him, almost like the record is an after-thought.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]

    So Joe which is better     giving the sense that he does Not know what is going on or
    absolutely confident in your teams future success?????????????????
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]With Tito, he'd give the impression that he was absolutely confident in our success. With Valentine, it's more the sense that he doesn't know what is going on around him, almost like the record is an after-thought.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]


    how pure fan of you....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    Actually Burrito...thats not a bad observation by Joey....I can see that distinction....I think Valentine is trying sooo hard not to be a hothead...but the starters need to come through better than the last 2 games...and the closer situation defies logic...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    I can only disagree because it is only 3 games.....  The Yankees got swept so that is a good thing.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]I can only disagree because it is only 3 games.....  The Yankees got swept so that is a good thing.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Well -- Boston fans always wanted the Sox to keep pace with the Yankees.

    Tongue out
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : So Joe which is better     giving the sense that he does Not know what is going on or absolutely confident in your teams future success?????????????????
    Posted by JimfromFlorida[/QUOTE]

    I'd have to hear him.  With tito, it seemed like these things were just part of a long season.  With BV, not liking that Bard wasn't throwing enough changeups, but not saying anything, and not knowing that Beckett had a cortisone shot in the off-season, not picking up on Bailey's wrist for a week, talking about having the pitchers practicing bunting, I just get the feeling that he has no control here.

    And combined with Larry and BC being a rookie, it really gives the impression of no one being in charge.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pschuller. Show pschuller's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]this may be the worst 178 million dollar team i've ever seen.
    Posted by mryazz[/QUOTE]

    Good one! Hard to disagree with that.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : I'd have to hear him.  With tito, it seemed like these things were just part of a long season.  With BV, not liking that Bard wasn't throwing enough changeups, but not saying anything, and not knowing that Beckett had a cortisone shot in the off-season, not picking up on Bailey's wrist for a week, talking about having the pitchers practicing bunting, I just get the feeling that he has no control here. And combined with Larry and BC being a rookie, it really gives the impression of no one being in charge.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]
    You have "a feeling." Valentine is "overmatched." Feeling is right. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    Come to think of it, Valentine is overmatched. He has lousy pitching, and Leyland has great hitting. You can't get much more overmatched than that.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    All I know is that the anti-Francona contingent on this board, if he was the manager here right now, would be hammering him for this loss rather than going out of their way to say the manager has no responsibility. Leaving Aceves in too long- Francona would have gotten hammered for that. 

    I agree with Francona getting fired after what happened last season (though not blamed for all of it), and I'm going to give Bobby V way more than three games to pass judgement, but the hypocrisy of some of the anti-Francona posters on this board is incredible. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]All I know is that the anti-Francona contingent on this board, if he was the manager here right now, would be hammering him for this loss rather than going out of their way to say the manager has no responsibility. Leaving Aceves in too long- Francona would have gotten hammered for that.  I agree with Francona getting fired after what happened last season (though not blamed for all of it), and I'm going to give Bobby V way more than three games to pass judgement, but the hypocrisy of some of the anti-Francona posters on this board is incredible. 
    Posted by BostonTrollSpanker[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. There would be a half dozen threads at least blaming Tito for Sunday's loss. You could easily blame Bobby Valentine for the loss, and it has nothing to do with pitching. 

    In the inning that A-Gon got hit by the pitch, before that, Punto (I think it was) was on third and was sent on contact on Pedroia's grounder. Punto ended up being out with Pedey going to second. Then the first pitch to Gonzalez was wild, allowing Pedey to go to third. Had Valentine not been as aggressive, Punto would have scored on the wild pitch giving the Sox an extra run that would have won the game in regulation.


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : Exactly. There would be a half dozen threads at least blaming Tito for Sunday's loss. You could easily blame Bobby Valentine for the loss, and it has nothing to do with pitching.  In the inning that A-Gon got hit by the pitch, before that, Punto (I think it was) was on third and was sent on contact on Pedroia's grounder. Punto ended up being out with Pedey going to second. Then the first pitch to Gonzalez was wild, allowing Pedey to go to third. Had Valentine not been as aggressive, Punto would have scored on the wild pitch giving the Sox an extra run that would have won the game in regulation.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]
    Maybe with a man on third, the pitcher and catcher agree on a pitch that is less likely to go wild. Circumstances affect pitching decisions. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : Maybe with a man on third, the pitcher and catcher agree on a pitch that is less likely to go wild. Circumstances affect pitching decisions. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    No ... they hit Gonzalez with the next pitch. The wild pitch was behind Gonzalez. They were trying to hit him and just missed the first time. It had nothing to do with pitch selection. 

    Now maybe with a man on third, he's more careful with the pitch -- maybe.


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : No ... they hit Gonzalez with the next pitch. The wild pitch was behind Gonzalez. They were trying to hit him and just missed the first time. It had nothing to do with pitch selection.  Now maybe with a man on third, he's more careful with the pitch -- maybe.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]
    Definitely maybe. Maybe with a man on third they don't even try to nail Gonzalez. I sure wouldn't if I were Leyland. Why take even the slightest chance of a wild pitch? Leyland had an empty base to play with, and a lefty coming up to face Coke. 
    Let's go back to the situation. When Punto was on third, was anyone on first? If not, then it's not likely that Valentine "sent" Punto on contact. IIRC, the ball was hit sharply to the third baseman right behind Punto, who had taken a couple of steps towards home. Or a few steps. He was hung up, and Pedey made it to second. The contact play is usually reserved for runners on first and third in order to avoid the double play. The point is to sacrifice the runner on third in order to gain four bases, if he can stay in a run-down long enough for the runner on first to reach third and the batter to reach second. That makes sense. It doesn't make sense to have the runner on third go on contact no matter where the ball is hit on the ground, if he is the only runner on base. 


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : Definitely maybe. Maybe with a man on third they don't even try to nail Gonzalez. I sure wouldn't if I were Leyland. Why take even the slightest chance of a wild pitch? Leyland had an empty base to play with, and a lefty coming up to face Coke.  Let's go back to the situation. When Punto was on third, was anyone on first? If not, then it's not likely that Valentine "sent" Punto on contact. IIRC, the ball was hit sharply to the third baseman right behind Punto, who had taken a couple of steps towards home. Or a few steps. He was hung up, and Pedey made it to second. The contact play is usually reserved for runners on first and third in order to avoid the double play. The point is to sacrifice the runner on third in order to gain four bases, if he can stay in a run-down long enough for the runner on first to reach third and the batter to reach second. That makes sense. It doesn't make sense to have the runner on third go on contact no matter where the ball is hit on the ground, if he is the only runner on base. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I think Punto was sent on contact because just prior to the grounder, Pedey hit one foul and Punto was running on the play. On the ball in play, you can tell Punto was going on contact because of the way he was leaning. He went on the play, but the ball was hit so sharply that he knew he was toast, which is why he tried to go back.

    Managers do sometimes call for a contact play with just a guy on third. It's a gamble to try to get a run. Sometimes it works, often times it backfires.

    On the first-and-third play, you don't need to call it just to break up the double play. The guy on first is going to be running on contact on a grounder anyway. At least he better be.

    Had the runner been on third instead of second, maybe they don't throw at Gonzalez, but the plan all along was to not pitch to A-Gon and to pitch to Ortiz.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    Not at lot of blame to lay at the feet of Bobby yesterday.  Aside from Clay, Aceves, and Melancon hard to find fault with the rest of the team.  Padilla and Morales were lights out and the team put up 12 runs.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : I think Punto was sent on contact because just prior to the grounder, Pedey hit one foul and Punto was running on the play. On the ball in play, you can tell Punto was going on contact because of the way he was leaning. He went on the play, but the ball was hit so sharply that he knew he was toast, which is why he tried to go back. Managers do sometimes call for a contact play with just a guy on third. It's a gamble to try to get a run. Sometimes it works, often times it backfires. On the first-and-third play, you don't need to call it just to break up the double play. The guy on first is going to be running on contact on a grounder anyway. At least he better be. Had the runner been on third instead of second, maybe they don't throw at Gonzalez, but the plan all along was to not pitch to A-Gon and to pitch to Ortiz.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]

    nothing wrong with hit and run....like that style better than waiting for the 3 run jack....pitchers have to pitch better or even earl weaver couldnt help this sox team
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : nothing wrong with hit and run....like that style better than waiting for the 3 run jack....pitchers have to pitch better or even earl weaver couldnt help this sox team
    Posted by georom4[/QUOTE]

    I'm not against a hit and run. And that play wasn't a hit and run. A hit and run, the runner is going on the pitch. That was a go-on-contact, which I'm not against either in certain situations.

    I believe in playing smart. With a runner on third and one out, and guys like Pedey, A-Gon and Papi due up, I think the smarter play is to be conservative because you have proven guys coming up.

    If there was one out, and the lower part of the batting order coming up, I'd be more inclined to be aggressive.

    Being too aggressive is just as bad, maybe worse, than being too conservative. I want a smart manager, not a manager trying to show he's smart. There's a difference.

    I'm really not blaming Valentine for the loss, just like I didn't blame Francona for a one-run loss in extra innings when the team put up 12 runs. Even if the manager could have or should have done something different to coax another run out of their team, when you score 12 runs and lose, it's on the pitching pure and simple. I'm just as consistent now with that opinion as I was a year ago.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : I'm not against a hit and run. And that play wasn't a hit and run. A hit and run, the runner is going on the pitch. That was a go-on-contact, which I'm not against either in certain situations. I believe in playing smart. With a runner on third and one out, and guys like Pedey, A-Gon and Papi due up, I think the smarter play is to be conservative because you have proven guys coming up. If there was one out, and the lower part of the batting order coming up, I'd be more inclined to be aggressive. Being too aggressive is just as bad, maybe worse, than being too conservative. I want a smart manager, not a manager trying to show he's smart. There's a difference. I'm really not blaming Valentine for the loss, just like I didn't blame Francona for a one-run loss in extra innings when the team put up 12 runs. Even if the manager could have or should have done something different to coax another run out of their team, when you score 12 runs and lose, it's on the pitching pure and simple. I'm just as consistent now with that opinion as I was a year ago.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]
    With no one on first, the Punto play was not "go on contact." Suppose the ball had been hit right back to the pitcher. Still "go on contact"? Contact is contact. Go is go. You may not think Valentine is very smart, but he'd have to be moronic to call a "go on contact" with a good chance that the runner on third will be called out at the plate, or hung up, as Punto was. Punto got caught going the wrong way on a ball hit sharply to the third baseman, who was right behind him. He forgot in that situation the oldest rule of them all: Make the ball go through. Then you can walk home. And he's not exactly a speed-burner.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : nothing wrong with hit and run....like that style better than waiting for the 3 run jack....pitchers have to pitch better or even earl weaver couldnt help this sox team
    Posted by georom4[/QUOTE]Actually Earl's formula was 3R HR + GPG = W
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm

    In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I give Valentine credit for being Francona calm : With no one on first, the Punto play was not "go on contact." Suppose the ball had been hit right back to the pitcher. Still "go on contact"? Contact is contact. Go is go. You may not think Valentine is very smart, but he'd have to be moronic to call a "go on contact" with a good chance that the runner on third will be called out at the plate, or hung up, as Punto was. Punto got caught going the wrong way on a ball hit sharply to the third baseman, who was right behind him. He forgot in that situation the oldest rule of them all: Make the ball go through. Then you can walk home. And he's not exactly a speed-burner.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I never said I didn't think Valentine wasn't smart.

    Go on contact is employed sometimes when a runner on third. If you watched the at-bat, you saw Punto go as soon as the ball was hit on both the foul ball and the fair ball.

    If it's a weakly hit ball and the runner doesn't go on contact, he's not going to score. If the runner goes on contact, he has the chance to score and puts pressure on the defense.

    Sure it's a gamble. It's aggressive. The downside is that if it is a shot back to the pitcher or a hard shot to the infielder, the runner ends up being toast as is what happened with Punto.

    It's the same as a hit-and-run. In that case, the runner goes on the pitch. The upside is that if it's a grounder, the team can avoid a double play or if it's a base hit, he might get another base. The downside is that if it's a line drive to an infielder, he's easily doubled up or or the batter misses the ball and the runner isn't fast, he might get thrown out trying to steal.

    A manager isn't moronic for employing either strategy. It's simply how a manager chooses to manage. I favor hit and runs more than go-on-contact when the runner is on third, but it is a legitimate strategy either way.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share