PDA

View Full Version : Get 'em over, get 'em around, get 'em in



RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 02:14 PM
During yesterday's game, there was a very annoying exchange in which the Reds announcers went on at length about how a runner should always score from 2nd base on a single to the outfield. He even went so far as to say that if you can't score, you should lose some weight.

Hatteberg is on 2B at the time. Hopper comes up, and after a rough AB, does a nice job of taking a low inside change-up to the right side to move Hatteberg to 3rd. The announcers go on and on about what a great job of hitting it was. Brantley (I think) even goes on to point a game where Larkin came up four times with a guy on 2B and grounded out to second each time, advancing the runner and how that shows how great a hitter he is. I would counter that a great hitter would've gotten some hits and driven in the runner, while putting another run on base, but that's not my primary point. He must've said at least 10 times, "that's how you play the game". I swear, I wanted to punch him in the face. Anyways...

In the next AB, Griffey lines a ball up the middle to score Hatteberg from 3rd base. Woohoo. However, given that Hatteberg is supposed to score from 2B on a single every time anyways, as the announcers told me, is it really that crucial to waste an out advancing him to 3B?

Yes, I understand that if you're going to make an out, a productive one is better than not. However, they pretty strongly asserted that advancing the runner was the primary function of the AB, right on the heels on pointing out that the runner at 2B should NOT need to be advanced in order to score.

Am I missing something? This is what bugs me about the "play the game the right way" crowd. It's often contradictory, emphasizing sub-optimal non-zero outcomes simply because they make people feel better about not producing an actually good outcome. Brantley rambled on, placing emphasis in consecutive points that were not only contradictory (at least in terms of the appropriate level of emphasis) but condescending (as he was clearly ranting against the "anti-small-ball" crowd) as well.

Marty is no better, railing Dunn for his defense and strikeouts constantly, but giving Hopper and Freel a free pass when they misplay balls in to hits or ground out weekly on the first pitch of an AB.

I'm tried of it. I don't ask for a sabermatrician poet to call our games. I'm even fine with somebody who believes in a small ball, pitching & defense oriented team and can defend the point articulately. But is it too hard to ask for announcers to use logic, not rely solely on anecdotal evidence when making sweeping claims, not contradict themselves, and not condescend to fans who may have a point of view developed after 1985?

edabbs44
08-09-2007, 02:20 PM
Moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd, to me, is more important when there are none out since that runner can now score on a sac fly or ground out.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 02:27 PM
Moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd, to me, is more important when there are none out since that runner can now score on a sac fly or ground out.

Yes. Moving a runner from 2B to 3B is important, as opposed to simply making an out that does not advance him. However, it is a much worse outcome than not making an out at all, particularly not making an out that advances him from 2B to home.

Focusing on moving the guy over as some wonderful thing completely ignores the fact that he made an out, and outs are bad, not good. It should be "Darn. Well, at least it was a productive out." not, "Woohoo! Great job! Now THAT's how you play the game the RIGHT way"... (...non-clutch, not-sac fly, striking-out-non-stop Adam Dunn).

KronoRed
08-09-2007, 02:28 PM
How many runners getting thrown out at home would it take before demanding people score from 2nd on a single was stopped? ;)

bucksfan2
08-09-2007, 02:35 PM
I think that the new Billy Beane way of baseball has ignored this philosophy to a large extent. Getting a runner to third base with less than two outs is a very important part of a baseball game. It is especially important that when the hitter is in a pitchers count that he get the ball to the right side to move the runner up. I read an article back when larkin was in his prime and an analysist said that Larkin could have hit 10 to 20 points higher if he wasn't such an unselfish player. It all goes back to the idea of a productive out. The goal of the game is to score more runs than the opposing team. Sure you lose an out if you move a runner up to third from second but you give that runner so many more options to score when he is at 3rd with less than 2 outs.

redsmetz
08-09-2007, 02:36 PM
It's interesting that in today's game, the Dodgers loaded the bases on a single to left field. Clearly the runner could NOT have scored there - he would have easily been thrown out.

Likewise, I doubt that Hatte would have scored from second on Griffey's hit; it was so sharply hit and Hatteberg would have had to hold up to make sure the pitcher hadn't snared it.

The aforementioned announcers are full of a little hooey.

LoganBuck
08-09-2007, 02:43 PM
You missed out on Marty's take on that same sequence. It was another tribute to Norris Hopper, about doing the little things. Then Griffey got the hit, and it was like "meh". I was reminded of the line from a thread the other day "I bet Norris Hopper's parents listen to the broadcast.".

Roy Tucker
08-09-2007, 02:49 PM
But is it too hard to ask for announcers to use logic, not rely solely on anecdotal evidence when making sweeping claims, not contradict themselves, and not condescend to fans who may have a point of view developed after 1985?

Yes.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 02:52 PM
Again, my point isn't really to debate the value of a productive out. God knows we've covered that ground already. It's the condescending, contradictory crap that that we're getting from our announcers that has me so ticked off.

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2007, 02:53 PM
I don't see anything wrong with Hopper advancing the runner from second to third. It was an important play in that baseball game, and helped the Reds win a tight one, 1-0. I thought that it was a good piece of situational hitting with the likes of Griffey, and the middle of the order to follow.

Team Clark
08-09-2007, 02:55 PM
The only problem I have with the "play the game the right way" comment is Media types who can't explain it the "right way".

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2007, 02:55 PM
Again, my point isn't really to debate the value of a productive out. God knows we've covered that ground already. It's the condescending, contradictory crap that that we're getting from our announcers that has me so ticked off.

I appreciate your opinion, Rick. When anything is driven down your throat in a condescending manner, it is going to create some animosity.

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2007, 02:55 PM
The only problem I have with the "play the game the right way" comment is Media types who can't explain it the "right way".

And you are right on the mark!:beerme:

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 02:59 PM
The only problem I have with the "play the game the right way" comment is Media types who can't explain it the "right way".

Precisely TC. And this was a case where the "Right Way" was emphatically stated to include always scoring from 2B on a single, followed by a "Right Way" productive out to the right side, followed by a single that likely would NOT have scored the runner, which was virtually ignored as being part of the "Right Way" formula.

So... which Right Way is the "Right Way" Mr Brantley?

I find it funny that the "Right Way" often centers around making the best of a sub-optimal situation. Guys who do the optimal thing too often just don't play the game the "Right Way". My "Right Way" to play the game with a runner on 2B and none out is to hit a 500 foot bomb to center.

dougdirt
08-09-2007, 03:01 PM
During the 8th inning Jeff Brantley was running down how the Reds scored. He said the key play of the inning was Hoppers ground out to second base. Not the double by Hatteberg to get to second, or Griffeys single that plated Hatteberg, but Hoppers weak ground ball on a pitch that would have been a ball had he not swung the bat.

I can't make that up. I thought about pulling out some of my hair.

flyer85
08-09-2007, 03:03 PM
During the 8th inning Jeff Brantley was running down how the Reds scored. He said the key play of the inning was Hoppers ground out to second base. Not the double by Hatteberg to get to second, or Griffeys single that plated Hatteberg, but Hoppers weak ground ball on a pitch that would have been a ball had he not swung the bat.

I guess it would be known as conventional "wisdom".

BRM
08-09-2007, 03:05 PM
I guess it would be known as conventional "wisdom".

It's conventional but I'm not sure I'd call it "wisdom".

flyer85
08-09-2007, 03:06 PM
It's conventional but I'm not sure I'd call it "wisdom".hence the quotes.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 03:13 PM
During the 8th inning Jeff Brantley was running down how the Reds scored. He said the key play of the inning was Hoppers ground out to second base. Not the double by Hatteberg to get to second, or Griffeys single that plated Hatteberg, but Hoppers weak ground ball on a pitch that would have been a ball had he not swung the bat.

I can't make that up. I thought about pulling out some of my hair.

Yup. Just another case of the constant undervaluing of actual production in lieu of unexpected marginal contributions.

If you met Brantley or Marty, then went and lost 100 pounds and got a haircut, they'd say "You look great! Nice haircut. But you should go buy a new belt, that one sucks."

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2007, 03:17 PM
Add the marginal contributions at key times to actual production and you have a recipe for success.

Yachtzee
08-09-2007, 03:32 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if announcers like the ones working for the Reds are fascinated by things like "hustle" and "the little things" because they just look like the player is doing more to win. It's almost like those jobs everyone has where they have that manager that loves to see people doing busy work. They think you're getting more accomplished because you're always moving around.

The Reds announcers don't seem to like home runs. Why not? It scores runs, does it not? The problem with home runs, is that it looks lazy because you're just trotting around those bases. They're the easy way to score. Slapping an out to the right side to advance the runner and then bringing him in with a sac fly is the more complicated way to score and causes two outs in the process, but it looks so much more like everybody worked hard to score that run. Plus it requires qualities people value, like teamwork and hustle.

When I think of playing the game the right way, I think of players who watch the pitcher, make a note of how they're throwing that day, taking pitches you can't handle or are out of the strike zone, looking for pitches you can drive, learning from your plate appearances and those of your teammates and making in-game adjustments, honing your defense and positioning yourself to give you the best opportunity to record the out, keeping your head in the game and not making mental mistakes that cost your team. The problem is that you can't see most of those things from the announcer's booth. You can only see things like hustle and it tends to fool people into thinking that player is doing more than they are.

redsmetz
08-09-2007, 03:34 PM
During the 8th inning Jeff Brantley was running down how the Reds scored. He said the key play of the inning was Hoppers ground out to second base. Not the double by Hatteberg to get to second, or Griffeys single that plated Hatteberg, but Hoppers weak ground ball on a pitch that would have been a ball had he not swung the bat.

I can't make that up. I thought about pulling out some of my hair.

The shame is that each piece was critical to the run scoring and ultimately winning the game. Why overemphasize one piece and overlook the two pieces sandwiching the sacrificing? It's the beauty of the game and it was a textbook manufactured run.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 03:49 PM
Take away the little things and you still have a shot, if a lessened one. Take away the big things and you're completely screwed.

It's pretty simple to me. Things like talent and standard production are taken for granted. They simple exist in space. Effort and "little things" require, or seem to require, something additional which we can directly credit to the player.

So it goes like this: "If I were Adam Dunn, I'd still hit 40 homers a year because that's based on talent that I would have. However, because I would care more and would work harder, I'd strike out less, play better defense and hit more sac flies."

With a guy like Hopper it's: "Hopper doesn't have very much talent. There's no way we can expect him to get a hit in that situation. We should be very grateful that he turned a normal out in to a productive one. Good job!"

edabbs44
08-09-2007, 03:51 PM
Many runs being scored in today's game via the out.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 03:53 PM
Many runs being scored in today's game via the out.

Yup. Imagine how many would've been scored if those were hits instead. But no, let's pretend like outs are good. I'll take a steak over a steak scented piece of crap every time.

edabbs44
08-09-2007, 04:06 PM
Yup. Imagine how many would've been scored if those were hits instead. But no, let's pretend like outs are good. I'll take a steak over a steak scented piece of crap every time.

Don't get offended.

The logic on the board is amazing sometimes:

1) BA vs OBP: Automatically, the response to an OBP argument involves the assumption that for a player to walk less, they will have to replace those walks with outs.

2) "Productive outs": Automatically, the response to a "Productive outs" argument involves the assumption that for a player to make a "productive out", they will have to replace hits with outs.

I think for the productive out discussion, the argument is that laying down a bunt (or "moving over a runner") can (probably) be done at a greater frequency than getting a hit.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 04:14 PM
Don't get offended.

The logic on the board is amazing sometimes:

1) BA vs OBP: Automatically, the response to an OBP argument involves the assumption that for a player to walk less, they will have to replace those walks with outs.

2) "Productive outs": Automatically, the response to a "Productive outs" argument involves the assumption that for a player to make a "productive out", they will have to replace hits with outs.

I think for the productive out discussion, the argument is that laying down a bunt (or "moving over a runner") can (probably) be done at a greater frequency than getting a hit.

To point 1, I believe both Steel and Cyclone have posted copious evidence in this regard. Players don't turn walks in to hits on a scale such that swing at those pitches which would otherwise lead to walks becomes a good thing. This isn't an affront to situational hitting, the value of batting average, or an absolute rule that covers every possible case. It's also not random speculation. It's a conclusion arrived at after thorough analysis of data derived from real players.

To point 2, in no way do I mean to denegrade the value of a productive out. Nor am I assuming that they are replacing what otherwise would be hits. However, I will complain when our announcers act as if productive outs were preferable to hits. I'll take a productive out every time I can get one, particularly in certain situations when they can turn the tide of a game.

In that game where Larkin was 0-4 with a runner on 2B but moved over the runner, how many of them scored? Would they have scored if Larkin didn't move them over? Would they have scored if Larkin had driven them in himself? Would Larkin have scored if he had gotten on base? It's not that moving them over is bad. It's that the value of doing so is potentially being overstated, because it is often only being compared to the alternative of a non-productive out. The "out" part of "productive-out" is often understated in terms of value. For example, the ball Hopper hit to 2B would likely have been a ball. If he had managed a walk, we would have had 1st and 2nd with no outs, instead of 3rd with 1 out. Not saying he would have walked, just saying the he did make an out, and that shouldn't be forgotten.

My complaint is around the grossly disproportionate amount of attention given to things that are marginally good, in lieu of things that are significantly good. Shrug at the homer. Cheer at the hustle single. Both are good things. But when those sorts of things turn in to comments such as "the Reds would be better with Norris Hopper in LF than Adam Dunn", then I have a problem.

When an announcer goes to great length to emphasize how a runner on 2B should always score (thus making a productive out less valuable), and then 2 seconds later lauds a productive out, I have to wonder if there's a consistent, comprehensive set of values, or just knee jerk reactions based on a set of personal experiences that might not accurately reflect reality.

Johnny Footstool
08-09-2007, 05:11 PM
It comes down to the notions of effort and sacrifice. A player *must* be willing to give his all for the good of the team. If you're on second, it's your responsibility to do whatever you can to score on a base hit. If you're at bat, you *must* be willing to make an out in order to move him along.

I totally agree with the first point. The second point, however, is ludicrous. In giving up an out, you're actually *decreasing* your team's chance of scoring, no matter how you slice it. You can pretend you've actually accomplished something, but more often than not, you've simply spun your wheels. The Hatteberg/Hopper case is a prime example.

Ltlabner
08-09-2007, 05:28 PM
BA vs OBP: Automatically, the response to an OBP argument involves the assumption that for a player to walk less, they will have to replace those walks with outs.

Carefull there Edabbs. You are dropping some of those wacky number thingies in there. Next thing you know you'll be dredging up the glossary of ridiculous stats as constructed by Baseball Prospectus.

Red Leader
08-09-2007, 05:34 PM
Precisely TC. And this was a case where the "Right Way" was emphatically stated to include always scoring from 2B on a single, followed by a "Right Way" productive out to the right side, followed by a single that likely would NOT have scored the runner, which was virtually ignored as being part of the "Right Way" formula.

So... which Right Way is the "Right Way" Mr Brantley?

I find it funny that the "Right Way" often centers around making the best of a sub-optimal situation. Guys who do the optimal thing too often just don't play the game the "Right Way". My "Right Way" to play the game with a runner on 2B and none out is to hit a 500 foot bomb to center.


:nono:


That's not very scrappy.

Ltlabner
08-09-2007, 05:38 PM
I'd like to see Javy score from 2nd base on any sort of hit, unless it goes over the wall or becomes lodged in belly of a pellican and is flown out of reach of the left fielder.

Redsland
08-09-2007, 06:22 PM
It's pretty simple to me. Things like talent and standard production are taken for granted. They simple exist in space. Effort and "little things" require, or seem to require, something additional which we can directly credit to the player.

So it goes like this: "If I were Adam Dunn, I'd still hit 40 homers a year because that's based on talent that I would have. However, because I would care more and would work harder, I'd strike out less, play better defense and hit more sac flies."

With a guy like Hopper it's: "Hopper doesn't have very much talent. There's no way we can expect him to get a hit in that situation. We should be very grateful that he turned a normal out in to a productive one. Good job!"
Yes. Exactly. Very well said.

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2007, 06:46 PM
Still want to see that poll to see who prefers Hopper over Dunn.

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 06:48 PM
Still want to see that poll to see who prefers Hopper over Dunn.

Would Marty get a vote? And that's still not the point. I want announcers who call the game from a baseline of nothing, where positive events get applauded in the context of the game; not ones who only comment negatively or positively from their baseline of expectations for a given player. That sort of analysis has it's place, perhaps even on occasion in the booth, but it's become routine.

I'm tired of Adam Dunn getting trashed for striking out to start an inning and not having a similar attitude towards a weak grounder to third. And I really don't like announcers saying that the key event of a run scoring inning was an as opposed to two hits which are primarily responsible. Yes, the run may not have scored if Hopper had struck out instead of grounded weakly to 2B. Good job. I don't need to be told repeatedly that somehow that out was a bigger influence than the double or single.

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2007, 06:50 PM
We'll just go ahead and count 1 for Hopper, but I don't think you'll see many more.;)

RedsManRick
08-09-2007, 06:54 PM
Luckily, my comments were directed towards our announcers. Marty and Brantley make up a pretty big % of that crowd.

RANDY IN INDY
08-09-2007, 07:28 PM
As I mentioned before, a lot of people have similar reactions when something is getting force fed to them in a condescending way. People have their "hot" buttons including myself. Most of the time, I can control it, but sometimes it spills over. I will agree that Brantley and Brennamen were grinding their axe, but then, the axe probably is being ground the other way towards their views by another crowd to get that reaction from them. I agree, their pulpit is much louder than anyone elses.

There are a lot of "right ways" to play the game. Most of that depends on the way the team is made up, the particular way it is playing at the time, and who they are playing against. Knowing your limitations, recognizing the way a particular pitcher is throwing and putting those two things together are, at times, huge. Players should be on top of those things. Last night, with the way Harang and Billingsly were dealing, I think it was really good baseball to try and get that one run across, early. Harang can win with a run or two, and probably nothing good is going to happen if Hopper tries and pulls Billingsley. Hitting the opposite way was a good thing. Put Matt Belisle or Bobby Livingston on the mound and my approach might be different, although Hopper's going to hit a lot of ground balls to second when he tries to pull Billingsley. That is not going to change.

For me, there is not one particular way of playing the game the right way. So many situations and factors to think about.

BCubb2003
08-09-2007, 08:55 PM
It would be good to sit down with Brantley or some of the others and just talk through the whole idea of playing the game the right way. Clarifying what it means, what its limits are, allowing for challenges to the notion.

KronoRed
08-09-2007, 09:34 PM
We'll just go ahead and count 1 for Hopper, but I don't think you'll see many more.;)

Run that poll on the sundeck, I'm thinking it'll be neck and neck

KronoRed
08-09-2007, 09:35 PM
I'd like to see Javy score from 2nd base on any sort of hit, unless it goes over the wall or becomes lodged in belly of a pellican and is flown out of reach of the left fielder.

Pellicans hang out in the OF?

Coolness.

Caveat Emperor
08-09-2007, 11:56 PM
If you're at bat, you *must* be willing to make an out in order to move him along.

Problem is, a good number of groundouts that advance runners represent nothing more than good fortune as opposed to any real "willingness" to make an out.

Man on 2nd and less than 2 outs, assuming the bunt sign isn't on, you're going for a base hit. If you aren't going for a base hit, I don't want you on my team.

TeamBoone
08-10-2007, 12:16 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if announcers like the ones working for the Reds are fascinated by things like "hustle" and "the little things" because they just look like the player is doing more to win. It's almost like those jobs everyone has where they have that manager that loves to see people doing busy work. They think you're getting more accomplished because you're always moving around.

The Reds announcers don't seem to like home runs. Why not? It scores runs, does it not? The problem with home runs, is that it looks lazy because you're just trotting around those bases. They're the easy way to score. Slapping an out to the right side to advance the runner and then bringing him in with a sac fly is the more complicated way to score and causes two outs in the process, but it looks so much more like everybody worked hard to score that run. Plus it requires qualities people value, like teamwork and hustle.

When I think of playing the game the right way, I think of players who watch the pitcher, make a note of how they're throwing that day, taking pitches you can't handle or are out of the strike zone, looking for pitches you can drive, learning from your plate appearances and those of your teammates and making in-game adjustments, honing your defense and positioning yourself to give you the best opportunity to record the out, keeping your head in the game and not making mental mistakes that cost your team. The problem is that you can't see most of those things from the announcer's booth. You can only see things like hustle and it tends to fool people into thinking that player is doing more than they are.

Wow! That is one great post. I'm not sure I ever would have thought of it, but I think you just hit the nail on the head.

Excellent.

BCubb2003
08-10-2007, 03:02 AM
I agree, it's an excellent post. It deserves to be in "the book" of baseball. I'd like to probe it a little, just to sort out my own thoughts.

Is the opposite of the "hustle" and "little things" player the mentally astute, head-in-the-game player or the one-dimensional, easily neutralized player?

Who on the Reds comes closest to the "true right way" player Yachtzee described? Who in the rest of baseball?

Home runs don't happen very often. If a player hits 40 home runs, he's not hitting a home run in 122 games, more or less. How should he try to win those games?

Who's a bigger threat to the other team, the player who's constantly probing the other team's weaknesses, or the player who waits for a mistake pitch to hit out?

How do you make the point unmistakably clear that runs win games and the team leader in creating runs is the player who's winning games for you?

gonelong
08-10-2007, 01:00 PM
I agree, it's an excellent post. It deserves to be in "the book" of baseball. I'd like to probe it a little, just to sort out my own thoughts.

Is the opposite of the "hustle" and "little things" player the mentally astute, head-in-the-game player or the one-dimensional, easily neutralized player?

The opposite of "hustle" and "little things" seem to be whoever doesn't follows the announcers idea of what should be done that point in the game, or is unsuccessful in doing so.


Who on the Reds comes closest to the "true right way" player Yachtzee described? Who in the rest of baseball?

I'd have to say Hatteburg. He seems prepared, has a plan, has his head in the game, is productive, and is fairly well rounded. He can bunt if need be, hits a handful of HR, works the pitcher, and plays decent enough defense. He is a veteran that seems to be willing to try and impart what he has learned over the years with the younger guys.


Home runs don't happen very often. If a player hits 40 home runs, he's not hitting a home run in 122 games, more or less. How should he try to win those games?

HBP, Walk, single, double, triple, bunts, sac flys, SB, and defense.


Who's a bigger threat to the other team, the player who's constantly probing the other team's weaknesses, or the player who waits for a mistake pitch to hit out?

They don't walk the guy that is constantly probing the other team's weaknesses, they walk the guy that can hit it over the fence. It surely doesn't hurt if you can build a team with both types of players on it.


How do you make the point unmistakably clear that runs win games and the team leader in creating runs is the player who's winning games for you?

Outlive the current group of beat writers, broadcasters, columnists, and talk radio "personalities" that reside in the city of Cincy?

C Trent and Thom seem like they have a clue that might be the case. If we can replace Fey, Daugherty, Tracy Jones, McAlliser, Marty, etc. with more guys like CT & Thom then maybe the fan base will pick up on it at some point.

GL

dougdirt
08-10-2007, 01:16 PM
HBP, Walk, single, double, triple, bunts, sac flys, SB, and defense.


Just wanted to chime in here.... but I hope a player never comes to the plate TRYING to hit a sac fly. If it happens as a by product, then great. But I want them going to the plate trying to get a hit.

Johnny Footstool
08-10-2007, 01:17 PM
Problem is, a good number of groundouts that advance runners represent nothing more than good fortune as opposed to any real "willingness" to make an out.

Man on 2nd and less than 2 outs, assuming the bunt sign isn't on, you're going for a base hit. If you aren't going for a base hit, I don't want you on my team.

Well, hitters do take a different approach when attempting to hit to the right side of the diamond. And doing so does show the manager (and the announcers) that you're playing according to the official "Right Way to Play the Game" strategy guide. I'm not saying I agree with it, though.

Personally, if a guy is adept at hitting to opposite field (like Larkin or Brandon Phillips), I don't mind the approach. But asking A-Rod to change his approach in an attempt to move the runner up would be idiotic, as would verbally blasting him for failing to do so.

remdog
08-10-2007, 01:34 PM
As I mentioned before, a lot of people have similar reactions when something is getting force fed to them in a condescending way. People have their "hot" buttons including myself. Most of the time, I can control it, but sometimes it spills over. I will agree that Brantley and Brennamen were grinding their axe, but then, the axe probably is being ground the other way towards their views by another crowd to get that reaction from them. I agree, their pulpit is much louder than anyone elses.

There are a lot of "right ways" to play the game. Most of that depends on the way the team is made up, the particular way it is playing at the time, and who they are playing against. Knowing your limitations, recognizing the way a particular pitcher is throwing and putting those two things together are, at times, huge. Players should be on top of those things. Last night, with the way Harang and Billingsly were dealing, I think it was really good baseball to try and get that one run across, early. Harang can win with a run or two, and probably nothing good is going to happen if Hopper tries and pulls Billingsley. Hitting the opposite way was a good thing. Put Matt Belisle or Bobby Livingston on the mound and my approach might be different, although Hopper's going to hit a lot of ground balls to second when he tries to pull Billingsley. That is not going to change.

For me, there is not one particular way of playing the game the right way. So many situations and factors to think about.

That's a very good evaluation, Randy.

Rem

KronoRed
08-10-2007, 02:24 PM
Just wanted to chime in here.... but I hope a player never comes to the plate TRYING to hit a sac fly. If it happens as a by product, then great. But I want them going to the plate trying to get a hit.

From what I've seen players who come up trying to hit a sac fly end up popping it up in the infield

Chip R
08-10-2007, 02:45 PM
Just wanted to chime in here.... but I hope a player never comes to the plate TRYING to hit a sac fly. If it happens as a by product, then great. But I want them going to the plate trying to get a hit.


Couldn't agree more. :thumbup:

bucksfan2
08-10-2007, 03:07 PM
There really isn't a correct way to "Play the game the right way" it is rather taking advantage of situations. It is just one of those intangables that some people possess and others struggle with. The great baseball players are the ones who have talent but also have a very high baseball iq. The way I look at it playing the game the right way isnt a set in stone philosophy. Look at the phillips double steal the other day. He saw an opportunity, saw the defensive weakness and exploited that. Look at the Derrik Jeter flip home to tag out Jeremy Giambi. Jeter probably shouldn't have been there to even make that play but he was in position and if Giambi had the same level of IQ he would have slid and maybe the A's have a world series title.

Getting back to the original topic I think the reds broadcast crew has become increasingly negative. I really discount everything Marty says nowdays. I think Thom has a good perspective but tends to hammer in the point over and over again.

BCubb2003
08-10-2007, 03:10 PM
These strategies seem to be meant for:

the hitter who's good enough to try to get a hit to the right side when needed, so that he still moves the runner over if the ball doesn't fall in

the hitter who can try to get a hit while avoiding the ground ball if a sac fly will score the run

the batter who isn't likely to get a hit but still has enough bat control to hit to the right side or hit a fly ball when needed

The batter who's almost certain to make an out and whose only hope is to try to move the runner over

But it's been overthought and overused so that good hitters are forced to give up outs.

RANDY IN INDY
08-10-2007, 03:37 PM
I don't think anyone goes up with the idea of making an out, save a sacrifice bunt. Hit it hard in a spot that is advantageous with the idea of driving it through a hole, if you have that ability. Know the pitcher's tendencies. Recognize the pitch and location. Make solid contact. Don't try to do too much. These guys are pro's and I expect a lot from a pro.

When I see my son, who just turned 10, being able to recognize a pitch and go with the pitch the opposite way against what is really good competition for his age, on a pretty regular basis, I have no reservations about expecting a professional to be able to do it. It takes a lot of practice and he works at it really hard. We have had many long sessions in the cage when we work on nothing but hitting it the opposite way, not to mention almost daily soft toss and tee work. We play hitting games on the field where he is awarded points for hitting the ball to certain places on the field. We'll do a bucket of balls where I ask him to hit everything up the middle. Then we work on going the opposite way and finally on pulling the ball and driving it for power. When we are throwing to loosen up, I throw him four seamers, two seamers, curveballs, changeups and ask him to recognize the pitch, based on the spin. He's gotten really good at it. He likes the challenge and I've seen him use it over and over in games to his advantage. We use John Wooden's eight laws of learning:

1. Explanation
2. Demonstration
3. Imitation
4. Repetition
5. Repetition
6. Repetition
7. Repetition
8. Repetition

GAC
08-10-2007, 07:07 PM
In the next AB, Griffey lines a ball up the middle to score Hatteberg from 3rd base. Woohoo. However, given that Hatteberg is supposed to score from 2B on a single every time anyways, as the announcers told me, is it really that crucial to waste an out advancing him to 3B?

But how do you know that was Hopper's intent when he went to the plate -waste an out - and that he wasn't trying to get a hit?

The way I have always looked at it was that at a minimum you want to at least try and move the runner over. Forgive me for digressing and sounding like Tracy "I played the game" Jones, but it will help, by recalling my playing days, of how I, and most ballplayers, addressed these situations...

Sure you went up there trying to get a hit. That is first and foremost in your mind. No one I ever knew went into that batter's box "locked in" with this mentality of ONLY WANTING to hit the ball and move the runner over. That was the least you wanted to do of the options available to you.

I was not a power hitter. I had a solid OB%, hit for average, and possessed speed. But I always studied the opposition vigorously. Before I stepped into that batter's box I already had a mental note of runner's on base, INF/OF positioning, and what I was looking for, as far as pitch selection, that would help me accomplish success. And that was - get a hit.

But one also has to understand that that pitcher is out there to do his job, not give you that pitch, and get you out. Many variables are at play, and it's not such an easy task.

But if I ended up walking back to the dugout with my bat in hand, then least I wanted to accomplish was to move that runner over. No, I didn't want to give up the out, and that wasn't my intention; but at least I did accompish something positive with that A/B.


Yes, I understand that if you're going to make an out, a productive one is better than not. However, they pretty strongly asserted that advancing the runner was the primary function of the AB

And I think Randy and I are on the same page in that respect. Good post Randy....


As I mentioned before, a lot of people have similar reactions when something is getting force fed to them in a condescending way. People have their "hot" buttons including myself. Most of the time, I can control it, but sometimes it spills over. I will agree that Brantley and Brennamen were grinding their axe, but then, the axe probably is being ground the other way towards their views by another crowd to get that reaction from them. I agree, their pulpit is much louder than anyone elses.

There are a lot of "right ways" to play the game. Most of that depends on the way the team is made up, the particular way it is playing at the time, and who they are playing against. Knowing your limitations, recognizing the way a particular pitcher is throwing and putting those two things together are, at times, huge. Players should be on top of those things. Last night, with the way Harang and Billingsly were dealing, I think it was really good baseball to try and get that one run across, early. Harang can win with a run or two, and probably nothing good is going to happen if Hopper tries and pulls Billingsley. Hitting the opposite way was a good thing. Put Matt Belisle or Bobby Livingston on the mound and my approach might be different, although Hopper's going to hit a lot of ground balls to second when he tries to pull Billingsley. That is not going to change.

For me, there is not one particular way of playing the game the right way. So many situations and factors to think about.



Yes, I understand that if you're going to make an out, a productive one is better than not. However, they pretty strongly asserted that advancing the runner was the primary function of the AB

Who cares what these guys say. That's why they are in the booth and not the dugout. :lol:

GAC
08-10-2007, 07:13 PM
The opposite of "hustle" and "little things" seem to be whoever doesn't follows the announcers idea of what should be done that point in the game, or is unsuccessful in doing so.



I'd have to say Hatteburg. He seems prepared, has a plan, has his head in the game, is productive, and is fairly well rounded. He can bunt if need be, hits a handful of HR, works the pitcher, and plays decent enough defense. He is a veteran that seems to be willing to try and impart what he has learned over the years with the younger guys.



HBP, Walk, single, double, triple, bunts, sac flys, SB, and defense.

I couldn't agree with you more GL. He is one of my favorite current Reds.

RedsManRick
08-10-2007, 07:39 PM
I agree with GAC. I'm not saying that anybody is preferring a productive out to a hit in reality. I am saying that we take the value of the hit for granted. It's virtually impossible for Hopper, no matter how many of his outs are productive, no matter how often he gets that extra base from hustle, to make up for his low OBP and overall lack of power.

Doing those small things are important, but they are the icing on the cake. If you're in a best cake competition, the best cake will have the best icing. However, if you serve up the judges dried out piece of crap with the world's best icing on it, you won't even place.

I'm tired of hearing so much about the damn icing when we keep serving up crap. We're not a bad team because of our mediocre icing. We're a bad team because we're putting that mediocre icing on one of the worst cakes in baseball.

I absolutely want our team to play the "right way" and think that doing so plays a role in winning baseball. But when our announcers call our good players bad and our bad players good based on the quality of their icing, I'm going to take issue.

I'm thrilled if Norris Hopper can sustain replacement level production on the strength of his playing the game the right way. But let's not overlook the fact that it's still replacement level production. If a good player who doesn't play the game the right way can give us better overall production, he's a better player in terms of helping us win games. It takes a whole lot of pushing the ball to the right side and taking an extra base to account for 20 outs at the plate and less power on balls in play. The way Marty and Brantley talk about it, you'd think Hopper actually was more valuable than Dunn.

GAC
08-10-2007, 08:08 PM
We're a team that live or dies by the HR. We "die" because we don't get men on base in front of these guys. Poorly constructed, and kids like Hopper are not the answer. And as much as I like Phillips, he'd never see the top spots in this batting order.

But the reason that kids like Hopper and DeWise, among others, are getting the "look-see" is because what other answers do we currently have in this farm system?

That is what I am taking the "wait and see" attitude with Krivsky. Can he correct that?.... and how long should he be allowed to do so?

NOTE: I see that tonight's lineup has Hopper and then Phillips leading off [sigh]

RFS62
08-10-2007, 08:22 PM
Very good discussion, with some great stuff from BCubb, Randy, and GAC in particular.

I'm always amazed when people are surprised that big league hitters are expected to be able to "play the game the right way".

Maybe it would be easier if one thought of it as a particular style of offense, like in football. Now, detractors would say it's the "T-Formation" perhaps. Outdated and outmoded, not as effective as the offensive schemes which rarely bunt or give away an out for situational advantage. In fact, many would say that giving away an out can NEVER cause situational advantage worthy of giving away the out.

These are simply two different offensive schemes. When advocates of the "Earl Weaver" offense, for lack of a better term, see a manager sacrifice or expect a hitter to put the ball in play to the right side, they will never agree with that approach. But it's a style of play that is taught throughout the minor leagues and as Randy pointed out, all the way down the food chain to the most basic levels of baseball.

Maybe calling it the "right way to play" is a misnomer. Maybe we'd be better if we called it "Billy ball", or in our case, "Marty Ball". Whatever.

The point is that it is a stand alone scheme or approach that has been used for years. You may think your way is better, but if your manager asks you to put the ball on the ground to the right side or sacrifice, you'd better be able to produce the goods, or you'll be looking for employment elsewhere.

It's part of being to perform the basic skills of baseball, which are taught and employed on every level.

Of late, plate discipline and on base percentage are getting a lot more attention. But they were never ignored in "Marty Ball". They just didn't get the emphasis and attention which they get in the "Earl Weaver offense".

If you have a manager who plays "Marty Ball", and we do, it seems silly to get mad at the players for trying to do what they're being asked to do to run the offense. Your beef should be with the manager for employing that style, if you don't like it.

RANDY IN INDY
08-10-2007, 09:44 PM
I am saying that we take the value of the hit for granted.

I don't think that anyone who knows a lick about baseball takes the hit for granted. It is the single hardest thing to do in sports, in my opinion. I don't quite understand that statement, because anyone with a brain for the game doesn't take it for granted. Again, adding the intangibles with the hits and you have a recipe for success. Why does anyone resent that? It's a part of the game. I like to see guys hit homeruns as much as anyone else, but I surely appreciate it when a team can manufacture a run when it needs one. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. All or nothing is usually a recipe for failure.

RANDY IN INDY
08-10-2007, 09:54 PM
Those Weaver teams didn't have just a bunch of mashers. They surrounded Boog, Frank and Brooks with guys like Mark Belanger, Don Buford, Dave Johnson, Elrod Hendricks, Paul Blair, Merv Rettenmund and the list goes on and on. He knew how to use those players and they all brought different skills to the table. Those guys could handle a bat and were about as savy about the game of baseball as anyone could be. They played their brand of baseball, "the right way." The Dodger teams that relied on pitching played their brand of baseball "the right way." The Big Red Machine did the same. "The Right Way," can take on a lot of forms, but there are certain fundamentals that usually always go along with any of those brands. I can appreciate any of them.

GAC
08-10-2007, 10:20 PM
And with today's game, do organizations construst stadiums to "suit" their players? Or is it the other way around?

Howsam constructed the BRM for astro-turf.

RANDY IN INDY
08-10-2007, 11:24 PM
Should always be in the mind of the Reds front office when they construct a team. GABP is built for power and you better have a number of guys in the lineup who can take advantage of the dimensions. With that said, the guys you surround your big bats with, better be able to handle the bat little, and because of the ballpark, they too will cash in on the homerun more than they would in many other ballparks. The biggest concern with the ballpark is the ability to attract and keep pitchers in what is a very unfriendly ballpark for them.

remdog
08-10-2007, 11:40 PM
I don't think that anyone who knows a lick about baseball takes the hit for granted. It is the single hardest thing to do in sports, in my opinion. I don't quite understand that statement, because anyone with a brain for the game doesn't take it for granted. Again, adding the intangibles with the hits and you have a recipe for success. Why does anyone resent that? It's a part of the game. I like to see guys hit homeruns as much as anyone else, but I surely appreciate it when a team can manufacture a run when it needs one. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. All or nothing is usually a recipe for failure.

:clap::clap::clap:

Rem

LoganBuck
08-10-2007, 11:43 PM
New line tonight

"With all due respect to Josh Hamilton and the success he had before he was injured, I have a very hard time playing him over Norris Hopper."---- Marty, after the fluke infield base hit of Hopper's.

remdog
08-10-2007, 11:52 PM
"With all due respect to Josh Hamilton and the success he had before he is injured, I have a very hard time playing him over Norris Hopper."---- Marty, after the fluke infield base hit of Hopper's.

Hey! That's the kind of thing that gets ya' a three year extention!

Only in Cincinnati. :explode:

When does this kind of crap stop!?!

Rem

KronoRed
08-10-2007, 11:56 PM
New line tonight

"With all due respect to Josh Hamilton and the success he had before he is injured, I have a very hard time playing him over Norris Hopper."---- Marty, after the fluke infield base hit of Hopper's.

That should be unbelievable, but it's not.

RedsBaron
08-11-2007, 12:00 AM
New line tonight

"With all due respect to Josh Hamilton and the success he had before he was injured, I have a very hard time playing him over Norris Hopper."---- Marty, after the fluke infield base hit of Hopper's.

:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::
I just made a post about how stupid Paul D.'s column was, and then I read this stupid comment by Marty B. Marty will play a guy with a .698 OPS over a guy with a .914 OPS.

TeamBoone
08-11-2007, 12:48 AM
Everyone of us should email not only Marty for such an ignorant statement, but also WK. Does anyone think it's time the fans start pointing such things out to the appropriate people?

If it's been said once, it's been said ad nauseum... Marty has a lot to do with the ignorance of the casual fan; he does absolutely NOTHING to educate them when he makes statements like that. But then, for a man who should know a whole lot about baseball, he really could learn a lot if he didn't think he already knows it all. The stuff that comes out of his mouth absolutely astounds me.

There's so much good stuff noted on this board, usually backed up by fact when game related... unfortunately, it goes nowhere but here. Stand up! Be heard where it counts... if you have something to say, say it here AND say it again to the appropriate people.

flyer85
08-11-2007, 12:56 AM
Marty loves Hopper because he "does the little things". The reason he does those is because he can't do the big things. His only hope of being a fringe player on a major league roster is by doing the only things he can do, which in his case are "the little things".

It is amazing that WK actually came up with an OF worse at doing big things than Hopper. Ellison has exactly 0 extra base hits on the season combined with one walk. Actually you have to be really bad to have been on a roster for 4.5 months and only have gotten 46 ABs.

WVRedsFan
08-11-2007, 01:04 AM
Marty has a strange opinion on baseball, but so do Wayne Krivsky and maybe even Bob Castellini. The fact that Marty "would have a hard time playing Josh Hamilton over Norris Hopper" is totally ridiculous, but so are some moves by our GM. It's just an opinion. Wayne Krivisky can put his opinion into action (unfortunately) and Marty cannot (fortunately).

The fact that apparently Jerry Narron, Pete MacKlanin, and Bob Castellini apparently agree that Hopper is special only means they are on the same page. Which is scary.

remdog
08-11-2007, 01:06 AM
Marty loves Hopper because he "does the little things". The reason he does those is because he can't do the big things. His only hope of being a fringe player on a major league roster is by doing the only things he can do, which in his case are "the little things".

There is nothing wrong with doing the 'little things' and I'm sure you didn't mean that there were. It's to Hopper's credit that he realizes his limitations and very seldom tries to do more than he's physically able to do. (It's often referred to in sports as 'saying within yourself'.) Hopper realizes he can't do the 'big things', you realize he can't do the 'big things'. Why is it that Marty, who's seen more baseball than anyone, doesn't realize it?

Rem

flyer85
08-11-2007, 01:09 AM
There is nothing wrong with doing the 'little things' and I'm sure you didn't mean that there were. It's to Hopper's credit that he realizes his limitations and very seldom tries to do more than he's physically able to do. (It's often referred to in sports as 'saying within yourself'.) Hopper realizes he can't do the 'big things', you realize he can't do the 'big things'. Why is it that Marty, who's seen more baseball than anyone, doesn't realize it?

Rembut what it makes Hopper is a fringe roster player, not anywhere close to being an everyday player. Even considering playing him over Josh Hamilton is stupidity of the highest order.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-11-2007, 01:09 AM
I agree with GAC. I'm not saying that anybody is preferring a productive out to a hit in reality. I am saying that we take the value of the hit for granted. It's virtually impossible for Hopper, no matter how many of his outs are productive, no matter how often he gets that extra base from hustle, to make up for his low OBP and overall lack of power.

Doing those small things are important, but they are the icing on the cake. If you're in a best cake competition, the best cake will have the best icing. However, if you serve up the judges dried out piece of crap with the world's best icing on it, you won't even place.

I'm tired of hearing so much about the damn icing when we keep serving up crap. We're not a bad team because of our mediocre icing. We're a bad team because we're putting that mediocre icing on one of the worst cakes in baseball.

I absolutely want our team to play the "right way" and think that doing so plays a role in winning baseball. But when our announcers call our good players bad and our bad players good based on the quality of their icing, I'm going to take issue.

I'm thrilled if Norris Hopper can sustain replacement level production on the strength of his playing the game the right way. But let's not overlook the fact that it's still replacement level production. If a good player who doesn't play the game the right way can give us better overall production, he's a better player in terms of helping us win games. It takes a whole lot of pushing the ball to the right side and taking an extra base to account for 20 outs at the plate and less power on balls in play. The way Marty and Brantley talk about it, you'd think Hopper actually was more valuable than Dunn.

As always, well done. Great analogy.

remdog
08-11-2007, 01:15 AM
but what it makes Hopper is a fringe roster player, not anywhere close to being an everyday player. Even considering playing him over Josh Hamilton is stupidity of the highest order.

:laugh: Oh, I agree. You're preaching to the choir. The trick is to get Marty to even join the congregation. :laugh:

Rem

flyer85
08-11-2007, 01:15 AM
I'm thrilled if Norris Hopper can sustain replacement level production on the strength of his playing the game the right way. Unfortunately replacement level is all Hopper will ever be.

flyer85
08-11-2007, 01:17 AM
:laugh: Oh, I agree. You're preaching to the choir. The trick is to get Marty to even join the congregation. :laugh:

Rem I'm sure the combined brainpower of Redzone pales in comparison to that of a HOF announcer.

Chip R
08-11-2007, 01:25 AM
:laugh: Oh, I agree. You're preaching to the choir. The trick is to get Marty to even join the congregation. :laugh:

Rem


He's not even going to visit the church.

KronoRed
08-11-2007, 02:55 AM
Unfortunately replacement level is all Hopper will ever be.

That's just fine...for a backup.

BCubb2003
08-11-2007, 03:02 AM
There's so much good stuff noted on this board, usually backed up by fact when game related... unfortunately, it goes nowhere but here. Stand up! Be heard where it counts... if you have something to say, say it here AND say it again to the appropriate people.

I agree. To the Banana Phone!

Actually, it is a good idea. I'd much rather hear a polite, reasoned, good-natured e-mail from RedsZoners about creating runs than some of the schtick that gets sent in.

WVRedsFan
08-11-2007, 03:05 AM
I'm sure the combined brainpower of Redzone pales in comparison to that of a HOF announcer.

Not. Marty is entertainment. He, like the fan in the seats (you know, the normal ones who don't analyze everyting like we do) gets impressed when even the luckiest of moves reaps benefits. I've said it before, Marty is popular because he is just like the average fan. Not a bad thing IMHO. If we had a real student of the game in the booth, it would be boring as watching paint dry.

And besides, RedsZone would be about 10,000 posts shy...

Ron Madden
08-11-2007, 03:11 AM
Everyone of us should email not only Marty for such an ignorant statement, but also WK. Does anyone think it's time the fans start pointing such things out to the appropriate people?

If it's been said once, it's been said ad nauseum... Marty has a lot to do with the ignorance of the casual fan; he does absolutely NOTHING to educate them when he makes statements like that. But then, for a man who should know a whole lot about baseball, he really could learn a lot if he didn't think he already knows it all. The stuff that comes out of his mouth absolutely astounds me.

There's so much good stuff noted on this board, usually backed up by fact when game related... unfortunately, it goes nowhere but here. Stand up! Be heard where it counts... if you have something to say, say it here AND say it again to the appropriate people.

That is a great idea TB.

I think Marty would just ignore us though.

BCubb2003
08-11-2007, 03:15 AM
I think an e-mail like this might get through:

"I love to watch Norris Hopper play, but I hope all of that energy of his doesn't overshadow the rare talent that Josh Hamilton has shown us or how Adam Dunn is leading the team in creating runs. Do you figure Hopper's best role is as a super sub?"

RedsBaron
08-11-2007, 08:03 AM
Marty loves Hopper because he "does the little things". The reason he does those is because he can't do the big things. His only hope of being a fringe player on a major league roster is by doing the only things he can do, which in his case are "the little things".

It is amazing that WK actually came up with an OF worse at doing big things than Hopper. Ellison has exactly 0 extra base hits on the season combined with one walk. Actually you have to be really bad to have been on a roster for 4.5 months and only have gotten 46 ABs.

Marty will love Ellison.

GAC
08-11-2007, 08:51 AM
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::
I just made a post about how stupid Paul D.'s column was, and then I read this stupid comment by Marty B. Marty will play a guy with a .698 OPS over a guy with a .914 OPS.

Understand - Marty plays a lot of golf and believes the lower the number the better.

RedsBaron
08-11-2007, 09:31 AM
Understand - Marty plays a lot of golf and believes the lower the number the better.

Marty really will love Ellison then.

TeamBoone
08-11-2007, 11:34 AM
I think an e-mail like this might get through:

"I love to watch Norris Hopper play, but I hope all of that energy of his doesn't overshadow the rare talent that Josh Hamilton has shown us or how Adam Dunn is leading the team in creating runs. Do you figure Hopper's best role is as a super sub?"

Excellent. Simple, so Marty and the casual fans can understand it, but politely to the point... and don't forget to cc Krivsky.

A whole lot of similar emails in response to some of the things he says might put some of his opinions in perspective, if he chooses to read them of course... and if he chooses to see what you're saying instead of poo-pooing anything reasonable (as he usually does).

WK might pay more attention than Marty if he gets enough of them, and that's ok too.

VR
08-11-2007, 01:19 PM
This is one of the best RZ threads in awhile. Very good discussion. Randy, you points are very well communicated.

My meager input as it relates to small ball is this....be ready to adjust. Over the course of the year, it's obvious that 'giving up outs' will hurt you in the long run.
If I'm leading this team I do want my batter to get the guy over to third with no outs at a minimum. That said, you have two strikes to do your thing.

The problem with the Reds is that with two strikes they are still trying to hit a two run homer....and THAT is the big difference.

Adam Dunn will hit 1 dinger out of every 50 at bats in that situation.

Should we still be encouraging that monster HR swing? Or should we expect the batter to 'take one for the team'.

It's a fine line, batter by batter, I understand that.

But yeah, going up there and hitting an intentional weak grounder to second on the first pitch is obviously not the answer either.

KronoRed
08-11-2007, 02:10 PM
I think Marty would just ignore us though.

Or call us boobs from Portland

redsrule2500
08-11-2007, 04:35 PM
Don't you mean "Get 'em on, Get 'em over, Get 'em in"

GAC
08-12-2007, 09:52 AM
Don't you mean "Get 'em on, Get 'em over, Get 'em in"

Right now we're just "circling the wagons" and hoping the calvary shows up in time. :D