Great article in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...od=ITP_arena_0
Printable View
Great article in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...od=ITP_arena_0
What a call by Dusty tonight. He handled it perfectly with LeCure and Latos. Now, fingers crossed, Cueto goes in Game 3, Bailey in 4, and Latos in 5 if needed.
If Cueto pitches Game 3, he still would be on 4 days rest to pitch Game 1 of the NLCS if we make it.
The Cueto situation was handled well, but numerous questionable decisions later. Not having Chapman warming up in the 8th inning was the most disturbing. Broxton was not fooling anyone. I'm sick and tired of the comparisons to the Nasty Boys as Broxton version 2012 cannot hold the jock of Dibble version 1990.
The Reds defense was huge tonight making the pitching look a lot better than it really was.
This isn't the Cubs or Astros we're playing. This is the postseason. Let's give some credit to the Giants.
No snark to this question, but I'm not sure what you're driving at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vottomatic
That asked, I have to say I think Baker & Price did an excellent job in cobbling together an ad hoc Plan B pitching plan. Glad we have the depth and the guys that threw the ball stepped in and got it done.
It's a wondrous year for a magical team.
I agree. The team, especially the pitching, came together and got it done under tough circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsmetz
But again, it's the postseason, the best of the best.
Broxton actally looked better than Chapman.Quote:
Originally Posted by cincinnati chili
So, what were the other "numerous questionable decisions"?
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but Chapman > Myers. Dibble > Broxton. Marshall > Charlton or pretty much awash.Quote:
Originally Posted by cincinnati chili
You're making it sound like the 1990 Nasty Boys were head and shoulders better than this group, and I don't think they were.