Let a ball fall foul on purpose?

[ElTexan]

So would you let it drop in your scenario?

In the 9th, without a doubt.
Maybe in the 8th too

 

[williewilliejuan]

No. My point is that the 'next pitch s dinger' argument MAKES NO SENSE. Proven.

So, we know what is at stake. On one hand, you don't get the second out which MIGHT lead to the other team taking the lead if they have a bigger inning since they have more outs to play with.

But on the other hand, you're immediately giving up your lead. Y'all are acting like that's not a significant thing to factor in.

I've see you say something "MAKES NO SENSE" a number of times that just aren't applicable. I think perhaps you don't know what it actually means. Your scenario immediately gives your opponent a free out. Frankly, if a manager directed his team to intentionally drop a fly ball and they don't get an out on that batter, he'd be on the hot seat forever. There are just too many scenarios where intentionally giving up an out can come around to bite you in the ass for this strategy to "MAKE SENSE" in many situations at all.

 

[williewilliejuan]

In the 9th, without a doubt.
Maybe in the 8th too

No offense, but your managerial career would likely be shorter than Matt Williams'. There's a reason teams don't do it.

 

[ElTexan]

I see you still cannot read.

The argument that 'the next pitch could be a home run and therefore THAT makes a difference' makes no sense.

Because whether you catch that foul ball or not, a next pitch home run means a total of three runs for the offensive team.

Do you get that?

 

[ElTexan]

No offense, but your managerial career would likely be shorter than Matt Williams'. There's a reason teams don't do it.

There's lots of reasons teams do stupid things. Ever watch NFL or college coaches manage a clock?

 

[williewilliejuan]

I see you still cannot read.

The argument that 'the next pitch could be a home run and therefore THAT makes a difference' makes no sense.

Because whether you catch that foul ball or not, a next pitch home run means a total of three runs for the offensive team.

Do you get that?

Do you get that they aren't talking about the next pitch to a different batter? That's always a risk. If you can't see that intentionally dropping a sure out and having that same batter hit a three run home run on the very next pitch would launch a shitstorm of a magnitude not even imagined in the Old Testament, then you can't be helped.

 

[ElTexan]

No. That one guy said NEXT PITCH. And that is what I was disputing. You should try reading GOODER.

Now that THAT argument is debunked, there are a whole host of things to factor in, and those things are worth debating. "Next pitch a homer" is NOT a worthy thing to debate as the offense scores three runs total either way. Get it now?

 

[moxie]

I see you still cannot read.

The argument that 'the next pitch could be a home run and therefore THAT makes a difference' makes no sense.

Because whether you catch that foul ball or not, a next pitch home run means a total of three runs for the offensive team.

Do you get that?

I don't think the argument is "therefore THAT makes a difference" when addressing your scenario. The point is, you take the out because you never know what the next pitch will bring. Don't you think the known quantity (guaranteed out) is better than the unknown (maybe out swinging or maybe a three run blast)? Again...never cut & dried, crazy shit happens in baseball. We've all seen it.

 

[ElTexan]

That's one side of the argument . the other side is that you are intentionally giving up a lead. That is not a trivial thing, and y'all are treating it as such

 

[williewilliejuan]

No. That one guy said NEXT PITCH. And that is what I was disputing. You should try reading GOODER.

Now that THAT argument is debunked, there are a whole host of things to factor in, and those things are worth debating. "Next pitch a homer" is NOT a worthy thing to debate as the offense scores three runs total either way. Get it now?

Have you ever suffered some type of head injury?

 

[ElTexan]

Btw. Taking the second out is not a 'known' quantity. Lots of shit can happen with two outs, and we all have seen that as well.

That is why it's a debatable topic

 

[uncfan103]

No offense, but your managerial career would likely be shorter than Matt Williams'. There's a reason teams don't do it.

 

[williewilliejuan]

Btw. Taking the second out is not a 'known' quantity. Lots of shit can happen with two outs, and we all have seen that as well.

That is why it's a debatable topic

If you take the second out, you know you have two outs. How is that not a known quantity?

 

[williewilliejuan]

Yes. In precisely the situation where I said it would make sense.

 

[moxie]

Different scenario completely...that's a tie game in extra innings.

 

[ElTexan]

If you take the second out, you know you have two outs. How is that not a known quantity?

And if you let it fall foul, you know you have kept the lead. How is that not a known quantity?

See, I can say silly things too that don't move the debate along.

 

[ElTexan]

Different scenario completely...that's a tie game in extra innings.

Right. That's what we're debating, different scenarios (innings) and how those scenarios may have you make a different decision.

 

[williewilliejuan]

And if you let it fall foul, you know you have kept the lead. How is that not a known quantity?

See, I can say silly things too that don't move the debate along.

I've noticed that. I'm more curious about whether you can avoid it.

 

[molsaniceman]

What u dont show is the batter tripled and run scored anyways and next batter drove in the 5th run

 

[ElTexan]

I've noticed that. I'm more curious about whether you can avoid it.

You're wasting an Sergio lot of time instead of debating the topic. Can you focus?

I'll restate it again:

On one hand, you let the other team tie the game and give them one less out to potentially work a big inning.

On the other hand, you keep the lead (not a trivial thing at all), but you give the other team an other out to work with, BUT the batter has two strikes.


Can you debate the topic, or do you have to attack the messenger, appeal to authority, use false dichotomies, and other logical fallacies?