Post by ericmvan on Oct 23, 2018 4:37:48 GMT -5
The Darling team are network announcers. They are not going to know every nuance for each team but overall haven't we all seen worse? In regard to Barnes, if I remember correctly he was really good at not letting inherited base runners score all year ( they gave some stats ) so if they said that was his job I think it was a fair assessment, assuming the data was correct. If it wasn't, that was on the stat guy. Maybe Hembree was better but I think Barnes was the better regarded option overall, right? I come at this from a TV background. You are generally not going to get team specific excellence from a pair of network announcers. They are generally knowledgeable but they don't know every detail for every team, even with a stat guy right there. Few such teams ever do.I would contend that the way they get paid they should perform at that level but few do.
On a related note, I was watching the Patriots game the other day and Chris Collinsworth seems to know team specific data on every team and every player. He is fantastic to me but I see maybe 2 football games a year at most so I don't know.
And regarding our friend Guidas, I just want to say that this team is Nothing without J.D. Martinez! There, I said it!
No, they said that what Barnes was doing, bailing out a starter in a non-setup role, had been his job all year long and in fact he had never done it. Not once. That's not a detail.
It's true that Barnes allowed just 1 of 14 inherited runners to score, but that's not a lot of chances. I don't believe they gave that stat (because just 14 runners would have contradicted what they just said), or even said he'd been good at it. They just implied it. Hembree had 41 inherited runners.
I agree with you that it seemed that they had no researchers. But it's also possible that they didn't bother to read what they were given and the network doesn't care.
Another example that has nothing to do with knowing role details. A key moment in Game 3 came in the 6th when Hinch left Sipp in to face Kinsler and Vazquez after he walked Devers. The obvious rationale there was that if he brought in a RHP to face those guys, Cora could counter with Holt and Moreland. But they never even told us whether they had a RHP warmed up, and barely mentioned the fact that Sipp was facing RHB. I didn't know until now that Sipp had good numbers against RHP this year and in his career, so that even though he has a reputation as a lefty specialist he's better than that. Why shouldn't they know that? Why not tell us? That's exactly the sort of thing that makes the game interesting.
Hinch had faith in Sipp, and it paid off. But he also didn't make Cora burn his pinch-hitters, which I think he would have done if they'd brought in a RHP; they had a man on 1st with 1 out, they were leading 3-2, and there's no guarantee that the next time Kinsler and Vazquez come up it's in any kind of high leverage. So Holt and Moreland ended up hitting in the 8th instead, and Osuna hit them both and then gave up the slam to JBJ, effectively ending the game. Holt would have stayed in the game and hit in the 8th anyway, but you would have had Leon up with the bases loaded and 1 out rather than Moreland, and maybe Leon (or Swihart) hits into a GDP, the game stays 3-2, and Kimbrel has to pitch and blows the save.