Squirrel

I already said I that Rocco's decision was wrong, but just to play devil's advocate ... he was at 106 pitches with 2 innings to go. Say you let him go out for the 8th and he finishes it, still a no hitter and he now sits at 120-125 ... does anyone think about Santana and the Mets?

Yeah, and I was being generous for stating ‘much of anything’

Who are you trying to fool? You haven’t had respect for much of anything he’s done most of the season

120

Well, that was not the correct decision, imo

I’m sure your neighbors wouldn’t appreciate the bricks through their windows

If he gives up a hit, nope

Left handed on the mound ninja’d by Ash

I don’t watch football. I find it boring. But I tell people ‘It’s a good day in football when the Packers lose’

Honestly, I’m thankful none of us are. It’s much more fun to play armchair manager anyway

I'd bet that this is not a minority.

This is in a nutshell for me, too. Especially roster construction. And even more specific, BP construction. Yeah, the injuries sucked, and it's anyone's guess where we'd be if they weren't the issue. But when you construct a roster and know your starting rotation is not going to be able to go deep into games, you have to have a very durable and capable BP. We didn't have that from day 1. Did that philosophy weigh at all in some of the pitcher injuries? No way to know for certain, at least not from my perspective of one who is not an insider with insider information. So, I do put fault with the FO for that. I mean, not completely, but, it needs to be looked at, seriously. Two, the injuries ... we traded for two players, and signed a couple more, who were injury risks to begin with. So, maybe the FO has some work to do on how they evaluate these risks and these players. It can't just be 'give them enough rest' as a solution. I think there is something amiss in how they go about identifying these types of players. So, @Nick Nelson, while I do think the injuries played a big part in our season, I do think the FO bears maybe a 50/50 responsibility in that. But I'm also in alignment with what @wsnydes said in their post above ... I never expected this team to be at all competitive. I predicted they'd be middle of the division, at or near (plus or minus) .500. The fact that we were competitive ... with that record? Well, that shows the weakness of the division. However, I did see some good baseball. And so what if the division was weak, it still made it competitive relative to that.

I think it could be both but I put more weight on it being the pitcher. We don’t have a good BP. Period. I don’t think usage makes it better or worse

They aren’t saddled. They can afford his contract. But Correa will be opting out. He wants and deserves a long-term contract and will look for a winning team

Right … perspective is everything!

Becoming a reliever, maybe. Not sure

Not to mention, everyone had the same ball. It’s not like we were the only ones playing with a juiced ball.

You misunderstood my post. I meant that comment as a moderator warning to just stop with personification of posters or players/managers as haters or heartless.. There are many here every night who say Rocco and the team have given up, that Rocco doesn’t know baseball, is brainless, etc. And there are many here who complain that everyone is being too negative or whiny or Rocco haters. I’m not telling anyone to not criticize play on the field, but to do so without making it personal by qualifying anyone as heartless, brainless and/or a hater.

That simply isn’t the case. There were a lot of posters then, many have left the site for various reasons. To everyone, please let’s get off this habit of characterizing posters and manager/players

I think they meant ‘soda pop’ … sellers of non-alcoholic beverages

It’s those slippers. You know the ones.

I only laughed at that because, believe it or not, I actually understood it ? And yes, there is no true definition to these things, only what people think they are. Therefore, I will have to ignore everyone’s assessments on who is/isn’t an ace, who does/doesn’t have a high/low baseball IQ, including, or maybe especially, my own ? (Of course, I have often said I don’t really know that much, only have opinions)

And let’s stop referring to Rocco as ‘giving up’ or ‘has no brain’. All around this is just not good, on both sides

This is as good a definition as possible. But, as something I asked was the basis of this thread, I still find it used so contextually different and wonder if we all have as many different thoughts as to what this actually is as we do when asked ‘What is an ace?’ And when/how do we factor in human error? Even the best baseball minds or those with the ‘highest IQs’ must make a mistake from time to time, so, is age/experience then a factor, too? Or an inability to adapt to the changing game? I’m still uncertain of its meaning and think its meaning is just different from user to user and there is no right or wrong usage, only how individual posters mean it. In other words, ‘This player, coach and/or manager didn’t do something I think to be correct or instinctive from my perspective, therefore, that player/coach and/or manager doesn’t have a high baseball IQ.’ I’m going back to my thought that it’s not something that can be known, unless a ‘very special’ player/coach/manager or until careers are over and it can be measured over the course of time. Or, only a very few people out there have a baseball IQ. yes, I’m still as confused as my post. ?

It’s all about profit maximization. I’m sure they kept track of who spends the most on what and determined it’s ‘More beer, more money’ and not so much the other stuff. I don’t drink beer so when I get to the stadium, (or used to, haven’t been to a game in a couple years), I buy a beverage or two (water, pop, Gatorade), depending on the heat and/or sun, and that’s that. Most venues now seem to have places to fill a water bottle … does Target Field? I’d actually prefer not to spend at all on these things.