[討論] A Frustrating Loss

看板NY-Yankees作者ckbaboon (救救北極熊)時間15年前 (2011/05/13 00:52)推噓6(6推 0噓 7→)

留言13則, 6人參與討論串1/1

這是一篇the yankees analysis裡面的文章 http://www.yankeeanalysts.com/2011/05/a-frustrating-loss-29503 點出了這場比賽讓人frustrated的四個點 1.RISP 時2-16的安打，整場比賽12支安打，8次保送，得3分 2.David Robertson的表現:當然對Wilson Betemit那球投的不差，不過這位前洋基球員把那顆曲球硬是撈起來 3.Buddy Carlyle: (我想應該也不用多翻了) 4.The bunting (這是我覺得最值得討論的) Oh dear God the bunting. The Derek Jeter bunt wasn’t awful in terms of strategy, considering the Captain’s groundball tendencies. However, the execution was just pitiful. Both pitches he bunted at–the foul ball and the bunt itself–were bad pitches to bunt at, and Jeter should’ve pulled back. Then there was the Gardner bunt against Joakim Soria in extra innings. I….I have no words for this bunt. Why this bunt was stupid: Jeter的短打，從策略上來看並不糟糕(考慮到隊長的滾地球比率)，不過結果非常悲慘-- 選了兩顆都是壞球來短打，Jeter應該收回他的棒子，選掉這兩顆球。再來就是Gardner的短打，十局下面對Soria，相當無言，很愚蠢的短打。原因: a. Brett Gardner has been hitting well lately. Why not let him swing away? He ’s also been taking a lot of walks lately; his .585 OBP over the last 14 days led the American League going into that at bat. Gardner近況最近14場上壘率是美聯最高的.585 b. Brett Gardner is fast. Really fast. Even if he hits a grounder, chances are that he’s not going to get doubled up. Let him swing away. Gardner的速度，即使打滾地，也不容易雙殺 c. Joakim Soria hadn’t thrown a strike when Gardner stepped up to the plate. Remember, he walked Russell Martin on four pitches before Gardner came up. 在Gardner站上打擊區前，Martin才剛剛被連四壞保送 d. THE COUNT WAS 3-1 WHEN GARDNER BUNTED. i. This is a fantastic hitter’s count, even for a guy like Gardner. He’s probably going to get a pitch to hit and Gardner’s probably going to make good contact on it. ii. With the way Soria had been throwing, it’s likely that the plate appearance could’ve ended in a walk. 球數來到1好3壞這是個hitter's count，Soria必須要投好球，而Gardner應該可以纏鬥住而且照Soria當的投球狀況，很有可能Gardner能夠獲得保送 --- 當然這是作者的看法不過我在電視機前面看也是這樣想我覺得吉總是個好教練不過有時戰術好像滿保守的大家覺得勒? -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.160.160.221

推

OoyaoO

05/13 01:03, , 1^F

05/13 01:03, 1^F

→

OoyaoO

05/13 01:03, , 2^F

05/13 01:03, 2^F

→

OoyaoO

05/13 01:04, , 3^F

05/13 01:04, 3^F