How the game should have been played (IMO)

**BaldEaglePride** · 10-11-2003, 11:13 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
BigRed said:
I know I'm going to get flamed for having an opinion on this game, me not being a Cubs fan and all, but I had this observation last night that would have changed the outcome.

Now, I could be missing a rule here or something, I'll let you all make the final decision on that, but anyways...

The situation was the botom of the ninth, Pierre on second, Pudge batting. The Cubs elected to intionatally walk Pudge to face Lee.

Borowski threw 4 pitches wide. High and wide. 63 miles per hour. And he was paying zero attention to Pierre.

IF Pierre attempts to steal third here, he's in easily.

This brings up Lee with first and third and if he does exactly what he did last night (pop up to center), Pierre scores easily on the tag up and the Marlins win.

What's your opinion? I brought this up last night and someone asked if there was a rule against stealing during an IBB. I don't think there is. IMO, it's a chance you have to take with a guy like Pierre. But I could be wrong. Let me know.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm ... interesting.

I don't think there is a rule against stealing on an intentional walk. He probably could've tried. Still pretty risky, as the catcher is already standing, and would be able to get a good throw off rather quickly. But, hmmm. You could be on to something. If it is legal, which I can't see why it wouldn't be, it's an aggressive move. I like it ... just not against the Cubs

No flame here.

**BaldEaglePride** · 10-11-2003, 11:13 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
BigRed said:
I know I'm going to get flamed for having an opinion on this game, me not being a Cubs fan and all, but I had this observation last night that would have changed the outcome.

Now, I could be missing a rule here or something, I'll let you all make the final decision on that, but anyways...

The situation was the botom of the ninth, Pierre on second, Pudge batting. The Cubs elected to intionatally walk Pudge to face Lee.

Borowski threw 4 pitches wide. High and wide. 63 miles per hour. And he was paying zero attention to Pierre.

IF Pierre attempts to steal third here, he's in easily.

This brings up Lee with first and third and if he does exactly what he did last night (pop up to center), Pierre scores easily on the tag up and the Marlins win.

What's your opinion? I brought this up last night and someone asked if there was a rule against stealing during an IBB. I don't think there is. IMO, it's a chance you have to take with a guy like Pierre. But I could be wrong. Let me know.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm ... interesting.

I don't think there is a rule against stealing on an intentional walk. He probably could've tried. Still pretty risky, as the catcher is already standing, and would be able to get a good throw off rather quickly. But, hmmm. You could be on to something. If it is legal, which I can't see why it wouldn't be, it's an aggressive move. I like it ... just not against the Cubs

No flame here.

**BaldEaglePride** · 10-11-2003, 11:13 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
BigRed said:
I know I'm going to get flamed for having an opinion on this game, me not being a Cubs fan and all, but I had this observation last night that would have changed the outcome.

Now, I could be missing a rule here or something, I'll let you all make the final decision on that, but anyways...

The situation was the botom of the ninth, Pierre on second, Pudge batting. The Cubs elected to intionatally walk Pudge to face Lee.

Borowski threw 4 pitches wide. High and wide. 63 miles per hour. And he was paying zero attention to Pierre.

IF Pierre attempts to steal third here, he's in easily.

This brings up Lee with first and third and if he does exactly what he did last night (pop up to center), Pierre scores easily on the tag up and the Marlins win.

What's your opinion? I brought this up last night and someone asked if there was a rule against stealing during an IBB. I don't think there is. IMO, it's a chance you have to take with a guy like Pierre. But I could be wrong. Let me know.

<hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm ... interesting.

I don't think there is a rule against stealing on an intentional walk. He probably could've tried. Still pretty risky, as the catcher is already standing, and would be able to get a good throw off rather quickly. But, hmmm. You could be on to something. If it is legal, which I can't see why it wouldn't be, it's an aggressive move. I like it ... just not against the Cubs

No flame here.

**PDex** · 10-11-2003, 11:13 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

It would be pretty easy for them to throw him out. The catcher is standing and wide of the batter. He would have a pretty easy throw to third.

**PDex** · 10-11-2003, 11:13 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

It would be pretty easy for them to throw him out. The catcher is standing and wide of the batter. He would have a pretty easy throw to third.

**PDex** · 10-11-2003, 11:13 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

It would be pretty easy for them to throw him out. The catcher is standing and wide of the batter. He would have a pretty easy throw to third.

**BigRed** · 10-11-2003, 11:24 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

Understood that the catcher is standing. The only thing is that Borowski was paying no attention. Pierre could have gotten a pretty good head start and then you have to take the surprise factor in.

Now, I don't know where he was playing, but after the walk (as the players were getting to their bases) FOX showed a view of the entire infield. Ramirez was 7-10 feet behind third (granted he could have just moved back right before the camera switched).

IMO, it looked like a good place to do it. Borowski was giving him the opportunity with high, wide, 63-64 mph lob balls (the last one the catcher had to jump for). Then the catcher has to be alert and make the play AND Ramirez has to be paying attention and close enough to get the speedy Pierre.

I'd have done it.

**BigRed** · 10-11-2003, 11:24 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

Understood that the catcher is standing. The only thing is that Borowski was paying no attention. Pierre could have gotten a pretty good head start and then you have to take the surprise factor in.

Now, I don't know where he was playing, but after the walk (as the players were getting to their bases) FOX showed a view of the entire infield. Ramirez was 7-10 feet behind third (granted he could have just moved back right before the camera switched).

IMO, it looked like a good place to do it. Borowski was giving him the opportunity with high, wide, 63-64 mph lob balls (the last one the catcher had to jump for). Then the catcher has to be alert and make the play AND Ramirez has to be paying attention and close enough to get the speedy Pierre.

I'd have done it.

**BigRed** · 10-11-2003, 11:24 AM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

Understood that the catcher is standing. The only thing is that Borowski was paying no attention. Pierre could have gotten a pretty good head start and then you have to take the surprise factor in.

Now, I don't know where he was playing, but after the walk (as the players were getting to their bases) FOX showed a view of the entire infield. Ramirez was 7-10 feet behind third (granted he could have just moved back right before the camera switched).

IMO, it looked like a good place to do it. Borowski was giving him the opportunity with high, wide, 63-64 mph lob balls (the last one the catcher had to jump for). Then the catcher has to be alert and make the play AND Ramirez has to be paying attention and close enough to get the speedy Pierre.

I'd have done it.

**GCrusher23** · 10-11-2003, 12:29 PM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

With a guy of Pierre's ability on second, and a guy's power at the plate in Lee, usually you're in very good shape. There's no point in taking the risk because then it'd be two outs with a runner on first if Pierre is called out.

**GCrusher23** · 10-11-2003, 12:29 PM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

With a guy of Pierre's ability on second, and a guy's power at the plate in Lee, usually you're in very good shape. There's no point in taking the risk because then it'd be two outs with a runner on first if Pierre is called out.

**GCrusher23** · 10-11-2003, 12:29 PM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

With a guy of Pierre's ability on second, and a guy's power at the plate in Lee, usually you're in very good shape. There's no point in taking the risk because then it'd be two outs with a runner on first if Pierre is called out.

**mjb2124** · 10-11-2003, 01:16 PM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

It's definately legal. However, like many have said - it's probably not worth the risk because the catcher could've easily thrown him out. On the other hand, if Borowski was paying no attention to Pierre and if Pierre could get a good jump just as Borowski was lifting his leg to go home, he could've been safe. IMO it's too risky though...

**mjb2124** · 10-11-2003, 01:16 PM

Re: How the game should have been played (IMO)

It's definately legal. However, like many have said - it's probably not worth the risk because the catcher could've easily thrown him out. On the other hand, if Borowski was paying no attention to Pierre and if Pierre could get a good jump just as Borowski was lifting his leg to go home, he could've been safe. IMO it's too risky though...

How the game should have been played (IMO)

Recommended Videos

How the game should have been played (IMO)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment