« The logic behind pulling Michael Young explained | Main | Friday night post-game video »

April 17, 2009

One man's take on the Young thing

Is the No. 1 issue stemming from the Rangers' 12-3 loss really the decision to pull Michael Young in the seventh inning with two outs, the bases loaded and the Rangers trailing 9-0? No. A thousand times no. Does it give the media something different to write about in an all-too-familiar loss. Yes.

Ron Washington conceded after the game that he wanted to rest Young and Josh Hamilton, two gigantic pieces to the Rangers' success, and get Omar Vizquel a chance to play third -- a position he's never played before but might have to because he's the utility infielder. Might as well do it in a 9-0 game.

Should Young have batted and been pulled to start the eighth? Yes. Let's say he does bat, hits a grand slam and the inning ends 9-4. Who in the Rangers' bullpen is going to keep the deficit at five runs? Jason Jennings isn't going to be used there. He's the club's most dependable right-handed reliever, and Washington doesn't want him to pitching in a five-run game. The decision had already been made that Josh Rupe was going back out for the eighth.

Also keep in mind that the Royals have four pretty good relievers to turn to when things get tight.

Worry about the pitching staff, the offense's early-season inconsistency and the one or two little mistakes each game that always seem to cost this team. Don't worry about this overblown Young thing.

-- Jeff Wilson

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f7fc4c588330115702838e9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference One man's take on the Young thing:

Comments

True. Overall, it doesn't necessarily affect the outcome of the game. However, three things come to mind:

1) The game is at home and it's the biggest crowd you've had a ll week due to fireworks. Pulling one of your big three bats with fans sitting on their hands hoping for one spark of hope is just plain ridiculous.

2) They just had the day off yesterday. So the get off their feet excuse is lame.

3) So you don't want Michael to play the next inning, or even hit, then you run someone like Andruw Jones or anyone other than Omar Vizquel out to hit with the bases loaded. And then let Vizquel play third in the top of the eighth.

Has anyone else noticed that the combined batting averages of our two catchers is less than Gerald Lairds batting avg. ? A first baseman with a batting avg. below the Mendoza line and a starting OF with 0 hits. Yea, depth.

Our 1st baseman is hitting only 3 points less than the guy manning 1st base for the Yankees. And yes, my point here is "small sample size". Drawing conclusions after just 10 games is a pretty inaccurate science. I'm also of the mind that hitting for Young last night isn't as newsworthy as many will attempt to make it. When a team is losing, the "witches" come out of the woodwork.

KJ, Bill and Dennis are right on. I wish I had thought of those comments. I'm wondering why this team can't hit when runners are on base. We all know this team can hit long and for average so why don't they? I know the opposing team's pitchers are big league pitchers and hitting isn't easy but we know our guys can hit, but why only when we're ahead 10-0? It's obvious we only have one starting pitcher worthy of the big leagues and almost no bullpen but that's just the way Jon Daniels put that part together.

The comments to this entry are closed.