quote:
With that in mind, it made more sense, in my opinion ( and in that of Jay Johnson, apparently), to go with Evans in this game where we already had a lead to protect.

On paper it’s going to be easier to win a game like that with a lead than one you start from scratch…and likely against Arkansas vs. UCLA and one in which you need 6 innings vs. 9.

We will see how it works out. I would have waited to see how the game played out knowing I could go to Evans if I needed to.

quote:
This was unavoidable, and I don't see the reason for argument over it.

Nobody can tell the future and there are different schools of thought. You seem to find value in protecting a lead. I’d prefer to take my risk with a little buffer.

It is what it is.

This post was edited on 6/17/25 at 8:58 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Metaloctopus

Louisiana

Member since Nov 2018

6769 posts

Posted on 6/18/25 at 1:30 am to moneyg

quote:
Nobody can tell the future and there are different schools of thought. You seem to find value in protecting a lead. I’d prefer to take my risk with a little buffer.

It is what it is.

It's fine to have different philosophies, but my point is that as soon as the delay burned Eyanson, we were stuck with a situation where we were going to have to get through a game without any of our top three pitchers available, and so protecting a lead in a game where you had a chance to put your team in the drivers seat, to me, makes more sense than saving Evans for another day.

I mentioned yesterday (technically two days ago now that it's after midnight) that maybe they'd run Shores out there and give him a short leash to see if he had it, but that I didn't expect to see anyone but Evans to start the 4th inning. So, if they had run Shores out there, and he shoved and got us deep into the game, that would have been great. But we've seen things go sideways too many times when Jay tried to get cute to save somebody for another day, and I did not expect or want him to take that chance in this situation. And he did not, as we now know.

Now Arkansas has to beat us twice, and they have burned through their best guys to get here. They have some good relievers, I realize, but it's going to be patchwork for them, so hopefully we can take advantage of a couple guys that might not have it, as tends to happen when you employ Johnny Wholestaff, and put up at least 5 or 6 runs, and perhaps that will be enough. Shores looks confident, and hasn't thrown many pitches at all. I'd expect he'll start, and I guess we'll see how far he can go.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by moneyg

Member since Jun 2006

62493 posts

Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:50 am to Metaloctopus

quote:
It's fine to have different philosophies, but my point is that as soon as the delay burned Eyanson, we were stuck with a situation where we were going to have to get through a game without any of our top three pitchers available,

Yes. That's the conversation. You either do it vs. UCLA in a 5-3 game, or you do it vs. UCLA or Arkansas on Wed.

quote:
and so protecting a lead in a game where you had a chance to put your team in the drivers seat, to me, makes more sense than saving Evans for another day.

I understand your point. And, I'm saying that since you are going to have to win a game without your top 3, the best chances of succeeding is in a game with a lead and only needing 18 outs with those pitchers instead of a full game needing 27 outs.

At minimum, we should have held Evans until the game made the decision for us. Hypothetically, LSU's offense could have kept us comfortably ahead.

quote:
Now Arkansas has to beat us twice

Hypothetically, we could be sitting there with Evans still available. That's the entire point.

quote:
They have some good relievers, I realize, but it's going to be patchwork for them

We are definitely in patchwork territory. Everything you were worried about happening in a 5-3 game vs. UCLA you are going to deal with vs. Arkansas.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Metaloctopus

Louisiana

Member since Nov 2018

6769 posts

Posted on 6/18/25 at 7:10 am to moneyg

quote:
I understand your point. And, I'm saying that since you are going to have to win a game without your top 3, the best chances of succeeding is in a game with a lead and only needing 18 outs with those pitchers instead of a full game needing 27 outs.

The length of the game isn't the issue, it's whether or not you can trust the other guys to hold a small lead. History has shown throughout the season that such has too often not been the case.

quote:
Hypothetically, we could be sitting there with Evans still available. That's the entire point.

I understood your point. But you hypothetical assumes a risk paying off that wasn't worth it under the circumstances in the eyes of the coach, and I happen to agree with him on this one.

quote:
We are definitely in patchwork territory. Everything you were worried about happening in a 5-3 game vs. UCLA you are going to deal with vs. Arkansas.

Here's where you don't seem to connect with my point. We've gone back and forth over the risk/reward scenarios, and you seem entirely focused on what we'll have available for Wednesday, whereas I'm looking beyond that... Arkansas has no margin for error. LSU, on the other hand, if they lose today, can go back to Anderson on Thursday. Obviously, we'd prefer not to have to go to Thursday, in order to set up the rotation for the finals, but we have this cushion now because we won yesterday. If we gambled yesterday and lost, we're now in a position of having to win three games in three days, and having to play two games yesterday. That would cripple this team.

I don't think, in a close game at the time of resumption, that it was worth it to risk bringing someone who might come in and walk a couple of guys right away, and put Evans in a situation where he has to walk right into a fire with all the pressure on his shoulders.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by moneyg

Member since Jun 2006

62493 posts

Posted on 6/18/25 at 7:27 am to Metaloctopus

quote:
The length of the game isn't the issue,

Of course, it's an issue. Don't be dumb.

quote:
it's whether or not you can trust the other guys to hold a small lead. History has shown throughout the season that such has too often not been the case.

We'll have zero lead against Arkansas.

quote:
I understood your point. But you hypothetical assumes a risk paying off that wasn't worth it under the circumstances in the eyes of the coach, and I happen to agree with him on this one.

You keep repeating yourself. I understand your position. I disagree with it.

quote:
Here's where you don't seem to connect with my point. We've gone back and forth over the risk/reward scenarios, and you seem entirely focused on what we'll have available for Wednesday, whereas I'm looking beyond that

You are doing circles. Both strategies are meant to give you the best chance of advancing in 3 games vs. 4.

quote:
Arkansas has no margin for error. LSU, on the other hand, if they lose today, can go back to Anderson on Thursday.

You keep repeating yourself. Being in the driver's seat is valuable. That's not being questioned. What's being questioned is whether we needed to burn Evans in order to accomplish that.

Furthermore, I'm of the position that if we have to burn Anderson on Thu, we are in huge trouble for the Championship series. In other words, there's no real value in the benefits of your preferred path. You bought yourself the buffer of another game if you lose...which is a losing proposition for this pitching staff (from a probability standpoint).

quote:
I don't think, in a close game at the time of resumption, that it was worth it to risk bringing someone who might come in and walk a couple of guys right away, and put Evans in a situation where he has to walk right into a fire with all the pressure on his shoulders.

You keep repeating yourself. I understand your position. I disagree.

It's all moot now anyway. The decision was made and the game has been played.

It's time to see what that decision cost us, if anything.

Page 1 2 3 4