Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:22 pm
my guess is Hal's programming identified this as a "game already lost" and did not want to use a rested reliever who might be able to contribute to a win in the next game. (Let's face it, you were down 9-1 and your team ended up with only 3 runs in the game. Even if Hal had put in the best reliever in the game, your team would have lost this one).
Yes, the loss could not be certain by the 6th, but I suspect that was the Hal logic.
On the other hand, that 5th starter (Rick Wise) probably would have been the logical sheep to slaughter (instead of Mark Clear, whose confidence and arm might get broken from that kind of beating)
Interesting 6th by the way. only 6 rolls off the pitcher's card (2 of which were gb-x where the batter reached base and one a BP single that was in fact a single) against 14 rolls on the hitters card. Had it not been for two 2-7 rolls on Paul O'Neil's card for strikeouts, the inning could still be going.
Last edited by
hackra on Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.