Brewers (Patrick) vs Cardinals (Leahy): 5/4/26, 6:45pm

[trwi7]

3 minutes ago, willie key said:

They aren’t actual marshmallows.    Ha

Marshmallows and anything marshmallow adjacent.

[wiguy94]

1 hour ago, Underachiever said:

Herrera has a .450 OBP against mke. Interesting to walk someone to get to him

Probably didn’t end up mattering but I hated that decision from Murphy. Patrick was battling his command all game. His first pitch strike rate was 50% through the first two times in the order. Intentionally walking the bases loaded immediately felt like something that would backfire.

[TURBO]

1 minute ago, trwi7 said:

Marshmallows and anything marshmallow adjacent.

Love me some Peeps!

[nate82]

18 minutes ago, trwi7 said:

Counterpoint: Marshmallows are disgusting.

You’re disgusting!

[Jim French Stepstool]

I'll be looking forward to the day, if/when it comes, when Patrick moves back into the relief role he filled effectively late last season. Go 2.1 innings, throw 96-97 with the secondary stuff he has & he can be strong. I get that he's been needed as a starter, but in that role he's a lot more ordinary, and is a decent bet to not even get you through five.

Recovered somewhat tonite from some very subpar ABs early on. But Contreras couldn't find a glove for a couple days, and today it was the opposite.

Hamilton doesn't bunt because he 'can't hit'. He bunts because it's a weapon he possesses. He's pretty good at it, and he's had a handful this year where he didn't put it in a great spot, and/or the defense was semi-looking for it, and still beat it out. Among the 3 left-side-of-the-infield guys on the roster I'd say he's been the most effective up to this point offensively (yes, low bar). One can argue he looks to it too often. But I think most of the criticism is in hindsight after it doesn't work.

Chourios' success was obvious today. But I also thought Vaughn looked OK at the plate for his first time back.

[Jim French Stepstool]

14 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

Probably didn’t end up mattering but I hated that decision from Murphy. Patrick was battling his command all game. His first pitch strike rate was 50% through the first two times in the order. Intentionally walking the bases loaded immediately felt like something that would backfire.

I wouldn't say I hated it, but I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. Certainly risky. I felt slightly better about that matchup than Wetherholt, but like you said when you factor in Patrick constantly falling behind............

Chad was poor today.

[BruisedCrew]

8 hours ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

 

Hamilton doesn't bunt because he 'can't hit'. He bunts because it's a weapon he possesses. He's pretty good at it, and he's had a handful this year where he didn't put it in a great spot, and/or the defense was semi-looking for it, and still beat it out. Among the 3 left-side-of-the-infield guys on the roster I'd say he's been the most effective up to this point offensively (yes, low bar). One can argue he looks to it too often. But I think most of the criticism is in hindsight after it doesn't work.

I think that a lot of the criticism of Hamilton’s bunting is not second guessing, when he goes to it in situations where the value is minimal.

Like on Sunday when he tried to bunt with runners on second and third with 2 outs and still tried to bunt with 2 strikes.

Last night I was hoping for Black to pinch hit and Hamilton ended up wasting two strikes showing bunt before striking out. Down by 4 runs I don’t like trying to nurse one run across with multiple runners on base. Depending on the placement, even a bunt that he can beat out doesn’t guarantee getting a run in. 
 

Trying to bunt for a hit with a runner on first and less than 2 out in a close game doesn’t bother me because at least an out can advance a runner.

But I don’t like bunting with runners in scoring position and two outs. especially when down by multiple runs, I think that some of the situations when Hamilton tries to bunt show that he doesn’t have confidence in his own ability to hit. 

[jay87shot]

Rough loss last night especially with all the chances to break through. However it is hard not to be happy overall with Vaughn and Chourio returning and the show Chourio put on.

I watched the Cards broadcast and there announcers said we had 99 groundball outs the previous 11 games and I think we had 11 last night. That seems like a lot, but don't have any data to support that. 

[Brian]

If it isn’t one thing, it’s another! 

[Playing Catch]

3 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

But I don’t like bunting with runners in scoring position and two outs. especially when down by multiple runs, I think that some of the situations when Hamilton tries to bunt show that he doesn’t have confidence in his own ability to hit. 

It certainly bucks conventional wisdom. I don't agree with it, but there's probably a world where a really good, speedy bunter not only moves the runner to third, but scores the runner on an error at first(?)

I mean, I'm not sure I wouldn't think that's a more likely outcome than a liner to the RF corner.

[Jim French Stepstool]

9 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

I think that a lot of the criticism of Hamilton’s bunting is not second guessing, when he goes to it in situations where the value is minimal.

Like on Sunday when he tried to bunt with runners on second and third with 2 outs and still tried to bunt with 2 strikes.

Last night I was hoping for Black to pinch hit and Hamilton ended up wasting two strikes showing bunt before striking out. Down by 4 runs I don’t like trying to nurse one run across with multiple runners on base. Depending on the placement, even a bunt that he can beat out doesn’t guarantee getting a run in. 
 

Trying to bunt for a hit with a runner on first and less than 2 out in a close game doesn’t bother me because at least an out can advance a runner.

But I don’t like bunting with runners in scoring position and two outs. especially when down by multiple runs, I think that some of the situations when Hamilton tries to bunt show that he doesn’t have confidence in his own ability to hit. 

The bunt attempt Sunday w/2 strikes was 'unconventional' to say the least. I would think that he was hedging his bet due to facing a LHP, where only 15% of his career ABs have come against. He may have thought the risk was worth the reward, pulling out his particular talent. And in that situation it was a 0-0 game. If he gets it down it's a run if the bunt is anything north of terrible. I'd have been happy with a run there, at that spot in the order. So everything considered I understand his mindset. Would I have ordered it? No.

Yeah, Black PHing for Hamilton last night would've been a good move. Until the order came around again there was nowhere else to use him.

[Jim French Stepstool]

6 hours ago, Playing Catch said:

It certainly bucks conventional wisdom. I don't agree with it, but there's probably a world where a really good, speedy bunter not only moves the runner to third, but scores the runner on an error at first(?)

I mean, I'm not sure I wouldn't think that's a more likely outcome than a liner to the RF corner.

In Sunday's scenario, the 2-strike bunt attempt came in a scoreless game. Like I said above, I wouldn't have ordered it; it's something you pretty much need to see available & do on your own. But I've never subscribed to a theory that if it's 0-0 you need to score all runners to make it a successful AB.

But down by 2 or 3 runs, I agree. MAYBE if you feel you can beat it out & there's no outs it might depend on who's waiting next. But last night there was one down & next was Mitchell, who isn't a safe bet to touch the ball. Like discussed above, his next-to-last AB would've been a good time to use Black.

One more thing to keep in mind re Hamilton---I'm sure not ALL of his square-arounds are intended to be bunt attempts, but are trying to pull in the corners.