Matsui would be cheaper. And he'd be about as good as Holliday would be in a postseason series defensively. He might actually be better offensively.cards2468 wrote:Yea, I don't care if we fail to get the best available LFer this offseason because he failed to make a catch in a game that would have been lost earlier had he not homered and in a series where the entire team minus Adam Wainwright failed.
With the one simple exception that Matt's screwup was on the 27th out of the game and is a play that is made routinely, what, 99 out of 100 times. Coming back to SL tied 1-1, I'm pretty sure there's a good chance you see a different team out there in game 3 and who knows in game 4. It's baseball, where every day there are new possibilities. These assumptions that we never make it past LA and if we do we never make it past Philly or NY are unfounded, even if they are all better teams than us.PujolJunkie wrote:I don't think anyone can deny he [expletive] up. All I'm saying is that Matt Holliday's [expletive] up is a small fish in a gigantic pond. When compared to the shortcomings of nearly everyone on the offense (and Chris Carpenter, by the way) it doesn't seem that big.
The fact that this may be true should not shroud the fact that the entire team, excluding Adam Wainwright is the reason they lost games 1, 2 and 3. Saying anything less is scapegoating.With the one simple exception that Matt's screwup was on the 27th out of the game and is a play that is made routinely, what, 99 out of 100 times.
And also, this seems to be as much of an assumption as the ones you pointed out as being unfounded. I understand that its more of a positive one, but an assumption none the less.Coming back to SL tied 1-1, I'm pretty sure there's a good chance you see a different team out there in game 3
Just pointing out that the loss in game three, for many people, made the loss in game two more bearable because there seemed to be the belief that we were just over matched against LA. When the fact remains that we could have very easily won game 1, should have won game 2 and then, obviously, were blown out in game 3. The idea that we played horrible the entire series and had no chance to win is just not true. And I'm not assuming anything. Only suggesting that we may have seen a more competitive Cardinal team in game 3 if we entered that game tied 1-1.StL wrote:I agree with the latter part of your post. I view the first part of your post as classic scapegoating, even though you may not be doing it intentionally.
The fact that this may be true should not shroud the fact that the entire team, excluding Adam Wainwright is the reason they lost games 1, 2 and 3. Saying anything less is scapegoating.With the one simple exception that Matt's screwup was on the 27th out of the game and is a play that is made routinely, what, 99 out of 100 times.
And also, this seems to be as much of an assumption as the ones you pointed out as being unfounded. I understand that its more of a positive one, but an assumption none the less.Coming back to SL tied 1-1, I'm pretty sure there's a good chance you see a different team out there in game 3
I dont know if this statement is meant for me. I never said "we played horribly and never had a chance to win." I only said the reason we lost those 3 games were everyone's fault.Richie Allen wrote:
Just pointing out that the loss in game three, for many people, made the loss in game two more bearable because there seemed to be the belief that we were just over matched against LA. When the fact remains that we could have very easily won game 1, should have won game 2 and then, obviously, were blown out in game 3. The idea that we played horrible the entire series and had no chance to win is just not true.
I get that, but how is it different than someone else's suggestion that "we may not have beaten the Phillies anyway?" When you get past the semantics, its the same thing.
And I'm not assuming anything. Only suggesting that we may have seen a more competitive Cardinal team in game 3 if we entered that game tied 1-1.
As far as Holliday being the scapegoat for the entire series, all I said, and all I'll ever say about him and the 2009 post season, is his error with 2 outs in the 9th inning cost us a victory. That almost seems too simplistic and obvious but it's just plain true. Instead of looking to spread the blame elsewhere, can anyone with a straight face argue that Matt Holiday's error with two outs in the ninth inning did not cost us that win?
Classic denial is what seems to be going on here. There wouldn't be one trace of anyone defending this level of screwup if it had been Ankiel in left. Or someone like Joe Thurston. There might have been some blaming LaRussa for having them on the field but there would be absolutely no debate as to whether that error directly led to us losing that game. None. Well, actually, there would probably be a couple people on here that would argue just for the sake of arguing but other than that, it'd be pretty much 100% universal that that play cost us the game. And I'm certain (yes, assuming here) there would be talk of that play costing us our season.
Buddy, I've read hundreds, possibly thousands of posts on here about that play since it happened. I'm not in any mood to start looking back through them again to pull out a few posts so that you can continue to find fault with my reasoning. I understand the whole "there's 27 outs and they're all equally important" theory but, I'm sorry...when you make an error with two outs in the ninth inning your responsibility does not end with however many bases that error accounts for. I'm assuming (again) that you dispute the whole idea of unearned runs. The game is OVER when he makes that catch. Right? No HBP. No walks. No Belliard. The game is over. Your reasoning and the reasoning I've had to listen to since the day it happened suggests that even if Holliday had not made that error, we still would have lost game 2.StL wrote:I dont know if this statement is meant for me. I never said "we played horribly and never had a chance to win." I only said the reason we lost those 3 games were everyone's fault.Richie Allen wrote:
Just pointing out that the loss in game three, for many people, made the loss in game two more bearable because there seemed to be the belief that we were just over matched against LA. When the fact remains that we could have very easily won game 1, should have won game 2 and then, obviously, were blown out in game 3. The idea that we played horrible the entire series and had no chance to win is just not true.
I get that, but how is it different than someone else's suggestion that "we may not have beaten the Phillies anyway?" When you get past the semanstics, its the same thing.
And I'm not assuming anything. Only suggesting that we may have seen a more competitive Cardinal team in game 3 if we entered that game tied 1-1.
As far as Holliday being the scapegoat for the entire series, all I said, and all I'll ever say about him and the 2009 post season, is his error with 2 outs in the 9th inning cost us a victory. That almost seems too simplistic and obvious but it's just plain true. Instead of looking to spread the blame elsewhere, can anyone with a straight face argue that Matt Holiday's error with two outs in the ninth inning did not cost us that win?
Classic denial is what seems to be going on here. There wouldn't be one trace of anyone defending this level of screwup if it had been Ankiel in left. Or someone like Joe Thurston. There might have been some blaming LaRussa for having them on the field but there would be absolutely no debate as to whether that error directly led to us losing that game. None. Well, actually, there would probably be a couple people on here that would argue just for the sake of arguing but other than that, it'd be pretty much 100% universal that that play cost us the game. And I'm certain (yes, assuming here) there would be talk of that play costing us our season.
This statement proves you’re doing nothing but scapegoating. Holliday is clearly and unquestionably not the reason the Cardinals lost game 2. He is the reason they had a runner on 2nd with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th while up 1 run with the Dodgers 7, 8 and 9 hitters coming up. This is where is where his personal accountability stops.
And Rich, I dont think you and I have the same understanding of what "defending" means. Can you please post me three examples of someone defending the Holliday blunder. It doesnt have to be right away, just when you get a chance. Thanks.