World Series talk

[MaineDolFan]

^^See, he did, though.  He mattered a lot.  I am not understanding why McCarver said that, and why anyone would think a runner at 1st base in a two run game "doesn't matter." 

"Just give him second." 

Are you nuts, McCarver?  Why in the world would you concede 2nd in a two run game?  You concede 2nd, defensive indifference, in a game where you're up by four, five...

Not two. 

Last I checked, the runner at the plate was the tying run.  Which makes the runner at first omni-important.  This is why the Cards put their fastest guy on the paths in the first place.  Down by two, unless you hit a two run shot you don't score them at the same time.  You get them one by one.  Two things were going to kill you in that position:  Speed at 2nd and speed and 3rd and 2nd.  They took a chance and held him on instead of guarding against the double.  It worked out.  They were also in a massive shift, Pedey was in a position to guard against anything up the first base side.  The batter isn't an opposite side hitter.

I guess I'm very confused by people not thinking the guy at first was a huge deal.  It kind of was, due to the lead.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I guess I'm very confused by people not thinking the guy at first was a huge deal.  It kind of was, due to the lead.

I think you are misunderstanding. 

My understanding is that stealing/leading was meaningless and there was no point in taking any risk of being picked off. 

If the guy at the plate gets a hit the guy on first goes to second, even if he is not leading, stealing second or getting to third on a base hit does nothing for the team.  If the guy at the plate gets home they tie the game.  If the guy on first gets home two batters before the guy hitting gets home or on the same hitter it doesn't matter. 

[MaineDolFan]

I guess the way I look at it is this:  One run, in a two run game, is huge.  You keep him at 1st.