He was there 2.

 

Why not Hadden? Where did he fall in the rotation? He impressed the heck out of me. Frankly, I'd have left him in to start the 7th and brought in Elliott if he got into trouble. He cruised thru the sixth and looked very comfortable.

Why not Hadden? Where did he fall in the rotation? He impressed the heck out of me. Frankly, I'd have left him in to start the 7th and brought in Elliott if he got into trouble. He cruised thru the sixth and looked very comfortable.

 

You'd have to ask the coaches, I'm not sure.

Why not Hadden? Where did he fall in the rotation? He impressed the heck out of me. Frankly, I'd have left him in to start the 7th and brought in Elliott if he got into trouble. He cruised thru the sixth and looked very comfortable.

 

As I pointed out before, Hadden replaced Elliott in the 6th so when the #1 spot came to bat in the 7th, Elliott came back in to hit which took Hadden out of the game.

 

#1/#2/#3 who is to say. If you look at wins, Elliott is not #1. At the beginning of the season, of course, Elliott is the #1 pitcher BHS has. IMO, still a great choice of who pitched. Snyder was winning when he came out of the game.

 

I agree w/everyone, you have to win the first game to play the second you still must look ahead to give your team a chance. The only way BHS beats CCH is w/Elliott pitching. The rest of the staff I felt was good enough to win the first two rounds to get to the finals but obviously I was wrong as was Coach Myeroff and his staff.

As I pointed out before, Hadden replaced Elliott in the 6th so when the #1 spot came to bat in the 7th, Elliott came back in to hit which took Hadden out of the game.

 

#1/#2/#3 who is to say. If you look at wins, Elliott is not #1. At the beginning of the season, of course, Elliott is the #1 pitcher BHS has. IMO, still a great choice of who pitched. Snyder was winning when he came out of the game.

 

I agree w/everyone, you have to win the first game to play the second you still must look ahead to give your team a chance. The only way BHS beats CCH is w/Elliott pitching. The rest of the staff I felt was good enough to win the first two rounds to get to the finals but obviously I was wrong as was Coach Myeroff and his staff.

 

 

1. Elliott is clearly the number one pitcher for BHS.

2. No one thought Dixie has a chance without Nichols pitching, Dixie had it, gave it away.

I am pretty sure Elliott is the 1 with Hadden and Smith a toss up for 2 spot and Snyder rounding out the rotation. Either way, Snyder is not a starting pitcher. His stamina will not get him past the 4th inning.

I think that you have a senior pitcher, you give him the ball and he goes and beats the team in front of him. I don't agree with the overpowering- I agree with better fielding pitcher might of helped but frankly CAL's freshmen matched the senior pitcher after 3 innings. Now maybe Roney or Deeds are better fielders than a fall off to the left southpaw and most every bunt down down the other side. What was Hohman's record-7-1? Here- take ball - win it and put T in the final. It didn't happen.

 

Jimmy,

You're very knowledgeable...but I'll disagree here. It's much more difficult to bunt a ball thrown hard than a ball thrown soft, that's like one of Newton's Law's isn't it? Hohmann, I don't care what his record was or what his grade level was, did not throw it hard it enough to back CAL hitters off the plate and threw it soft enough that they could put the ball in play, bunt when and where they wanted and the better hitters for CAL hit him very hard.

 

Turn the page to CAL-X, Jimmy, before the first pitch were you in agreement with the starter for X? When had he last pitched in a game? I don't think it was fair to put Kyle in that situation unless he had thrown a simulated game last week during practice for districts and looked sharp. You go with who's hot and that was Mosby, then maybe Kyle or Grayson if needed.

There is no winner in this argument. If your save your best for the finals, and win the first two, you're a genius, if you lose first round not throwing your best, you're considered the dumbest coach in KY.

It's funny how this discussion surfaces every year around this time. I wonder what the reason is?

Jimmy,

You're very knowledgeable...but I'll disagree here. It's much more difficult to bunt a ball thrown hard than a ball thrown soft, that's like one of Newton's Law's isn't it? Hohmann, I don't care what his record was or what his grade level was, did not throw it hard it enough to back CAL hitters off the plate and threw it soft enough that they could put the ball in play, bunt when and where they wanted and the better hitters for CAL hit him very hard.

 

Turn the page to CAL-X, Jimmy, before the first pitch were you in agreement with the starter for X? When had he last pitched in a game? I don't think it was fair to put Kyle in that situation unless he had thrown a simulated game last week during practice for districts and looked sharp. You go with who's hot and that was Mosby, then maybe Kyle or Grayson if needed.

Here's the difference that I see. X had the luxury of two choices for your senior pitchers-a 65 pitch Mosby or a fresh arm with Just. They chose Just and we didn't get it done. You can second guess and I am not willing to say publicly who I thought should of started. But let me throw something at you-maybe X had a Plan of pitchers throughout the rest of the tournament in wishful thinking that they got there. If you don't throw Just last night against CAL, then when do you throw him? He pitched against Seneca in the last game of the season two weeks ago. If you sit him last night, then it will be 3 weeks before game three of the semi state. Let's say that Mosby and Amlung beat the region 5 team in 2 games. When do you throw him now? If you think X needs Mosby against Heath/Apollo in the state game 1, then Amlung against PRP in the semi finals, then Just throws the state final with a month off? I don't agree or disagree but it is a thought process relevant to this topic. One thing of note-Grayson handled CAL easily because of his fielding prowness.