>>>We are not on the same page on this one, for sure. When I played ball, I played 100% all the time. If we were ahead by a mile when I came to bat, I still tried to get a hit; I did not strike out on purpose so as not to run up the score and make the opposing pitcher feel better.
>>
>>But if you got that hit, with say a 10-run lead, would you look to steal second? I don't think Mike or I is suggesting that the Pats needed to take a knee for the rest of the game, just that they should tone down the aggressive style of play. As I just said to Dmitry, the key choice I see here is going for it on 4th down.
>>

You didn't answer my question. You got the hit. Do you try to steal in a blowout? In general, the policy is that you don't because it's showing up your opponent, and when people do it, you often hear about it.

>>But I also think you get to a point that you pull your starters and let your back-ups play. I see that all the time in baseball and in fact, in a blowout, I'll often see both teams give starters a rest.
>
>Yes, I agree that there is no point in getting your starters hurt if there is no need, but at the same time, whoever is on the field had better be playing all out or not expect to be on the field again for a very long time. If you have been winning games by playing aggressively, then you keep playing that way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and don't stray from what got you there.
>

But if the idea is that you keep playing aggressively no matter the score, then the mop-up reliever would never come into the game. He's a guy who can't be trusted in a close situation, but you let him get some work when the game is decided. Happens all the time.


>And once again, these guys are pros, not children. The insult would be to treat them like children instead of pros.

I don't think expecting courtesy and compassion is treating them like children. I think it's expecting them to behave like adults instead of animals.

Tamar