As has been stated on several posts in the last few minutes following the loss....Holder simply wasn't available.
Woodruff got 2 out in the fourth and then couldn't close the deal to get that 3rd out and we had to bring in someone else. The bases were full and the expectation is that the next guy will be anxious to get a hit, so you want a strike thrower who can muddy it up to the plate. Unfortunately, instead of a pop up or a weak grounder their best hitter smokes a triple that clears the bases.
Routt comes in and pretty much shuts them down. Then we come from behind and get the lead. Routt gets the first 2 in the 9th....but just cannot close the deal on that 3rd out. This time it is the middle of their order that gets it done.
Now where does logic fit in on this? In baseball, it has to do with matchups. Bama got the best matchup in the Girodo inning and again in the 9th when they got Routt out of there.
Interesting thing that may defy logic....Because of MSU's inability to hit in games one and two, we had to use more pitchers (more precisely Reed and Holder) than we probably would have liked to just to hold Bama where they were because we couldn't expand the lead due to lack of hitting. That reasoning defies logic because it suggests that because of our "poor" hitting in games one and two, we didn't have enough <span style="text-decoration: underline;">pitching</span> left to win game 3 where we actually did hit the ball once we got to their bullpen.
