Frayed Knot

It's very annoying that Turner learned to hit right after leaving town. More annoying still that we can't get him out.

Well we know our opponent. Now all we have to do is make sure we'll BE that opponent.

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And now it's 6-4 but it should be more as that HR by Schwarber should have counted for like 6 runs on distance alone despite the bases being empty. That's how much they're worth in cricket. I'd be lying if I were to claim to have known that.

And now it's 6-4 but it should be more as that HR by Schwarber should have counted for like 6 runs on distance alone despite the bases being empty.

Valadius wrote: Phil Nevin managing? There's no precedent for former #1 picks to manage in the big leagues, is there? Hmmm, interesting question. Probably not. Bobby V was a 5th overall. He could be the highest. oe: Nope, Paul Molitor was 3rd overall in 1977 Matt Williams also 3rd (1986)

I think the ball landed before that bat did.

Kershaw on 3 days rest, Matz on 19. Make of that what you want.

And then this whole saga somehow gets a bit weirder. Price threw 50 pitches on Monday during a blowout in relief of a guy who didn't seem to need relief [Dickey = 1 run on 5 singles/0 BB over 4.2 IP]. So with the deciding game not until Wednesday you'd figure the Jays would make some statement as to 'well let's see how he feels' concerning Price's possible usage for that game. But no, Gibbons effectively pre-rules him out entirely saying, 48 hours ahead of time, that Price will not be available for that game. Now of course that sets him up to pitch in Game 1 of the ALCS but you have to get there first and with no idea what kind of situation you'll have in the middle of Game 5 -- Stroman has pitched just 4 games this year after having a major leg injury during ST -- the guy who went 9-1 for you over 11 starts after the deadline deal won't be there to help because you went to him to protect a 6-run lead at a time when your team was sitting on a 97% 'Win Expectancy'. Does anything say 'We don't want you back next year' louder than this?

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Elster88 wrote: A shit ton of empty seats. This isn't Los Angeles. Seriously. What the hell. Well, it is after midnight on a school/work night during a game that's headed for 3-1/2 hours or more.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Ernie: "What do you think, Iron Man?" Cal: "Well, it's a very nice stadium." PLEASE hire this man as the next manager of the Nationals!!!! He reportedly told the Nationals this week that he was interested.

Sure, NOW Addison Reed tosses a clean inning.

Gwreck wrote: Waitasecond. They pulled Dickey from the game with two outs in the 5th, a 6-run lead and only one runner on base? To go to David Price? WTF? I know. Crazy, right? Well, the great David price relief experiment ends with him coughing up 3 runs in 3 ip, which will probably earn him his first career PS win He wound up getting the win, but like Dickey couldn't have done that? What was he, tiring? He's a freakin' knuckleballer fear crissakes.

Turner's been the biggest red menace since Mao Tse-Tung.

A couple more runs and we may just Harvey-proof this game. Actually this should be good for him. Just lay it in there with some heat on it instead of trying to do all this pick 'em and trick 'em shit.

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Fman99 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: And our Sac Bunting average plunges further - took 3 shots at it there, failed to get it down on all 3. I swear next season I'm going to start tracking this (as yet) non-existent stat. You can call them "Can't Bunts" or, perhaps, come up with some clever contraction for that phrase. "Ban'ts" or do you have something else in mind? Hadn't thought of a name yet -- and truth be told you'd virtually need pitch-by-pitch data to do it correctly so this is probably just a pipe dream anyway. But I thought of the idea mid-season sometime when it hit me that our pct of success had to be under 20% if you counted just ABs, and probably <10% if you went by pitch. And that's just pathetic!

Nymr83 wrote: So... How big a lead do we need before we can bring in Robles to bean a Dodger? More runs up than outs remaining.

I know he's a fucking goofball who has as many faults as he does strengths, but I'm going to miss Muffy when he's gone.

And our Sac Bunting average plunges further - took 3 shots at it there, failed to get it down on all 3. I swear next season I'm going to start tracking this (as yet) non-existent stat.

Good point by Ronnie, a better CF maybe runs down either Grandy's shot or Lagares's. But Joc Pederson isn't hitting, Carl Crawford doesn't run like he used to, and Willie Davis ain't walking through that door tonight.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Terry: 115 pitches tops. So five innings, maybe six if things start to move smoothly from here on out. In a well-pitched game, 115 should get you through 8. But tonight it's going to leave us with 3-4 innings to cover with the pen.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Replay phone? Seriously? Right now the replay system getting knocked out of commission can only be an improvement.

I'd like to thank E Hernandez (Jewish or not) for grounding out on a 2-0 pitch in front of the pitcher's spot whilst Harvey is having so much trouble finding the plate.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Game likely to start on TNT. Aw man, I wanted to watch the end of 'Castle' -- (I've actually never heard of Castle but whatever) And at the rate the Cubs/Cards game is going, our game is likely to end on TNT

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: My larger point... Which is always how someone shifts an argument in which their smaller-point-which-supports-the-larger-point is shown to be insupportable. Frayed Knot wrote: ... is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'. And then you switch to a strawman argument. Fuck off with your semantics. I'm done here.

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: ... c/would Utley have returned to the base before Ruben c/would have tagged him trying to do so. Whatever answer they come up with at that point is stupid and, yeah, it's pretty much guesswork. You know the difference. One is drawing a conclusion with facts and information. The other is drawing a conclusion without them. The latter is not the situation here. Forcing the to draw conclusions based on two events neither one of which would logically occur in the given situation is much closer to guesswork than it is to judgement. And I don't know why we're even arguing these definitions anyway,. My larger point is that proponents of the replay system argued that it was never going to be used to overturn microscopic mistakes, and, when asked what would happen when actions resulted from calls that were later overturned, gave some version of the answer; 'Eh, they'll figure out something'. Well both have happened, and do happen regularly, and there's no way to have the system they have and have these things NOT happen. The human mistakes in that play were made on the field. The replay umps were much more restricted as to what they could do and there the system is more at fault.