Hey, I'm just happy I can watch the games on TV again. The CSN Houston BS nearly killed my fandom, and I've been a fan since the late 70's.
I almost listed them, but I didn't want to poke a hole in my point Still didn't realize they've been good for that long. I agree that it rivals and mimics the Spurs, with the difference being lack of longevity/continuity in any players/coaches throughout the run. There's no Duncan/Popp or even Parker/Ginobili..but they're still making it happen.
Man those Royals really did the rest of the AL a favor by recognizing us as a contender (when we were thumping them) by throwing at 3 of our best guys & successfully taking out Springer for an indefinite period of time. Sorta like a FU way of telling us to stay in our place, knowing that we don't have the balls to do anything about it. Astros haven't been the same since.
no idea what to do with this. "If you were a good team with balls, you'd have thrown back at them. That would've definitely brought Springer off the DL faster."
Please elaborate if you see differently. I'm not a baseball guru or expert like some of these other posters, just an avid Houston sports fans who's frustrated at how the Stros seem to be losing their mojo. I apologize if my opinion is short-sighted but watched that game, along with many others afterwards. Just how I see it. Plus the Royals are punks and have gotten into it was a few other teams this year already.
So do you retaliate at all? Again I'm just a hack fan but it sure seems like hell that they threw at our guys with intent.
It seemed like there was intent (overall across the game), I agree I don't think the team's course was changed by whether or not they retaliated. So I don't think retaliating would have put them in a different place than they are today. As for Springer specifically, he was the first hit-by-pitch in the game. Even if you believe that retaliating would have preventing more HBPs (rather than added even more and/or turned into a fight), it doesn't rewind on him.
So you think, in a game they are leading 3-2, with a man already on base and no outs, they intentionally tried to hit Springer? Why not go with the more logical explanation that the Royals are successful in large part because they are willing to aggressively throw on the inside part of the plate, and a side effect of that is that they hit a lot of people as a result.
I've been in the crowd that it wasn't intentional. However, what you are saying is is that Royals have intentionally chosen a path that causes opposing batters to be hit. For all intents and purposes, your logical explanation is not much different to them intentionally hitting Springer.
Ned Yost was 100% correct in what he said after the dustup with Toronto. When you have a power heavy lineup that likes to crowd the plate or likes the ball on the outer 3rd, you *have* to pitch inside. Does that make guys uncomfortable, yes. Will pitches get away and hit guys, yes. Is there anything wrong with that, no.
That's not true at all. If you are an aggressive driver, it means you're probably likely to get in more wrecks. It doesn't mean that you're intentionally trying to get into wrecks. It's a side effect of something else you're trying to do (get somewhere more quickly). Or in a baseball example, if you run the bases aggressively, you're going to get caught more often. It doesn't mean you're trying to get caught. In the Royals' case, it means they are more willing to risk hitting players in order to be better pitchers. It doesn't mean they are intentionally wanting to do that - they'd prefer to be hitting the inside corner of the plate and not actually hitting players, given that the goal is to NOT put players on base.
I was trying to think of an appropriate analogy. Then I quit and checked--as expected, someone had already followed up Agree with the above.
Sale just struck out Pujols with Trout on second, with a change up. White Sox coming to bat, game 0-0
The unfortunately luck (deflection) was already mentioned, but besides that and Correa's play, Luke surrendered 2 other hits and a walk in 0.2 IP. He definitely pitched like garbage.
Harrelson has just said the White Sox have better rotation and starting lineup than the Royals. Only thing KC is better is bullpen, the difference, he says Royals execute and Sox don't. Well, lets see the 9 players and staring rotation, and see. KC C Salvador Perez 1b Hosmer 2b Zobrist 3b Mouztakas ss Escobar LF Gordon cf Cain rf Rios DH Morales White Sox C Flowers 1b Abreu 2b Sanchez 3b Saladine SS RAmirez LF CAbrera cf Eaton rf Garcia DH Laroche Only 2 spots i give to the White Sox are 1b and rf. Rotations: Royals Cueto Volquez Duffy Guthrie Ventura Sox Sale Samardzjija Quintana Danks Rondon Interesting, but here, Harrelson has some beat. The top 3 for the White Sox are very good, but Samardzjia y not pitching that good. I give advantage to Cueto and Volquez. Third spot to Quintana. Now, 4th spot, Danks vs Guthrie??? Danks has the advantage, both pitching bad. So everything is decided with the 5th spot, and i have to take Ventura over Rondon. By the way, Sox leading 1 to 0 in the middle to the second
You ain't never lied. Springer is the biggest loss of any MLB contender... Wainwright included. Damn shame. Hope he regains his form soon.
