Because we WOULD HAVE WON 1-0 without all the walks in the first.... They didnt score a single run the rest of the game... And they didnt have a runner touch third base outside the first, so that argument is bust, too.
Engie will disagree but this loss is on the offense.
- Thread starter Will James
- Start date
Because we WOULD HAVE WON 1-0 without all the walks in the first.... They didnt score a single run the rest of the game... And they didnt have a runner touch third base outside the first, so that argument is bust, too.
Again -- it's obvious to me that people coming purely from a fan standpoint are trying to speak an entirely different language on this than people that played the game and have been close to the game at higher levels. So, allow me to try to explain this...Again....
Getting beat by a dominant pitching performance is GETTING BEAT. You tip your hat.
Getting beat by another team hitting your pitching is GETTING BEAT. You tip your hat.
Giving up 3 runs because of walks -- in a game you lose 3-1 where NO OTHER RUNS ARE EARNED is BEATING YOURSELF.
Losing 1-0 directly because of an error is also BEATING YOURSELF.
There are MANY ways to beat yourself in baseball -- and we've seen a whole bunch of them in the past few weeks. Does that let the bats off the hook? NO. They woulda/coulda/shoulda picked up their pitcher and essentially fixed his mistakes. They didn't. So, the blame goes to them too. That doesn't mean that it's "their fault." It isn't. It's the pitcher's fault for the WALKS. If Bracewell gives up a bomb after the two leadoff hits, then we would have simply GOTTEN BEAT by both their pitching at hitting. Walking them in is, again, BEATING YOURSELF. GETTING BEAT by their pitching is exactly that. You tip your hat. We had very, very few bad AB's today. Balls just didn't fall....
On Friday night, Pitching beat ourselves -- and HITTING beat ourselves too. Those situational hitting failures in the 9th? That's BEATING YOURSELF. Today our hitters simply GOT BEAT. Tip your hat.
Again, there is a VERY big notable difference to students of the game between getting beat and beating yourself. Beating yourself is MUCH more aggravating in the short term, but less so in the longterm -- because you can keep the faith that you are still ACTUALLY a good team and simply need to fix a few small things for that potential to be realized. Getting beat causes you to shrug your shoulders at the time, but in the longterm starts to show you just how good of team that you are not.
I don't know how to explain this any better...
Last edited:
You don't?
We've got the whole game as hindsight. We scored 1. They scored zero. Don't give up those first 3 on walks, the change in the end result is basically common sense.
You lost me after this.
I will read your discussions, but acting like I don't know the game when I played, coached, and broadcasted it....nope, not gonna read that trash.
Just because a lot of times people agree with you and your stats (me included)...doesn't make you always right and never wrong.
Last edited:
Talk about an agenda!
So you don't think Arkansas takes a different approach offensively if they are down 1-0 for half the game vs. being up 3-0 after 1? That defies even the Engie rules to common sense. I am truly disappointed that you would use that to try and claim proof.
ETA: Screw it. It's obvious that both pitching AND offense were the primary reasons for blame. Which was worse is really irrelevant outside of this dumb thread. I'm not going to sit here and argue with people I typically agree with, especially when they are unable to even attempt to think they could be wrong....when the outcome of the argument really means nothing.
We have to have better starting pitching....and we need to hit better, especially with men on base. And in that order.
Last edited:
An agenda? Jesus Christ it isn't this difficult to understand.
Do we ABSOLUTELY win the game without the walks? No. Not as a certaintly. But you know what we also don't do? Absolutely lose -- which is a TOTAL certaintly.
You know what else would have been different without the 3-0 hole? OUR HITTING APPROACH. This team is not built to come back from behind -- that **** is beyond obvious.
Last edited:
So, you are saying that "I'm wrong" here? Laughable.
You don't know the game when you don't know the difference between getting beat and beating yourself -- IDGAF what your pedigree is.
You have no clue**
We've already established that you read a book for everything you think you know about the game...
Where did I say you were wrong? For someone that gets so pissy about "words in your mouth"...I said you can't even entertain the thought of being wrong.
And you don't know the game if you can't admit that 3 runs in a college baseball game is low enough to win the damn game.
I admit we hurt ourselves with pitching in the 1st...but without offense it doesn't matter how good we pitch. Starting pitching has been our problem lately, and was an issue again today...but i think our offense was the reason we lost today, because I expect us to be able to win when we hold a team to 3 runs.
Last edited:
Says the guy who has no problem giving up free runs by walking 5 straight, but goes on a complete offensive on giving up an out or two by ****ing.
Free runs lose you many more games than 1or 2 free outs do, and it doesn't take statistics to show that.
Well thats true, when 2 good teams play someone has to lose. When you are the one losing every time, then you are not very good. It is simple, if you lose a lot, you are not good. Right now, we have lost all 3 sec series we have been in. That makes us not very good in my view since the goal is to win.
My point was a simple one made complex by my attempt to comprehensively explain it: Our starting pitching beat itself, while our hitting simply got beat by a superior pitching performance. That's why I'm "blaming" the pitching first and foremost. Again, if Bracewell gives up a bomb to Vinson in the first to make it 3-1(after giving up the 2 hits to start the game), then I'm simply saying that we got beat in both phases and deserved to lose -- and I'd tip my hat.
However, I can certainly live with this post and the point made is a good one. Let's just call it a truce -- and move on.
And no, I have no problem admitting it when I'm wrong about something... I'm not too proud to occasionally call myself a dubmass either...
I stopped even considering your knowledge when you advocated the 2 out hit and run earlier today. That gave me a good laugh. Just like hitting Detz cleanup for a "second leadoff hitter".... At cleanup! Hilarious.
There's a big difference in looking at it as 0-3 and looking at it as 3-6. We sweep this weekend and we are back to even record wise, but would only be 1-3 in series. We have lost close games. We need to figure out how to close. But we are a good team. The ball just hasn't rolled our way. If we lose this next series, then I will be worried. Until now, I have just viewed it as very unfortunate.
- Moving him out of the 4-hole worked miracles for our offense today** Good to see that 100% Will James efficiency kicking in** Oh, and Renfroe looked REAL good with Rea "protecting him"**
- Tying run on first with 2 outs in the 8th... Yeah, total idiocy to put them in motion so he scores on anything in the gap** Nevermind that it forces the 3B to cover the bag -- and the ball Porter actually hit goes in the 6-hole for a base hit -- instead of a casual groundout to 3B. Renfroe scores on that play -- and it's tied on the play in the 9th, and we're going for the lead. Yeah, would have been total stupidity**
Last edited:
Was Detz 3rd and Renfroe 4th? No. So we didn't do what I want. Alrighty then.
Tying run on 1st, 2 out. This is an important AB I'd say. You aren't going to hit and run, forcing a hitter to swing. What if it's a bad pitch? What if they pitch out? So many risks in hitting and running and that's why you use it RARELY and only with 0 outs. You aren't going to limit yourself like that with two outs. Hit and running is a tool to limit the DP, not with 2 outs Engie.
So in your hypothetical, we hit and run with 2 outs and what? A single gets the runner to 3rd, not scoring. An XBH scores him. Guess what? With 2 outs the runner is off on the crack so he's scoring on an XBH anyway. So you don't add any scoring threat, yet force your hitter to swing. Great idea dumbass.
Tying run on 1st, 2 out. This is an important AB I'd say. You aren't going to hit and run, forcing a hitter to swing. What if it's a bad pitch? What if they pitch out? So many risks in hitting and running and that's why you use it RARELY and only with 0 outs. You aren't going to limit yourself like that with two outs. Hit and running is a tool to limit the DP, not with 2 outs Engie.
So in your hypothetical, we hit and run with 2 outs and what? A single gets the runner to 3rd, not scoring. An XBH scores him. Guess what? With 2 outs the runner is off on the crack so he's scoring on an XBH anyway. So you don't add any scoring threat, yet force your hitter to swing. Great idea dumbass.
Oh, that's right...I forgot... You want to stack the top of the lineup with 3 straight lefties -- off one of the best starting LHP in all of college baseball -- "Dumbass"
The hit and run opens up the infield there. Porter's ball goes through. Renfroe scores from second. Rea is on 3rd. We tie it in the 9th. Simple. Hell, if Porter gets on there and we go straight continuation into what happened in the 9th, Pirtle walks to load them, Henderson is HBP for the lead.
You are all about getting extra runs. There is your extra run(s). Of course, you don't like it -- because you were argumentative about it in the first place and STILL are beating the dead horse -- despite me showing you EXACTLY how it would have worked in the situation that I initially endorsed it...
Why are you such a ***** that you can't complete an argument in a single thread and drop it? You ALWAYS try to carryover everything you've got -- It's when you make it obvious that you've accepted defeat on the topic at hand...
Last edited:
Our Hitters need to nutt-up and score some runs, hell Tom Glavine almost always gave up runs early.