Jump to content

Tuesday, July 29 game thread


clujer420
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 605
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Bottom of 3rd:

Tucker- single to LF

Relaford- single to RF

Mayne- out

Runners advance to 2B and 3B

Guiel- groundout to 2B

Tucker scores, Relaford to 3B

Randa- single... fielded by Alomar, Randa safe at 1st

Relaford scores

Beltran- groundout to Pitcher

2-0 bad guys going into top of 4th :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

inning over......2-0 KC, if we can't play smallball, time for some homers.

Did we not have a successful sac bunt in the 1st inning? :huh:

 

We just need to produce with RISP -- that's not exactly considered "small ball". "Small ball" is get a guy on 1st, steal 2nd, bunt him to 3rd, sac fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we not have a successful sac bunt in the 1st inning? :huh:

 

We just need to produce with RISP -- that's not exactly considered "small ball".  "Small ball" is get a guy on 1st, steal 2nd, bunt him to 3rd, sac fly.

That bunt was ugly. Not saying it wasn't successful, I just doubt he meant to bunt like that.. I'll take it, but its really more luck than good bunting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we not have a successful sac bunt in the 1st inning? :huh:

 

We just need to produce with RISP -- that's not exactly considered "small ball".  "Small ball" is get a guy on 1st, steal 2nd, bunt him to 3rd, sac fly.

That bunt was ugly. Not saying it wasn't successful, I just doubt he meant to bunt like that.. I'll take it, but its really more luck than good bunting.

Nobody said it has to be pretty. I'd rather have ugly efficiency than fundamentally sound failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we not have a successful sac bunt in the 1st inning?   :huh:

 

We just need to produce with RISP -- that's not exactly considered "small ball".  "Small ball" is get a guy on 1st, steal 2nd, bunt him to 3rd, sac fly.

That bunt was ugly. Not saying it wasn't successful, I just doubt he meant to bunt like that.. I'll take it, but its really more luck than good bunting.

Nobody said it has to be pretty. I'd rather have ugly efficiency than fundamentally sound failure.

As would I, but when the game is on the line we can't rely on lucky bunting. We need guys who are sound bunters, so the Toronto incident doesn't happen all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...