You will be hated by a generation of pathetic Nats fans. You can't pitch in the clutch. I hope your family thinks you're a loser too.

Rizzo drafted Drew Storen when he could have had Mike Trout.

Hey. It's a GAME.

Goddammit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You will be hated by a generation of pathetic Nats
> fans. You can't pitch in the clutch. I hope your
> family thinks you're a loser too.


You obviously know nothing about baseball.

Citizen X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goddammit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You will be hated by a generation of pathetic
> Nats
> > fans. You can't pitch in the clutch. I hope
> your
> > family thinks you're a loser too.
>
>
> You obviously know nothing about baseball.

Correct. Storen did not lose the game. It was the futile batting by Span, Werth and Harper that lost the game.

No, as bad as the bats were the game was won and Williams made one of the most boneheaded managerial decisions I've ever seen. Had Zimmerman blew it, no one would question sticking with a pitcher who retired 20 of 21 and was pinched by the ump on that walk calling the first two pitches balls when they were strikes all night. He had too good of stuff to take out and I'm sorry anyone who thinks otherwise does not know baseball.

n9HxX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, as bad as the bats were the game was won and
> Williams made one of the most boneheaded
> managerial decisions I've ever seen. Had
> Zimmerman blew it, no one would question sticking
> with a pitcher who retired 20 of 21 and was
> pinched by the ump on that walk calling the first
> two pitches balls when they were strikes all
> night. He had too good of stuff to take out and
> I'm sorry anyone who thinks otherwise does not
> know baseball.


Yep. Storen blew it, but Williams pulling The Zim with two out in the top of the 9th was insane. Given Storen's track record, Williams was crazy. And you're also right that those two stricks on the outside that the ump called balls was criminal. Those were stricks ALL night long until the 9th. And then, right afterwards, they became stricks again.

"strikes"

Goshdarnit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Correct. Storen did not lose the game. It was
> the futile batting by Span, Werth and Harper that
> lost the game.

I may have lost count because I was getting hammered, but I think Werth (less) struck out 4 or 5 times!

LOL! Once again DC will never have a good sports team - 22 years and counting! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

Only people of a Dark Ages intelligence believe in curses. By the way, Werth struck out twice. The wages of "getting hammered" like some 12th century oaf.

This Ain't football Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, Werth struck out twice.


How many hits did he have?

C9Kdy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n9HxX Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, as bad as the bats were the game was won
> and
> > Williams made one of the most boneheaded
> > managerial decisions I've ever seen. Had
> > Zimmerman blew it, no one would question
> sticking
> > with a pitcher who retired 20 of 21 and was
> > pinched by the ump on that walk calling the
> first
> > two pitches balls when they were strikes all
> > night. He had too good of stuff to take out
> and
> > I'm sorry anyone who thinks otherwise does not
> > know baseball.
>
>
> Yep. Storen blew it, but Williams pulling The Zim
> with two out in the top of the 9th was insane.
> Given Storen's track record, Williams was crazy.
> And you're also right that those two stricks on
> the outside that the ump called balls was
> criminal. Those were stricks ALL night long until
> the 9th. And then, right afterwards, they became
> stricks again.

Now you know why Williams kept Soriano on the roster.

CH3NO2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many hits did he have?

One. You should try paying attention. NASCAR may not require that, but baseball does.

sad but true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now you know why Williams kept Soriano on the roster.

No, there's still no explaining that, though he did throw a clean inning as the eighth pitcher to be used by the Nats in the game.

It was a combination of Matt Williams taking Zimmerman out and the bad calls by the umpire that cost us the game.

Don't blame the pitcher. A team that can't get more than one run in 18 innings is generally going to lose.

C9Kdy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n9HxX Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, as bad as the bats were the game was won
> and
> > Williams made one of the most boneheaded
> > managerial decisions I've ever seen. Had
> > Zimmerman blew it, no one would question
> sticking
> > with a pitcher who retired 20 of 21 and was
> > pinched by the ump on that walk calling the
> first
> > two pitches balls when they were strikes all
> > night. He had too good of stuff to take out
> and
> > I'm sorry anyone who thinks otherwise does not
> > know baseball.
>
>
> Yep. Storen blew it, but Williams pulling The Zim
> with two out in the top of the 9th was insane.
> Given Storen's track record, Williams was crazy.
> And you're also right that those two stricks on
> the outside that the ump called balls was
> criminal. Those were stricks ALL night long until
> the 9th. And then, right afterwards, they became
> stricks again.

Williams got thrown out of the game.

Even better. I turned the channel to WETA to watch Masterpiece Theatre because the game was so fucking boring and lifeless.

This Ain't football Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sad but true Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now you know why Williams kept Soriano on the
> roster.
>
> No, there's still no explaining that, though he
> did throw a clean inning as the eighth pitcher to
> be used by the Nats in the game.

You are not Matt Williams. In the unlikely event that the Nats have a lead in the bottom of the 9th in game three, don'tbe surpised if Soriano comes on to close.

n9HxX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, as bad as the bats were the game was won and
> Williams made one of the most boneheaded
> managerial decisions I've ever seen. Had
> Zimmerman blew it, no one would question sticking
> with a pitcher who retired 20 of 21 and was
> pinched by the ump on that walk calling the first
> two pitches balls when they were strikes all
> night. He had too good of stuff to take out and
> I'm sorry anyone who thinks otherwise does not
> know baseball.

This. Well said.
Nip

Poo Poo and Pee Pee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was a combination of Matt Williams taking
> Zimmerman out and the bad calls by the umpire that
> cost us the game.

Zimmermann (two n's) was at 100 pitches and running on fumes. Their 3-4 hitters were coming up. The only sensible move was to bring in the closer. Whether idiots like John Heyman want to understand that or not.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't blame the pitcher. A team that can't get
> more than one run in 18 innings is generally going
> to lose.


And that is a FACT. Stop blaming the pitching that only gave up 2(!!!!) runs in 18 INNINGS

steve spurrier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are not Matt Williams. In the unlikely event
> that the Nats have a lead in the bottom of the 9th
> in game three, don'tbe surpised if Soriano comes
> on to close.

LOL! You're off in La-La Land. He was the LAST reliever to be called upon last night. Nobody has any faith in him. He (fortunately) fell short of his vesting option this year, and so will be a free Agent for 2015. He will likely be hoping for a minor league deal with an invitation to Spring Training for a front-line club. If he gets a major league deal, it will all but certainly be a short-term deal at small market money. He was surprisingly put on the Nats post-season roster in anticipation of work in a mop-up role and as a tip of the hat to those bygone days when he was an effective pitcher.

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And that is a FACT. Stop blaming the pitching that
> only gave up 2(!!!!) runs in 18 INNINGS

Pitching was very good for the Giants also. SF had fewer hits and fewer hard-hit balls. But in the end, they got one to float over the wall in right. The rules say someone had to lose, but neither team deserved to.

Doubleday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steve spurrier Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are not Matt Williams. In the unlikely
> event
> > that the Nats have a lead in the bottom of the
> 9th
> > in game three, don'tbe surpised if Soriano
> comes
> > on to close.
>
> LOL! You're off in La-La Land. He was the LAST
> reliever to be called upon last night. Nobody has
> any faith in him. He (fortunately) fell short of
> his vesting option this year, and so will be a
> free Agent for 2015. He will likely be hoping for
> a minor league deal with an invitation to Spring
> Training for a front-line club. If he gets a
> major league deal, it will all but certainly be a
> short-term deal at small market money. He was
> surprisingly put on the Nats post-season roster in
> anticipation of work in a mop-up role and as a tip
> of the hat to those bygone days when he was an
> effective pitcher.

I, too, rejoiced when it became clear he would not make the 120 games finished provision. But you have to ask why Soriano was brought in before Roark. (SF decided much earlier in the game to burn a potential starter.) Regardless, the question is what Matt Williams is thinking. My guess is that he feels compelled to give Storen the ball if there is another save opportunity, but I am not betting on it.

Piffle. The Giants NLDS rotation is Peavy-Hudson-Bumgarner-Vogelsong. Yusmeiro Petit is the long man out of the bullpen. He is NOT a potential starter, and unlike Roark, was just a spot-starter -- not a regular starter -- during the regular season. The dynamic duo of Blake Treinen and Taylor Jordan made as many starts this year (12) as Petit did.

Again, the only surprise re Soriano was that he was included on the NLDS roster at all.

I was always told to swing at anything close when you had two strikes. Also, every major league team has to have a scouting report on each home plate umpire. Umpire A likes to call the low stikes, Umpire B call like to call pitches on the black and the outside corner, etc.


Also, great hitting approach. Lets try to pull every outside pitch. Very few cannot hit to the opposite field for the Nats. At least Belt and Sandoval for the Giants get it.

Well no one kisses ass to Matt Williams more than F.P. I still don't understand why F.P. thinks the Nats can still win the series. I think they can beat Vogelsong, but that is about it. Giants in four games.

Doubleday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Piffle. The Giants NLDS rotation is
> Peavy-Hudson-Bumgarner-Vogelsong. Yusmeiro Petit
> is the long man out of the bullpen. He is NOT a
> potential starter, and unlike Roark, was just a
> spot-starter -- not a regular starter -- during
> the regular season. The dynamic duo of Blake
> Treinen and Taylor Jordan made as many starts this
> year (12) as Petit did.
>
> Again, the only surprise re Soriano was that he
> was included on the NLDS roster at all.

If your point is that Roark and Petit are unlikely starters, so be it. (Injuries happen, by the way.) But then why was Roark not in there ahead of Stammen, Barrett and Soriano?

Again, the selection of Soriano was not a surprise to Matt Williams. It may have been a surprise to you, as it was to me, but that is because we do not know what Matt Williams is thinking. He did not flip coins to select the roster.

I blame the lame fans. At least 50% left the game early and the ones who remained all started chanting "I beleieve that we can't hit!!" Everyone was already aware of the fact that we can't hit.

steve spurrier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, the selection of Soriano was not a surprise
> to Matt Williams. It may have been a surprise to
> you, as it was to me, but that is because we do
> not know what Matt Williams is thinking. He did
> not flip coins to select the roster.

I doubt you do football well either, but you certainly aren;t much good when it comes to baseball. The Nats brass can select whomever they like. But selecting Soriano was surprising, period. Being the visiting team, the Giants held back a closer. The only other non-starter not to appear was Tim Lincecum, an exiled starter. Petit -- who just set the all-time MLB record for most consecutive batters retired -- got the nod first and managed to finish the job. There was meanwhile no actual reason at all for Soriano to have been on the roster, Detwiler would have been a better use of the spot. So would Souza or Taylor. Nice that they didn't want to disrespect Soriano, but that doesn't help matters in the short-run.

n9HxX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, as bad as the bats were the game was won and
> Williams made one of the most boneheaded
> managerial decisions I've ever seen. Had
> Zimmerman blew it, no one would question sticking
> with a pitcher who retired 20 of 21 and was
> pinched by the ump on that walk calling the first
> two pitches balls when they were strikes all
> night. He had too good of stuff to take out and
> I'm sorry anyone who thinks otherwise does not
> know baseball.

+1

kisses Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1

Yeah, we'll do a +1 to the number of baseball infants opining their sweet nothings here. Bringing in Storen was an open-and-shut case. And as an FYI that should not have been necessary, if J-Zimm had stayed in and gotten pounded as he was about to be, the same morons lambasting Williams for taking him out would have been lambasting him for leaving him in. That's what limited tools Monday-morning morons do, you know.

Doubleday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steve spurrier Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Again, the selection of Soriano was not a
> surprise
> > to Matt Williams. It may have been a surprise
> to
> > you, as it was to me, but that is because we do
> > not know what Matt Williams is thinking. He
> did
> > not flip coins to select the roster.
>
> I doubt you do football well either, but you
> certainly aren;t much good when it comes to
> baseball. The Nats brass can select whomever they
> like. But selecting Soriano was surprising,
> period. Being the visiting team, the Giants held
> back a closer. The only other non-starter not to
> appear was Tim Lincecum, an exiled starter. Petit
> -- who just set the all-time MLB record for most
> consecutive batters retired -- got the nod first
> and managed to finish the job. There was
> meanwhile no actual reason at all for Soriano to
> have been on the roster, Detwiler would have been
> a better use of the spot. So would Souza or
> Taylor. Nice that they didn't want to disrespect
> Soriano, but that doesn't help matters in the
> short-run.

So your point is that Matt Williams does not know what he is doing (except when deciding when to replace starting pitchers). Your ability to reason is on par with your knowledge of baseball.

Doubleday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kisses Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > +1
>
> Yeah, we'll do a +1 to the number of baseball
> infants opining their sweet nothings here.
> Bringing in Storen was an open-and-shut case. And
> as an FYI that should not have been necessary, if
> J-Zimm had stayed in and gotten pounded as he was
> about to be, the same morons lambasting Williams
> for taking him out would have been lambasting him
> for leaving him in. That's what limited tools
> Monday-morning morons do, you know.

+1,000

Doubleday is the man; just ask him. I genuflect in his presence.

steve spurrier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So your point is that Matt Williams does not know
> what he is doing (except when deciding when to
> replace starting pitchers).

I'll try again. My actual point is that you're a hapless moron who does not know the game of baseball at any level.

> Your ability to reason is on par with your knowledge of baseball.

Agreed.

If I were a woman, I would want to have Doubleday's child.

Why was Soriano warming up in the 9th? Doubleday said he shouldn't be pitching.

Barrett shouldn't have pitched in Game 5, and Thornton shouldn't have stayed in as long as he did.

Ralph Branca should never have pitched to Bobby Thompson.

Not quite sure what you were watching this season, but Storen in 60+ appeareances surrendered a grand total of two dingers...his lights-out ERA was among the topmost in the majors throughout the season.