User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.5331 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Morgan is a clown, but the Marlins proved themselves to be bigger clowns.
"The Marlins hit him in a professional manner, then he steals two bases down 11, which is generally not done, the man has serious issues."
he steals two bases down 11, which is generally not done
Yeah, how dare he try to show up his opponent when his team is losing that badly? Must be a new unwritten rule.
Dibble on the brawl would have been a hoot.
I had the same reaction. I mean stealing bases when you're down by such a margin is certainly dumb, but how is it disrespectful or in violation of someone's code somewhere? Morgan deserved retaliation for his punk move on Bryan Anderson last week, but I'm not sure why the Marlins were out to get him.
EDIT: Or what 8 said.
This was one of the dumber things I'd heard in a long time. Made me wish the Nats had come back and won the game.
But dumb announcers... This is not new stuff. During the playoffs I usually watch games on mute; this season I've extended the act to most in-season games as well... Leads to less chair-throwing and a happier life.
He's kind of a menace right now.
Mike and Mike, of all people, had a pretty good point this morning when they discussed all the big comebacks in the last couple weeks and wondered aloud why there's an unwritten rule on trying to win. They even eventually came to the idea that it was just a cover for "We don't like Nyjer Morgan". It was surprising.
Maybe so but you could always just, you know, throw him out. Throwing behind a guy is ##### stuff, and even if it was ass high Morgan has a right to feel that if you are throwing behind him you're trying to go for the noggin and missed. To then clothesline him, which could have broken his neck, makes it even more hypocritical.
I'm no Nyjer Morgan fan and I think he's a pretty thin skinned guy (besides all his other antics, he's the only CF i've ever seen in San Francisco get visibly upset and annoyed by the CF bleacher bums chanting "Whatsa matter with X? He's a bum!") but that doesn't make the Marlins blameless.
He rolled the catcher last night. They hit him in the fourth. He didn't charge at that point, he took his medicine.
If the Nats aren't supposed to steal, why are the Marlins holding him on?
What the hell is wrong with that guy? Is he crazy or stupid or what? Twice in a week he failed to score a run because he deemed it more important to hit the catcher, once in a tie game. If I were Jim Riggleman, I would send his ass home; he's actively damaging the team's efforts to win.
Morgan running into the catcher Tuesday night was stupid because he was out and sliding would have likely netted a run, not because it was dirty. The play last week was even dumber. Every time he runs into a catcher or a wall, it costs the Nats a run.
Morgan has had a bad season pretty much every way you could slice it. Bad hitting, bad fielding, bad attitude, horrible baserunning. He was my favorite Nat going into the season, but echh.
He got hit......played the game to win. Got thrown behind. He was totally justified to charge the mound. Marlins were completely out of line.
If there we no previous Nyjer Morgan incidents, just about everybody would be saying he was being gritty and not giving up on the game, and that he took his medicine like a man the first time. The second time they threw at him....well a man just has to defend himself.
Of course...there WERE prior incidents. So Morgan will just have to live with the perception. He made his own bed, and all that. But he wasn't in the wrong here. The notion that stealing and trying to get your team a run when losing, no matter by how much, is disrespectful, is one of the most flawed pieces of logic I have come across in a long long time.
This (go to 1:30) is the previous incident I was talking about; there was no play at the plate, he just decided to give the catcher a shoulder anyway. And it certainly was dirty.
Not in this game. His actions in the game before, which precipitated the nonsense in this game, were egregious. And ####### stupid, considering they cost his team the go-ahead run. I can't believe he started the following game, actually. I would have benched his sorry ass as a message that you try to score the run, not take out the catcher.
But then we wouldn't have a need for retired jocks to give us insight into how to play the game.
I just love this phrase. I hope to one day be able to use it following an opening of "But officer, I..."
Bing. I don't necessarily agree with this thinking, but it's not new and not unknown to Morgan and co.
After being stuck with Harrelson for 2 of the 3 Yanks-Sox games last weekend, I couldn't agree more. It was like listening to 6 hours of Up With People.**
**This link is for mature audiences only
Once upon a time there was a little boy who left a baseball game with an arm injury. A mean monster went on XM Radio and criticized the little boy, saying when he was a little boy, he sucked it up and played through the pain, and implying the little boy was being less-than-manly. The little boy went to a doctor and had an MRI and it turned out he needs Tommy John surgery. The mean monster's employer was very angry at the monster for unfairly criticizing one of the employer's most valuable assets. The little boy's teammates already didn't like the mean monster, who was often openly critical of their lackluster play, and this was the last straw. The mean monster was fired and replaced by Ray Knight and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.
In all likelihood, Morgan wasn't stealing those bases as part of 'trying to win'. He stole right after getting plunked, and the Marlins obviously took it as if it was provocation. I trust their interpretation more than some people just who blindly hate unwritten rules.
Ehh, he's just not that good period
In 2294 minor league PAs he has a .733 OPS
in 1323 MLB PAs he's at .709
What happened was after I turned him down in a trade in my roto league last year, he immediately went on a tear after being traded... and the asshat who offered him to me gave me weekly updates on him...
My guess is that his true talent level is likely that of a .675 hitter, IOW I think he's overachieved somewhat in his MLB career to date... (IOW he's better than he's shown this year, but not by enough to matter)
I don't see why that matters, though. Morgan didn't slide violently on those steals. The Marlins had a right to be angry with Morgan for needlessly trucking Hayes the night before, so they hit him. The subsequent steals didn't justify further retaliation.
I agree with this, they hit him once and then he stole a couple of meaningless bases and they should have let it go. But lets not pretend the base-stealing wasn't a provocation or that it was just a hustling Morgan trying to spearhead a comeback.
Certainly not. The last few weeks have given us ample evidence that Morgan is a hot-headed idiot who can't control his impulses on the field. But being a jerk doesn't justify violent retribution. Being a violent jerk might just possibly justify such a response, however.
As for Dibble, he never really seemed to be a good fit for Washington, which certainly isn't the most savvy of baseball towns but is nonetheless sophisticated, and Dibble's style didn't mesh. I don't know who will replace him in 2011; I'm certain it won't be Knight. What's Billy Sample up to these days?
I dare anybody to substitute some phrase for "show up" that can make the statement by TDF make any sense at all.
provoke
or
antagonize
What's Junior Samples up to?
I've never heard of it before. Oh I've heard plenty of pissing and moaning when the team up by a bundle steals a bases, but when you're losing anything that might bring you back is fair game.
That there isn't much running when you're way behind has everything to do with the understanding that risking an out for a minor gain just isn't smart.
Look, leave Mike Piazza out of this!
'Embarrass' works.
Once you charge the mound it's the law of the jungle. They were justified in gangland stomping him.
It doesn't make sense but it's true. The Marlins felt it was provocation, ex-major leaguer commentators think it was a provocation. Given the context I think that its reasonable to think it was provocation. However, the provocation was minor and meaningless, and didn't warrant the escalation by the Marlins.
The Sanchez takeout was a thing of beauty, though.
You don't take out fielders on head-first slides. The slides were exuberant and possibly defiant, but they were not dangerous and, therefore, did not justify retaliation.
I thought throwing behind someone was the most egregious form, as it increases the risk of injury as a result of the natural tendency to back out of the way?
Bowties all around, I say.
The slides were aggressive, but not injurious to any opponents. It's the shots at catchers that make Morgan a bad guy.
I really miss having Don Sutton, who I thought was the epitome of professionalism.
At this point it would be nice to have a decent team that could stay for more than a couple of years.
That's what they said about the Senators. Wait another forty years.
I thought Dibble was a good announcer for an awful team. He was frustrated right along with the fans, did a good job injecting some levity, etc. Not the kind of guy you want long term with the demanding players pitch hurt, etc, but a lot of fun when the team is terrible.
Carpenter won't shut up, so they may as well just have him work the games himself and save the money, although, the good thing will be if Phil Wood does the postgames more now that Knight won't be there. Wood at least has a hometown interest.
I've always enjoyed Sutton. I wish the Braves would put him back on TV, as I don't listen to the games on the radio very often.
Go Wheaties.
Benji: if you'd send Darling back to DC for Dibble, we'll take it.
"RT @SPORTSbyBROOKS: Day Strasburg came along was day ppl actually started watching Nats TV games. Effectively was day Dibble lost his job."
Someone should really go to Babelfish and do an Urban-to-Tatooed-Airhead conversion of "Hell 2 DA NAW."
It will be interesting to see who comes in for 2011. I know Kasten's not a big fan of Carpenter, who seems more suited for a market like St. Louis or Dallas-Fort Worth (he's done both Cardinals and Rangers games) than an eastern city like Washington, but it'd probably be difficult to hire two guys. Personally, I'd bring in an analyst and have he and Bob rotate on TV and radio with Charlie Slowes and Dave Jageler, the way most franchises used to do things before separating TV and radio teams.
Part of me would love to see the Nats hire John Kruk, who has a bit of Dibble's gonzo without his abrasiveness.
I can almost envision Dibble taking exception to the Marlins' announcers description of the altercation, leading to a ruckuss between adjacent TV booths (kind of like hockey fights between the penalty boxes), escalating to a full-fledged melee when reinforcements run in from the radio booths.
Dibble's a little behind on his blogging, but feel free to ask him a question!
Okay, but just as long as a more substantial part doesn't want Kruk anywhere near the broadcasts. Assuming they keep Carpenter, retaining Knight is probably the easiest way to go. They have good chemisty, even if they both come across as a little bit dumb.
They stayed in my dorm at Michigan the entire week before Super Bowl XVI in Pontiac, at which they "performed." Ate in the same cafeteria. I had no idea who they were, but most of them wore "Up With People" nametags. I asked around, but nobody else knew who they were either.
So whitebread and saccharine, even NFL Films mocked them in the classic "Lost Treasures" series.
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2010/5/12/1469664/starting-a-meme
Bite your tongue.
In regards to what Benji wrote, Keith and Cohen have their problems (the latter more than the former), but they are not the Brenamens of the Mets by a long shot. They love Carlos well enough, they are just noticing he's not the same player as he recovers, because he's not. It's honest commentary.
#82 holy crap, that is the most wonderful thing I have ever read. Did that get its own thread here? If not, it should be posted.
There may be things a player can do to embarrass an opponent -- to which I would say, "Grow up"; grown men should not be worried about being embarrassed -- but how would stealing a base do so?
em*bar*rass: (1) to cause confusion and shame to; make uncomfortably self-conscious; disconcert; abash;
Stealing a base when down by ten is more likely to embarrass yourself.
I don't agree that there is a distinction. The idea -- that it is uncool to steal bases when you're up by a great amount of runs -- is based on the understanding that the game is effectively over. De facto, not de jure. Well, it is the same thing when you are down by a great amount of runs -- that the game is effectively over.
This is, of course, an unwritten rule and it contradicts the ideas that "it ain't over til it's over" and that you should play hard until the last out. So if you don't agree with this "unwritten rule" and favor the idea that teams ought to play hard to the end, that should apply to both clubs, not just the one behind.
Personally, I agree with the game is effectively over ethic. Take your normal at bats, but don't steal, don't hit and run, don't do anything overly aggressive on the basepaths. Just wind down the clock -- or in baseball's case, the outs. In basketball, the tradition is just the same -- when there is too little time for a comeback, just take it easy until the game ends. I'm less familiar with hockey, but I have seen blow-outs in the NHL where, in the 3rd period, everyone just goes through the motions until the clock runs out. And in the NFL, if the score is very lopsided, they will bring in subs and won't use trick plays and so on if the game is effectively over.
Something like three ten-run leads have been lost in the last ten days. I just don't get this in the slightest.
It's hard to argue with that, but OTOH if I were on the team that was ahead, I'm not sure why I I should be any less indifferent about stolen bases with a ten run lead late in the game than I would be with a three run lead in the ninth inning. Of course it's stupid, but an insult? Not really, not unless you're looking to be insulted over nothing.
I'm not sure it's even stupid.
Isn't the lesson the zealots teach about pitcher wins and ERA that every run counts, no matter the context of the game, because it increases the chances of your team winning? It strikes me that no ERA+ zealot can think that it's ever wrong to steal a base, up 15 runs or down 15 runs as long as the percentages are right.
Unless they want to be entirely inconsistent, of course.
Well, there's a question of whether the percentages will ever be right, given a 15 run gap. From a WPA perspective, it's hard to imagine that the risk of a CS is going to be worth the gain of a SB when you're down by 15 runs.
That shows I should stick to following the AL, since I didn't actually see the plays in question, and hadn't realized how early in the game they took place. When I heard about all the complaints over the stolen bases, I'd assumed that it was much later in the game than the 4th inning.
So I retract the "stupid" part, as I now realize it was just an attempt to get back in the game that was perfectly defensible by any standard.
1) there is an unwritten rule about not stealing in that situation
2) Morgan was stealing specifically to break that rule
3) Morgan wasn't breaking the rule as any sort of protest that the rule was stupid; he was doing it to be a jackass
Given all of these, I don't see how whether or not the rule is stupid has any bearing on the evaluation of Morgan's actions. It would be one thing if he was doing it because he thought the rule was stupid, but it wasn't remotely that noble. He was doing it to piss off the Marlins and not really for any other reason. I half expected a really violent tag when he stole 3rd.
I like Morgan, but then again, I like heels, and Morgan is definitely squarely in that category.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main