Author Topic: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3  (Read 2423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7350
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #425: April 10, 2011, 09:15:25 PM »
Morse's ST stats should be discounted, because ST stats should considered meaningless. What makes Morse compelling is that he has been able to hit his whole career as part time role player, and he put up numbers last year that were better than Willingham's in fewer games. He deserves to be given an opportunity to show that he can be productive playing every day (or at least as half of a R/L platoon.) 1 week at the start of the season isn't enough to judge anyone. But he needs to show that he can make adjustments.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37017
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #426: April 10, 2011, 09:17:22 PM »


Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7666
  • ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
    • Photos
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #428: April 10, 2011, 09:39:21 PM »
I like the LaRoche and Morse double steal in the top of the second. I would probably hate it without Mr. GIDP at bat but still I like a Riggleman move. :shock:

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 13966
  • Lerners = Bluth family
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #429: April 10, 2011, 10:27:23 PM »
:clap:

I'm going to keep using that response until he leaves, or at least has the decency to come back with a different username/avatar.  R-e-s-p-e-c-t, nag.

Online PebbleBall

  • Posts: 2685
  • Now that right there is baseball.
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #430: April 11, 2011, 08:42:21 AM »
I'm carrying this over from the Friday gameday thread because I just now noticed it.

No offense, Chief, but this is a joke:

Quote from:  Chief
You didn't, but your rhetorical question may have implied a universal correlation between increased payroll and negligence/irresponsibility.

It did? F me, then.  I specifically said "Wilpons." If that can't make it clear that I'm talking about the Wilpons and not a universal statement on spending, I don't know what else I can do. 

Also:

Quote
The first was "This is why so much of the LAC stuff seems ridiculous to me", so if spending is not a factor, why mention LAC?  It's a pretty clear implication.  PB may not have intended it, but it's not difficult to see why it might be read that way.

Because I was responding to another post...

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30008
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #431: April 11, 2011, 08:53:08 AM »
The first was "This is why so much of the LAC stuff seems ridiculous to me", so if spending is not a factor, why mention LAC?  It's a pretty clear implication.  PB may not have intended it, but it's not difficult to see why it might be read that way.

I know what you meant, and I'm not accusing you of anything, my original posts were just pointing out that I can see where someone might've interpreted it the way spidernat did.