Author Topic: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)  (Read 21432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 10517
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #425: May 03, 2012, 01:34:10 PM »
Nix just hit a bolt to CF, Phillies 2-0.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29977
  • Very 2014. Wow.
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #426: May 03, 2012, 01:36:36 PM »
Just because he's done it doesn't mean it matters.  I don't see any other players getting a mention in this thread on a daily basis.  For example:

Nick Johnson picks up his first hit of the year now 1 for 30 .033/.147/.067/.214

Why didn't you mention every single one of NJ's outs leading up to this first hit?  And don't say "because it's not a record", we're both smart enough to know that's not the point.

Offline EdStroud

  • Posts: 7987
  • It is what the Nats crave
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #427: May 03, 2012, 02:08:24 PM »
Just because he's done it doesn't mean it matters.  I don't see any other players getting a mention in this thread on a daily basis.  For example:

Why didn't you mention every single one of NJ's outs leading up to this first hit?  And don't say "because it's not a record", we're both smart enough to know that's not the point.

OK Chief go look at how many times I have mentioned Dunn and the strikeout record in the thread.  Go ahead and check for me.  I have talked about it in my posts twice.  The first time I was mocking the comparison of Howie Goss to Dunn, then one other time did I mention the record.  That second time I noted (again as in my latest) that he had HR'd and K'd.  I don't get your problem, I never state that he stinks or anything close to that.  As for other players I try to jump around and mention as many as possible just look at my posts.  Just checked- I have mentioned Nick Johnson's shortcomings three times in the same time period of Dunn's three mentions.

Chief/Linty today I had to take my dog to the vet.  She was bit by a snake I don't need this crap believe me.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29977
  • Very 2014. Wow.
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #428: May 03, 2012, 02:10:35 PM »
I didn't mean to single you out, just pointing out that there have been a lot of mentions by various people.

Offline EdStroud

  • Posts: 7987
  • It is what the Nats crave
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #429: May 03, 2012, 02:11:38 PM »
I didn't mean to single you out, just pointing out that there have been a lot of mentions by various people.

great

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33350
  • Lets go to work
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #430: May 03, 2012, 02:13:40 PM »
OK Chief go look at how many times I have mentioned Dunn and the strikeout record in the thread.  Go ahead and check for me.  I have talked about it in my posts twice.  The first time I was mocking the comparison of Howie Goss to Dunn, then one other time did I mention the record.  That second time I noted (again as in my latest) that he had HR'd and K'd.  I don't get your problem, I never state that he stinks or anything close to that.  As for other players I try to jump around and mention as many as possible just look at my posts.  Just checked- I have mentioned Nick Johnson's shortcomings three times in the same time period of Dunn's three mentions.

Chief/Linty today I had to take my dog to the vet.  She was bit by a snake I don't need this crap believe me.

Not trying to pick on you. Just in general, people have been beating the drum about his strike outs.

Sorry about your dog. Were they able to patch things up at the vet?

Offline EdStroud

  • Posts: 7987
  • It is what the Nats crave
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #431: May 03, 2012, 02:17:55 PM »
Not trying to pick on you. Just in general, people have been beating the drum about his strike outs.

Sorry about your dog. Were they able to patch things up at the vet?

Have to sit here and wait

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 48431
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #432: May 03, 2012, 02:29:31 PM »

Chief/Linty today I had to take my dog to the vet.  She was bit by a snake I don't need this crap believe me.

How did this happen? And were you able to kill the snake?


Offline Coladar

  • Posts: 2808
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #433: May 03, 2012, 03:06:46 PM »
OK you don't but MLB Network seems to.  Just because you, Chief and I like Dunn doesn't mean he hasn't done it.

I'm glad someone else gets it. I was and am a huge Dunn fan but got attacked out the wazoo. Yeah, he's hitting pretty damn well, awesome. It doesn't change the fact that this is an unprecedented streak. It's like saying a hitting streak doesn't matter if a guy only hits 200. Baseball is a game based on records, and as someone who has watched Dunn over the years, this is a historic record. I can take comfort in watching the streak because he IS performing. It's not like I'm watching him fail and make a fool of himself, if that were the case, the stat would irk me as well. But he's performing, it's a fascinating stay, a historic one, and one that may not ever be matched. So considering that, I don't get the hate for this consecutive gams Ked streak. Maybe when I first posted, it was trivial. It's gone on so long now that it's historic and may never be matched, so at this point I think it bears watching as a bit of history and nothing more.


Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29977
  • Very 2014. Wow.
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #435: May 03, 2012, 07:09:47 PM »
Whatever you say, Coladar.  The reason hitting streaks are big is because they are feats of excellence.  Likewise, while not as well-known, hitless streak records and are notable because of their incredible futility.  What Adam Dunn is doing is neither of these things.  He's having a very good year at the plate while happening to strike out at least once per game.  FYI, more than half of his games include ONLY one strikeout.

Frankly, I think this fails as a "record".  It's more like something you'd bring up as a bit of interesting but useless trivia.  I really don't see what the fascination is, but...  to each their own I suppose.  Let me know if he sets a record for consecutive golden sombreros.  THAT I would find interesting.

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 14920
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #436: May 03, 2012, 07:13:19 PM »
Let me know if he sets a record for consecutive golden sombreros.  THAT I would find interesting.

Quick! Without looking: which MLB player holds the all-time record for most consecutive strikeouts?

Offline EdStroud

  • Posts: 7987
  • It is what the Nats crave
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #437: May 03, 2012, 07:23:02 PM »
Quick! Without looking: which MLB player holds the all-time record for most consecutive strikeouts?

pitching Tom Seaver? hitting Pete Incaveglia?

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 14920
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #438: May 03, 2012, 07:24:37 PM »
pitching Tom Seaver? hitting Pete Incaveglia?

I mean batting. Someone beat Pete

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 15482
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #439: May 03, 2012, 07:25:29 PM »
I mean batting. Someone beat Pete

Daniel Cabrera?

Offline Coladar

  • Posts: 2808
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #440: May 03, 2012, 07:26:57 PM »
Quick! Without looking: which MLB player holds the all-time record for most consecutive strikeouts?

I only know this because he played for us, and I made fun of him for it once. None other than DCrab. What a shock there, yeah?

And as far as this crap with Dunn goes. Fine, some people don't give a crap about it. Awesome. Clearly some do find it interesting, as a bit of history if nothing else. Instead of the Dunn brigade going apecrap and stringing what would be just one post on the matter into endless bickering, how about we all just get along and agree to disagree? Some find it interesting, some don't. There's no need to go nuts like we posted Adam Dunn is a homeless bum everytime someone posts something about this. Like I said, if nothing else, at this point it will probably never be matched, so it merits watch for those that are interested. For those that aren't, great, I think everyone has got it. For those that do, like I said, now that we almost doubled an old record that stood for half a century, this is something that might never be matched. Is it making headlines? Hell no. But most of us saw mention on TV or Elias Says, we're curious, and now keep an eye on it out of sheer curiosity. I just don't get why when someone totally different from me posted about it, and included the HR, it merits this flack yet again.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29977
  • Very 2014. Wow.
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #441: May 03, 2012, 07:31:02 PM »
I find it interesting.

Condensed that for ya.  Oh and "fair enough".

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5187
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #442: May 03, 2012, 07:35:52 PM »
Daniel Cabrera?

He got a hit as a Nat, didnt he? Great signing by JimBo

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 14920
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #443: May 03, 2012, 07:35:54 PM »
Daniel Cabrera?

Yep. Our very own. 18 consecutive at-bats, over multiple seasons, ending in strikeouts.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 15482
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #444: May 03, 2012, 07:36:36 PM »
Condensed that for ya.  Oh and "fair enough".

I thought I had given the Readers Digest version

Offline Coladar

  • Posts: 2808
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #445: May 03, 2012, 07:37:15 PM »
Condensed that for ya.  Oh and "fair enough".

I'll accept the fair enough, but just add that I've made exactly three posts *about it*. The night I found out about it, when he broke it, the next night, then about a week later. Now EdStroud has made, what, two posts? So five updates in what was it now, almost thirty games? Yet we have pages and pages bickering back and forth about it. I'd totally agree with you if I or someone else were posting *every* night. They aren't, so like I said, let's all accept the fair enough and move on. Different strokes for different folks and all that jazz.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29977
  • Very 2014. Wow.
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #446: May 03, 2012, 07:41:02 PM »
If you want the truth, it came across to me as a subtle dig at the folks who wanted Rizzo to re-sign Dunn and blasted him for not doing so.  That's not how you intended it and for that I apologize, but surely you can understand why it might read that way given the agendas around here.  I also simply find it distasteful to celebrate the failures of a guy who was nothing but awesome for us.  Again, I know that's not what you're doing, just mentioning it.

That said, I still think it's a boring record ;)

Offline Coladar

  • Posts: 2808
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #447: May 03, 2012, 08:13:18 PM »
If you want the truth, it came across to me as a subtle dig at the folks who wanted Rizzo to re-sign Dunn and blasted him for not doing so.  That's not how you intended it and for that I apologize, but surely you can understand why it might read that way given the agendas around here.  I also simply find it distasteful to celebrate the failures of a guy who was nothing but awesome for us.  Again, I know that's not what you're doing, just mentioning it.

That said, I still think it's a boring record ;)

No, I understand where you're coming from. Likewise, hopefully you can understand my strong initial reaction as, while I might not post as much as some on here, I *always* supported Dunn and strongly wanted us to resign him. So considering I'd never posted a negative word about Dunn, and honestly, while I'm not going to go back three years in my post history, I honestly doubt even when he slumped for us I posted a negative comments about him. Last year, I know I posted a couple times that he deserved better than what he was getting in Chicago. So all things considered, you can understand my reaction to the response I got just because I found some obscure stat interesting and posted about it three times.

Okay, we're all good now. Group hug time!

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 29977
  • Very 2014. Wow.
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #448: May 03, 2012, 08:14:39 PM »
I would, but my arms are too short :(

Offline Coladar

  • Posts: 2808
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2012)
« Reply #449: May 03, 2012, 08:16:14 PM »
I would, but my arms are too short :(

Damn dinosaurs in trash cans. Just when it's time to hug it out, they leave you hanging.. :)