Jump to content

Fanfest Quotes (Now with Video)


weams

Recommended Posts

Last one in this "quotes" thread, Buck and Dan respond to what I can only guess is a fan's frustration with how Kansas City advanced to the World Series (otherwise, I just don't get it):

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k2Wf-hP0HfE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Last one in this "quotes" thread, Buck and Dan respond to what I can only guess is a fan's frustration with how Kansas City advanced to the World Series (otherwise, I just don't get it):

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k2Wf-hP0HfE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

She was sure trying to tell Buck off! Too bad she used the words situation and situational four times in her explanation of "situational" when asked to define.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was sure trying to tell Buck off! Too bad she used the words situation and situational four times in her explanation of "situational" when asked to define.

Haha. Buck goes into a bunch of detail with respect to players' skill sets, game situations, and Baltimore putting an emphasis on making sure moving forward that minor leaguers know how to bunt by the time they reach Baltimore in case their called upon to execute when they are breaking in as down-order bats. Then Dan basically says "We don't want people that bunt -- that's not what we're looking for and that's not what we're teaching." The look Buck gives him around 3:07 when Dan contradicts him is hilarious. Did Duquette intentionally undercut the last 90 seconds of Buck's response or was he just not paying attention? And why would the two of them have contradictory thoughts as to what's being taught at the minor league level?

What am I missing here, because that seems like a pretty significant disconnect...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Duquette seemed to be dismissing what Showalter had just said. Duquette basically said that he wanted guys who could hit homer runs, not bunt. However, he didn't say that bunting was worthless or that he didn't want his guys to know how to bunt or learn how to in the minors.

I had to listen again after I saw Buck shoot the look -- at fist I thought Duquette was basically just saying that when he constructs the big league club he's looking for power, defense, etc. Then when I listened again it was the "...it's not what we're teaching..." comment that jumped out to me. Probably making a mountain out of a mole hill, but would have been nice for the moderator to ask the follow-up, "So minor leaguers are or are not learning to bunt?"

Now, all that said, I could see Duquette just being frustrated with an "uneducated" question about roster construction/game-planning and not choosing his words carefully. Still, even if I'm imagining it, that look/stare from Buck is priceless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions from the kids

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-post" data-href="

" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="
">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MASNOrioles">MASN Orioles</a>.</div></div>

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.masnsports.com/media.php?show_id=2430990&p=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions from the kids

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-post" data-href="

" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="
">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MASNOrioles">MASN Orioles</a>.</div></div>
Those are priceless! :smile11:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • How many starts per week for Kjerstad and where?
    • People are really overanalyzing the promotion of a player that may be on the team for a week. Clearly sending Holliday down wasn't plan A, and neither is bringing up McKenna. If Kjerstad gets sent down when Hays comes back then we have a problem. My main takeaways from this are that Hays is coming back shortly and Kjerstad is going to get Holliday's opportunity in the lineup. Perhaps he runs with it.
    • Well 708 isn’t exactly that good either.  
    • His real age will match his baseball age in June.   He could have a role next year assuming Hays doesn't come back.  
    • High school players are also less likely to make the majors than college players. Picking Abrams or Witt would also increase the chances your 1:1 pick is a bust, or at least less than you hoped for. When I say Adley wasn't a "safe" pick, I meant that the Orioles didn't sacrifice much, if any, ceiling to raise the floor. I remember the vast majority of pundits saying that Adley was the most likely player in the draft to be an excellent baseball player. A few said they thought Witt or Abrams had a higher ceiling, but they also were less likely to reach it than Adley. And even they were like, "slightly higher ceiling, much lower floor, and C is more valuable than SS." Even if more all-star level players come out of high school, in that particular draft Adley was a special player who had a super high floor and a super high ceiling. The fact that high school players are more likely in general to be all-stars shouldn't blind one to the fact that there was an incredibly special college talent available at 1:1. Bottom line is the idea that the O's should have picked anyone other than Adley in that draft was a small minority opinion on draft day, and the fact that Witt and maybe Abrams ended up hitting their ceilings doesn't change the fact that Adley was the obvious choice with the information available at the time, and it's not like it didn't work out awesome for us. I would say Adley is definitely more likely to be a HOF than Abrams and probably Witt, too.
    • Yeah, but Westburg has become such a staple to the lineup and begun to establish himself offensively I thought they might do the Gunnar thing and say 3B is yours.  No more back and forth. 
    • I'm rambling now, but the 1928 A's may have been one of the coolest teams ever to hang around. Not only did they have a bunch of these old IL Orioles, and an unbelievable stock of young talent. But Mack had brought in some old guys, I guess to provide leadership and mentoring and the like. So on this one team they had the younger HOFs: Mickey Cochrane, Al Simmons, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove. They had the Orioles in Boley, Bishop, Grove, Earnshaw. But on top of all that, they had 41-year-old Ty Cobb, 40-year-old Tris Speaker, 41-year-old Eddie Collins, 44-year-old Jack Quinn, and 35-year-old Bullet Joe Bush. Of course Cobb, Speaker, and Collins are inner-circle HOFers, among the best to ever play their position. Quinn was a grandfathered spitballer, probably worthy of a book or three, who won 96 games in his 40s and pitched his last MLB game at the age of 50. And Bush had a 17-year career where he won 196 games. The '28 A's won 98 games and only finished 2.5 games behind a Yanks team that was the freakin' '27 Yanks the year before. For '29 Mack say goodbye to Cobb, Speaker, made Collins a coach, plugged in the kids, and ran away with the league for three straight years. Until the Depression hit, Connie didn't have any other sources of income or wealth, and for the 2nd time had to sell off his stars to make payroll.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...