Jump to content

That Loss Was On Buck but Wilson must go


Rene88

Recommended Posts

Reasons for loss

1.  The offense

2.  The offense

3. the offense.

................

................

100. Wilson and Buck.

Gotta score more early off a struggling Estrada.  Got some fat pitches to hit with men on but fouled them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Btw I'm still for bringing in Brach since he was warming him up.  Worry about the save later if you willing to use Brach.  But really obviously it was the offense that came up small.

Btw, what's the deal with Givens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, O's84 said:

Btw I'm still for bringing in Brach since he was warming him up.  Worry about the save later if you willing to use Brach.  But really obviously it was the offense that came up small.

Btw, what's the deal with Givens?

If Givens was available the best time to use him was in place of Hart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way one of our big guns was coming in to pitch the bottom of the 9th was if we managed to scratch out 2 runs in the top of the inning. Since we didn't, and it's game 10 of 162, you go ahead and leave Wilson in there and hope for extras. An annoying loss - oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, O's84 said:

Btw I'm still for bringing in Brach since he was warming him up.  Worry about the save later if you willing to use Brach.  But really obviously it was the offense that came up small.

Btw, what's the deal with Givens?

I could justify pitching Givens to finish the 8th. At that point he is still available Sunday. If we tie it in the 9th he could pitch the 9th and depending on pitch count still perhaps available Sunday. Then Brach is back in case of a lead and Wilson pitches it if goes extras.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...