Jump to content

Wednesday, April 5: Grayson Rodriguez's long awaited debut vs Jacob deGrom


SteveA

Recommended Posts

Just now, MurphDogg said:

Given that he has 1 CG since 2018 and the season is a week old, I am going to go with "no".

Looks dominant though.

going to be big controversy if they pull him while he has a Perfect game/no hitter going and a decent pitch count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

Given that he has 1 CG since 2018 and the season is a week old, I am going to go with "no".

Looks dominant though.

I'm inclined to agree, but he's averaging a little under 12 pitches per inning right now.  If he's still perfect later in the game, I think they let him go for it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm inclined to agree, but he's averaging a little under 12 pitches per inning right now.  If he's still perfect later in the game, I think they let him go for it.  

DeGrom only threw 100 pitches once last year and only pitched 7 innings twice, just need to foul off some pitches, have tough at-bats and hopefully get into the bullpen by the 7th.

Edited by MurphDogg
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dtk9119 said:

This is what you get when you spend $$ on pitching. Take note Elias and Angelos. 

But you also get Verlander and Rodon on the IL to start the season when you spend $$ on pitching.  And, you would have talked different after deGrom's first game.  I was a Verlander booster.  Not so much now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 25 Nuggets said:

oh yeah

since I haven't been around in a while

hey @Moose Milligan - how you feel about Fred McGriff finally making the Hall of Fame?

I'm happy with it.  

IMO, McGriff suffered from a few things:  Not always the best player on his team, not always the best player at his position (but a top 5 guy), no memorable moments, no heavy hardware awards, didn't lead the league in anything very often and was a quiet guy.

He was just a very steady, very consistent hitter for a long time.  In that vein, kind of like Eddie Murray but Eddie had the counting numbers.  

But, IMO, if the writers are going to hold the steroid era against certain guys, you gotta be more lenient -and really, more supportive of- a guy like Fred McGriff who never was once mentioned as a steroid guy.  

Getting in was long overdue for him.  And while I always appreciated him while he played, I just really liked the Tom Emanski commercials more than anything and especially at the end where he pointed at the camera.  So that's why I've got the avatar.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • 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...