Coming up
- Thread starter Burner1
- Start date
SnoSki
Full Member
QUOTE(Burner1 @ Jun 22 2010, 08:07 AM) [snapback]585657[/snapback]
I think we're better than Florida State and will win Wednesday, then we'll win Friday behind Purke. Winkler will get a chance to redeem himself Saturday.
Assuming we beat FSU, I like our chances the rest of the week. Any chance for a Cole/Winkler rematch??
I think we're better than Florida State and will win Wednesday, then we'll win Friday behind Purke. Winkler will get a chance to redeem himself Saturday.
Assuming we beat FSU, I like our chances the rest of the week. Any chance for a Cole/Winkler rematch??
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(SnoSkiDrew @ Jun 22 2010, 09:50 AM) [snapback]585732[/snapback]
That would be an incredible story if we have the same matchup but a different result.
It would be, but I'd rather not face Cole again (not as though we'll have a choice). Other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant.
That would be an incredible story if we have the same matchup but a different result.
It would be, but I'd rather not face Cole again (not as though we'll have a choice). Other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant.
Forza Frogs
Member
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 22 2010, 09:02 AM) [snapback]585747[/snapback]
It would be, but I'd rather not face Cole again (not as though we'll have a choice). Other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant.
I agree he was quite nasty.
It would be, but I'd rather not face Cole again (not as though we'll have a choice). Other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant.
I agree he was quite nasty.
I know Cole is very good but at the same time I think his record now is 8-3 so he has been beatable. The Frogs would have been in a lot better shape with a win against UCLA but at the same time other than using pitching it might be better to be in the grrove of playing rather than have to sit around for three days. We will see! :biggrin:
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(Riff Ram @ Jun 22 2010, 10:43 AM) [snapback]585786[/snapback]
We got three runs, and any of our big 3 starters is fully able to pitch a shutout on a given day.
We will have a fine chance to win a rematch.
We got 3 runs off 1 hit that the CF might have caught if he weren't sucked so far in.
We got three runs, and any of our big 3 starters is fully able to pitch a shutout on a given day.
We will have a fine chance to win a rematch.
We got 3 runs off 1 hit that the CF might have caught if he weren't sucked so far in.
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 22 2010, 01:58 PM) [snapback]585890[/snapback]
The 3 runs came off one hit. I know we had more hits than that, but it is runs, not hits, that count.
Dude, you sound pretty ignorant when you say this. There were four hits in that inning, all of which were required to score those three runs. So we had 3 runs off of 4 of our 6 total hits.
Saying the three runs came off only one hit is like saying "Andy is worthless at scoring the football" after our running backs punch it in at the end of a 78 yard drive where Andy accounted for 62 of the yards.
It's discounting the entire setup, and it makes it sound like we fell backwards into three lucky runs off of only one hit (as though errors and walks or HBP's put us on and we just got the ONE hit in that inning to drive in all the luck). That inning went strikeout, single, single, flyout, single, triple.
Those were well-earned runs. Quit trying to make it sound like they weren't.
The 3 runs came off one hit. I know we had more hits than that, but it is runs, not hits, that count.
Dude, you sound pretty ignorant when you say this. There were four hits in that inning, all of which were required to score those three runs. So we had 3 runs off of 4 of our 6 total hits.
Saying the three runs came off only one hit is like saying "Andy is worthless at scoring the football" after our running backs punch it in at the end of a 78 yard drive where Andy accounted for 62 of the yards.
It's discounting the entire setup, and it makes it sound like we fell backwards into three lucky runs off of only one hit (as though errors and walks or HBP's put us on and we just got the ONE hit in that inning to drive in all the luck). That inning went strikeout, single, single, flyout, single, triple.
Those were well-earned runs. Quit trying to make it sound like they weren't.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(ectofrog @ Jun 22 2010, 02:06 PM) [snapback]585896[/snapback]
Dude, you sound pretty ignorant when you say this. There were four hits in that inning, all of which were required to score those three runs. So we had 3 runs off of 4 of our 6 total hits.
Saying the three runs came off only one hit is like saying "Andy is worthless at scoring the football" after our running backs punch it in at the end of a 78 yard drive where Andy accounted for 62 of the yards.
It's discounting the entire setup, and it makes it sound like we fell backwards into three lucky runs off of only one hit (as though errors and walks or HBP's put us on and we just got the ONE hit in that inning to drive in all the luck). That inning went strikeout, single, single, flyout, single, triple.
Those were well-earned runs. Quit trying to make it sound like they weren't.
good grief. I already said the 7th was the only inning we got to him. I guess we can keep rehashing it if you'd like.
Dude, you sound pretty ignorant when you say this. There were four hits in that inning, all of which were required to score those three runs. So we had 3 runs off of 4 of our 6 total hits.
Saying the three runs came off only one hit is like saying "Andy is worthless at scoring the football" after our running backs punch it in at the end of a 78 yard drive where Andy accounted for 62 of the yards.
It's discounting the entire setup, and it makes it sound like we fell backwards into three lucky runs off of only one hit (as though errors and walks or HBP's put us on and we just got the ONE hit in that inning to drive in all the luck). That inning went strikeout, single, single, flyout, single, triple.
Those were well-earned runs. Quit trying to make it sound like they weren't.
good grief. I already said the 7th was the only inning we got to him. I guess we can keep rehashing it if you'd like.
Actually, what you've said in this thread is:
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 22 2010, 01:58 PM) [snapback]585890[/snapback]
The 3 runs came off one hit. I know we had more hits than that, but it is runs, not hits, that count.
QUOTE
We got 3 runs off 1 hit that the CF might have caught if he weren't sucked so far in.
I'm telling you from the standpoint of baseball nomenclature stating it like the above two quotes sounds ignorant, because we got three runs off four hits, not one. You saying earlier that other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant does not change how ignorant (or unnecessarily pessimistic) the above two comments sound. Good grief yourself.
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 22 2010, 01:58 PM) [snapback]585890[/snapback]
The 3 runs came off one hit. I know we had more hits than that, but it is runs, not hits, that count.
QUOTE
We got 3 runs off 1 hit that the CF might have caught if he weren't sucked so far in.
I'm telling you from the standpoint of baseball nomenclature stating it like the above two quotes sounds ignorant, because we got three runs off four hits, not one. You saying earlier that other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant does not change how ignorant (or unnecessarily pessimistic) the above two comments sound. Good grief yourself.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(ectofrog @ Jun 22 2010, 02:35 PM) [snapback]585906[/snapback]
Actually, what you've said in this thread is:
I'm telling you from the standpoint of baseball nomenclature stating it like the above two quotes sounds ignorant, because we got three runs off four hits, not one. You saying earlier that other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant does not change how ignorant (or unnecessarily pessimistic) the above two comments sound. Good grief yourself.
not worth arguing about
Actually, what you've said in this thread is:
I'm telling you from the standpoint of baseball nomenclature stating it like the above two quotes sounds ignorant, because we got three runs off four hits, not one. You saying earlier that other than the 7th inning, he was flat out dominant does not change how ignorant (or unnecessarily pessimistic) the above two comments sound. Good grief yourself.
not worth arguing about
Burner1
Tier 1
I doubt that we will see Cole again. I expect they'll throw Rasmussen Friday and Bauer Saturday if needed. That would leave them with their regular rotation set up for the championship series next week. Their three starters are pretty much interchangeable, like ours.
Got to get through FSU before anything else, though.
Got to get through FSU before anything else, though.
