Dam8610 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Hopefully the Dodgers just sweep them like they did to the D-Backs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Dodgers are going to pummel the Cubs. They have no chance. This is not the same Dodger team as last year. They have a legit 3 headed monster, and a bullpen to back it up. Oh and they can score f***ing runs! What a concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (daa84 @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 05:01 AM) quite simply one of the luckiest games I’ve ever seen a team win. Turner making a bad out at home in the first. Wieters doesn’t block a ball in the dirt that leads to a run. 0 hard hit balls in the inning off of scherzer. A failed/incorrect drop third strike call. A catchers interference. Another wild pitch letting in a run. Werth flat missing a fly ball. Multiple should have been passed balls that were lucky enough to hit the ump and stay nearby. An iffy pickoff replay on a call that is driving many baseball fans bonkers Sounds like Wieters is only one who knew it should have been dead ball. Umpires and Dusty didn't know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Glad I turned the game off when I did. f*** the cubs, GO DODGERS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 In prep for the s***-talking I am going to hear at work tomorrow because I was "So stupid to put money on the Nats, or anyone but the Cubs to win the WS", does anyone have final series totals? At the very least, I feel like the Nats outscored them, hit for higher average, had a higher OBP, struck out more Cubs hitters, and pretty much outplayed the Cubs in every metric except possible ERA, and of course actually winning the game. My whole defense is how they could have and should have lost this series, but luck and horrible Nats miscues advanced them. Thank you, kind sirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (daa84 @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 12:01 AM) quite simply one of the luckiest games I’ve ever seen a team win. Turner making a bad out at home in the first. Wieters doesn’t block a ball in the dirt that leads to a run. 0 hard hit balls in the inning off of scherzer. A failed/incorrect drop third strike call. A catchers interference. Another wild pitch letting in a run. Werth flat missing a fly ball. Multiple should have been passed balls that were lucky enough to hit the ump and stay nearby. An iffy pickoff replay on a call that is driving many baseball fans bonkers If you're keeping a list, don't forget Weiters having Kyle Schwarber hung out to dry and instead of RUNNING AT THE RUNNER like everyone is taught, he immediately fired to 2B as Schwarber turned back to 1B, allowing him back safely. Schwarber was the winning 9th run scored. Announcers didn't even bring it up as it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 It's telling that of the 4 remaining teams - 2 of them made big deals with our Sox. Doubtful that the Cubs would have won without Q and there's no question the Yankees wouldn't be in the ALCS without their deal with us. f***ing Nats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 01:42 AM) In prep for the s***-talking I am going to hear at work tomorrow because I was "So stupid to put money on the Nats, or anyone but the Cubs to win the WS", does anyone have final series totals? At the very least, I feel like the Nats outscored them, hit for higher average, had a higher OBP, struck out more Cubs hitters, and pretty much outplayed the Cubs in every metric except possible ERA, and of course actually winning the game. My whole defense is how they could have and should have lost this series, but luck and horrible Nats miscues advanced them. Thank you, kind sirs. Did some of the work for myself... Nats hit for better AVG, OBP, OPS, HR, SB, struck out WAY less, walked WAY more, AND scored MORE runs overall. I can't find a single offensive statistic the Cubs did better in.... Nats PITCHED to a lower ERA, lower WHIP, more Ks, less BB, less hits. Cubs even committed more errors. I swear to you, I can't find even ONE traditional offensive or pitching statistic that the Nats didn't do better in. I'm assuming the Cubs had better avg w/RISP, or at least had more clutch hits, but it's very bizarre to think that Nats did everything "better", except score runners across the plate in the same 9-inning stretches, considering overall they actually scored 3 more runs too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 12:09 AM) Dodgers are going to pummel the Cubs. They have no chance. This is not the same Dodger team as last year. They have a legit 3 headed monster, and a bullpen to back it up. Oh and they can score f***ing runs! What a concept. Let's hope you're right. I think the Cubs will repeat, unfortunately. Luck is with them again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) Nats should go out this off-season and add another starter. Also helps that Werth will be off the books replaced by Eaton. Side note: anyone else get slightly annoyed when Michael Taylor is referred to as: Michael A. Taylor? I get that there was another player of the same name, but Eaton isn't referred to as "Adam C. Eaton" (like he was when in old baseball games when he was a rookie). Edited October 13, 2017 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (New Era on South Side @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 06:23 AM) Let's hope you're right. I think the Cubs will repeat, unfortunately. Luck is with them again. I also think they'll repeat. The Dodgers don't really convince me as a team that is up to par like the Nats were. Besides Kershaw, I don't know anyone else in their rotation that can stop the Cubs offense. And even the Cubs had Kershaw's number last postseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (Yoda @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 06:37 AM) I also think they'll repeat. The Dodgers don't really convince me as a team that is up to par like the Nats were. Besides Kershaw, I don't know anyone else in their rotation that can stop the Cubs offense. And even the Cubs had Kershaw's number last postseason. Alex Wood had a great year. Hill was good. Hopefully Darvish can bounce back from the season he had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 04:36 AM) Nats should go out this off-season and add another starter. Also helps that Werth will be off the books replaced by Eaton. Side note: anyone else get slightly annoyed when Michael Taylor is referred to as: Michael A. Taylor? I get that there was another player of the same name, but Eaton isn't referred to as "Adam C. Eaton" (like he was when in old baseball games when he was a rookie). He asked to be referred to as Michael A Taylor as his father's name was Anthony. It is an homage to his father. Edited October 13, 2017 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 13, 2017 -> 09:24 AM) He asked to be referred to as Michael A Taylor as his father's name is Anthony. It is in homage to his father. Ah ok. Didn't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.