witesoxfan Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 That was a Wavin' Wally call right there :fyou Kimm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 That was a Wavin' Wally call right there :fyou Kimm He's still a Scrub in his heart! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molto Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted September 4, 2003 Author Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next And if Harris strikes out like he did in his at bat, we have Paul Konerko up next. Konerko has been nothing short of scorching over the past week or two. And no one is ruleing out us sending up Rios to try to get a little air under it either....he can play a little CF as well. I have no problem being agressive.....I have a big problem with Kimm sending a guy and hoping he breaks the catcher's arm by running into him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulokis Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next But why did JM let Harris bat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next But why did JM let Harris bat? Who would have played CF if we pinchhit for Harris and tied the game? That is why we didn't PH for Willie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 I have no problem being agressive.....I have a big problem with Kimm sending a guy and hoping he breaks the catcher's arm by running into him. well, it worked for the twins today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted September 4, 2003 Author Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next But why did JM let Harris bat? Who would have played CF if we pinchhit for Harris and tied the game? That is why we didn't PH for Willie However, if there is 1 out and runners on 2nd and 3rd, a risk you take is sending Rios up there and hoping he can hit a flyball medium deep. He doesn't do that, you still have a scorching hot Konerko coming up, and he could have gotten a basehit very easily. What Kimm did was very, very dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted September 4, 2003 Author Share Posted September 4, 2003 I have no problem being agressive.....I have a big problem with Kimm sending a guy and hoping he breaks the catcher's arm by running into him. well, it worked for the twins today! Yeah, I know, that's why I said it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next But why did JM let Harris bat? Who would have played CF if we pinchhit for Harris and tied the game? That is why we didn't PH for Willie could Rowand have stayed in the game and played cf if anyone pich hit for Harris? Not sure, just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next But why did JM let Harris bat? Who would have played CF if we pinchhit for Harris and tied the game? That is why we didn't PH for Willie could Rowand have stayed in the game and played cf if anyone pich hit for Harris? Not sure, just asking. Because Rowand is in at the DH, if he goes out to play the field we lose the DH for the rest of the game and the pitcher would have to hit, if that slot came up again, or have someone pinchhit for the pitcher, thus using two more players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted September 4, 2003 Author Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next But why did JM let Harris bat? Who would have played CF if we pinchhit for Harris and tied the game? That is why we didn't PH for Willie could Rowand have stayed in the game and played cf if anyone pich hit for Harris? Not sure, just asking. He could have, but he would have been brought out of the DH spot, which means the DH would be taken out of eligibility to use in the lineup. In other words, we take Rowand from DH to CF, we're seeing Tom Gordon or Scott Schoenweis batting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan99 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I would agree with you if it was a bang bang play at the plate but Rowand was out by a good 7 or 8 feet and I have seen Nomar throw out runners on a fairly consistent basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 thank you southsider2k3 and witesoxfan for kindly pointing out for me what I should have realized Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 thank you southsider2k3 and witesoxfan for kindly pointing out for me what I should have realized It is obscure at best. I'd be willing to bet 90% of people who watch baseball have no idea how that works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 See "this team is depressing" for my thoughts on the matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. That was an absolutely HORRIBLE call. I watched the game on ESPN2 and the ONLY thing that they said that could come positive out of Rowand being sent was the fact that could've intentionally walked Harris, setting up the DP. Hardly justification in my opinion. I was already disgusted and thoroughly surprised that the game was tied in the 9th. We played a horrible clutch game. Just when I didn't think I could get anymore pissed off, Kimm sends Rowand. My wall about had the pleasure of meeting my coffee cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted September 4, 2003 Author Share Posted September 4, 2003 It is obscure at best. I'd be willing to bet 90% of people who watch baseball have no idea how that works. I just learned that earlier this year. So you're probably right that 90% of people don't know that. I'd say it is atleast 90%....maybe more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 ...he was running on Manny Ramirez. I would have done the same thing if I were Kimm. Instead of b****ing at Kimm, how about we b**** at all the runners left in scoring position by some players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winninguglyin83 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 plenty of blame to go around for this loss plenty just wasn't meant to be Manny somehow made a decent sidearm relay. Nomar has a gun the ESPN replay sure seemed to show that Rowand was only three or four steps past third when Nomar got the ball the odds were not good at that point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn12 Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 ...he was running on Manny Ramirez. I would have done the same thing if I were Kimm. Instead of b****ing at Kimm, how about we b**** at all the runners left in scoring position by some players. nawww, that makes too much sense...come on Cerbaho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 ...he was running on Manny Ramirez. I would have done the same thing if I were Kimm. Instead of b****ing at Kimm, how about we b**** at all the runners left in scoring position by some players. He wasn't running on Manny, he was running on Nomar. Nomar had the ball when Rowand was about 2 steps past 3rd. I agree, if Manny needs to throw all the way home, a SAC fly kind of deal, you send him. But you don't run on Nomar. I agree with you 100% though. Sox were far from clutch tonight and it cost us big time. With all that awful hitting though, we had a GOLDEN opportunity to STILL win the game. And there is no denying that Kimm choked when it counted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 we've been stranding runners on base all series, why in the hell should we think it would change there? it was a good call, sometimes you gotta be aggressive to score runs. I agree, Harris was up next But why did JM let Harris bat? Who would have played CF if we pinchhit for Harris and tied the game? That is why we didn't PH for Willie Rowand could have played CF, then you would have the pitcher hitting, but with the recent call ups the Sox would have been set for about 6 more innings.I don't blame Kimm for running on Nomar, his throwing hasn't been that accurate the last couple of years. He made a perfect throw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 He wasn't running on Manny, he was running on Nomar. Nomar had the ball when Rowand was about 2 steps past 3rd. I agree, if Manny needs to throw all the way home, a SAC fly kind of deal, you send him. But you don't run on Nomar. I agree with you 100% though. Sox were far from clutch tonight and it cost us big time. With all that awful hitting though, we had a GOLDEN opportunity to STILL win the game. And there is no denying that Kimm choked when it counted. Manny still has to get the ball in, and his arm is sub-par at best. 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.