Ridiculous score 30-3

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Sdpm100

May I ask if you saw the game? How do you know that the hit wouldn't have been a triple under normal circumstances? Maybe Kinsler and Metcalf should have both stopped on third base.

I didn't see the game live, no. But I've got mlb.tv so I did see that particular hit after the fact. It was a pretty clean double down the right field line, but no, it wouldn't have been a triple.

Don't you suppose there's a point, though, that you don't go for that double? What if it's 50 to 3? You still go for the double? 100 to 3?

Originally Posted by zekester91

If that is what the defense is giving you yes. Your job as a offensive player is to do the best you can everytime you come up, and take advantage of the defence that is in front of you. If they are having a bad night or you just overmatch them, why should you do thier job for them. Are they going to send you thier pay since you did thier job as well as your own. What if becuse you limited yourself here you lose out on an insentive bonus for not getting enough doubles or triples becuse you stoped on first. To me you go all out regardless of who is on the field.

Seriously? If you're up by 70 in a football game in the 4th quarter, you should go deep if that's what the defense is giving you? C'mon, surely you must be joking.

No one should be doing someone else's job and I never suggested something as ridiculous as giving away your pay. But when it's said about someone that "he plays hard no matter what's on the scoreboard", I just feel that has its limits. A team should play a little differently with a 25 run lead versus a 1 run lead or even maybe a 10 run lead. I don't know where you draw that line or if there is a magical line. But a 25 run lead is secure enough that you're going to win the game without you slapping a double.

Say you get your double or triple for your incentive bonus and you don't fall one short... couldn't someone then say that one of those doubles or triples was irrelevant because it was in garbage time? Isn't that a phrase used often in sports? "The guard racked up 22 points in the 4th quarter, but most of it was in garbage time."

As Herm Edwards is so fond of saying, "You play to win the game!" I think with a 25 run lead, the Rangers had won the game. I'm not suggesting either team should have given up. There is no mercy rule in MLB. This isn't little league. But it's about winning, not pumping up your individual stats.

[Vezna31]

Must be the day for big games. I just played out a game that I won 22-1. My team hit 7 HR's, 3 of them were grand slams, and 2 salamies were hit in 1 inning, and 3 of the HR's hit were back-to-back-to-back in another inning. Any my pitcher lost his shutout in the 9th inning because he was exhausted. Crazy game!

[Assos]

When I get to the +10 on another team in the game, I start pumping in the extras on the bench, they deserve to tee it off this bad pitching staff.


Sad thing for Baltimore was that they could not go home and drink up a storm to forget this, they had to play another game.

[zekester91]

Originally Posted by Neags23

I didn't see the game live, no. But I've got mlb.tv so I did see that particular hit after the fact. It was a pretty clean double down the right field line, but no, it wouldn't have been a triple.

Don't you suppose there's a point, though, that you don't go for that double? What if it's 50 to 3? You still go for the double? 100 to 3?



Seriously? If you're up by 70 in a football game in the 4th quarter, you should go deep if that's what the defense is giving you? C'mon, surely you must be joking.

No one should be doing someone else's job and I never suggested something as ridiculous as giving away your pay. But when it's said about someone that "he plays hard no matter what's on the scoreboard", I just feel that has its limits. A team should play a little differently with a 25 run lead versus a 1 run lead or even maybe a 10 run lead. I don't know where you draw that line or if there is a magical line. But a 25 run lead is secure enough that you're going to win the game without you slapping a double.

Say you get your double or triple for your incentive bonus and you don't fall one short... couldn't someone then say that one of those doubles or triples was irrelevant because it was in garbage time? Isn't that a phrase used often in sports? "The guard racked up 22 points in the 4th quarter, but most of it was in garbage time."

As Herm Edwards is so fond of saying, "You play to win the game!" I think with a 25 run lead, the Rangers had won the game. I'm not suggesting either team should have given up. There is no mercy rule in MLB. This isn't little league. But it's about winning, not pumping up your individual stats.

I would, Bobby Bowden would. I never understood people that want to limit themselves just becuse you have a big lead. Your job is to go out there and get hits and runs. Their job is to stop you.

The guard that racked up 22 points in the 4th, still gets the 22 points on his stat sheet. 2 weeks later, no-one is going to remember if he got them in a blow out of a close game.

Considering a pitcher ended up getting a save, are you really sure that a 25 point lead was safe. Who's to say that if they did shut it down that they won't have given up 27 points in the bottom of the ninth. It happens a lot in football where a team is up huge going into the forth, shut it down, as you think they should, and then end up losing. Your job is to play untill the last out is made and get the win at all cost, that includes getting a couple of insurance runs in a blow out win.

[Raidergoo]

This comes to mind.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6PQ6335puOc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6PQ6335puOc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Chief Wahoo]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Seriously? If you're up by 70 in a football game in the 4th quarter, you should go deep if that's what the defense is giving you? C'mon, surely you must be joking.

IMHO you are using your football analogy all wrong. If a team is up 70 and they go deep then that would be equivilant to a baseball team bunting a guy over to third or stealing second, not hitting a double. Are you trying to tell me that if a football team is up 70 and they just start running the ball up the middle every play and the running back gets through the line that he would just stop and wait for the defense to catch him before he got a touchdown?

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by Neags23

I didn't see the game live, no. But I've got mlb.tv so I did see that particular hit after the fact. It was a pretty clean double down the right field line, but no, it wouldn't have been a triple.

Don't you suppose there's a point, though, that you don't go for that double? What if it's 50 to 3? You still go for the double? 100 to 3?



Seriously? If you're up by 70 in a football game in the 4th quarter, you should go deep if that's what the defense is giving you? C'mon, surely you must be joking.

No one should be doing someone else's job and I never suggested something as ridiculous as giving away your pay. But when it's said about someone that "he plays hard no matter what's on the scoreboard", I just feel that has its limits. A team should play a little differently with a 25 run lead versus a 1 run lead or even maybe a 10 run lead. I don't know where you draw that line or if there is a magical line. But a 25 run lead is secure enough that you're going to win the game without you slapping a double.

Say you get your double or triple for your incentive bonus and you don't fall one short... couldn't someone then say that one of those doubles or triples was irrelevant because it was in garbage time? Isn't that a phrase used often in sports? "The guard racked up 22 points in the 4th quarter, but most of it was in garbage time."

As Herm Edwards is so fond of saying, "You play to win the game!" I think with a 25 run lead, the Rangers had won the game. I'm not suggesting either team should have given up. There is no mercy rule in MLB. This isn't little league. But it's about winning, not pumping up your individual stats.

Look, you're wrong on a few account, but not COMPLETELY wrong.

In football, up by a huge score, you shouldn't NOT try to score, but throwing the football should be completely out the window. You should hand the ball off...but you should still try to gain yards. The thing in football, or basketball for that matter, is to empty your bench and put in the back ups. Those guys are going to play hard and try to earn playing time in meaningful games. It's the coach's job to not run up the score, NOT the players.

In baseball, you can't put subs in because a) there aren't a lot of subs and b) if you take a guy out, you can't put him back in. However, there are ways to not run up the score, such as not taking the extra base, not stealing/bunting, etc. But how can you tell a guy to not a hit a home run? You should give 100% no matter what the score is. And to not try for a double when the ball's hit into the corner? I'd be more offended if the guy sat on first base.
A guy like Vazquez (I'm a Yankee fan and have never heard of him) is trying to get noticed so that he makes a club next year, either Texas or another team. So he's supposed to go up and "try" to hit a single? C'mon, you're being rediculous, as if you've never actually played the game of baseball. These guys don't try to hit home runs, they try to hit the ball hard, PERIOD. Was he supposed to intentionally hit a ground ball? Or hit the ball in the air, just not hard? That's assanine...You put a good swing on the pitch.
I did not watch the game, but from what I saw, the Rangers didn't show up the O's...they didn't steal bases, they didnt bunt, they weren't intentionally walking guys, and when they did hit 2B's or homers they weren't celebrating or laughing.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by zekester91

I would, Bobby Bowden would.

Referencing Bobby Bowden as someone who would do the right thing in this case isn't helping your point.

Originally Posted by zekester91

Considering a pitcher ended up getting a save, are you really sure that a 25 point lead was safe.

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search/label/statistics

Originally Posted by zekester91

Who's to say that if they did shut it down that they won't have given up 27 points in the bottom of the ninth.

Okay, I can't even have a serious conversation about this if you're going to say silly things like that.

[Erik W.]

If I were an Orioles player, I'd take far more offense to someone stopping at first on an obvious extra base hit than going ahead and making it a double.

They're grown men, not little leaguers. Not taking normal swings or letting the play develop naturally is more of a slap in the face running it up.

[Kelric]

I had a 35-6 game between two AI-controlled teams in my 1901 solo league last night.

Of course, the game inexplicably froze after the playoffs was completed (twice now it's done it when I try to run this league) so it got wiped out.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Chief Wahoo

IMHO you are using your football analogy all wrong. If a team is up 70 and they go deep then that would be equivilant to a baseball team bunting a guy over to third or stealing second, not hitting a double. Are you trying to tell me that if a football team is up 70 and they just start running the ball up the middle every play and the running back gets through the line that he would just stop and wait for the defense to catch him before he got a touchdown?

This is exactly right. In football, when a team has a big lead late, they don't throw deep because an incompletion stops the clock and they want it to run out, and there are increased chances of injury. That's why the second/third stringers come in late.

Each player should try his hardest for the best possible result when he's batting, pitching, or fielding. "Lightening up on the other team" is something that kids do in intramural leagues at the YMCA; it's embarrassing to the other team when it's adults in a competitive league.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by Neags23

I didn't see the game live, no. But I've got mlb.tv so I did see that particular hit after the fact. It was a pretty clean double down the right field line, but no, it wouldn't have been a triple.

Okay, that's fair enough then.

Originally Posted by Neags23

Don't you suppose there's a point, though, that you don't go for that double? What if it's 50 to 3? You still go for the double? 100 to 3?

As there has never been a 50 let alone a 100 then if you think "running up the score" is a bad thing, then obviously it would be much lower.
But you're missing my original point.
You said you were surprised they didn't plunk a Rangers batter. All I said was that if they're upset by the score they should have pitchers that don't give up 24 runs whilst getting just 12 outs.
Because unless you believe there are many occasions where similar totals could have been racked up but teams didn't try for it, then it's not a common occurence is it? So in my view, the Orioles should be more upset about the three relievers serving up the runs. If they didn't want to concede the 30 runs, they should have a better bullpen. That's not the Rangers fault, is it?

[cbbl]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

So what is the record? We know it is at least 36 (thanks to that tid bit in the article. Though speaking as a HS pitcher (who also happened to pitch in relief of a 21-3 loss in high school) I weep.


Note: Though, I am not sure how much my ERA suffered that game because we had like 8-10 errors. (our RF, who was definitely in for his bat, had 1 putout.......for the season)

The record is 36. The Rangers 30 runs is the new modern-era record. The record for total runs scored in a game is 49.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ht=runs+single

[cbbl]

The 30 runs scored by the Rangers wasn't the only oddity of that game.

Yes, they scored 30 runs.

But, they also struck out 11 times. You wouldn't expect that.

Perhaps most peculiar is the save earned by Littleton for pitching three full innings in relief. 30-3 and a save opportunity?? Who would have thought ...


BTW, as an Orioles fan, I'm not embarrassed by the 30-3 rout. I'm embarrassed that the O's gave up 3 runs in the 8th inning of the nightcap to allow the Rangers to win the second game 9-7. That's when dignity was lost.


cbbl

[hobbitrjw]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Why would you be proud of this? If that were my team, I'd be embarrassed. Somewhere around being up by 20 in the 9th, you can stop swinging for the fences.

I'm not saying the Rangers should have stood there with the bat on their shoulders, because that may be showing up the Orioles more so than swinging. But there's no excuse for hitting a 3-run homer up by 24 runs in the 9th inning.

I'm actually more proud of the Orioles for not plunking the next batter up. I thought for sure that'd be coming.

27-3, and Vazquez hits a 3-run dinger? That's just bush.

I am proud of this because they are my hometown team,and because they are a team thats not going anywhere. We arent going to make the playoffs or anything,so it actually feels good to see something special like that happen for them,to break a record is up there with a perfect game or anything,and personally id give the Orioles Kudos for not plunking a batter too and being good sports about losing as bad as they did,but still,Its something you dont see happen everyday.

[StyxNCa]

That's my Rangers! I'm disappointed they couldn't score more.

[Doctor No]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Okay, I can't even have a serious conversation about this if you're going to say silly things like that.

On the silliness meter, that comment wasn't even above the median for this thread.

In the summer of 2001, I went home to visit and go camping with my parents. I still remember listening to the August 5th game between the Mariners and Indians in the middle of the woods on the radio:

http://baseball-almanac.com/box-scor...d=200108050CLE

The Mariners blew leads of 12-0 and 14-2. If a twelve-run lead isn't safe, then who are you to say that a 27-run lead necessarily is?

It surely isn't likely that the Orioles would have come back, but baseball differs from football (and your football analogy) in one key aspect - in football, there's a finite amount of time remaining. In baseball, if the losing team keeps hitting, then they get to keep trying to come back.

(And let's not forget that if the Mariners had won that game, they would have finished with 117 victories that season).

[hobbitrjw]

If People Like Neags23 want to see baseball with closer games then thats fine,but I cannot belive for the life of me why he should make the arguement that the Rangers should have let up on the hitting,I'm sorry but if you want to see "letting up" in a blowout go watch NCAA baseball,where they have a 10 run rule. Honestly do you think any of those players out there last night were thinking "oh I'm having a great game 5/5 with a HR I think Ill let up now" none of them did they all still played their best,Id expect no less of myself if I were a player.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Doctor No

The Mariners blew leads of 12-0 and 14-2. If a twelve-run lead isn't safe, then who are you to say that a 27-run lead necessarily is?

Considering that the record for most runs scored in a single inning is 18, which is a mere 2/3 of the way to 27, and that it happened in 1883... a record that has stood for 123 years... I think it's fairly safe to say it was a safe lead.

But if you want to make that argument, I suppose you could say stranger things have happened...

[Doctor No]

I'm still confused about how you didn't want the Rangers to continue hitting home runs.

Is there some MLB rule which allows a player at-bat to say "No, that ball didn't go over the fence, and I'll just stop at first base."?

And how insulting would that be to the Orioles and their fans? Nothing says "sportsmanship" better than "your team isn't good enough for us to try hard against", right?