PDA

View Full Version : about royce


idseer
07-19-2002, 06:52 PM
it's sad that even when he does something really well ... it's treated as if it was almost nothing.

i refer to yesterday 'totally biased recap'. in which was said:


"Why was he nursing a one-run lead going into the ninth? Because the Sox offense sucks, of course. Royce Clayton's two-out two-rbi double in the second inning was as close to a clutch hit as they managed all day. The usual gaffes at the plate and the basepaths left the Sox with three measly runs for ten hits and a gift error."

how can a 2 out 2 run rbi double in a tie game be refered to as "as close to a clutch hit as they managed all day"?
as if it wasn't clutch at all, only as close as they could manage!
it's a ludicrous characterization.
hey! i know you don't like the guy, but credit where credit is due seems appropriate in a season where there's not much going right!

wouldn't "was the only clutch hit all day" have been more accurate?

Soxheads
07-19-2002, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by idseer
it's sad that even when he does something really well ... it's treated as if it was almost nothing.

i refer to yesterday 'totally biased recap'. in which was said:


"Why was he nursing a one-run lead going into the ninth? Because the Sox offense sucks, of course. Royce Clayton's two-out two-rbi double in the second inning was as close to a clutch hit as they managed all day. The usual gaffes at the plate and the basepaths left the Sox with three measly runs for ten hits and a gift error."

how can a 2 out 2 run rbi double in a tie game be refered to as "as close to a clutch hit as they managed all day"?
as if it wasn't clutch at all, only as close as they could manage!
it's a ludicrous characterization.
hey! i know you don't like the guy, but credit where credit is due seems appropriate in a season where there's not much going right!

wouldn't "was the only clutch hit all day" have been more accurate?

I wouldn't call second inning clutch.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Soxheads


I wouldn't call second inning clutch.

Exactly.

Royce was the only one given credit for a positive contribution on the offensive side for the Sox. Everyone else (except Buerhle) was carved up for that pathetic display.

But some people are going to piss and moan regardless... let them.

idseer
07-19-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Exactly.

Royce was the only one given credit for a positive contribution on the offensive side for the Sox. Everyone else (except Buerhle) was carved up for that pathetic display.

But some people are going to piss and moan regardless... let them.

the inning has nothing to do with a clutch hit! if it ends 3 to 1 was it clutch or not? i never heard that clutch hits were only possible from the 7th on!

and i wasn't pissing OR moaning. i grant it was a small deal, but i thought it was a legitimate comment.
hey, i often have opinions that i just never put in here, usually because someone has already made my point or observation.
in this case, no one else mentioned it .... so i did.

Soxheads
07-19-2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by idseer


the inning has nothing to do with a clutch hit! if it ends 3 to 1 was it clutch or not? i never heard that clutch hits were only possible from the 7th on!

and i wasn't pissing OR moaning. i grant it was a small deal, but i thought it was a legitimate comment.
hey, i often have opinions that i just never put in here, usually because someone has already made my point or observation.
in this case, no one else mentioned it .... so i did.

The hit just wasn't at a critical time in the game.

Plus, it would have been written the same way in the TBGR if it was anyone else, I would imagine.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by idseer


the inning has nothing to do with a clutch hit! if it ends 3 to 1 was it clutch or not? i never heard that clutch hits were only possible from the 7th on!

and i wasn't pissing OR moaning. i grant it was a small deal, but i thought it was a legitimate comment.
hey, i often have opinions that i just never put in here, usually because someone has already made my point or observation.
in this case, no one else mentioned it .... so i did.

Suit yourself.

BTW, how would you characterize behavior that would start a whole thread commenting about something even you admit was "a small deal" simply because everybody else thought too little of it to comment either--legitimate or otherwise?

No, I would not call Royce's second inning double "clutch"--nor would I expect you to until just now. Getting a hit (or working a walk) instead of striking out looking in the ninth might have been "clutch" had anybody been on base--but they weren't. I didn't take Royce to task for that because everyone sucked yesterday except Royce in the second inning. That's why he was the ONLY ONE singled out for contributing in a positive fashion.

I'm hardly sorry it didn't meet your strange specifications.

idseer
07-19-2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Suit yourself.

BTW, how would you characterize behavior that would start a whole thread commenting about something even you admit was "a small deal" simply because everybody else thought too little of it to comment either--legitimate or otherwise?

No, I would not call Royce's second inning double "clutch"--nor would I expect you to until just now. Getting a hit (or working a walk) instead of striking out looking in the ninth might have been "clutch" had anybody been on base--but they weren't. I didn't take Royce to task for that because everyone sucked yesterday except Royce in the second inning. That's why he was the ONLY ONE singled out for contributing in a positive fashion.

I'm hardly sorry it didn't meet your strange specifications.

how would i characterize starting a 'whole thread' that wasn't earthshaking? i guess i'd say it was pretty normal. why didn't anyone else mention it? maybe because no one else noticed it. or agrees with you that clayton can do NO right!

as to royce's hit .... it just seems to me that if he'd struck out, you could make a legitimate claim that he blew a clutch situation. i see no reason why the opposite wouldn't apply.

Daver
07-19-2002, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by idseer


how would i characterize starting a 'whole thread' that wasn't earthshaking? i guess i'd say it was pretty normal. why didn't anyone else mention it? maybe because no one else noticed it. or agrees with you that clayton can do NO right!

as to royce's hit .... it just seems to me that if he'd struck out, you could make a legitimate claim that he blew a clutch situation. i see no reason why the opposite wouldn't apply.

But the fact remains a double in the second inning is NOT a clutch hit,and Clayton got his props for it in the game report,so what exactly is the point you are trying to make aside from trying to bring back the Choice vs Valentin argument?

idseer
07-19-2002, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by daver


But the fact remains a double in the second inning is NOT a clutch hit,and Clayton got his props for it in the game report,so what exactly is the point you are trying to make aside from trying to bring back the Choice vs Valentin argument?

ok we disagree on what clutch is. no big deal. my point was i thought it was a slight but if y'all disagree that's cool.

and please don't put words in my mouth. this had nothing to do with jose.

Kilroy
07-19-2002, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by daver


But the fact remains a double in the second inning is NOT a clutch hit...

I can't remember, was it a 2 out double? That would increase the clutch factor, imo. Also, I think anytime there's rbi to be had and a hit is delivered, that's clutch. Delivering when the situation calls for it. in the late innings, its more clutch, but in any inning, you can still have a clutch hit.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by idseer


how would i characterize starting a 'whole thread' that wasn't earthshaking? i guess i'd say it was pretty normal. why didn't anyone else mention it? maybe because no one else noticed it. or agrees with you that clayton can do NO right!

as to royce's hit .... it just seems to me that if he'd struck out, you could make a legitimate claim that he blew a clutch situation. i see no reason why the opposite wouldn't apply.

id, I didn't say Clayton "can do NO right!" To the contrary, I singled him out--in a game where everbody except Buehrle sucked--for praise. If that isn't good enough for you, tough ****.

Read the game recap. He's the ONLY one, this side of Buehrle, who got praised. Lofton hit a solo dinger to start the game and didn't even get mentioned.

What on Earth do you want, except to start another fight?

Some people...

LongDistanceFan
07-19-2002, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I can't remember, was it a 2 out double? That would increase the clutch factor, imo. Also, I think anytime there's rbi to be had and a hit is delivered, that's clutch. Delivering when the situation calls for it. in the late innings, its more clutch, but in any inning, you can still have a clutch hit. i agree

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


id, I didn't say Clayton "can do NO right!" To the contrary, I singled him out--in a game where everbody except Buehrle sucked--for praise. If that isn't good enough for you, tough ****.

Read the game recap. He's the ONLY one, this side of Buehrle, who got praised. Lofton hit a solo dinger to start the game and didn't even get mentioned.

What on Earth do you want, except to start another fight?

Some people...

i've already explained my point and i stayed civil about it i think.
the crap talk and innuendos are coming from you. so who's looking for a fight? i know i wasn't.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
i agree

I'm glad you and Kilroy agree, because that is precisely what the game recap says...

Why was he nursing a one-run lead going into the ninth? Because the Sox offense sucks, of course. Royce Clayton's two-out two-rbi double in the second inning was as close to a clutch hit as they managed all day. The usual gaffes at the plate and the basepaths left the Sox with three measly runs for ten hits and a gift error.

Kilroy thinks late-inning hits are more clutch than early-inning hits. The game recap doesn't say it wasn't clutch, it says it was as close to clutch as they managed all day.

This supports the point made in the very first paragraph that everyone arguing here has conveniently overlooked...

Everyone is going to focus on the ninth inning meltdown by the Sox pitching staff, supposedly costing the team the win. Bull****. The Sox blew this game in the third inning, fourth inning, and fifth inning. Seven men left on base, five of them in scoring position with two out.

How small does this argument have to get?

LongDistanceFan
07-19-2002, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I'm glad you and Kilroy agree, because that is precisely what the game recap says...


then i am sorry. i was just referring to what the definition of a clutch hit is.

peace

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


then i am sorry. i was just referring to what the definition of a clutch hit is.

peace

No problem, LDF.

voodoochile
07-19-2002, 11:20 PM
I can't believe I actually READ this thread. You people fight boring...

:D:

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:22 PM
geezus! make up your mind george. was it clutch or wasn't it clutch?

just for the sake of argument ... 'close to clutch' means ... not clutch!

close to the spot means NOT on the spot!

close to a million means NOT a million!

kilroy and ldf BOTH thought it was clutch! 2 out 2 run double with the score tied!

if they thought it was clutch and you didn't then they DIDN'T agree with you!

was it clutch or not?

voodoochile
07-19-2002, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by idseer
geezus! make up your mind george. was it clutch or wasn't it clutch?

just for the sake of argument ... 'close to clutch' means ... not clutch!

close to the spot means NOT on the spot!

close to a million means NOT a million!

kilroy and ldf BOTH thought it was clutch! 2 out 2 run double with the score tied!

if they thought it was clutch and you didn't then they DIDN'T agree with you!

was it clutch or not?

*****!!!

You were being funny, right?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by idseer

i've already explained my point and i stayed civil about it i think.
the crap talk and innuendos are coming from you. so who's looking for a fight? i know i wasn't.

That's news to me. Wasn't it you who wrote

maybe because no one else noticed it. or agrees with you that clayton can do NO right!

I never wrote anything of the sort. You even complained about other people putting words in your mouth, LOL!

You've got some nerve...

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I can't believe I actually READ this thread. You people fight boring...

:D:

i agree! it's ridiculous that someone is so insecure as to try to degrade someone making a simple observation.

Daver
07-19-2002, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i agree! it's ridiculous that someone is so insecure as to try to degrade someone making a simple observation.

That was more than a "simple observation".

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 11:30 PM
Clutch is coming up big with the game on the line.

Getting a double or whatever the hell it was early in the game is called, timely hitting.

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


*****!!!

You were being funny, right?

no, i was being quite serious. it was one or the other.

the point itself was small. but it's become a shoving match so now it's principle.

voodoochile
07-19-2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i agree! it's ridiculous that someone is so insecure as to try to degrade someone making a simple observation.

Honestly, and I really am neutral in this topic, I thought it came across like an attack. If it wasn't intended that way, fine, but it definitely read like you were looking for an argument. Like you said, it's a pretty minor point and in the end you guys are screaming at each other over something that started out as an argument over the meaning of the word clutch... then it just got silly...

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by idseer


no, i was being quite serious. it was one or the other.

the point itself was small. but it's become a shoving match so now it's principle.

No, actually you were just being yourself. I wouldn't have expected anything else of you.

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by daver


That was more than a "simple observation".

how so? i suggested only that he give credit where it's due.
the fact he mentioned royce's hit wasn't praise as he suggests. it was used to point out how BAD everybody was. in other words damning with faint praise.

royce's hit imo was clutch. had it been the game winning hit in the ninth it certainly would have been a more timely clutch hit .... but it was still clutch.
i already stated that if most of you don't agree .. that's fine.

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


No, actually you were just being yourself. I wouldn't have expected anything else of you.

and i guess i would catagorize you the same way. you couldn't leave it alone. i tried to calmly end the discussion but you HAD to have that last word ... as always!
heal thyself physician!

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 11:38 PM
Main Entry: clutch
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 a : the claws or a hand in the act of grasping or seizing firmly b : an often cruel or unrelenting control, power, or possession <the fell clutch of circumstance -- W. E. Henley> c : the act of grasping, holding, or restraining
2 a : a coupling used to connect and disconnect a driving and a driven part of a mechanism b : a lever (as a pedal) operating such a clutch
3 : a tight or critical situation : PINCH <come through in the clutch>

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Main Entry: clutch
Function: noun

3 : a tight or critical situation : PINCH <come through in the clutch>

so? how is hitting a 2 out 2 run double in a tie game not clutch?

maybe you don't think the first few innings count?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by idseer


and i guess i would catagorize you the same way. you couldn't leave it alone. i tried to calmly end the discussion but you HAD to have that last word ... as always!
heal thyself physician!

I didn't get the last word. You did. Until now.

Ha!

:)

Jerry_Manuel
07-19-2002, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by idseer
so? how is hitting a 2 out 2 run double in a tie game not clutch?

I like to think of it as timely hitting.

Clutch hitting to me is a big hit in the 7th-9th innings.

idseer
07-19-2002, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I didn't get the last word. You did. Until now.

Ha!

:)

well you got me there!

i really do wish we could be a little friendlier george. i admit i criticized you but isn't that part and parcel of being a public commentator?

i don't think you're evil or anything ... i was just tweaking your royce thing.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-19-2002, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by idseer


well you got me there!

i really do wish we could be a little friendlier george. i admit i criticized you but isn't that part and parcel of being a public commentator?

i don't think you're evil or anything ... i was just tweaking your royce thing.

Very well. I don't enjoy sniping with Sox Fans. I do however enjoy sniping the trolls. Especially the Flub trolls. :smile:

Have you felt vindicated from Valentin sucking this year? I'm guessing you wouldn't be swayed by an argument that pointed out he is errorless at shortstop this year?

:)

Daver
07-19-2002, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Very well. I don't enjoy sniping with Sox Fans. I do however enjoy sniping the trolls. Especially the Flub trolls. :smile:

Have you felt vindicated from Valentin sucking this year? I'm guessing you wouldn't be swayed by an argument that pointed out he is errorless at shortstop this year?

:)

I was saving that for later FFB,I think your fries are burning.......

LongDistanceFan
07-20-2002, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I like to think of it as timely hitting.

Clutch hitting to me is a big hit in the 7th-9th innings. WHAT DO YOU MEAN TIMELY HITTING. :D:

it is clutch hitting anytime whether it the first, third or ninth inning.

idseer
07-20-2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Very well. I don't enjoy sniping with Sox Fans. I do however enjoy sniping the trolls. Especially the Flub trolls. :smile:

Have you felt vindicated from Valentin sucking this year? I'm guessing you wouldn't be swayed by an argument that pointed out he is errorless at shortstop this year?

:)

actually no. i never rooted against jose. i hated his fielding for sure, and felt he was a hitter without a position. much as royce is a fielder without a bat. it would have been nice to breed these guys together, but with the sox's luck ... we would have had an expensive no hit no field player on our hands that everyone felt totally neutral about..

there is no joy in my baseball house this year. i fear i'll not see a whitesox champion in my lifetime. and as many here have said, this year has been especially disappointing because we were expecting so much (or at least enough for our division).

anyway, glad (hope) we're cool.

:smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-20-2002, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by idseer


actually no. i never rooted against jose. i hated his fielding for sure, and felt he was a hitter without a position. much as royce is a fielder without a bat. it would have been nice to breed these guys together, but with the sox's luck ... we would have had an expensive no hit no field player on our hands that everyone felt totally neutral about..

there is no joy in my baseball house this year. i fear i'll not see a whitesox champion in my lifetime. and as many here have said, this year has been especially disappointing because we were expecting so much (or at least enough for our division).

anyway, glad (hope) we're cool.

:smile:

As I wrote elsewhere, we Sox Fans had better hold onto our memories of 2000, because there isn't much but gloom and darkness ahead of us for the forseeable future.

And yes, we're cool.

How 'bout a Fresca?
:gulp:

Kilroy
07-20-2002, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


As I wrote elsewhere, we Sox Fans had better hold onto our memories of 2000, because there isn't much but gloom and darkness ahead of us for the forseeable future.



Ain't it the truth? I was thinking about this, and we're looking at some time before it turns around.

Next year, expect new 2b, new ss, new 3b, new cf, and most likely a new lf in the starting line-up. Pitching is full of ?'s, so its hard at this point to evein imagine what kind of impact the Sox will make in the Central...

LongDistanceFan
07-20-2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy



Next year, expect new 2b, new ss, new 3b, new cf, and most likely a new lf in the starting line-up. Pitching is full of ?'s, so its hard at this point to evein imagine what kind of impact the Sox will make in the Central...

and hopefully a new coaching staff.

ref the new ss, depends on what happens to jose

Soxheads
07-20-2002, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by idseer

it would have been nice to breed these guys together, but with the sox's luck ... we would have had an expensive no hit no field player on our hands that everyone felt totally neutral about..



With Royce's hair and Jose's goatee? :o:


{shivering in fear}