View Single Post
Old 04-04-2013, 08:34 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 17,832

Originally Posted by asindc View Post
It is?
I don't think so. I think the offense will be stronger and smarter than it was in 2013, although it felt truncated today.

Really, today's game was one the White Sox could have won, perhaps should have won. The Royals made a couple of big defensive plays and executed in the only inning they scored. At the time, I wondered if Floyd let down after he gave up the lead. The numbers say he pitched a pretty good game, but it you watched it, you could see he let the game get away from him and didn't deserve to win.

The first key play was De Aza's being doubled up with runners at first and third with one out after the Sox executed the hit and run. There is no way of knowing if the Royals would have hit and run if the score weren't tied. And assuming the game played out with the Sox scoring their runner from third, I wonder if Floyd would have given up the hit driving in the second run if the score were still tied.

Even with the Sox down 3-1, the next time De Aza came up with runners at first and third, I thought he was tying the game with a gapper, but Dyson made a very nice catch. Even when he got to the ball, I thought it was behind him.

The Royals simply outplayed the Sox today, making the clutch plays when they needed to. On the positive side, the bottom of the lineup did a great job is setting up innings. Unfortunately, the top of the order hasn't started hitting. It isn't even so much a matter of not hitting. Today the White Sox might have won against a tough pitcher if De Aza had beaten the double-play relay to first.

It's odd, though, that the new pitchers the Royals started ahead of their strongest pitcher from last year, the pitchers who were supposed to turn the Royals around behind their strong offense and bullpen, were the ones the Sox beat in the series.

The first loss is always disappointing. I was hoping to go undefeated.
Reply With Quote