By In Baseball

Royals win Game 1

Coming in a bit: The proper way to order burnt ends from Arthur Bryant’s.

In the meantime, Game 1 from NBC SportsWorld:

The Royals lost it and lost it, but in the end, as, the video board boomed, “Royals WIN!” because … well … they did. There’s a story about Stanley Ketchel, a staggeringly tough early 20th century boxer who was murdered a few hours up the road in a farm town called Conway, Mo. When his manager and New York man-about-town Billy Mizner was told that Ketchel had been killed, he shrugged. “Tell ‘em to start counting to 10,” Mizner said. “He’ll get up.”

So it goes with these Royals. They kept losing the game but every time the Mets started counting to 10 … the Royals got up.

Royals Somehow Beat Mets


Print Friendly

9 Responses to Royals win Game 1

  1. MikeN says:

    I used to be a big believer in all the stat guys mantras, then I saw the picked to win the World Series Red Sox come in last three times in four years while they won World Series with chemistry guys.

  2. Christopher says:

    The way to order burnt ends is to walk out that screen door, get your phone out and order on your way to OK Joe’s so you don’t end up waiting in line for an hour+.

  3. Jim Kissane says:

    Great column as usual, Joe. Love the Princess Bride reference!

  4. Nick says:

    Ok, so excuse the dumb question, but why was the “In the park home run” an “In the park home run” and not an error? the ball clearly should have been caught and actually bounced off the leg of one of the outfielders. I am not trying to rain on anyone’s parade, and I don’t really root for either team, but In my mind that is an error. Obviously, I am not intimately familiar with the rule. Any clarification would be appreciated.

    • Marc Schneider says:

      I think you have a good point, but I believe the thinking was the Cespedes did not see the ball so he was not held responsible for not making the catch. If the ball had fallen in between the two fielders without anyone touching it-even if someone should have caught it-it would certainly have been treated as a hit. At the point where Cespedes sort of threw out his glove, it would have been a difficult play to make the catch. But I don’t know enough about the rule to say if it was correct. I agree that someone should have caught the ball.

      • jroth95 says:

        The norm is that they almost never call an error unless it clanks off a glove, which is kind of dumb. In this case, given how obvious it was that Cespedes just never really picked up the ball, it’s a bit more forgivable.

        Of course, the official scorer was a KC person, so he’d have an incentive to call it a hit, not an error.

    • MCD says:

      I don’t think it was an egregious official scoring mistake.

      I don’t think it was a sure thing that Cespedes should have caught the ball, but the fact that he booted it away was comically bad. However, it was consistent with the way it is usually ruled. The missing of the ball is ruled hit/error in a vacuum.

      A fielder can make a ridiculously futile dive on a ball in front of him that was a clear single. If the ball gets past him, the batter gets credit for however many bases he advance, even it is fairly obvious that it should have only been a single.

  5. jroth95 says:

    Arthur Bryant’s was one of the most disappointing experiences of my dining life. The burnt ends were merely OK, and they were better than anything else (except, weirdly, the fries, which were great). Nothing was succulent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *