I looked up hyperbole in the dictionary and it directed me to this post.Kershaw stunk it up big time giving up 2 runs in 6 innings. Truly pathetic outing.
I looked up hyperbole in the dictionary and it directed me to this post.Kershaw stunk it up big time giving up 2 runs in 6 innings. Truly pathetic outing.
Kershaw stunk it up big time giving up 2 runs in 6 innings. Truly pathetic outing. Even worse was the lack of offense.
Sent from my Jailbroken iPhone 5 using SatelliteGuys
Kershaw stunk it up big time giving up 2 runs in 6 innings. Truly pathetic outing. Even worse was the lack of offense....
I looked up hyperbole in the dictionary and it directed me to this post.
I looked up hyperbole in the dictionary and it directed me to this post.
Giving up just 2 runs in 6 innings is not what I would call "Stinking it up". That is a great game.
No, I was being serious. If you know Kershaw and his performance, by his standards, he stunk it up. He was not dominating; he did not have the control he usually has; he only pitched 6 innings; he gave up 50% more runs than he usually gives up. Yes, he did not pitch well at all.I'm leaning towards facetious.
High School girl, returning from Senior Prom, makes sarcastic remark, which her obtuse boyfriend takes literally.
High School girl, miffed, says, "I was beng ironic"
George Wendt replies, "Actually, you were being sarcastic. What's ironic is, you're about to graduate from high school even though you don't know the difference.
- From The George Wendt Show: Season 1, Episode 5
Prom Night: The Return (originally aired April 5, 1995, and probably never again, because the show was canceled after just eight episodes)
This is the only part of your statement I agree with...the rest is textbook hyperbole.Kershaw stunk it up big time giving up 2 runs in 6 innings. Truly pathetic outing. Even worse was the lack of offense.
No, I was being serious. If you know Kershaw and his performance, by his standards, he stunk it up. He was not dominating; he did not have the control he usually has; he only pitched 6 innings; he gave up 50% more runs than he usually gives up. Yes, he did not pitch well at all.
Indians are done, and so am I!!!!
You don't have to agree. I am basing his quality by his own standards, not by standards of most pitchers. He is in a league of his own. I watched every one of his starts since he became a dominate pitcher. I know when he is on and when he is off. If any other Dodgers pitcher gave up 2 runs in 6 innings and struggled to only do that, I may say they pitched well. But Kershaw had a very bad game. So judging by Kershaw standards, he stunk it up. He was lucky to only give up 2 runs.This is the only part of your statement I agree with...the rest is textbook hyperbole.
In the 11 games that Kershaw has started and the Dodgers have lost, his team has "supported" him with a grand total of 17 runs.
Never said he wasn't entitled. When it does can we not comment on the fact that it did? That is all I did. I stated that he had one of those stinky starts. It happens from time to time and last night was one of those times. He stunk it up by his standards. He was fortunate to only give up 2 runs. There were some hard outs including this nice catch by him (one reason he is a GG winner.)So, he had an off night, he's entitled.
I looked up hyperbole in the dictionary and it directed me to this post.
You don't have to agree. I am basing his quality by his own standards, not by standards of most pitchers. He is in a league of his own. I watched every one of his starts since he became a dominate pitcher. I know when he is on and when he is off. If any other Dodgers pitcher gave up 2 runs in 6 innings and struggled to only do that, I may say they pitched well. But Kershaw had a very bad game. So judging by Kershaw standards, he stunk it up. He was lucky to only give up 2 runs.
You can call it hyperbole, you can call it whatever you want. I call it a stink because judged by his own standards and his own potential, it was stink.
As far as the offensive support. I have stated that over and over again. Whenever he pitches their offense seems to go to sleep. There is no reason why a pitcher with an ERA under 2 all year should have close to a .500 record, particularly on a 1st place team.
But getting a win or loss was not the determining factor of the quality of his start. Even if he got a W with this same start, I would have still said the same thing.
You think that is funny? I'll ask you the same question above. Have you seen him pitch? Not the occasional part of a game here and there. I mean, actually seen him pitch. Most baseball experts, players, scouts, coaches, ect will tell you he is the best in baseball.LMAO !!!
I guess if you only count the NL .
You think that is funny? I'll ask you the same question above. Have you seen him pitch? Not the occasional part of a game here and there. I mean, actually seen him pitch. Most baseball experts, players, scouts, coaches, ect will tell you he is the best in baseball.
Do you know what his ERA is vs the AL this year? It's 0.00
He's been the MLB ERA leader the last 3 consecutive years
Sent from my Jailbroken iPhone 5 using SatelliteGuys
He's been relevant for 2.5 years now ...
He's been relevant for 2.5 years now ...
Another year or two of excellent pitching and he might be in Verlander's status.
He's been the best in baseball for 3 years, meaning he is currently the best. Are actually going to dispute this?
One thing I notice whenever I discuss sports with you, you tend to constantly ignore facts that contradict points you make and change the premise of the discussion with each post.
Sent from my Jailbroken iPhone 5 using SatelliteGuys
Who is currently the best? Kershaws worst games are like what he pitched yesterday.
Sent from my Jailbroken iPhone 5 using SatelliteGuys
There's that false premise again in the form of strawmen and ad homonym.And I notice you don't give respect to anyone other than YOUR guys.
There's the changing of the premise again.Verlander has been doing much longer than Kershaw has, Verlander is the player that Kershaw tries to emulate.