āWon on technicalitiesā my ass. The first game they won because of catcherās interference WITH THE BASES LOADED AND NO OUTS. Even if they didnāt call the catcherās interference (which is perfectly legit btw), they still probably wouldāve scored. Then they won by three runs in the second game with their starter pitching a complete game in dominating fashion. Donāt act like they didnāt deserve the series win. Iām not even the guy who was talking shit but youāre just being biased
I didnāt say anything about the second game. The second game was won fair and square As for the first game, it is absolutely possible to get out of a bases loaded no outs situation. Not likely, but possible. I donāt understand how you can call catchers interference while also simultaneously ruling that the batter did not swing. How can you interfere with the batters swing if he didnāt swing?
He checked his swing. Thatās how. Go watch it. Itās the rule. Even if he did swing, thereād only be one out. And youāre saying getting walks is a technicality? Thatās called plate discipline and taking advantage of a wild pitcher. Thatās not a technicality at all. Baseball isnāt just about getting hits
Walking is not a technicality but youāre leaving out something else that happened in that inning. Harper was on third because another batter was hit by a pitch. If that hadnāt happened, that batter would still be up to bat and Harper would have been on second when the interference was called Iām not biased. The Phillies are obviously the more talented team and they did deserve the series W, but that 1st game was won primarily due to luck
Then the pitcher shouldnāt have hit that batter! The Phillies were patient, had good plate discipline, and capitalized on a pitcher that was clearly struggling to throw strikes. Do you expect them to swing at everything, knowing theyāll get themselves out by swinging at awful pitches? By your logic, nearly every win of every team is just by luck. Thatās baseball, not a technicality