Oct 5, 2012, 10:04 PM EST
Most didn’t give Joe Saunders much of a chance against the Rangers in this game, especially after seeing how Ron Washington stacked his lineup with right-handed batters, but he has allowed one run through four innings to preserve a 1-1 tie.
It hasn’t been easy, though. Saunders walked Ian Kinsler to begin the game. Elvis Andrus then followed with a single to move Kinsler to third. It looked like he was on the ropes three batters into the game, but Saunders got Josh Hamilton to ground into a double-play to kill the rally. A run scored on the play, but the Orioles gladly took it.
The Rangers just threatened again in the bottom of the fourth inning, as Nelson Cruz and Michael Young had consecutive singles with one out. However, Saunders was able to get Mike Napoli to strike out swinging before getting Geovany Soto to ground into a fielder’s choice.
Saunders has allowed one run on five hits and a walk while striking out five. He has flipped the order over two times with minimal damage. Can’t ask for much more than that given the circumstances.
UPDATE: Make that five innings of one-run ball. You know, just like everybody expected.
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 118
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 40
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 368
- Blue Jays sign Dayan Viciedo to a minor league deal 8
- Chris Sale will be sidelined for three weeks with foot fracture 11
- Aramis Ramirez says 2015 will be his last year 33
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (368)
- If addiction is an illness — and it is — Josh Hamilton shouldn’t be suspended (308)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (118)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (85)