1/23 Royals Links: Hochevar, Gio, Allen Caldwell, and the Rise of Newt
by Freneau on Jan 23, 2012 10:00 AM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
Print
More Hochevar optimism, the latest prospect talk, a historical look back at the Royals & KC A's, and assorted goodies from the grab bag.
- 40 Man Roster Review – Johnny Giavotella - Royals Authority
- Royal Heritage: Royals & A's Defense Independent Perfect Games
- Kauffman Stadium Promotions We’d Like to See - Kings of Kauffman
- Royal Revival: Blood in the Water
- Rany on the Royals: Royals Report Card 2011: Part Five.
- Prospect Profile Allen Caldwell | Pine Tar Press
- Luke Hochevar ready to help Kansas City Royals build off 2011 | royals.com: News
Baseball:
- Jermaine Dye's Retirement Cookie - Hot Corner - Baseball Nation
- Here Comes Kevin Millwood - Lookout Landing
- Thinking big in Big D in 1950
Grab Bag:
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On the FIP perfect games, Al Fitzmorris did it without barely striking anyone out.
Here are the K’s in his 6 games:
0 K – once (only Royals to achieve this feat)
1 K – three times
2 K – once
3 K – once
Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jan 23, 2012 10:20 AM EST reply actions
Nice laugh on Eskstein
http://angels.ocregister.com/2012/01/22/david-eckstein-standing-next-to-athletes/115916/
Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jan 23, 2012 10:22 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
I didn't want this to go unmentioned
this is hilarious
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Eckstein's Throws To
1B from SS look like monumental efforts.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 24, 2012 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
Blatant oversight...
How’d they miss “foam plus hands” for another Yuni Kauffman promotion?
Loud noises!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 23, 2012 10:23 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
There was an article in the KC Star (which seems no longer online) with this quote on Yuni:
“I see plus hands, good agility and range, and plus hands,” says an American League scout.
Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics
by Jeff Zimmerman on Jan 23, 2012 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
a meme that cropped up in every single game chat during the 2010 season
along with Phil’s love of the filmic masterpiece “Taken”
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Jan 23, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
It's Like Everyone
Else saw a completely different movie. Unbelievably bad on every level.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 23, 2012 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
But it has one really bad ass line in it though
I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that’ll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don’t, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.
Since 2005: Royals win% = .4100, Chiefs win% = .4095
Mitt Romney is a serial killer.
by averagegatsby on Jan 23, 2012 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Meh.
Guess you gotta have Liam Neeson growling it for it to work. This could be a line in every revenge/kidnapping movie ever.
by OnixConcepcion on Jan 23, 2012 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
You know
I quite liked that movie. It’s refreshing to see a protagonist who isn’t a “good guy”. If that makes sense.
I agree...
It seemed like Liam Neeson became Bourne Identity 2.0, with nothing really to add to the genre. But like Hit Girl in Kick-Ass, it became completely enjoyable to see what he’d do next.
There are literally DOZENS of us!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 23, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
I liked it from the standpoint
of if somebody kidnapped my daughter, I’d kill every motherfu^&er that got in my way of finding her.
talk to me, Johnny...
They Forgot The
Script, plot, character development, and avoidance of cliches. That kills it before the blatant xenophobia. There is not one genuine, believable moment in this film.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 23, 2012 8:27 PM EST up reply actions
Good thing it's not a documentary then
There are however, these new things called “fictional stories” they’re quite amazing. apparently the point is to make up something that didn’t really happen, and in some cases, could never happen. It’s quite revolutionary. I highly recommend trying it.
This Was Just
An egregiously poor effort at making up a story. I watched this trainwreck with a video editor straight out of Hollywood. She was equally appalled. We walked out around the 50 minute mark. I’ve seen the rest of it. It is a travesty and a stain on Luc Besson’s reputation.
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2009/2/5/taken-challenges-worst-movie-all-time/
But is “Taken” part of the exclusive “WMOAT” club? A WMOAT must rise above the level of just plain awfulness and take bad filmmaking to breathtaking, previously unseen heights. It must feature horrible casting, shoddy editing, cringe-inducing dialogue, no obvious logic driving its events, complete amorality, implausible happenings, stunts and advancement of time and be completely out of touch.
It’s by adhering to these guidelines that “Taken” not only knocks on, but kicks down the door to the WMOAT club.
Someone saw the same movie I did.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 23, 2012 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
I find film critics infuriating sometimes
They feel the need to whine about every single thing they had an issue with. Furthermore, they judge every single movie on the Oscar Best Picture winner standard. They can’t say “Oh, this movie is just a simple action movie”. No, every movie has to be up to the standard of Casablanca/Gone With the Wind, with dialogue, story, intrigue, blah blah blah.
Your average Joe wants to see action in an action movie. Taken had some pretty darn good action. Therefore, I enjoyed it.
Exactly
Sometimes movies are about suspending disbelief and just taking the movie at face value. Is it likely that a father who kills his way to his daughter in France wouldn’t be somehow picked up by someone in authority somewhere along the way, or even if not, that he’d even find any sort of trail whatsoever to her? No, but that’s not the point.
Sometimes I want to see a story of a guy whose daughter is kidnapped, and he does what ever father likes to think he could do, which is kill every single mother fucker who had anything to do with it, or who gets in his way.
It's always the same stuff too
“Oooh, but the camerawork is so standard, and lame, and the dialogue isn’t brilliant or artsy. It’s not realistic, or plausible, and I don’t connect with the characters on a primal level; it’s not even like real life!!!! It’s like I’m watching a film.”
Does it have action? If so, how good? How about the music and sound efffects? Overall art direction? None of these things tend to be covered in an average film review. But no, critics always compare every movie to the objective standard and rarely compare within genres.
BUT IT WAS
SO POORLY DONE! I have no quarrel with the premise, it’s the execution. I loved The Long Kiss Goodnight, and it was no more realistic. It was just a better movie.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 24, 2012 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
I know I'm not a "film critic"
(although I was in the past), but when writing about a movie, I definitely approach a film in regards to whether it accomplishes what it sets out to do, hence my love for Rambo and The Tree of Life.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Jan 24, 2012 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
Rambo Was 100X
Better than Taken per dollar cost.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 24, 2012 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
are either of them as good as Morrissey's Suedehead video?
He reads in a barn. He drives a tractor. He plays the bongos amidst a heard of cattle. He takes pictures of rural Indiana with an old timey camera. It’s the most abstract heartbreakingly earnest, pensive, erotic, zoophilia, ridiculous, sad, exciting, limited, pretentious, portentous, premature, middling, stratospheric, thrill ride I’ve ever forgotten about.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Jan 25, 2012 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
For pure entertainment reasons
I’m so pumped about Gingrich winning South Carolina. If Gingrich was out of the picture, we’d soon be left with watching Romney blandly bash Obama while Ron Paul rants about overseas spending and instituting a gold standard. It would have been a sad, boring end to a delightfully entertaining Republican primary season.
he doesn't have a prayer tho, does he?
winning SC wasn’t that big of a surprise, IMHO…if he wins Fla tho, that would be interesting.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Jan 23, 2012 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
Winning SC wasn't a huge upset
But winning it by 12 points and having a 20 point surge in national polls was very surprising.
I’d still give him little shot of winning the nomination, but these events draw the process out and some political drama.
Romney was at 93% and Gingrich at 3% last week on intrade. Now Gingrich has risen to 27.2% and Romney has dropped to 66%.
After Romney loses Florida?
I’d bet a lot that Romney wins Florida. Their GOP voters aren’t as conservative or evangelical as those in South Carolina. And Romney is going to blanket the state with TV ads. Gingrich’s SPAC will put up some ads, but they simply can’t compete with the money Romney’s campaign his SPAC have. Also, Romney’s organization is all over the state. Gingrich can’t come close to his ground game. I think Romney will take Florida. I doubt it will be a blowout, but I also don’t think it will be a squeaker.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
Is there anything more corrupt than the US political system?
Since 2005: Royals win% = .4100, Chiefs win% = .4095
Mitt Romney is a serial killer.
by averagegatsby on Jan 23, 2012 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
To bad political corruptness costs most people money, opportunity, etc.etc.etc.
I’d rather have corruptness simply fuel righteous indignation.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Jan 23, 2012 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
Theoretically, a democracy should be among the least corrupt forms of government
Ours works pretty well, but there are other democracies that are much less corrupt. Part of that is cultural, but there’s reason to believe that there are mechanisms that we could copy that would make ours less corrupt (principally dealing with rules on elections and campaign contributions). Unfortunately we’re so proud of being the first (and longest running) constitutional democracy that we’re extremely hesitant to admit that anyone could have improved on our system and so we’re unlikely to change.
Honestly I think that's because government's gotten so large.
Less government = less government corruption. That’s part of why Ron Paul is as intriguing as he is.
All of the less corrupt governments are also larger (relative to country size) than ours
Think Scandanavia, Germany, Japan, etc.
Smaller governments (think Africa, South America, SE Asia) are associated with more corruption.
Or domestically, compare corruption at state or municipal governments to corruption in the federal government.
that doesn't translate straight
government size doesn’t equal corruption, in either direction. I am an anarchist and so think any government is inherently flawed, but size of government (or tax revenue, directly) only seems to relate to how much overseas spending a country can have. Smaller government, less military/foreign BS going on.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
Corruption thrives in the absence of accountablility
For a variety of reasons (more media coverage, higher citizens interest in govt programs, higher citizen objection to taxes), larger governments will attract more accountability in democracies.
Smaller governments have much more corruption because nobody is watching.
10% of the Florida votes
Have already been cast too, so that’s going to be huge for Newt to overcome.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Money makes a big difference in Florida
But I’m not sure that the different demographics matters much. Newt won basically every single demographic category in South Carolina. If Florida Catholics or moderate Republicans are like South Carolina Catholics or moderate Republicans, Newt will win again.
But money, organization, and reactance theory all say Romney should do much better.
At this point though
Newt doesn’t have to win, he just have to remain the viable alternative to Mitt.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I kind of think Newt needs to win Florida to have a real shot at the nomination
After Florida, the contest goes national and Romney’s money and organizational advantages get even bigger. Newt needs another win so that Romney doesn’t steamroll him, especially in the caucuses.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
Newt's got some eccentric rich guys to bankroll him for a bit
And money rolls in if people want an alternative. But you do have to wonder how long it is before the GOP establishment steps in and tilts all the advantages to Mitt even moreso.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
If the money were going to come for Gingrich, why hasn’t it come yet? I kept expecting the far right to coalesce around one not-Romney but it hasn’t happened, especially with regards to money.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
Because his resurrection Iowa may have been seen as not enough
SC may have been kinda flukey, but if he does well in FL, he has kinda established himself as the alternative to Mitt in a way no one else has, assuming Santorum does not.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Santorum dropping out would help a lot
There being one conservative alternative would help Newt. But I just kind of see this playing out like 4 years ago. The Right wing keeps talking about needing to nominate a real conservative, not McCain, but he just keeps rolling, slow and steady.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I agree
Its just not as inevitable as I thought even a week ago
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
What makes you think the money hasn't come in for Gingrich?
I don’t think we’ve see fundraising numbers for a couple months
I guess I was thinking about the 4Q numbers
Gingrich hit a pretty big peak in December and still didn’t bring in much money. That may well have recently changed. But I haven’t read any stories about big money flowing for him. I really don’t think he was raking in big money pre-SC. He may be now.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
Unless I'm mistaken, the last reports filed were for 3Q2011
I don’t think we see Q4 reports until the end of January
I thought for sure I’d read about 4Q fundraising. Maybe it was just anecdotal. Or maybe I’m entirely mis-remembering.
But all of the analysis I’ve been reading has been talking about massive differences in fundraising and cash on hand between Romney and Gingrich. If Newt has been raising big money, he’s been closely guarding this secret. And I don’t think it would make sense for him to do so.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
I think there are rumors, but I haven't seen anything official
And, of course, the big money goes to the affiliated SuperPACs and I haven’t even heard rumors on those numbers.
I just saw a tweet
That some rich dude signed a $5 mill check for Newt’s Super PAC today.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
538 gives Gingrich a 84% chance of winning Florida
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/florida
Over the past 11 days, Rasmussen has seen FL go from 41/19 Romney/Gingrich to 41/32 Gingrich/Romney.
If the primary were held today, I'm sure Gingrich would win
But it isn’t today. And there are going to be a lot of commercials and ground game between now and then.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
Well, Romney's dropping like crazy on intrade (FL Primary)
Go make some money.
I don’t think this bounce is going away as quickly though. But we’ll see what happens in these next two debates before next week’s vote.
Who knows what will happen from here, but...
Two days later, 538’s Florida projection now has Romney with a 52% chance of winning and Gringrich at 48%.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 26, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
(correction, that’s 3 days later)
And as of the afternoon of 3 days later, 538 has it at
Romney 69%
Gingrich 31%
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 26, 2012 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't figure Newt would shank two debates
Mix in a plan to put a base on the moon, and top it off with a robocall claiming Romney didn’t let Holocaust survivors eat Kosher.
Obama winning re-election
Went up quite a bit too, to 58%. I’m sure its just a coincedence.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I don't think the Intrade traders have demonstrated any particular skill in forecasting results so far
I don’t think the markets are demonstrating any wisdom when it comes to political predictions
I do think what happened in SC does improve Obama's chances
Because of what it means or could mean for the next couple of months. The results of the SC primary mean that Gingrich has some shot. And if he wins the nomination, Obama has a considerably better chance of winning re-election. But I think Gingrich is unlikely to win the nomination. But winning SC, and especially winning probably means he’s in the race longer. And the longer he’s in, the more body blows he the more body blows he lands on Romney. It also forces Romney to spend more money. Also, it pushes Romney to go more negative, which will increase Gingrich’s negatives, but probably Romney’s as well.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
OTOH
Hillary made Obama a better candidate. Sometimes getting all the skeletons out of the closet in primary season is advantageous because more than half the country isn’t paying attention and if Obama raises Bain Capital again in September, its already a tired old story that has already been litigated.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Perhaps, but I don't really buy that
I don’t think Hillary made Obama a better candidate. I think Obama was a strong candidate and the political climate was right for him. I think he won despite the long fight for the nomination, rather than because of it.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
I think Obama, with less experience, benefitted more from the extra practice than Romney will
But I do think long nomination battles unquestionably make campaigns better. Campaigning is tough and the organizations are built almost from scratch every four years. Practice in the spotlight, with feedback in the form of polling data, makes the whole campaign better, not just the candidate.
But I also think that there’s a big difference between a protracted battle where both candidates are acceptable to the party as a whole and a protracted battle where each candidate is unacceptable to broad swathes of the party. The former gives the campaigns are an opportunity to build electoral infrastructure in a way the latter does not.
I don't know. While there are positives, there are also big negatives
Obama has a big war chest for the GE campaign that hasn’t even had to touch yet. And Romney is now forced to spend a lot of money. That’s money that he won’t have for the general election. And I think the hits he’s taking now are damaging him. His negatives are up significantly over the last month, and this coincides with Gringrich, et al. going more negative.
Also, I think the “he’s not conservative” hits Romney is taking are going to hurt base enthusiasm for him in the general. That means less money and fewer volunteers. That would have a lot of consequences, including but not limited to less of a get out the vote effort.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jan 23, 2012 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think there'll be any shortage of money once the nominee is chosen
Especially in the Citizens United era and with the rise of SuperPACs.
As to whether the party will rally around the eventual nominee, I guess, on the one hand, the nominee will have had to face more intra-party attacks and, on the other hand, the nominee will have had to build out infrastructure in all 50 states and will have the advantage to be seen as having truly earned the nomination where the whole party had a say.
I thought Gingrich pulled out of the race
If he can keep running with all of his scandals then Herman Cain might want to reconsider running again
You can call me Aaron Burr by the way I'm dropping Hamiltons!
I Think The
Powers that be in the GOP know the economy will be shit for the foreseeable future and they don’t want the blame. They didn’t really want the presidency in ‘08, and they’ll be happy to punt in ’12.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 23, 2012 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
i've seen reports stating the opposite
that most people care more about how the economy is trending, not how it’s actually doing. and that most economists/politicians assume that the economy will continue improving and carry Obama in 2012.
I think it's more that the economy might be good enough so it's not an anvil attached to Obama
The economy is improving, but we’re not seeing anything close to the sort of growth that would be associated with easy re-elections (e.g. 1984 / 1996).
Oddly, the entity with the most power over the election isn’t the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. It’s the European Central Bank.
I don't think so
There is a lot more than just the economy at stake. There are judgeships that will be occupied for a generation. That’s always a huge issue for Republicans, especially the social conservatives.
Besides, everyone thinks their ideology can turn the economy around.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Mitt is asking his wife for an open marriage as we speak
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 23, 2012 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
isnt he already a mormon?
thought that came with the territory?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 23, 2012 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
I've always felt like traditional Mormonism was one of those things that looked good on paper...
…like an orgy, only you have to remember everyone’s names and tendencies. I have my hands full and am holding on for dear life with one woman. I don’t envy Mormons.
There are literally DOZENS of us!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 23, 2012 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
Is this a new OT thread?
I’ve discovered Kentucky Bourbon Barrel Ale this week. It’s one of the only perks I’ve found of living in Ohio.
There are literally DOZENS of us!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 23, 2012 8:56 PM EST reply actions
Other OT stuff
Anyone else have AT&T Uverse? My main frustration with them right now is that HD won’t work. Supposedly their box has problems with HDMI so they use component. Except our component cable looks like crap, its 480. HDMI will work at 1080, but every few months, it will start sputtering with a message of something like HDCP Can’t Link or something like that and I have to reset the box, or plug stuff in and out…except now it won’t work at all. Anyone know of a fix?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Call customer service and have them reset the box remotely
If that doesn’t work they will typically send out a tech, and I have always had good experiences with the techs.
I came to SBN for Arrowhead Pride and stayed for Royals Review.
by BonoBootleg on Jan 24, 2012 12:31 AM EST up reply actions
I thought they had a policy of not setting it up with HDMI
I’ll try and see if I can get better component cables from them.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
logged in to say
Fuck Newt Gingrich. That guy scares me more than any recent politician. Philandering, ethics violation big government Conservative? How many contradictions can you fit into one profile?
I really don’t feel like getting drafted, thanks…
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
dude said he didn't rule out military intervention
with Cuba.
Jesus.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
The Grinch Will
Say anything for attention. He is the classic back bench bomb thrower who found himself with some power by chance. He fucked that up so bad his party was virtually destroyed. He is unelectable above the municipal level.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 24, 2012 3:46 AM EST up reply actions
Gingrich
I actually used to like the guy.
Mostly based on his role in a fictional movie/special from Canada that must be seen [and you can see the whole thing online here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8786950669565492785&ei=5bJESYD8CafcqAO6i8ifDA&q=Countdown+to+Looking+Glass# ]
(from http://www.scene-stealers.com/top-10s/top-10-nuclear-war-movies/)
This was a Canadian made-for-TV film that HBO featured in October of 1984. It’s such a captivating film because it blends fictional news broadcasts with narrative, movie-like scenes. It really is something special, and is unsurpassed in its realistic portrayal of how a station like CNN might handle a complex and intensifying international conflict of such magnitude. To further bolster its notability, real experts and politicians (such as Senator Eugene McCarthy and Newt Gingrich, in a masterfully subdued performance) are among those interviewed by the Peter Jennings-esque anchor. Scott Glenn (the bad guy from "Urban Cowboy") turns in a very believable performance as an on-the-scene reporter who eventually finds himself on the deck of the USS Nimitz. Near the end, when the US-Soviet conflict in the Strait of Hormuz reaches its point of no return, Glenn argues with officers on the carrier when clearly non-conventional weapons begin exploding in the vicinity. This is a very entertaining and informative film that should not be missed.
"You're like that guy who wrote that thing about remembering stuff!!"
- Crow T. Robot
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
