OotS 7/9/2009

[Elster88]

Lincecum with a no-hitter through 5 (2 walks).

[Frayed Knot]

Twins lose 457th consecutive game to the Yanx.

[Elster88]

Broken up in the seventh.

[Frayed Knot]

I like the one where Washington won a home game in Houston while Pittsburgh's Joel Hanrahan got credit for the 'W' as he was taking a nap in a Philadelphia hotel room.

Hanrahan - traded recently to the Pirates - had been the Nats' last pitcher during a game against the Astros that was suspended while tied after the top of the 10th inning back in May sometime. The scheduled conclusion was last night - in Houston - although the Nats were the home team batting in bottom 10. Nats scored and won the game in that first half inning making Hanrahan the pitcher of record.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Did the Nationals wear home whites? I'm guessing not.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Concluding a suspended home game on the road is such jive I don't know where to begin.

I guess I can start with something like... no way that happens to the Yankees.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, the alternative is to have the Astros come in to Washington to just play a half inning.

I can think of two ways to make this necessity a lot less likely:

1. Go back to the old days when teams would visit cities outside their division twice a year, instead of only once.

2. Repeal the recent "no tie games" rule. That original game would have then been a tie, and the Astros and Nationals would have had to make up an entire game, which, at least, makes a trip to DC by the Astros seem less pointless. (And it creates another game date, with additional ticket sales.)

[Fman99]

="Benjamin Grimm":1vbkh4fa]Well, the alternative is to have the Astros come in to Washington to just play a half inning. I can think of two ways to make this necessity a lot less likely: 1. Go back to the old days when teams would visit cities outside their division twice a year, instead of only once.[/quote:1vbkh4fa] Yes! The balanced schedule, how I miss you. I don't really love the extra 10 PM West coast games but I miss the extra matchups against our former divisional rivals like the Pirates and Cubs. Honestly I get tired of the Marlins and Nationals. And throw Interleague away, it stinks.

Edgy DC Jul 10 2009 07:34 AM

I support playing the lion's share intradivisionally.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 07:42 AM

I wasn't advocating for the balanced schedule. I don't like that at all. I'd eliminate interleague play, and have the Mets (and other teams in the NL East and West) play each team within their division 16 times, and each team outside the division 9 times. (That adds up to 163, so an exception would have to be made here or there.) And I don't know how that would affect teams in the 6-team Central division.

metirish Jul 10 2009 07:53 AM

="Frayed Knot":3ln9fjxv]Twins lose 457th consecutive game to the Yanx.[/quote:3ln9fjxv] I never payed attention to this until you mentioned it a while back....but jeez how right you are, they never beat them ....... Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:50 AM The bottom line is that the Mets (as a typical example) from 1969 thru 1992 had 11 opponents they'd play during a season. Since 1997 they've had 20. Obviously that results in fewer games per team and fewer trips per city - a fact that inter-league proponents always seem to skip as they like to pretend that IL games are somehow in addition to the regular schedule rather than instead of an equal number of games. Willets Point Jul 10 2009 09:50 AM I'd like to see interleague play trimmed back to just six games: one three game series versus the "natural rival" (ex. Mets v. Yankees) and one three game series against another opponent that changes annually. TransMonk Jul 10 2009 09:54 AM This comes up every year...but I'd still like to see interleague done away with altogether. Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 10:06 AM ="Willets Point":2dzk64p5]I'd like to see interleague play trimmed back to just six games: one three game series versus the "natural rival" (ex. Mets v. Yankees) and one three game series against another opponent that changes annually.[/quote:2dzk64p5] I like that. If they were to do that, I'd expand it to eight games. (Four two-game series, home and away.) The problem, though, is that two-game series are always scheduled mid-week, and these high-profile interleague matchups will always want to be played on weekends. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 12:01 PM The stupid thing is, interleague was originally 18 games (or close to it) only because it started as East vs East, Central vs Central, etc. Now that that format has been done away with they're still sticking with 18/year as if that number came down on a stone tablet and can never be altered. Years ago I suggested a compromise (since I know they'll never kill it altogether similar to the one Willets just did. Mine was to cut it down to 10/per; 4 between "natural rivals" plus 2 other 3-game series at random. That keeps both the automatic sell-outs and satisfies those who want a random new opponent thrown in. Then I'll take it one step further and say that the 'natural rival' series should be right after the AS break. That weekend virtually demands a 4 game series (close rivals can go NL - AL - NL - AL so both get a weekend game; more distant ones can alternate the 2 + 2) and both squads should have their best pitchers lined up to go head to head. Fman99 Jul 10 2009 12:06 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1tzn2pxy]I wasn't advocating for the balanced schedule. I don't like that at all. I'd eliminate interleague play, and have the Mets (and other teams in the NL East and West) play each team within their division 16 times, and each team outside the division 9 times. (That adds up to 163, so an exception would have to be made here or there.) And I don't know how that would affect teams in the 6-team Central division.[/quote:1tzn2pxy] I like this also. The 16/9 plan, sans interleague, works just fine for me.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I support playing the lion's share intradivisionally.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I wasn't advocating for the balanced schedule. I don't like that at all.

I'd eliminate interleague play, and have the Mets (and other teams in the NL East and West) play each team within their division 16 times, and each team outside the division 9 times. (That adds up to 163, so an exception would have to be made here or there.) And I don't know how that would affect teams in the 6-team Central division.

[metirish]

="Frayed Knot":3ln9fjxv]Twins lose 457th consecutive game to the Yanx.[/quote:3ln9fjxv] I never payed attention to this until you mentioned it a while back....but jeez how right you are, they never beat them .......

Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 08:50 AM

The bottom line is that the Mets (as a typical example) from 1969 thru 1992 had 11 opponents they'd play during a season. Since 1997 they've had 20. Obviously that results in fewer games per team and fewer trips per city - a fact that inter-league proponents always seem to skip as they like to pretend that IL games are somehow in addition to the regular schedule rather than instead of an equal number of games.

Willets Point Jul 10 2009 09:50 AM

I'd like to see interleague play trimmed back to just six games: one three game series versus the "natural rival" (ex. Mets v. Yankees) and one three game series against another opponent that changes annually.

TransMonk Jul 10 2009 09:54 AM

This comes up every year...but I'd still like to see interleague done away with altogether.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 10 2009 10:06 AM

="Willets Point":2dzk64p5]I'd like to see interleague play trimmed back to just six games: one three game series versus the "natural rival" (ex. Mets v. Yankees) and one three game series against another opponent that changes annually.[/quote:2dzk64p5] I like that. If they were to do that, I'd expand it to eight games. (Four two-game series, home and away.) The problem, though, is that two-game series are always scheduled mid-week, and these high-profile interleague matchups will always want to be played on weekends. Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 12:01 PM The stupid thing is, interleague was originally 18 games (or close to it) only because it started as East vs East, Central vs Central, etc. Now that that format has been done away with they're still sticking with 18/year as if that number came down on a stone tablet and can never be altered. Years ago I suggested a compromise (since I know they'll never kill it altogether similar to the one Willets just did. Mine was to cut it down to 10/per; 4 between "natural rivals" plus 2 other 3-game series at random. That keeps both the automatic sell-outs and satisfies those who want a random new opponent thrown in. Then I'll take it one step further and say that the 'natural rival' series should be right after the AS break. That weekend virtually demands a 4 game series (close rivals can go NL - AL - NL - AL so both get a weekend game; more distant ones can alternate the 2 + 2) and both squads should have their best pitchers lined up to go head to head. Fman99 Jul 10 2009 12:06 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1tzn2pxy]I wasn't advocating for the balanced schedule. I don't like that at all. I'd eliminate interleague play, and have the Mets (and other teams in the NL East and West) play each team within their division 16 times, and each team outside the division 9 times. (That adds up to 163, so an exception would have to be made here or there.) And I don't know how that would affect teams in the 6-team Central division.[/quote:1tzn2pxy] I like this also. The 16/9 plan, sans interleague, works just fine for me.

[Frayed Knot]

The bottom line is that the Mets (as a typical example) from 1969 thru 1992 had 11 opponents they'd play during a season.
Since 1997 they've had 20.

Obviously that results in fewer games per team and fewer trips per city - a fact that inter-league proponents always seem to skip as they like to pretend that IL games are somehow in addition to the regular schedule rather than instead of an equal number of games.

[Willets Point]

I'd like to see interleague play trimmed back to just six games: one three game series versus the "natural rival" (ex. Mets v. Yankees) and one three game series against another opponent that changes annually.

[TransMonk]

This comes up every year...but I'd still like to see interleague done away with altogether.

[Benjamin Grimm]

="Willets Point":2dzk64p5]I'd like to see interleague play trimmed back to just six games: one three game series versus the "natural rival" (ex. Mets v. Yankees) and one three game series against another opponent that changes annually.[/quote:2dzk64p5] I like that. If they were to do that, I'd expand it to eight games. (Four two-game series, home and away.) The problem, though, is that two-game series are always scheduled mid-week, and these high-profile interleague matchups will always want to be played on weekends.

Frayed Knot Jul 10 2009 12:01 PM

The stupid thing is, interleague was originally 18 games (or close to it) only because it started as East vs East, Central vs Central, etc. Now that that format has been done away with they're still sticking with 18/year as if that number came down on a stone tablet and can never be altered. Years ago I suggested a compromise (since I know they'll never kill it altogether similar to the one Willets just did. Mine was to cut it down to 10/per; 4 between "natural rivals" plus 2 other 3-game series at random. That keeps both the automatic sell-outs and satisfies those who want a random new opponent thrown in. Then I'll take it one step further and say that the 'natural rival' series should be right after the AS break. That weekend virtually demands a 4 game series (close rivals can go NL - AL - NL - AL so both get a weekend game; more distant ones can alternate the 2 + 2) and both squads should have their best pitchers lined up to go head to head.

Fman99 Jul 10 2009 12:06 PM

="Benjamin Grimm":1tzn2pxy]I wasn't advocating for the balanced schedule. I don't like that at all. I'd eliminate interleague play, and have the Mets (and other teams in the NL East and West) play each team within their division 16 times, and each team outside the division 9 times. (That adds up to 163, so an exception would have to be made here or there.) And I don't know how that would affect teams in the 6-team Central division.[/quote:1tzn2pxy] I like this also. The 16/9 plan, sans interleague, works just fine for me.

[Frayed Knot]

The stupid thing is, interleague was originally 18 games (or close to it) only because it started as East vs East, Central vs Central, etc. Now that that format has been done away with they're still sticking with 18/year as if that number came down on a stone tablet and can never be altered.

Years ago I suggested a compromise (since I know they'll never kill it altogether similar to the one Willets just did. Mine was to cut it down to 10/per; 4 between "natural rivals" plus 2 other 3-game series at random. That keeps both the automatic sell-outs and satisfies those who want a random new opponent thrown in.
Then I'll take it one step further and say that the 'natural rival' series should be right after the AS break. That weekend virtually demands a 4 game series (close rivals can go NL - AL - NL - AL so both get a weekend game; more distant ones can alternate the 2 + 2) and both squads should have their best pitchers lined up to go head to head.

[Fman99]

="Benjamin Grimm":1tzn2pxy]I wasn't advocating for the balanced schedule. I don't like that at all. I'd eliminate interleague play, and have the Mets (and other teams in the NL East and West) play each team within their division 16 times, and each team outside the division 9 times. (That adds up to 163, so an exception would have to be made here or there.) And I don't know how that would affect teams in the 6-team Central division.[/quote:1tzn2pxy] I like this also. The 16/9 plan, sans interleague, works just fine for me.