Frayed Knot

Cain is able!

Y'know, we do also conduct a post-season project where anyone who cares to participate gets to rank their top 30 Mets for the season based on whatever criteria you care to use.

The Angels bench coach is named Dino Ebel? I hope he doesn't have siblings named Hearno and Speakno.

Don't know that this means much, more like just a quirky thought that came to me while watching Delmon Young Former 1/1 Draft picks in the 2014 playoffs: Josh Hamilton - 1999: Originally drafted by the TB Rays, now playing with the LA Angels Adrian Gonzalez - 2000: Marlins/Dodgers Delmon Young - 2003: Rays/Tigers David Price - 2007: Rays/Tigers Steven Strasburg - 2009: Nationals/Nationals Bryce Harper - 2010: Nationals/Nationals Gerritt Cole - 2011: Pirates/Pirates 1/1 picks (1993-2011) NOT participating this year: Alex Rodriguez - 1993: Marinerz/Yanquis Paul Wilson - 1994: Mets/--- Darin Erstand - 1995: Angels/--- Kris Benson - 1996: Pirates/--- Matt Anderson - 1997: Pirates/--- Pat Burrell - 1998: Phillies/--- Joe Mauer - 2001: Twins/Twins Bryan Bullington - 2002: Pirates/--- Matt Bush - 2004 - Padres/--- Justin Upton - 2005: DBacks/Braves Luke Hochevar - 2006: Royals/--- Tim Beckham - 2008: Rays/Rays

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Agreed. I wouldn't think that it's even money whether or not the Royals sweep. Then you probably shouldn't have gone out of your way to quote and object to the specific sentence with the adjective 'stunning' in it only to totally ignore the noun, sweep, that it was attached to. In doing so you were arguing against a point that wasn't being made.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Kansas City Royals look to complete a stunning sweep when they host the Los Angeles Angels in Game 3 of their best-of-five American League Division Series Stunning? It's three baseball games between good teams. It's practically a coin-flip. Even if one were to agree that each game between a best-in-MLB 98-win team and an 89-win WC team who had to survive an extra-inning playoff game just to get there were essentially 50/50 propositions (coin flips), that the one would sweep the other hardly is. Looked at one way the odds of a KC sweep (or KC being swept) would be .5 x .5 x .5 = 12.5%, aka 1 chance in 8. Another way to arrive at the same answer is to realize that there are 32 possible outcomes of a five game series [5 events with 2 possible outcomes = 2^5] In only 4 of those 32 does one of the teams not win a game from among the first 3 -- ex. Team A wins all 5, wins all except game 5, all but game 4, or all but 4 & 5. Now obviously in this set-up you stop playing after the first three all go one way, but those exceptions are still possibilities that exist. Now give the 98-win LAA a slightly better than even shot in a given game -- let's say 55% to reflect their better record + home field edge? -- and the Royals' odds of a sweep drop to more like 9% or 1-in-11 Hardly a 'coin flip'

According to what Williams said after the game, they decided before the inning began to pull Zimmermann if he put someone on base. Sometimes that type of pre-decision gets you into trouble if you're not willing to reconsider it based on the circumstances. I think they were also spooked a bit by that loud foul ball on the 2-0 count on the way to that walk. And even though Storen had been real good since replacing Soriano in the weeks leading up to the end of the season, I still just hate replacing the known with the unknown in that type of case. Soriano, meanwhile, who had fallen out of favor to the extent that he was a surprise even to make the post-season roster despite the big contract and that he was the closer from the beginning of of 2013 until around late August, tossed a 1-2-3 inning in the 16th: K, Pop-up, Pop-up Nat bats have now scored just 3 runs in essentially 3 games (27 innings) against good, but aging and recently shaky, pitchers, now have to go cross country and face Bumgarner. Things not looking too good for the team who was the popular favorite coming in.

Typical six-hour, 23-minute game. Unfortunately, yeah. This one didn't have nearly the back and forth as either of the other long post-season games of (semi) recent vintage: - Braves/Astros (Gm 4, NLDS 2005; 7-6 Astros - 18 innings/5:50) or - Mets/Astros (Gm 6, NLCS 1986; 7-6 Mets - 16 innings/4:42) ... although we all thought that one was a marathon at the time This game was actually headed for a sub-3:00 finish (as a 1-0/8.5 inning game it bleedin' well ought to be) until the pitching change + Giants rally in top 9 + the Nats being forced to hit in the bottom of 9th pushed it to just over 3 hours of regulation. So the "second" 9-inning game took right around 3:15-3:20 despite just 1 run scored on a total of just 5 hits and 6 walks (2 intentional), where 3 of those 11 base-runners were erased on the paths and there was just one in-inning pitching change. That all points to nothing but slow pace, and particularly to relievers who tend to work much slower than starters no matter what the game situation.

Those rectangular POSTSEASON logos that are on the units, the hats, the field, and just about everywhere else this week, aren't getting' it done. For starters, the word POSTSEASON is too dorky to build a slogan around. And then logo itself is just plain and boring.

So I guess the Seahawks fans do it for Russell Wilson and Nats fans copped it from them. Not surprising. Washington fans haven't shown themselves to be very inventive so far. They even have an organized N - A - T - S Nats Nats Nats! chant whenever the team scores. Haven't seen Fireman Ed anywhere on the premises though.

Players don't do the good fade-away slide like they used to. Had that be me running instead of Posey on that 9th inning hit the Giants would have won the game. Just throw your body towards the 1st base line and scrape the base with your toe. The catcher would have had nothing to tag.

d'Kong76 wrote: What the hell are they chanting? I think it might be WILLLL-SOOOON when Wilson Ramos is up. A play on the Tom Hanks/Wilson reference from CASTAWAY perhaps?

Nats are getting awfully pissy over a couple of, borderline at worst, ball/strike calls. First Harper, then Cabrera, and now mgr Williams.

Told ya so Matt Williams. I wouldn't overturn this based on what I'm seeing.

Whoa! No way would I be yanking Zimmermann here (2 outs in 9th after a walk).

Last two Clayton Kershaw post-season outings, both vs the Cardinals: 10-2/3 IP; 15 ER; 24 H -- Dodgers lose 9-0 and 10-9 The one prior to that, also against the Cards, was 6 innings of 1 (unearned) run/2 hit ball -- Dodgers lose 1-0 Go Figure

Nice little pitcher's duel out there in LA

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I've just not been paying enough attention. It seems that just a few months ago, Lincecum was throwing his second no-hitter.. It was. It's just that the good games for little Timmy have increasingly become the exception rather than the rule over the last few seasons.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Is Jake Peavy really the Giants' second best starting pitcher? Probably not. But in an era where Zito is gone, Matt Cain is injured, and Lincecum is nothing like his former self, he's closer to 2nd best than SF is likely comfortable with. And at the moment he's no-hitting the Nats (thru 3).

Tigers get 5 off of Chen and the O's but Verlander, w/a high-pitch count, can't get out of the 6th. 5-3 Detroit but with those dreaded words for Tiger fans: it's now a battle of bullpens

A strength/conditioning coach without forearm tats ... is that even allowed?

From the 'Rooting Interest' thread Frayed Knot wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: How about a little love for Motown and the Detroit Tigers! The Mets won a World Series more recently, with Tigers not winning a World Series since the Bless You Boys team of 1984. It's our turn!! Now all they need is a closer and a SS I believe I had that one.

Joba Chamberlain in for Detroit

Tigers have tried four or five different guys at SS and have had trouble there all year long.

90 years ago and guys were sliding head-first into 1st, and pitchers were already being called-off on infield pop-ups.