Frayed Knot

I would so dearly love for Clemens to get his fat ass kicked tonight. Not only for all the obvious and long-standing reasons but also for the ultimate failure it would represent of the desperation move that hauled his butt up here. He had 99 IPs during the season and, while it probably could be argued that they may not have sewn up the WC without him, the thought of ~$18mil for less than 100 innings plus a 1st-round exit on his watch would be quite delicious.

THAT was a hit??!!?? (infield bouncer to Jeter which he threw 17 ft wide - scored an infield single even tho the runner was still 9 strides from 1st) -- Yeah Suuuuuure!

I had declared myself neutral in this series before it started. If the Yanx lose theirs I was going to root for the seriously, I just used a racist word when I really meant "Guardians" no matter who won this one, and if the Yanx win I was going to root FOR the Sox/LAA winner. In part I was hoping that the Angels would prevail simply because they scare the Yanx so thouroughly while Boston spends too much time acting like ... well, Boston. I could also do without the massive media orgasm over yet another Yanx/Sawx tilt. But it's better that it's turning out this way because LAA just looks too beat up. Vlad isn't totally healthy; Gary Mathews isn't even on the roster; Garrett Anderson is now out as is Casey Kotchman. So it's Boston that looks like it'll give Cleveland a better series if they come through, or be better anti-NYY insurance if those pinhead Native Americans manage to somehow blow the next three. * Rusty!!!!

Normally - unless I have an intense rooting interest - I root for long series simply for the enjoyment/intrigue factor. Instead, we already have 2 sweeps and the Sox just put up a 7-spot in the 8th and have 9-zip lead with 6 (now 5) outs to go. AND, the only remaining series is the one where I've been desperately hoping for a sweep all along. What suxx is that it seems unnatural and momentum-sapping for baseball to have long gaps where nothing will be going on and, between the sweeps and the new format where extra days have been built into the early rounds, that's exactly what it looks like we're going to get.

Grote15 wrote: Is'nt LoDuca the best option at catcher?.... Depends on what else is available and what price LoDuca wants. ]You have Mota and heilman back..I'd be surprised if either are back... But until they are gone they're both under contract and/or team control for next year - which is the purpose of this thread.

I've alwasy suspected that his option was more like a gentlemen's agreement between Tom & the Wilpons along the lines of, well if we still want each other at the end of the season here's the money we'll agree in advance to. That the option was his and not theirs was largely a formality of contract language I think. Thing was he had to decide by today and either he's not ready to do so or he's already decided to call it a career (which is what he hinted at since a year ago). He can still re-sign here if both sides agree of course. But declining now gives him time to check w/the family but also to see what's out there (read: Atlanta). I strongly suspect we've seen the last of him. Now the trick will be seeing if that ~$10mil can find us a replacement starter - not an easy task considering that the likes of Suppan, Meche, Lilly, etc not only landed more than that last year but got multi-year deals at those prices.

Well, they were once called the 'Spiders'. * Indians should have won that game about 5 different times They out-baserunnered the Yanx about 10 to 2 at one point but Wedge small-balled them out of several of those runners; one got caught stealing, one on a pickoff (where were you going Kenny?), I think two on GiDPs, and one thrown out at the plate (he was dead but w/2 outs it was the right call to send him IMO). Not that Pettitte doesn't also deserve a lot of the credit. * And geez Eric you think you bunted enough? Between giving up runners (most of which were leadoff) and giving up outs you were doing Torre a lot of favors. * Funny thing is the little talk radio I heard today mostly consisted of Yanqui fans complaing that Torre didn't bunt enough in Game 1 (guess that would have helped erase that 2-touchdown defecit) * Now 0-fer-7 with nothing but infield pop-ups & Ks, the ARod choke watch is officially on. * Only the Yanx could turn a 1-1 9 inning game into a 3+ hour affair

]The statistic Left On Base Percent is a good indicator of a pitcher's ability I'm not sure this stat tells us a lot other than which pitchers put a lot of guys on base in the first place. Fewer runners-on-base leads to fewer "bunched" hits and therefore fewer runs (ie, a higher pct of them left on). There can be pitchers who put on a lot of runners but somehow dance between the raindrops and keep them from scoring (think B. Bannister in his brief 2006 trial) but there's going to be an element of regression to the mean with those sort of things as the pitcher acquires more innings. Smith, for example, may have prevented his own runners from scoring (although he had a horrible year in letting those he inherited score) but that was most likely due to that initial 17+ inning scoreless streak he started this year with and I bet his 2nd half LOB% was, like his pitching, Ugh-Lee. The definition from 'The Hardball Times': LOB% is the percentage of baserunners allowed that did not score a run. LOB% is used to track pitcher's luck or effectiveness (depending on your point of view). The exact formula is (H+BB+HBP-R)/(H+BB+HBP-(1.4*HR)).

]Keith breaks two or three of these things per broadcast, but I love just how fucking reckless he is. 1) Don't be drunk or high. -- He has been accused of it ... 2) Deliver the story. Don't think you're the show. -- Not guilty 3) Don't be a bigot. -- Only with female training staff members in SD on cammo night 4) Don't brand the thing with your shtick. -- Not guilty 5) You don't have to like both teams equally, but tell both their stories. --Doesn't always bring the best knowledge 6) Don't get caught up in old-school wisdom and recycle the same ideas. Think on the spot occasionally. -- Occasionally guilty, but probably no more so than the average broadcaster 7) Don't fall in love with your voice. -- Not guilty 8) Respect guys who think differently from you. -- Not guilty 9) Don't talk when you don't have to. -- Not guilty 10) Dont be too much of a homer. -- Reasonably OK

]I believe TBS setup to start doing a regular national Game of the Week starting next season on Sundays. Yup, a nationally broadcast Sunday afternoon game. They're not going to get the exclusivity window that FOX gets for Saturday games so these will be in addition to your local game rather than instead of. ]I have mixed feelings about not being able to watch the Braves. I'll miss the convenience, but won't really miss the broadcasts. The TBS/Braves crew never bothered me. Sure the announcers were given to saying "we" when referring to the home team and other stuff that that we here in New York tend to feel like we're above - but I never got the idea that they were trying to skew the truth. For the most part they were solid baseball guys and the nuts & bolts of their announcing always sounded as down the middle as one could hope, all wrapped in an unhuried kind of southern style.

Overall they're doing fine IMO * The starting times thing is a big deal and one that a network like FOX would be less willing to manipulate and you always get the idea that baseball isn't ESPN's top priority. To those networks baseball is just another piece of programming to be slotted where needed. TBS is featuring them to build themselves into a national player and, as mentioned above, are willing to put them wherever they work best. * They've been doing that 'runner's lead' graphic on selected Braves game for a while now. I agree that it's pretty much worthless, but I guess they feel it's their "innovation plus, overall, they're using mercifully fewer than the FOX/ESPN crews would. * As long as an announcer isn't totally annoying I generally don't care who's doing the game. They're only using one or two holdovers from their Braves crew anyway with the rest coming from the usual suspects that anyone would use; Brenly, Stockton, etc. * I don't care who's doing studio shows since I usually ignore those. Ditto for roving reporters. TBS, btw, is now out of the Braves broadcasting business. They had been doing fewer and fewer over the last couple of years as more games leaked over to cable (TBS is a local over-the-air channel in Atlanta). Starting next season all games will be on the area equivelent of FSNY and the days of Braves games coast to coast will be gone. I'll miss them.

Ya gotta remember that most of the people who live in Arizona have moved there in the last 18 months so they're either: a) Cubs fans or new to baseball and are only vaugely aware of the 2001 championship

Game 2: Cubs were leading 2-0 until Chris Young hit a loooonnnng 3R HR w/2 out in the 2nd. As soon as the ball was hit Cubbie pitcher Ted Lilly took off his glove and spiked the thing into the ground to the point where there may be a crater. Never even bothered to look at the ball ... didn't have to. Now it's 4-2 as Eric Byrnes gets an RBI 3B off the top of the wall.

Valadius wrote: Frank Caliendo is one of the funniest people on the planet. Probably the world's greatest impressionist. I never heard of the guy until two days ago. This was a game the seriously, I just used a racist word when I really meant "Guardians" really neeeded. Falling behind with Sabathia on the mound would have been a big blow even though they only got 5 inings out of him. I'm not so sure I trust Carmona as much; he's right-handed, younger, less experienced, tends to walk more batters, etc. On the other hand Pettitte is perfectly capable of throwing a stinker.

4-3 thru 5 Sabathia's playing with fire. Just 37 walks during the season in 241 innings. Tonight he's BB'd 6 in 5 IP (1 intentionally) - but he just dodged a huge one, K-ing Posada and popping up Matsuiaftr loading the bases w/1 out. Surprisingly he's getting hit by the lefties; HRs by Damon & Cano, plus an RBI 2B by Abreu

cooby wrote: Are the Indians winning? Does your TV not work? ... it's 4-2 seriously, I just used a racist word when I really meant "Guardians" thru 4 First pitch was at 6:38 (I happened to note the time) so it's 4 complete innings in 1:40 .... Sheesh! At least the lengthy Phils/Rox game had 15 runs and frequent pitching changes to explain it.

G-Fafif wrote: Discussing the prospects for Randolph with a friend at the disheartening loss to the Cardinals last week, he opined that Willie would never try Kevin Mitchell at short or bat Benny Agbayani leadoff. That's essentially my complaint about Willie also. I don't think he's a bad manager - just not a very imaginitive one. Dreaming of that manager where you agree with every in-game call is like believing in that backup quarterback who'll never throws an interception, and cries of 'can't mismanae the bullpen' are usually code for: we need better pitchers out there. So fans who think those problems are going to be solved by replacing him are likely in for a rude awakening. But I do find Willie less likely to 'think outside the box', as the saying goes, which perhaps makes him more predictable to manage against. ]Is Davey Johnson still on the long finger as far as the Mets are concerned I wish you came with subtitles sometimes.

Rollins hits the first pitch Morales throws into the seats to make it 2-1. All 3 HRs came on 1st pitches. Utley runs his K-streak to 5 in a row.

Too-Lah-Wit-Ski and Holla-Day go back-to-back in inning #1 Thank you sir may I have another?

Mex17 wrote: This is the big question so far it seems. Didn't realize it had been offered.

I've always disliked single-division yet multiple-playoff team formats. You'd have to get rid of regional rivalries & institute totally balanced scheduling because otherwise teams would be vying for the same prize despite playing radically different competition. Then there's also the notion that you play all year for the purpose of proving that one team is better than the other (which is better than the next, and so on) only to be told that we're going to prove it all over again with short series. At least with divisions & leagues it's a case where you go win yours and I'll win mine then we'll wipe the slate clean and butt heads to see who's best.

24 actually. Or maybe more like 20 of the 24. There's a few there where the gap is big between curtain #1 and curtain #2, but a gap like that is just as likely to occur getting to the 1st WC team: ex; NL 1998 -- Div winners = 106, 102, 98 wins ... WC = 88 The thing is, I've always been somewhat amused by those who claim to love the WC system but then immediately set out trying to devise ways of preventing those WC teams from advancing. I've heard everything from fewer - or NO! - home games (a red herring mostly) to forcing them to play with smaller rosters or even given run handicaps to start each game! My view is that if you're upset about them advancing then don't let them in, and if you let them in then you need to treat them like they belong there. The rest of this sounds like; 'we'll let you in, but you have to use the kitchen entrance'. At least the 2-team system would provide a non div-winning playoff wannabe with a REAL roadblock to contend with and then treat them as an equal partner if they passed that, albeit one that had to play an extra game and expend maybe their top pitcher just to get there. Selig, btw, said this plan has been talked about in his circle but didn't seem to close to adding it.

So here's what 12 years worth of using the double-WC format would have looked like: 1996: NL: The 90 win Dodgers were actual WC (lost West by 1 game) - they would have been joined in a 1-game playoff by the 88-win Expos AL: Baltimore w/88 wins was the WC winner - [u:5172c5126b]3 teams[/u:5172c5126b] were tied w/85 1997: NL: Marlins 92 - Mets & Dodgers 88 - a play-in to get to the play-in! AL: Yankees 96 - Angels 84 ... Big gap here, but without it the Yanx went into cruise control most of September because they had no incentive to catch Baltimore for the East 1998: NL: Cubs & Giants tied for WC with 89 wins so things played out just as they would have with the double-WC system in place AL: WC winner was BoSox w/92 wins - joined by the [u:5172c5126b]3rd place[/u:5172c5126b] Blue Jays w/88 1999: NL: Mets w/96 - Reds w/96 ... In other words, exactly as it turned out anyway AL: BoSox 94 - A's 87 2000: NL: Mets 94 - Dodgers 86 ... Biggest NL gap from this period. Would have given the Mets extra incentive to catch the Braves who finished just 1 game ahead (or, to look at it another way, a bigger penalty for NOT catching them) AL: Mariners 91 - Indians 90 .... Mariners lost the West to Oakland by � game. A's never played game 162 because they would have won a tie-breaker anyway. THAT would have changed. Both teams, btw, much better than the 87-win eventual champs. 2001: NL: Cards 93 - Giants 90 ... Cards lost Central to Houston on tie-breaker. Again, no play-in game used because it was deemed unnecessary. AL: A's 102 - Twins 85 ... The biggest gap during this whole period, due mainly to Seattle's 116 win season draining so may wins from most other AL clubs 2002: NL: Giants 95 - Dodgers 92 ... 2nd & 3rd place teams AL: Angels 95 - Sox/Mariners 93 ... a play-in to get to the play-in! 2003: NL: Marlins 91 - Astros 87 ... league also had teams with 86, 85, 85, 84 & 83 wins AL: Red Sox 95 - Mariners 93 2004: NL: Astros 92 - Giants 91 AL: Red Sox 98 - A's 91 2005: NL: Astros 89 - Phils 88 AL: Red Sox 93 - Indians 93 ... Boston lost East via tie-breaker 2006: NL: Dodgers 88 - Phils 85 AL: Tigers 95 - White Sox 90 ... 2nd & 3rd place teams 2007: NL: Rockies 89 - Padres 89 ... would have played out the same AL: Yankess 94 - Tigers/Mariners 88 ... another play-in to get to the play-in

I'm so tired tired of waiting tired of waiting for you Do I think tiredness was a factor in Reyes's year? .... Maybe in September, but remember that he really wasn't all that good from about early May - particularly his power.

"If Albert Pujols were to suffer some kind of injury that never let him play as well again" I originally read this as "never play ... again" -- and then missed the tack on about him staying on for another 3 years. So yes, in that case he would be eligible. But if that occured would he get voted in? .... Dunno, it might depend on how bad those last 3 years were.