dinosaur jesus

El Segundo Escupidor wrote: Fun Factoid: Calling a grown man "Kike" in the Latino culture is analogous to calling a grown man "Chipper" in Anglo-American culture. The TNT captions call him Enrique. I can't imagine why. What does it mean in Latino culture if you call a grown man "Chipper"?

The Amazing Colossal Iron Man. Love it.

I think what's going on is that since these games are on national TV, they'd normally be blacked out on mlb.tv, but mlb.tv and some of the cable companies (who are presumably getting a cut) have worked it out so that can see them. I don't know why Comcast isn't in on that. But if you have XFinity or whatever the equivalent is with other companies, you should be able to watch on your computer anyway, without giving $10 to mlb.tv. I don't really understand any of this, but these are the kind of explanations I give to reassure myself.

Edgy MD wrote: Zvon wrote: Ceetar wrote: you can search twitter for posts with images too. you could spring for mlb.tv and screencap stuff yourself too. There might be ways to get Getty Images accounts or the like as well. Actually it's Getty that does the quick watermarking. I'd prefer if they sucked meh balls. I have had MLB.TV for years now (many a card was taken from a screen shot), but I was so unaccustomed to postseason baseball I didn't know it was a separate deal to see postseason games. I found out late and so MLB.TV can also munch on my sac. I'm gonna pass on that for now. Might drop the 10 bucks for the WS if there is a good reason to. Gimme a good reason Mets! MLB.tv tells me I have free access to post-season games and post-season advertisements online as part of the purchase I made to watch regular-season games, but then they make me fill out a form telling them which TV provider I use. I don't use a TV provider, that's why I want to watch games online. And lies don't work! Yeah, I ran up against that too. I share my mlb.tv account with a friend who doesn't have cable (sharing's against the rules; sue me). I can watch the playoffs on TV and he can't, so naturally he wants to see them on (or through) his computer. His solution was to get a trial subscription to Sling TV, which carries the playoff games; the trial is free and lasts a week. Not so good if you want more than a week and have no intention of buying a subscription ($20 a month) after that.

There's this historical notion of the Dodgers fan base filled with detached, there-to-be-seen, gone-by-the-seventh types. But there's a new breed that has led the Giants/Dodgers to be the bloodiest and deadliest of fan rivalries, capable of making the Yankees/Red Sox fans blush. It's unsurprising to see the Tejada's injury rationalized away. OE: Oh and this. Be careful out there. Walk away from trouble if you can. I don't think the rationalizers are the same guys you need to look out for in the parking lot. Nothing rational about that bunch. The discussion I'm talking about was in response to someone who went to last night's game and didn't like the vile things some people were shouting at the Dodgers. Racist and just nasty stuff. Which I don't doubt and obviously can't defend, but, you know, look at your own house.

TransMonk wrote: Keith called it late (after reviewing the play a few times), but IIRC stopped just sort of calling it dirty on Saturday's SNY post game show. He agreed with the rest of the (biased?) SNY team that the umps should have called a double play. Cool. Seems reasonable to me. The Dodger fans at True Blue LA have magnanimously agreed that you can't really blame Tejada for getting his leg broken; he just got carried away in the heat of the moment. And they concede that they might have a little personal bias, as all fans do. But they're puzzled and offended that the crowd at Citi would boo Utley so vociferously. New Yorkers are crazy assholes; that's the only possible explanation. It's so tempting to troll those people, but I have to remind myself I don't play that way. I try to stick with trolling people I agree with.

So if the Dodgers are eliminated before the hearing, and the suspension is upheld, will it still be two days? That would be bullshit; two days in the playoffs and in the regular season are completely different things.

Does anyone know Keith's take on the Utley slide? He's a pretty old school guy himself, and I'm afraid he might call it "good hardnosed baseball" or some crap like that. My love for Keith doesn't depend on my agreeing with him on much of anything, but that would be pretty disappointing.

Because they're awful and their fans are embarrassing? Nice comparison.

Valadius wrote: dinosaur jesus wrote: Appeal it, Terry. He was out and we're up by 9. No need. I know. But just to mess with Mattingly.

Appeal it, Terry.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Wasn't J.P. Howell also with the 1988 Dodgers? Yeah. He's still got that high school curveball.

Pedro Martinez. The good one.

Pat Zachry.

Al Jackson.

Ten runs is nice, but I want more. Fuck these guys. Punish 'em. I hope Ruben's smiling right now.

I'm not conceding that Tejada didn't touch the base. Overturning that call is the screwup that sets up all the other screwups, as far as I'm concerned.

Dude's delusional... http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/10/los_angeles_dodgers_don_mattingly_gives_ludicrous.html This is ironic to me 'cause I was thinking the same as Mattingly yesterday. Here's another thing I thought of: What if Tejada had time to set up at second base, and Murphy's feed went to second base, and as a result of all of this, Utley didn't have to veer off path and instead went straight for second base, where Tejada was set up, but otherwise, with the same slide as Saturday's, with the same force and intensity, resulting in the same collision and the same injury to Tejada? Only this time, the collision happened right over the base, Meaning Utley's slide was totally legal. Would that be a dirty play? Because honestly, I'm struggling to see Utley's actual slide as dirty. Here's another one: Would people be calling Utley's slide dirty if it was all the same, leading to the same result, except that Tejada escaped uninjured? Pretty much what Benjamin Grimm just said. In your first scenario, no, that's not a dirty play. Coming in high is pushing it, but he's entitled to the base, and it's Tejada's responsibility to get out of the way. It's the fact that he came in high and Tejada had gotten out of the way that makes it dirty; also the fact that Tejada couldn't see him, and Utley pretty clearly knew that. In your second scenario, yes, people would be calling it dirty, and they'd still be complaining about the lack of an interference call. But there wouldn't be the same boiling rage.

Ceetar wrote: El Segundo Escupidor wrote: I think the question we should all be asking ourselves is what would the 86' Mets have done? snorted coke and started a brawl that would've gotten key players suspended/ejected. And won the game.

Thought #2: Chase Utley is a Dirty Player. Should be Suspended Well the suspension happened. Kudos to Joe Torre and MLB to have the balls to take a stand, even if it means admitting that the umpires fucked up Saturday night. Utley has had a history of this kind of bullshit. The earlier takeout slide on Tejada in 2010. This slide that someone posted in the IGT: Nothing will ever make me feel better about what happened. But if a new rule is invoked and it goes down in history as "The Utley Rule" and he is forever known to future generations as the dickless coward that he is, then I will take some consolation in this. I'm afraid this one could actually work in Utley's favor in his appeal. He's going to show examples of the rule not being applied in the past, and this is an excellent one.

In 1964, Koufax was injured and didn't manage to get to to 20 wins. But Chance, honestly, was better that year. Not much better, but still. Pitching in the same park (the Angels played in Dodger Stadium in those days), he outpitched in-his-prime Sandy Koufax. If he'd had decent run support, that would go down as one of the all-time seasons. It's funny, the Angels in 1964 played in the same park as the Dodgers, actually had a better record, some exciting young stars (Chance, Fregosi)--and drew a third as many fans. While the Mets lost 109 games (their best season yet)--and outdrew the Yankees.

No way that's legal. He made no attempt to reach the base. Never touched it, in fact. Went straight for the man.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Jeez, name another guy who went from career mediocrity to something like this goddamn monster I'm watching on the mound right now. Even our own RA Dickey wasn't as untouchable as Arrieta's been. Mike Scott?

I'd be okay with the regular season being cut back to the old 154 games or so. And I've gotten reconciled to a third of the teams in baseball making the playoffs. It's even worse in other sports, so what the hell. But this postseason bloat is getting to be too much. Someday we're going to have Chicago and Minneapolis playing the World Series in November. That ain't right. Maybe they could just play a big old round robin tournament, like the College World Series. Get it over with in a couple of weeks.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: dinosaur jesus wrote: I was a great supporter of the Colts when Adrian "Cap" Anson was their manager, since "Cap" came from the same little town in Iowa, Marshalltown, that my wife was born in. (As was that lovely young actress Jean Seberg.) But when the new owners of the team treated "Cap" so shabbily, I'm afraid they lost my support. I'd be very happy to see the Pittsburgers and that big German, Wagner, prevail in this series. This confuses me. I assume that this post was written during Honus Wagner's playing career, but Jean Seberg wasn't even born until 1938, when Honus Wagner was 64 years old. And by the time Seberg made her film debut, Wagner was nearly two years dead. I think we've discovered some kind of inexplicable chronological anomaly. As T. S. Eliot said, time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future. I'm not sure what he meant by that, but it seems to apply to baseball. It's a slow-moving game. Sorry, I'm kind of loopy today. Up since 5.