Six for Six
We have exactly six hours, as I write this, before the scheduled first pitch of World Series Game Six. Below, a half-dozen thoughts, most of which have been bubbling for a few days now, to pass at least a bit of that time:
- Tonight's pitching matchup, in which future Hall of Famer Pedro Martinez (age 38) goes for the Phillies against all-time postseason wins leader Andy Pettitte (37) for the Yankees, is the first time two starters with a combined age of 75 or older have faced off in the Series since Game One of the 2005 Fall Classic between the Houston Astros and Chicago White Sox, when two ex-Yankees, Roger Clemens (then 43) and Jose Contreras (allegedly 33) went at it. Pettitte's on three days' rest, Pedro is facing an augmented lineup compared to the one he saw in Game Two (when weak-hitting Jose Molina, not slugger Jorge Posada, was behind the plate), and it's gonna be cold. The game easily could become a battle of the bullpens, a scary prospect for both managers.
- Phils second baseman Chase Utley has tied Reggie Jackson's World Series record with five home runs in the five games thus far. As several pundits have noted, there's a real chance that Utley could be named the Most Valuable Player of the Series even if the Yankees win: no one player has stood out for New York other than perhaps Johnny Damon, who's batting .381 and has scored five runs, including the Game Four winner; and closer Mariano Rivera, who has finished off all three Yankee wins to this point. (Hideki Matsui is batting .556 with two homers, but he was reduced to pinch-hitting for the three games in Philly; he has just nine at-bats.) Meanwhile, Utley hit two homers in each of the Phils' wins, has scored six times, leads all batters with eight RBIs, and is basically the only reason the Phils have generated any offense in light of Ryan Howard's epic slump and overall subpar hitting from Shane Victorino and Raul Ibanez. If Pettitte pitches a great game tonight and gets the win, he'll be MVP with two victories in the Series--but if, say, the Yankees win a high-scoring game in which someone like Mark Teixeira (2 for 19 thus far) or Robinson Cano (3 for 18) is the big hitting star, while Utley goes 4 for 5 with another homer and a bunch of RBI, he'll probably by the MVP. This would be, at best, terribly awkward: for Chase Utley, the one downside of greatness is having to be recognized for his greatness. Imagine Fox's Ken Rosenthal saying, "Congratulations Chase, but your team lost--how do you feel?" You'll get either nothing or a response they'd better have on at least a five-second delay.
- Neither manager has covered himself in glory this Series. As I've written here many times, I think Charlie Manuel is easily the greatest manager in Phillies history--but his in-game decisions hurt the team in each of the last four games. He went with Martinez too long in Game Two, made an inexplicable decision to pinch-hit helpless Eric Bruntlett in a big spot in Game Three and then left reliever Chad Durbin in too long when he obviously had no command, did the same with Brad Lidge in the nightmarish Game Four, and then futzed around with the outfield defensive alignment late in Game Five to near-disastrous effect. Maybe worse, he has a dead spot on his roster in the person of rookie lefty reliever Antonio Bastardo, who hasn't yet pitched in the Series and almost certainly won't unless the Phils are getting blown out; meanwhile, with Victorino hurting after getting hit on the hand early in Game Five, there's a chance he'll have to use Bruntlett, among the worst hitters in baseball, as his DH or left fielder in a win-or-die game tonight. I'd seriously rather see Cliff Lee or Hamels--both lefties, mind you--in the lineup against Pettitte.
- Meanwhile, Yankee manager Joe Girardi failed to leverage the advantage he earned by his team winning three of the first four games, starting talented but erratic righty A.J. Burnett on short rest for the house-money Game Five, watching him get pummeled, and now having to sweat out the 37 year-old Pettitte doing the same tonight. If he falls short, Game Seven would go to ace CC Sabathia, on double-short rest--a situation in which the Phillies knocked him around in the 2008 National League Division Series. Girardi's bullpen management has been questionable as well: heading toward the end of the Series, he really only can trust Rivera (who, distressingly for the Phils, probably is good for two innings tonight) and perhaps veteran lefty Damaso Marte and rookie righty David Robertson.
- It hurts to admit this, but if the Yankees go on to win, the big turning point in the Series will have been the role reversals of Cole Hamels and Pettite in Game Three. Hamels took a 3-0 lead into the fourth inning, got a tough call on a full-count pitch to Teixiera that went for a walk, and then fell to pieces, allowing a controversial home run to Rodriguez that made it 3-2 and surrendering three more runs before getting pulled the next inning. It was Hamels' whole season writ small: bad luck or bad karma followed by bad pitching and a downward spiral he couldn't escape. (To be clear: I'm not slagging Hamels here. The guy was the single biggest reason we won it all last year; for that, from me, he has a lifetime pass.) Pettitte, by contrast, escaped near-disaster early on: he'd thrown 51 pitches and allowed three runs through two innings, but held the Phillies to one run over the next four on a night when, as he reportedly later told teammates, he had "nothing." I kind of hate the guy, as I do most ostentatiously religious athletes, but I can't deny that he pitched like a champion Saturday night.
- There's a lot about the Yankees that baseball fans find irritating, from the eternal sense of entitlement among their fan base to the whining about balls and strikes and the innumerable, interminable mound conferences and other delaying tactics they've used in this Series. But what really turns my stomach about their push for a 27th world championship is the notion that they need to "win it for the Boss," ailing owner/tyrant George Steinbrenner. To put it mildly, this isn't a sympathetic guy: he's a convicted felon (for illegal campaign contributions to kindred spirit Richard Nixon) and a confirmed sexist--and this is even before you think about his depredations among team employees or his contributions to worsening baseball's competitive imbalance. As even Yankee great Don Mattingly acknowledged, he's less likable than Monty Burns. The Yankees, and their fans, should have enough reasons to crave victory beyond wanting to provide still more ego validation to a world-class asshole like Steinbrenner, who's probably too unwell to enjoy it anyway.
Meanwhile, the clock continues to wind toward 7:57pm and at least one more baseball game for the highest stakes.
104 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think it would be great if Steinbrenner died at 7:56 tonight, just one minute before possibly seeing his team win its 27th World Series. Seriously, fuck that pig.
Easy fellas. Don’t fail the human being test. I hate him too, but wishing him dead may be a little much.
by Boundforbeach on Nov 4, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
Would it help to point out that Steinbrenner entered into a business arrangement with Jerry Jones?
Let the beasting begin.
by TransplantedFan on Nov 4, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
Why? What is wrong with wishing people you really hate die? That seems like an essentially human activity.
wow… you’re going all Nietzche on me. I kinda thought you were joking to begin with. I wasn’t really looking to probe the moral and objective consequences of such thoughts. Just sayin we probably shouldn’t wish death on the guy.
by Boundforbeach on Nov 4, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
There’s a whole series for shadowkat – seriously – that’s one ugly cat
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks, but ...
During game five I tried to break up a cat fight in our hallway and got bitten for my troubles. About one-fifth of my right hand is now swollen to twice its size (Yes, I’ve been to the doctor). If equating the Yankees to evil cats is the subject, I’m all for it.
by phillyinportland on Nov 4, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
real cats? I was sort of hoping you meant girls. But then, you wouldn’t be breaking that up now, would you…
by Boundforbeach on Nov 4, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
real cats? I was sort of hoping you meant girls. But then, you wouldn’t be breaking that up now, would you…
by Boundforbeach on Nov 4, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, a real cat bit me
My life isn’t that exciting for the other kind of cat fight.
by phillyinportland on Nov 4, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
When we had to evacuate two of our cats – including the most ‘cuddly’ one freaked out when my girlfriend tried to put them in the carryall – she got bit in the nose, and an ear piercing that took a couple months to go away and scratches all over – whenever we move it’s going to be an adventure getting the cats out.
She also has gotten bitten trying to break up a cat fight – just stay out of those things folks :)
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
Cat bites can be very dangerous because there’s something in their saliva that can poison your blood stream. Good thing you went to the doctor.
I was prescribed Augmentin, which is Amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, which the doctor told me was the best thing for cat bites. I’ve got my (swollen) fingers crossed.
by phillyinportland on Nov 4, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks
I’ll be keeping an eye on if for signs of progress.
by phillyinportland on Nov 4, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
I once believed, I think after 2001, that the Yankees would never win another title while Big Stein drew breath. Of course, this belief was informed by a sense of fate that had more to do with reading too many scifi/fantasy novels as a kid, but even so, if he died right before the game I’d be pretty much convinced that the Yankees would win.
And FWIW, their winning to “honor his memory” would be even more foul than doing it while he was alive.
Ummm….I don’t know Steinbrenner personally, but he donated lots of cash to my alma mater to improve their baseball stadium and he’s willing to spend whatever $ necessary to field a winner.
I wish he’d been in charge of the Phils in the late 90’s.
He’s willing to spend more than others because he makes more than others.
He makes more than others not because he’s a better businessman but because conditions outside of his control allow him to make more.
I think this becomes an argument of chicken and egg.
Do the yankees draw better because they are in NYC, or because they win more often?
Everybody loves a winner.
Green Bay doesn’t have problems selling out a football stadium and they’re not exactly in a metro area.
Winning → more fans → more money →
at that point you can either pocket the cash or re-invest it in your team. Steinbrenner seemed to re-invest it. If he wanted to, he could put the Marlins in NYC. He’d still have profit sharing and maybe (?) a full house, but nowhere near the amount of merchandise sales.
No, I don’t think that’s right.
Green Bay is not a good analogy. Nearly all NFL teams sell out because there are only eight home games per year. They also sold out when they weren’t winners in the 1980s. Also, in the NFL, there are no local television contracts and each team gets exactly a 1/32 share of the only TV money there is, i.e. national TV money. There’s also a hard salary cap. The NFL simply has a completely different economic structure than MLB.
Winning gives you greater revenues, but not necessarily greater profits. There’s a tipping point. Obviously if you spend too little, you’ll stink and your revenues will be too small so you won’t make as much as you could. But if you spend too much, your costs will outstrip your revenues and you still won’t make as much as you could. Steinbrenner’s tipping point is simply higher than other owners’ tipping points, and this is almost entirely because of factors that are outside of his control.
ok – your GB rebukes are fair, however, are the Lions selling out? (and I honestly don’t know before I ask that), and did they used to?
No, that’s why I said “nearly” all. However, they are one of only four teams to be below 90% capacity this year. http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance
and what’s the combined record of JAX, DET, OAK, and STL?
7-23.
That’s why nobody shows up. Not because they’re in (insert city here).
Well, I gotta think, that even at 7-0 Detroit would have trouble filling up – i mean that city is just getting killed by the recession
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, if you’re really really horrible, it’s going to affect your gate even in the NFL. I don’t see how that disproves my overall point about the Yankees in any way.
I’m saying that a good team draws more fans and sells more merchandise. In the NFL, the profits are re-distributed. In MLB they are as well, but nowhere near the same extent. If Steinbrenner were a greedy SOB and just wanted to deposit the extra money after a random winning year (like the Pirates, Royals, Marlins owners), his team would not be as successful, and would not continue to be able to sustain the popularity (and revenue).
I don’t disagree that he gets a benefit from being in NYC. I’m saying his willingness to spend money on his team has been a good investment and rewarded him with better teams and better performance, and this can be accomplished in ANY market, but probably not to the extent that it can be done in NYC.
If Steinbrenner decided to follow a course of action that reduced his own revenue, how would that make him a greedy SOB? It’s a nonsense hypothetical.
If you’re agreeing that he gets a benefit from being in NYC, then you’ve just conceded the whole argument because that’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to get across to you this whole time. It happens to be a very large benefit.
Most owners in most cities do spend money on their own teams. You realize, don’t you, that competing in baseball is a zerosum game? That by definition means that if two owners have an equal willingness to “invest” in their teams but one has more resources to start out with than the other, then the owner with fewer resources by definition cannot accomplish what the owner with more resources can accomplish.
Your perspective, frankly, is extremely naive. It’s analogous to the perspectives of affluent suburbanites who think the only reason why they’re more successful than poor people is that they worked harder and earned it. Life isn’t fair. The success that people and organizations achieve in this world is not directly proportional to their merit.
Taco-
I’m saying that he gets a benefit from being in NY, but what I also started this whole discussion about was that his approach is better than most GMs, regardless of what city their franchise is in, and that had he owned the Phillies, they would’ve performed better than they did in the late 80’s to present.
Per your last comment – sure there’s a lot of wealthy people living on trust funds who haven’t done a damn thing to earn it other than being born into the right family. But…..there are also a lot of wealthy suburbanites who’ve attained their status through hard work and intelligent decisions.
I assert that Steinbrenner was an excellent GM. Your allegory to my naivete re:social status seems to indicate you think that any clown put in his situation would’ve hard a hard time failing, (like Wesley Thurston Howell III) which I think is naive as well.
Philadelphia
Home Attendance rank by year
2001- PHL = 24, NYY = 3, NYM = 15
2002- PHL = 24, NYY = 2, NYM =7
2003- PHL = 14, NYY = 1, NYM = 16
2004- PHL = 4, NYY = 1, NYM = 17 (CBP Opens, with less seats than Vet)
2005- PHL = 13, NYY = 1, NYM = 8 ( PHL honeymoon over – back to where they were)
2006- PHL = 11, NYY = 1, NYM = 3
2007- PHL = 7, NYY = 1, NYM = 3
2008- PHL = 5, NYY = 1, NYM = 2
2009- PHL = 3, NYY = 2, NYM = 7
When did the Phils make the playoffs? 2007, 2008, 2009.
When did they draw best? 2007, 2008, 2009
The Mets have the same area Metropolitan area but draw far fewer fans. Don’t they have the same resources available that the Yankees do? They just don’t win as much, so they have fewer fans, less gate, and less money.
Now the Yankees
One important thing to keep in mind is that gate is only one part of a team’s revenue. The Yankees make a sh*tload on local TV revenue and merchandising, and these things don’t fluctuate anywhere near as much based on how well a team is doing.
Your example, I think, actually supports my point. Although the Mets are not nearly as rich as the Yankees, they are still very rich relative to the rest of MLB, even though they’ve been bad as often as they’ve been good.
it supports that a bad team can make money in a big area, but it also shows that a good team does better than a bad team, which is the point I’m trying to make, and in this case, both teams are in the same city.
Your argument is getting more and more incoherent the further we go along. If a bad team can make money in a big area, that supports my points, not yours.
I’m asserting that the yankees outdrew the mets (same city, same time) because they’re a better team. It’s a relative comparison.
The Yankees were also more established. Don’t discount family tradition as a reason for picking one team over another – I’m still a Phillies fan despite mostly growing up in Florida because my family consists of Phillies fans.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
That doesn’t rebut my point. First, as The Dark notes, even though the Yankees and Mets are in the same city, that doesn’t mean they start on equal footing. Second, of course if all other things are equal, winning will help your attendance and revenue figures. But all other things are not equal. Many owners in many cities use the “Steinbrenner approach” with varying levels of success. The same Steinbrenner approach looks different when you have to apply it using fewer resources.
Taco-
Would you have preferred to have George Steinbrenner running the Phils in the 85-2000 era or the Giles group which bought it in 1981?
Which owner do you think cared more about winning?
Please answer that question honestly.
Try not to be smarmy please. I didn’t answer it because I wasn’t on the blog for the rest of the night, and there have been three very active new threads going on all day. Posting on TGP is a hobby, not my job.
Your question is kind of a stupid one, because even if Steinbrenner is a better owner than Giles, that doesn’t prove that he would have been capable of building a Yankees-style franchise in Philadelphia, nor does it prove that his spending was the root cause for the wealth of his team today. All it would show is that all other things being equal, Steinbrenner would do better.
As it is, I think Steinbrenner was a better owner than Giles because Giles was inept. I do not think it had much at all to do with a willingness to spend. Had Steinbrenner been in Philadelphia, he wouldn’t have been able to spend as much. Giles was actually a pretty big spender during the 1980s himself. He was the one of the only owners to refuse to collude after the 1986 season, for instance, when he signed Lance Parrish to what was then a big contract.
It’s pretty tough to discuss these things with you because you just aren’t a very logical person. You’re also a pretty egregious straw-manner. Reading all your comments in this thread, I can’t follow your argument at all because it’s totally unstructured and disorganized. The discussion I had with jem earlier today was frankly a lot more fruitful.
Frankly, the more I read your comments, the more they piss me off. How is your 4:12 comment supposed to be a response to my 4:07? Can’t you see that all you did was change the subject? Your question was totally irrelevant and asinine.
the response there was to stop us from running in circles.
I started the whole thing off with
“I wish he’d been in charge of the Phils in the late 90’s”.
Rather than me saying he’d be successful with that approach in any market because of his spending and you saying he’s only successful b/c he’s in NY market, I cut to the chase and gave you the opportunity to agree or disagree with my initial statement.
Re the straw man assertion, I’m sorry if you don’t like facts I present that support my claims.
(NYY get better attendance than NYM, NFL teams that suck have bad attendance, sports programs with solid performances sell more merchandise).
You’re rebuttal is just “he wins because he’s in new york and that means he gets more money”.
I’m sorry that you don’t think Steinbrenner was a smart, shrewd, successful businessman/owner who succeeded because he was willing to risk spending more money to get/retain more talent, rather than playing it “safe” and just putting a marginally competitive team on the field and collecting his gate and profit sharing.
We can disagree, (which we do), but I think I’ve presented better data to support my claim that performance is linked to attendance, and you’d have to be crazy to think that income isn’t dependant on gate (and merchandise sales) which are both relative to performance.
example of another owner failing at “the steinbrenner approach”?
Dan Snyder comes to mind, but he’s a buffoon who spends money like crazy and not where it needs to be.
Steinbrenner is a smart man with money.
Jerry Jones too ever since he jettisonedt the other JJ
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
Is that gross attendance or percentage of capacity? I"m just curios.
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
I would posit that they draw large numbers consistently because of location. Their worst attendance was in 1992, after three losing seasons (74-87 in 1989, 67-95 in 1990, and 71-91 in 1991), they were in an aging ballpark, and they still drew 21,589 per game (although capacity was over 57,000). The population was somewhere around 7.5 million in the city, so the Yankees drew the equivalent of one out of every 347.4 residents.
This year, the population of NYC is about 8 million (slightly higher), and they drew 45,918 per game. That’s one out of every 174.2 residents. Kansas City, with a population of of 475,830, drew 22,473 per game, or one out of every 21.2 residents, which is a rate 8 times greater than New York City. Yes, part of that’s a lack of other significant draws, but the Yankees, given the population of New York City, are not a spectacular draw.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
I agree that it’s not fair to compare the drawing power of the Yankees with the Royals, but also….what the hell else is there to do in KC?
BBQ?
Bad Football
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Different city – Atlanta. Average attendance 31,269, population 5,376,285 (for the 28-county metropolitan area). That’s one of every 171.9 residents, so Atlanta tracks about the same as New York City, even though the Braves stunk and the Yankees were OK.
Miami’s numbers are horrible, but the Fish’s management has never seemed concerned with developing a loyal fan base.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
why is that? (marlins #‘s sucking)
because after they win, they dump all the salary and start over and take the MLB profit sharing check.
If the Marlins re-invested that money in the team, there’d be a lot more Marlins games on TV, and Marlins hats in the Caribbean, instead of Yankees hats.
I can’t explain ATL too well, other than to say the Braves didn’t stink, and weren’t eliminated from the playoffs until the last week AND they still have a historical precedent of being a ‘good team’ and capturing a fan base, seeing as how they won 13 or so consecutive divisional titles.
It takes a while to build a fan base, and a while to destroy it.
What was the marlins attendance (sans playoffs) in the years they WON the world series – where did they rank?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions
and i’m gonna go a little further on my Marlins bashing…
Doesn’t Miami have one of the highest hispanic populations in the country, especially by percentage?
Aside from soccer, what sport do a lot of hispanic folks really love?
And they can’t build a fan base there, despite winning TWO world series recently?
How do you think a Miami franchise led by George Steinbrenner would’ve done?
First of all, “Hispanic” people don’t love soccer. Mexicans and South Americans love soccer. Cubans and Puerto Ricans tend to love baseball. “Hispanic” is a broad linguistic category, there are many many differences within that group.
Anyway, the Marlins draw poorly for a number of reasons.
1. Many distractions other than pro sports (which affects all of its teams).
2. Stadium is ugly and in an inconvenient location.
3. The entire metro area is sprawling and it takes a long time even to get to a central location.
4. Large % of population is made up of transplants who root for their original home teams.
5. Large % of population is made up of retirees who aren’t going to go to the ballpark for fun even if they like baseball.
6. Team was named after the state instead of the city specifically to appeal to the suburbs instead of the city (even though the best potential fan base lives in the city).
7. Championship team from 1997 was built in a way that out-Steinbrennered Steinbrenner. There was no connection with any of the players. There wasn’t even a Jeter or Rivera equivalent.
The Marlins would have had a hard time drawing and making money no matter what they did, but one of their mistakes was that they acted too much like Steinbrenner, not too little. The 1997 team’s payroll was unsustainable, and even if it had been sustained for a little while, that team would never have developed a long-term connection with its fan base.
They’re doing it the right way now, and they’re also moving to Miami and renaming their team. I expect them to be in much shape in five years than they are now or were in the late ’90s.
As a resident of Miami
(moved down here in ‘05 from the Philly suburbs), there’s a few more to add.
8. To expand on your second point (and to a lesser extent your first), the location of the stadium SUCKS. In evening traffic, it’s a 45 minute drive to the stadium from downtown Miami and a 30-40 minute drive from downtown Fort Lauderdale. And on the weekend… it’s Miami. The stadium isn’t in a convenient place for anyone, and there are better things to do for a lot of people.
9. The weather. It rains every. single. day. during the summer. For an 8 PM game, the temperature’s usually about 85-88 degrees with humidity of 90%+. It’s stifling (unless you’re down here, it’s hard to understand just how bad it is) and hard to sit through a game. Day games are worse temperature wise (at least at night there’s no sun to deal with)
10. The TV contract is possibly the worst in the league. Not all the games are even on TV, and it’s not exactly a high revenue generator.
11. The stadium itself sucks. Its not a baseball stadium. It wasn’t even built as an all-purpose stadium. It was built as a football stadium, and they just wedged the baseball team in there when they got the franchise, since they had nowhere else to put them.
When they play the teams from the Northeast, the stadium fills up with fans from the other team. I remember going to a game against the Red Sox in ‘06, and the place was about 90% people rooting for the Red Sox. Same thing happens with the Yankees and Mets. With the Phillies, the stadium’s usually about 75%+ full, and a lot of Phillies fans.
As you said, the stadium’s going up, and in 2012 they’ll be in downtown Miami and renamed the Miami Marlins. That’s going to help a whole lot.
The same thing happens with other sports, too – the quickest Dolphins game to sell out ever was against the Eagles. Flyers and Rangers games are the fastest sellouts for the Lightning.
The stadium issues affect most of the Florida teams. The Bucs and Dolphins have decently placed stadiums, but the Panthers, Lightning, Rays, and Marlins all went for cheap property in bad locations, which hurts in the long run.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Did you mean Bucs and Heat? (Since the Dolphins and Marlins play in the same facility.)
Stadium location matters less for football though, anyway. Since you only play once every two weeks and generally on Sunday afternoons.
so you’re reinforcing my argument by saying there are even fewer people in Miami who have soccer as their first love?
Actually yes, I was, because accuracy is important to me. A lot of people think Hispanics are a monolithic group – they’re not. Even so, I’m pretty sure the seven points I made after that, plus the four points wildcatlh followed up with, cumulatively overwhelm any impact that your “soccer” argument might have.
Don’t forget failing to pull Lidge after he plunked Texiera in Game 4. That was an epic failure to act, IMO.
by Boundforbeach on Nov 4, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Some would say GOING to lidge and believing in him was a pretty bad move
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
In all fairness to Lidge, he was one strike from ending the game and Feliz should have kept the glove on Damon until calling time and throwing the ball back to Lidge.
There were still those of us who felt lidge’s implosion was inevitable (I felt it) and that whole ‘he can’t throw his slider’ thing still grates in my craw.
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree. Who did you want to bring in? Durbin and Myers were the only other alternatives. Both had pitched the night before, neither particularly well. I think we were basically just screwed at that point. I had no more or less confidence in Lidge to get the one last out than I would have had in those other guys.
I think bringing him in was definsible. I think leaving him in was not. By the time he plunked Texiera and Damon was on third, he was so badly rattled we all knew what was coming. Charlie should have brought in anybody else at that point to try and get out of that inning.
by Boundforbeach on Nov 4, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
As a deist, I’m not big on the ostentatiously religious either, but there are far worse than Pettitte (anyone who thanks God for a win, seriously, if “god” wastes time on that, I’d be pissed). Besides, I have a begrudging respect for Pettitte, as he had the backbone to admit to using HGH, unlike his slimy, weasel, jerk-off fellow Texan.
I think its kind of odd that he has gotten basically a free pass from the hate train that follows PED use. It was almost the smart move to just admit it and not go through the debacle that the guys denying it went through.
I think the public is generally willing to accept “yes I did it, it was stupid, wrong, and I know better now.” It’s when someone starts making excuses that people get huffy.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
That, and he was in the shadow of Clemens (again) when the PEDs thing came out against him. I tend to think even if he didn’t own up, the focus on Clemens was so intense Pettitte may have gotten off easy. It’s also harder to quantify PEDs impact on Pitcher stats. There’s no sexy stat like home runs that show a pitcher’s use off, like for hitters.
I’m sure most of the yankees bathe regularly as well
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Nov 4, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
Bilzo im impressed
You sir do not work for someone else,and if you do you are waisting your time.Finally someone who gets it.For the rest of you punching someone elses clock here is something to read before insereting foot into mouth with the money rant. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8409 Remember those who complain about money either do not understand it or have none.
losing player as MVP?
Has it ever happened in the World Series? I know we’ve seen it a few times in the Stanley Cup finals, and it’s happened once in the Super Bowl. But I can’t recall ever seeing that in the World Series. Should have been Barry Bonds in 2002—even though the Giants lost, that whole series revolved around Bonds.
Answering my own question—“Bobby Richardson of the 1960 New York Yankees remains the only World Series MVP from a losing team” according to Wikipedia.
Not Mazeroski
I know Richardson had a nice batting average (.367) and drove in a lot of runs (12) but Bill Mazeroski his .320 for the Series, had two homers, and won the Series with a walk-off home run. Somehow I think if today’s voters were choosing the MVP for the 1960 World Series Maz would get it.
by phillyinportland on Nov 4, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1925_World_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_World_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_World_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_World_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_World_Series
These are just wiki articles, but they may help pass the time a bit. Some pretty awesome World Series there as well.

by 

























