tkeith

And the Phillies realize they're facing Jeff Suppan. See ya next year, Milwaukee. Ah, Ned, we hardly knew ya.

Fair enough. It's merely a colossal number for a baseball stadium instead of a ginormous one. My point was, Pittsburgh has a population of 360K and a baseball park that was actually a football stadium. As such, it's no surprise they had empty seats. For the home opener against the Dodgers in 1997, they were sold out (post after they'd added the tarps); my seats were so far back it was hard to tell Mike Piazza from Pedro Astacio (slight exaggeration).

AND Three Rivers Stadium held, what, 72K?

Yep. I remember thinking a couple of times that he had messed up the count or number of outs. Wouldn't it be something if the Dodgers advance and the Angels get bounced? Lovin' the Rays win today. Longoria! And it was good to hear Harold Reynolds back in the broadcast booth. I always was suspicious of the way he got turfed out at ESPN. Never smelled right to me. Reynolds: Agreed. He was the best part of BBTN, followed by Kruk. Having Olney show up on that show is a travesty. Stockton sucks, always did. He's one of the reasons I didn't enjoy Sox broadcasts as a kid; fucking blowhard of Musberger proportions.

Open thanks to MLB for the asinine decision to schedule the Sox series West Coast primetime so that no one with a job or academic obligations could see a single pitch. Selig doesn't get it. The game is not as popular among young fans, yet they continue to schedule broadcasts so late as to eliminate the possibility of reversing that trend.

I hope you're right. I'd love the Rays/Brewers series, but I'd REALLY love to have the Sox meet up with the Brewers and exact some revenge for the late-70s/early-80s matchups!

ALDS -- Boston in 5, Tampa Bay in 4 NLDS -- Chicago in 4, Philadelphia in 4 ALCS -- Boston in 6 NLCS -- Chicago in 6 WS -- Boston in 6

Go Sox! Failing that, go Rays! In the NL, go Brewers!!!

Like this means jack shit. Didn't the Yankees once "own" the Red Sox? Did that ensure victory? For that matter, the Sox once lost like a dozen playoff games in a row, and everyone "owned" them. Did that continue? What's past is past. There's absolutely no guarantee that the recent stretch of success against the Angels in October will continue. In fact, its more likely to end than to continue, because strong teams don't lose over and over and over and over without end. Oops, sorry, I forgot they have the edge in the all-important category of "experience". Like key players Bay, Lowrey, Masterson ... they've all got tons of playoff experience. Better book those duck boats now! :rolleyes: Gee, Dan, guess we're making each other's arguments now. Or are you just trying to be an ass hat? Either way, mission accomplished.

Fixed.

oops Side note: Here's crap in the Skankees eye for omitting even video footage of Joe Torre from their celebration. That's the sort of class I'd expect from a Dan Duquette-run franchise, not the New York Yankees.

Good stuff.

Fine. The Red Sox are doomed and Tampa Bay should be simply crowned. Dan is absolutely right and should never be questions. Egad! No wonder the Red Sox didn't win a championship for 86 years; many of their fans didn't deserve. Learn the game.

Jermaine Dye. Freddy Garcia. There were 2 or 3 others who had one & done experience. But both the Red Sox and Angels had more "experience" in 2005. So this is a case of the less experienced team winning over the more experienced. I'm sure Giants fans are forever grateful Dusty went with Livan in game 7 because of his experience. He should have gone with Gregg behind the plate. As for the rest, welcome to the board Joe Morgan! I didn't comment on degree of experience. Just being there matters. Is this a new concept?

Shows what little you know. No one has ever used the Pythag to predict the results of a post-season series! What the Pythag shows is that the Red Sox ought to be in a better position for the post-season because they ought to be in position to clinch home field advantage. And as far as your "experience trumps all" after-the-fact explanation: can we formalize it in some way? Do we count up the players on each team that have made the playoffs with other teams, sort of a reverse "ex-Cub factor"?? No Dan. We watch the games and see what happens. Again, all I know comes from 40 years of watching and about 35 of playing. I'll just defer to your expertise.

Bah. 2005 White Sox 2003 Marlins 2002 Angels 2001 D-backs The Yankees have had lots of playoff experience in this century and no titles to show for it. I'll take the better team of the year, you can have the experience. Bah back at you. The only team that goes against the argument is the '03 Marlins. The '05 White Sox had experienced players who'd done it elsewhere AND Ozzie (yes, manager's experience counts). '02 Angels had Scocia which counts for a lot! '01 D-Backs had a number of players who had been there, as well. Bah all you want, but the Sox have experience (and you can check the history on this) on their side. There are MANY teams that perform better in the regular season, but seems like the experienced team usually wins out in the end (again, '03 Marlins not knowing what they didn't know are the exception). No, it works in real baseball too. Every now & then there are cases where it doesn't, like last year's D-backs. The Pythagorean won-loss is a nifty stat and it's frequently way off. It's designed by the hardcore SABRmetricians who analyze stats from the age of two yet rarely don a glove. The best team doesn't always win (01 Yankees, 03 Yankees, 02 Giants to name a few).

Thank you, my point exactly. The X-factor being that the Rays don't have post-season experience, and that matters. Dan, your argument might work in fantasy baseball, but doesn't really translate to MLB. Run differential could be skewed if they blowout a lot of teams. Fact is, they're a deep, solid team who went through a lot of nonsense with he-who-shall-not-be-named-in-this-post earlier this season. They're in second place by TWO FRIGGIN' GAMES to, arguably, the best team in the league this year if not all of baseball. In a few weeks, everybody is 0-0, and the Sox carry the lion's share of experience. They're not in bad shape at all, and certainly have not underachieved given the myriad injuries and assorted nonsense. If anything, they have grossly OVERachieved.

Grossly underachieving? Youk is having a career year; Pedroia is being mentioned as an MVP candidate; a rookie SS, injured 3B, insane LF mailing it in to force a trade, aging super-hero catcher with a prescription for Kryptonite. Honestly, Dan, you're quite delusional. How about just giving the Rays credit for having a helluva team and playing really well. Sox have had issues and injuries that would have destroyed most teams. Underachieving... gimme a break.

Not sure anybody called him a shitty pitcher -- if they did, I missed it. But he certainly was not made to look like "Cy Fucking Young." Not getting pulled without getting out of the fifth.

Yeah... sure looked good against Papi in the first.

Do you mean, even in a long series? Sonnanstine wouldn't throw twice in a short series. Fact is, the Rays are a completely unknown quantity in the playoffs. They may clutch up. They may win the whole banana. They've shown they can play lights-out for long stretches, and they can go into the tank for 7 straight games. They can go -- what was it, 2-for-20 something over two games in Boston with runners in scoring position? -- and still have enough pitching and defense to win. It's a complete crap shoot with them in the mix, IMHO. They may just be idiots enough to think they can do it! (I count 6 cliches total. Not too bad.) I meant in a short series. You're correct, he would NOT likely be faced twice in a short series, but in a best case scenario for the Rays, he'd make 2 starts. Three wins are required. You're correct about it being a crap shoot -- they're a near complete unknown. However, over a lifetime of watching this game, I'm pretty confident in my team's ability and experience against an unknown (i.e. -- totally inexperienced) team. Hinske is a big X-factor, but I still like the Sox chances and standing. I'm not ready to leap off the Tobin and/or virtually shout racial criticisms at Daisuke because he loses a game. There's a lot of baseball to play, and NOTHING is settled, yet. All things being equal, I'm very pleased with the Sox chances. That's all I'm saying.

Objection! In fact, even in a short series, they'd only see him twice. He may look like Cy Young in the regular season, but I'll lay odds he's going to look like Matt Young in the playoffs. I remain unconcerned. Neither am I concerned over Anaheim; a completely different team against the Sox in the playoffs.

I understand the firing, though I disagree with it. I find the ESPN comments about precedent rather annoying. It's that parochial attitude that you can't do something that hasn't been done by John McGraw that hurts baseball. Brewers could wind up looking like geniuses. It's pretty well documented that Yost is an intense guy who can pass his tension on to players without intending to, so maybe a more relaxed person at the helm will help. I don't know if Sveum is that guy, but I know he's a helluva lot better choice than Ted Simmons (who should be a perennial contender for the Grady "Gump" Little award). Meanwhile, a virtual tie for first place and a pretty healthy handle on the wildcard. Live is good for those of us who didn't nose-dive off the bandwagon.

First no-hitter in 36 years. Cubs now have a baker's dozen. Man... Lou gets no respect.

Have to agree with you here. If he's going to be an ass-hat and not let Wake finish, at least trot out the other 42-year-old piece of stale luncheon meat and let him try to "build his confidence." Hell, let Alex Fucking Cora finish it.