JSngry

If that happens (and look, I'm not even about to say that it's unlikely yet unless/until Royals go up either 3-0 or 3-1), I would say that two great teams met and played a great World Series. One won four games, the other didn't. I mean, I see greatness everyday in real life, sometimes in flashes, sometimes in ongoing behavior. It gets devalued on the human level because there's no bigmoneydick around to either use it or abuse it or sell it. It's just people doing a thing as well as it can be done because A) they've got the skill, and B) they've got the self-motivation to do it that way. Turn that into "no, that's not really special, anybody could and should do that, that's a replaceable quantity", well...no it's not. human history pretty much indicates that it's not, and all the Bold New World Reshapiers Of Destiny ain't gonna make it so, tyr as they so energetically try. Baseball being the "everyday" sport that it is, I think it's fair to say that the Royals have a great team right now, and that the Mets have a great rotation right now. Cumulative performance speaks to that far better than does the "what have you done for me lately" thing. Again, that's too Wall Street-y for me...how many great companies have been run into the ground by the pursuit of GREAT RIGHT NOW? Also, remember - great and greatest are not the same thing. That's a whole 'nother game, but in order to be the greatest, do you not first have to be great? I'll tell you what word gets tossed around too casually in general conversation, not sports, just in general. "Genius" as noun. There are far more moments of genius than there are actual geniuses. Maybe we could make "great" a verb, to cover it being an act as well as an ultimate condition. "Hey those Buffalo Bills really greated those four years, Too bad they couldn't great the Super Bowls even once". It's your language, use it or lose it!

Or put another way - winning a championship is one particular outcome of one particular process. Greatness is more like...a collective accumulation of desirable traits and abilities within that process that exist outside of any one particular outcome. That's how I view it, anyway.

I'm not one to look at greatness just in terms of "final championship", I'm just not. Too much goes into just being able to get there that to value final outcome instead of (as opposed to in addition to) overall consistency and level performance. This is where sports, or life in general, gets too Wall Street-y for me to feel really comfortable with/about. "Win or go home", like if you got a really spectacular place to go home to, you should be ashamed about doing so. Not buying into that one, no sir. Those Bills teams, perfect example - not great because no SB wins, yet going to 4 in a row? I can't/won't say that. I will say that they must have been some mathematically challenged motherfuckers to not let the odds come to them , but that's math, not greatness. How is winning four consecutive AFC championships something that a non-great team could even hope to aspire to? Not fully realized, maybe, but is greatness a question of what your final outcome is, or is it a question of where you were in order to be faced with any particular final outcome? Vocabulary determining values...slippery slope...team not winning it all = not great team potentially grows into not raising high-perfomance children = not great parents. and so forth. Gotta watch how that line of thought develops and infiltrates into general society. Beware of "great", it's not the same as great.

The '69 Orioles were by any standard one of the all-time great teams - and they lost the World Series.

Not unlike John Shaft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izd8zOIdHII

I dunno man, the cat recorded a lot of filler for Capitol, for singles. some of them were indeed great, but more than a few were no better than what he did later on, more often. The lead tune on She Shot Me Down was a Sondheim thing that worked really well in the easy-listening orchestral format of that album. But there were too few songs like taht available, or I guess it must have seemed that way to him. I do know that he wanted to do "That's Life" with Jimmy Bowen becuase Bowen had been getting Dean Martin some good chart action, and Sinatra wanted some of that for himself. I don't think you'd ever go wrong of factoring insecurity and ego into the mix when looking at any decision that Frank Sinatra made, nor do I think you can really fault him for it either. Not unlike John Shaft, he was a complicated man, and perhaps no one understood him, not even his woman.

Great thing about that is that whereas most teams have to leave a starter in for that third time through the order, Royals don't. So if you got a starter who's doing ok but is showing signs of being gotten to, you don't have to wait to see if it's going to actually happen, you can be preemptive with it, stop a rally before it has a chance to even start. And all the Royals pitchers, starters and relievers, seem to be really, really good about pitching to the situation at hand, and to the defensive alignment set up for it. That's a different type of pitching model that the pure power model, but if you can pitch to contact and the contact goes to your defensive alignment, hey, this way there be wins.

That's a fair and necessary rumination, but if you get too easy about it, you miss a gem like 1981's She Shot Me Down. The cover of "Bang Bang" with full frontal Gordon Jenkins orchestration is one of those times where Sinatra finds a song as one thing and leaves it as something else altogether. I'd like to think that it could have happened with greater frequency than it did, but maybe not. Either way, those first two "comeback" albums were pretty weak. Not bad, just weak, and I'd rather hear a bad sinatra record than a weak one, truthfully. I guess there were singles being released that were not too bad, but then I gotta buy that complete Reprise box to get those and...maybe later. My big WTF? about the whole thing is Don Costa, was he really the best choice available for that type of thing, always? I'm not convinced that he was.

I heard Denny Matthews say, and seeing this team play over the last few weeks really brought it home, that the reason the Royals are so hard to beat is that they excel at damage control, that even when they allow a big inning, it's hardly ever as big as it could have been, and even more often, they don't allow the big inning, that when a team looks like they're set to get 2-3 runs, they often end up with just one. That doesn't happen by accident, and it doesn't happen without pitchers and defense being on the same page, and without a manager and coaches who always have a Plan B (or beyond) for any given scenario, nor without a scouting group that has evaluated those options thoroughly beforehand. A really great team is a whole 'nother thing than a collection of great players playing well. I've been seeing a great team these last couple of weeks, execution obviously, but also knowing what needs to be executed at any given moment. Now, I don't have the greatest eye for this type thing, but I was really struck by the Niese v Perez AB in the 8th last night, Moustakis on 1st, nobody out. I'm looking for Niese to throw the DP ball, I mean, Perez is pretty slow, and the Mets got good infielders. But as I remember it, Niese kept picking at the corners trying to get Perez to swingandamiss, and the next thing you know, BAM, Perez gets a pitch to hit and does, there they go again. There was probably something in that matchup that I don't know about, maybe Niese is not really a groundball pitcher, maybe Perez does not hit into DPs is spite of his lack of fleetness, but just sayin' end result, double, not double play, not damage control.Not sure if the Royals paly it that way if the roles were reversed. Not sure.

Perhaps not. However, AL ball creates a situation where all 27 outs come at the hands of "normal" hitters. NL ball reduces that down to 24 outs by legitimate hitters and 3 by more or less certain outs. Will those three be productive outs, and will they even be in a position to be productive outs? Believe it or not you can pitch differently when you know that sure out is coming up! Just saying, no, it might well not dramatically change things, especially if the top of the order continues like they have been. But in AL ball, the line keeps rolling without a pause. Not so in NL ball. An inevitable change in the math, the objective, not the speculative, math. Just something to watch for that hasn't been there yet. Whether or not it becomes a real factor, we'll know when we get there, right? Royals still have an advantage, though, bullpen depth probably allows greater flexibility in pinch-hitting w/o a drop off in reliever replacement. Get in a jam, need a reliever for one out and he'll be due to bat, no worries, use one, pinch hit, use another, just don't play no more 39 inning games. Otherwise, it's a rare luxury. Mets are probably feeling like there's no way to make any adjustments in their game plan, but...you got a day off and you got all kinds of video and data to look at. People probably worked late last night, people gonna probably work late tonight too, looking for something that will disrupt. Right now, it looks like the Royals cannot be disrupted. But you know, you pay people to find things that haven't been found yet, and you still got some hella good arms. "Just get them out" is not a strategy, hell you're gonna get 'em out eventually, the question is what happens while you're waiting for the outs! And when does Cespedes wake up? Still gotta really like the Royals chances now up 2-0, pretty significant advantage, especially with Cueto poised for Game 6 back home, but...there's still a lot of baseball left...or at least still a lot of baseball left unplayed. How it gets played will determine how much of it is left.

Not THAT fast...how are the Royals pitchers at batting? And will the games play out in such a way that it matters? No doubt about it though, Strong Cueto tonight is big. Third time through the order not mattering for him so far (Duda up as we speak), DeGrom, not so much...

Grant Brisbee, just a few hours ago, on Jacob DeGrom: http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2015/10/28/9629540/jacob-degrom-2015-world-series-mets-game-2-starter?_ga=1.171334307.205038022.1415141294

Not here, no, not even with Jim Croce, but what does that have to do with "I've Been To Town"?

Harvey was going really, really good until he wasn't. You think he started losing stuff, the recovery thing coming into play? Collins sure seemed to have seen enough, for whatever reason. Niese looked totally in command. How many innings/pitches is he generally good for? That was the type of game where managing towards probably outcomes bites you in the ass as easily as not. you go through all your plans and the game's still not over, still gotta keep playing, but with who? WTF?, right? I really think that Chris Young saved Kansas City, but now what about the rotation going forth? OTOH, World Series, all hands on deck at all times, if not now, then never!

1969, and no more so that Watertown, or Cycles. And I'm pretty sure that this is a record he should have made!

Mbaye Dieye Faye, singer and percussionist from Senegal Mbaye Leye, football striker from Senegal Mbaye Lo, Duke professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies from Senegal

Yes it was that, don't know if it's the same song or not, though. Generally slagged, it seems, but I kinda like it. And either way, "I've Been To Town" is a lost little gem of a song. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sinatra+"I've+Been+To+Town"+&qpvt=sinatra+"I've+Been+To+Town"+&FORM=VDRE

Thanks, but this is nothing but Grant Brisbee (who I would highly recommend to anybody who like contemporary sports writing with a decidedly non Tinactin-based fragrance) with a pseudo-cosmic twist. Improvised sports comedybabble. Glad you enjoyed it, though, it's fun to write, for sure, a game like that is hard to just walk away from without SOME kind of further processing! However, I do think, seriously, that once Colon's optimum performance practice zone had been intruded upon, it might have been best to get him out of there, like how in Vegas, if one guy starts hitting too much all at once they'll change the dealer. Not that there's any reality-based justification for doing so (unless there's an honesty/trust issue at play, and I guess in Vegas there always is, really, right?), but, you know, you want to say that you took every protective caution to protect yourself against that illusory thing called "momentum" ("illusory" because although, yes, it exists, it can be neither created nor destroyed with intent, you can't flip the momentum switch, It just happens while it happens and then stops when it doesn't happen. Probably more a matter of somebody changing something until the other guy adjusts and stops you from doing that, and it could as easily be unconscious as it is conscious. Or it could be as simple/random as a clustering of mistakes. One things' for sure, when you see it happening, be ready!). But what I don't know is who the Mets would have brought in to replace Colon? Second & Third with good hitters coming up is not exactly a no-sweat situation, but it's not impossible, either. You get Cain to either strike out or pop up, some kind of non-productive out, and then you can walk Hosmer to get to Dyson with one out. Hardly a given what happens there, best case, some kind of DP, or get the lead runner at the plate, any non-productive out that moves the outs along...and yes, of course it's that simple Just sayin', did the Mets have a reliever handy who would have worked better than Colon for that strategy, or was Colon the Mets' last best hope there, period?

You're on your own with that one. Post-Dippin' Hank is still not universally embraced, but for my money, the psychodramas alone disqualify it as any kind of coasting. Lots of reduction and repetition, and more of it with each passing year, but when he sounds like he's about to fall over or have his head explode (and it's always the possibility of one or the other, never of both), he commands my fullest attention.

It's kind of the Sonny Stitt Record of Miles Davis records, with all the implications, fallacies, and limitations of that description fully and duly noted.

That Lagares AB against Herrera in the 8th was freakin' epic, and when he stole and then scored, I figured game over, the night's mojo asserted once and for all. But...shit happens.

I think those weird single LPs were budget copies of the original LPs, just with really bad graphic reproductions. Seriously, I always figured them to be pirate copies, although who knows? Columbia had so may levels of "special product" lines, crazy. At some point, columbia put out a 2 LP set of both albums, that's when I went ahead and bought it. But in 1988, they released editions with restored solos and a new cover. I got Vol. 2 of those. What I did not realize until recently, and what might explain the cachet these LPs had in certain circles, was that they were the first live albums of a Miles working band released in more or less real time. We take all the live Miles stuff so for granted now that it's easy to forget how it wasn't always so. So, you know, 1961 or so, Miles getting the full Columbia/Playboy/Etc. Apex Of Hip thing, and wow, here's your chance to be right there in the club while it happens!

Oh, Curtis Granderson is a blast to watch play...talking about how he's changed his approach with each team he's on, reminds me of a top-shelf studio player who can play ANY gig the way it needs to be played, not just multi-faceted talent, multi-faceted HIGH LEVEL talent. See, that's all the more reason to respect the baseball physics of the Bartolo Colon Zone - he's a walking emitter of synthetic manstuff into every occupiable molecule of baseball matter. I bet he can bend baseball light just by looking at it. Something's gotta be keeping those legs viable.

As the game went on... The way the Mets kept extending the ABs, the way I thought the Royals would do. they kept getting traffic but couldn't quite bring 'em in, I kept waiting for that to reach critical mass against the Royal's relievers. and then Chris Young comes in, and it's like, ok, it's July, sunny afternoon, let's all sit back a roll along with the clouds. Top of the first, and here's the pitch. Meanwhile, Royals just going up there chopping away, pretty much swinging like if it's not in the dirt or over their head, it's a pitch to hit, getting runners on and then chophacking away ...I thought the game was going to go on forever, and then...Bartolo Colon. Consider Bartolo Colon: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/colonba01.shtml Age: 42 Height: 5' 11" Weight: 285 lbs I'm not dissing on Bartolo Colo, far from it, he's a modern miracle, or freak, depending on how you look at it, but either way, the guy's got a crazy mad skill set. I don't see how he has any legs or knees left, but that's part of the miracle. No matter, Bartolo Colon shifts the physics, just because he's Bartolo Colon, he's the Bartolo Colon Zone. Him. Alone. HAS to be alone, couldn't be anybody else in the Bartolo Colon Zone except Bartolo Colon.Use him for his thing and then get him out of there. But that's not how it lined up, was it, bullpens ripped asunder, everybody getting looks at everybody all at once, tippy-toppy time now. and when they IBBed Cain (who was really swinging at damn near anything last night, it looked like) to pitch to Hosmer, I thought, ok, get the Ambien ready, bedtime coming...when you have Bartolo Colon IBB a hitter, that's asking him to role-play in a place outside of the Bartolo Colon Zone, and not just that, you're walking a guy who had struck out his last two ABs, and yeah, he's Lorenzo Cain, gotta respect that, but instead you choose to pitch to probably the MOST highly motivated person in the ballpark...I'm no expert, nor am I a Counselor Deanna Troi type person who feels things through the christmas lights on my head, but it seems to me that if you want the Bartolo Colon Zone to remain undisturbed, you just let him pitch to Cain, do what he always does, just stand there and chunk 'em in one after the other, he quite often does that very well, and then you either lose the game that way or go to the 15th. But no, you skipped a pebble on the still water, and then here comes the new vibrational pattern, and Hosmer sees a chance to clear out the Bill Buckner debris starting to orbit around his cosmic being, sees a chance to get ALL of that over with before it starts, Bortolo Colon Zone about stasis, Hosmer Zone about Oh HELL No, and you knew what was going to happen, just not how. A it turns out, just a sac fly, but hey - you didn't get to Hosmer through the naturally occurring Bartolo Colon Zone, no, you issued him and invitation to Step Right Up! so, hey... All that aside, I didn't get the game on until the 6th (it had JUST gone to 3-1), missed the first pitch ITPHR (I love those things, the ITPHRs, thrilling aplenty!), but still saw 9 innings of pretty intense baseball that always seemed to be heading one way only to go another. If Game 1 sets the tone for the remaining games, this is going to be a Series that feels like it's gone 7 regardless of how many games it actually goes. EX-cellent!

That was some stubbornass baseball.