MLB 2008

[Big Al]

Never in a million years would I have thought that the Rangers could play a game just as exciting and intense (albeit meaningless) as the Cowboys on the same night. I sure love that kid Taylor Teagarden, homegrown local talent! I hope the Rangers don't squander this one away.

[Dan Gould]

How in motherfucking hell can we make Andy Fucking Sonnanstine look like Cy Fucking Young?

If they don't figure out how to hit that pathetic bum, they'll never get past the Rays when it counts.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Dan Gould

[Chalupa]

C'mon Cubs get the final out.

Edited September 17, 2008 by J.H. Deeley

[Chalupa]

Yes!!!

[Chalupa]

Thank you Chicago.

And thanks also to Atlanta, Florida, and Washington

[tkeith]

How in motherfucking hell can we make Andy Fucking Sonnanstine look like Cy Fucking Young?

If they don't figure out how to hit that pathetic bum, they'll never get past the Rays when it counts.

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.

[papsrus]

Objection! In fact, even in a short series, they'd only see him twice.

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.)

[Soulstation1]

holy cows

that 1st homer prince fielder hit last night

then the opposite field shot ryan howard hit

[tkeith]

Objection! In fact, even in a short series, they'd only see him twice.

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.

[Dan Gould]

Great. Back to piece-of-shit Wakefield. If they are back two games with ten to play, and having lost the season series, that means you have to outplay the Rays by three games the rest of the way. I predict that in two hours it will be time to hope that the Rays finish off the Twins for us this weekend and then its time to start resting people and figuring out how in the hell we're going to beat the Angels when they'll never have to have Lackey pitch at Fenway.

Edit to add

And once again they're making a piece of pathetic shit like Garza into Cy Fucking Young.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Dan Gould

[tkeith]

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

[Dan Gould]

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

Up-to-date count of shitty pitches

Garza: ONE (plus inning-ending double play so he doesn't have to face Ortiz with any runners on)

Wakefield: at least FIVE

Edited September 18, 2008 by Dan Gould

[Dan Gould]

And now Wakefield is done and the fisherman masquerading as a pitcher is in.

Over/under for the Rays offense tonight:

10 - and I have no problem saying OVER

[Quincy]

then its time to start resting people and figuring out how in the hell we're going to beat the Angels when they'll never have to have Lackey pitch at Fenway.

While lifetime he has sucked bigtime at Fenway, the last time he pitched there on July 29 he went the distance with a 2 hit/2 run victory. So maybe that's not exactly a key to victory after all.

[BERIGAN]

Man you Sox fans, you kill me!!! Matt Garza, a shitty pitcher??? I have heard more than once his stuff compared to Smoltz. 11-9 3.66 ERA for the year, still 24. I'll take that shit any day....

[papsrus]

Man you Sox fans, you kill me!!! Matt Garza, a shitty pitcher??? I have heard more than once his stuff compared to Smoltz. 11-9 3.66 ERA for the year, still 24. I'll take that shit any day....

I hadn't heard the Smoltz comparison, but I was kinda thinking along the same lines ... not really a "shitty" pitcher. He was going on three days rest tonight though, and was struggling with control just a little. But this Rays staff overall is still pretty young, still learning how to pitch, really. Garza in particular can get a little jumpy sometimes. And we saw Kazmir implode in Game 1 against the Sox, yet he has been dominant in the past -- (at least I think I remember that).

But then again, I think I know where Dan's coming from. The Red Sox offense just seems hot and cold lately. But Ortiz!!!!!!! His second home run tonight was an absolute moon shot. It's literally still up there ... in one of those catwalks.

Edited September 18, 2008 by papsrus

[Dan Gould]

This is shaping up to be 2005 all over again. Grossly underachieving team, Wild Card entry into the playoffs (lucky to get it) and bounced in the first round. Count on it.

[tkeith]

Man you Sox fans, you kill me!!! Matt Garza, a shitty pitcher??? I have heard more than once his stuff compared to Smoltz. 11-9 3.66 ERA for the year, still 24. I'll take that shit any day....

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.

[tkeith]

This is shaping up to be 2005 all over again. Grossly underachieving team, Wild Card entry into the playoffs (lucky to get it) and bounced in the first round. Count on it.

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.

[Big Al]

Dan's like most Red Sox fans: they're completely dissatisfied unless the Sox go 162-0. And even then, they'll still bitch. It's what Red Sox fans do.

[Dan Gould]

What do individual accomplishments have to do with team under-achievement? Here's how I define under-achievement:

A run differential of 158, which dwarfs every other team in the league, a whopping 75% higher than the next closest team, and what do they have to show for it? A wild card berth, which considering their pathetic road record plus their performance against the two teams ahead of them adds up to a virtually nonexistent chance at the World Series.

[Big Al]

Dan, I'm not sure I understand your point when you say "A run differential of 158." Does that mean the Red Sox score 158 MORE runs than the opposition or LESS? If it's less, then I see your point. If it's more, then it would seem to me that this year may be one of those years where no matter how good the Sox are, the Rays might be better.

[tkeith]

Dan, I'm not sure I understand your point when you say "A run differential of 158." Does that mean the Red Sox score 158 MORE runs than the opposition or LESS? If it's less, then I see your point. If it's more, then it would seem to me that this year may be one of those years where no matter how good the Sox are, the Rays might be better.

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.

[Dan Gould]

Dan, I'm not sure I understand your point when you say "A run differential of 158." Does that mean the Red Sox score 158 MORE runs than the opposition or LESS? If it's less, then I see your point. If it's more, then it would seem to me that this year may be one of those years where no matter how good the Sox are, the Rays might be better.

The Red Sox have scored 158 runs more than they have allowed. No other team in contention (in the AL) has the same combination of hitting and pitching. For comparison, the Angels have a run differential of 63, the Rays is 86 (the Rangers are at negative 75, a remarkable testament to the incompetence of the pitching staff, the bane of your existence).

Runs scored and runs allowed have been used to create a "Pythagorean" theorem that predicts wins. The variation from those predicted wins might be described as underachieving, or plain old "luck" depending on which way it goes. The Hardball Times has the Angels at a remarkable +10 in wins compared to what their run differential would predict; the Rays are +6 while Boston is -3.

So yes, the Rays and the Angels are getting better results than they should, the Red Sox worse results, and in the end they will have to beat both of these blessed teams on the road in order to return to the World Series.

[papsrus]

There was a stat during the game last night that the Red Sox outscored the Rays during their 18 games against one another this season by something like 20 runs (80-60 ... something like that), yet the Rays won the season series 10-8.

I'm not much of a stats guy, but it's interesting to see which stats are more reliable as predictors. ... I'm always curious, for instance, when an announcer says something like, "Team X hasn't beaten Team Y at home in the past four years." Is that supposed to indicate it's unlikely to happen now, or is it supposed to mean it it's increasingly more likely to happen, given the law of averages.