jad

I guess we can all be thankful that true professionals just move on from their childish grievances, giving us fans no reason ever to revive comment topics over two years old.

I think you're older than I am, but not by much. I grew up a few miles n. of you, and channel 38 almost never came in. So yes, it was Curt Gowdy on the radio. I too would score games, but my OCD brother, an early sabermetrician, developed a method of scoring (or heard of it?) and scored each game for a whole year using it. (And ditto on Pumpsie. It's a shameful reminder of the racism in New England that the RS were the last team of the big three sports to integrate [except for the still loathsome team from D.C. in the NFL]. I believe the Bruins had a black player before the RS did.)

That was amazing! How many singles are hit off the CF wall in Fenway?

One commentator pointed out that this observation is deceptive. "Running to the spot and waiting" makes tracking the ball difficult; loping to the spot and tracking it at an angle is easier. Anyone who has played the outfield knows that the nightmarish hit is the one hit right at you, esp. in center field where there is generally no hook or slice. (i.e., using one's blazing speed to get to the ball and waiting for it may be counterproductive? )

Yup. 19 homers, and a BA (.291) one point lower than his career numbers. Obviously in steep decline.

Maybe. But the ball looked like it might be caught, no?

Is it possible to run the bases worse than JBJ has in the last two games?

??? There are no words.

Another celebrity shooting? (A-hole w/ gun seeks publicity, and doubtless will get it.)

?? I was only watching casually, but he got concussed not by a hit but by a shot that deflected off his own stick, no? Why should the shooter be penalized at all.

I'm wondering why this is a difficult problem to solve w/ a computer, and I've asked it several times. Simply take a lineup--and a large sample of games (50? 100?) where those 9 guys play. Enter the results of what they did. Which order produces the most runs? (There's a fairly large number, but it shouldn't be overwhelming ... 9! = 9 factorial?). (I think the condition 'exclude the first inning' might well make it more difficult to figure--it certainly wouldn't simplify things. And you would want that anyway, since you're trying to find out if there's any particular order that maximizes runs. Not sure you could come up with a general rule based on one team, but you could determine what to do with the guys you normally play).

It's not a 'gimmick' if it provides fans w/ interesting games. I would much rather see the Dodgers or the Cubs in here than another six games against Tampa Bay. Also, the wild card is one of the few things MLB finally got right. Even if you don't win the division, you have a puncher's chance of making the playoffs. That makes baseball more interesting for fans--isn't that the point? It's entertainment, not an exercise in perfect reason or justice.

Does Nunez know the basic rules of baseball?

Exactly. And they made up those six innings early in the season and STILL did not turn it around to 2018 levels. So the anti-Cora-ST-philosophy faction now must argue that having less work in ST somehow caused a pall to fall over the pitching staff that carried over for at least two months of the season and somehow affected hitters (but only the hitters who aren't doing well, not those who are above their normal productivity) as well. The reason the RS are where they are is because they've lost as many games as they've won. It's a reason similar to the one that explains why some posters don't accept my opinions: the reason you disagree w/ me is because you're wrong.

Three times SCM's age? No way! Mal is way more than 33.

There didn't need to be a forum. His kids were treated so badly by fans here he moved to Idaho to get away from them.

Thanks. I guess we'll disagree on a few small points here, (I'm old enough to remember the pre-free-agency days, where players were essentially chattel), also on the matter of allowing players to 'free-lance' against the CBA (this was why A-rod ended up a Yankee and we got Manny, no?). Most discussions I've heard from economists show that ticket prices have nothing directly to do w/ player salaries: they are calculated solely in terms of what will turn the highest profit. (Doesn't matter whether players make 5 million or 5 thousand--if a greater profit is turned by charging $300 for a seat, that's where the price will be set). There is likely an INDIRECT relation, as there would be in cinema, in that audiences are intrigued with the high prices players/actors get and will pay more to see them. I imagine we agree on, say, the NBA union, which was clearly run by reps (CP3) who were most interested in lining the pockets of elite players and not run-of-the-mill players. Not sure the MLB union is a whole lot better on this, since young players also are clearly getting screwed on the matter of rookie contracts etc.

I think I follow this: you mean because players have agents and their individual salaries are negotiated that way, within the fairly strict rules the Union has set up with management? Interesting point--the first comparable case that comes to mind is the ScreenActorsGuild. I'm wondering if this is something that applies to, say, 'white-collar unions' as opposed to blue-collar unions. (That's more or less my case, although what we have is not technically a union.) So the wealthy or well-to-do can get the benefits of unions w/o any of its drawbacks?

In all fairness to ESPN and other outlets, they mention that because that's his legacy, and it's an indictment of sports fans who (as one writer said), treated him as if he had done that to them personally. (There's a movie--Buffalo 69--which deals w/ the same thing, on the Bills kicker who missed the field goal in the Super Bowl).

Really tough player--I love the story about his AB in the Angels series in game 5, unleashing a stream of obscenities against (I looked it up--Witt), who had been complaining about Buckner's efforts to rattle him. It worked. Buckner singled, starting the 9th inning rally that put them in the WS. No one paid as dearly as he did demonstrating what complete a-holes sports fans can be. RIP. (couldn't find the other two threads, btw.)

This sounds like an exchange we all had as Middle school kids about the most amazing ingenious foolproof brilliant kick-ass ways to avoid parental curfews. "I mean like you see you set the CLOCKS back, get it? Then they'll never know and ..."

The 'soap-operaish" comment isn't directed at him, right? (I don't think you mean it that way). He's never been my favorite player, but he went all-in in a desperate attempt to get back. A lot of athletes have succumbed to the lure of that procedure (Greg Oden is the most striking example), which to me sounds close to quackery (as it also does to those few doctors and PAs I've asked about it) ("So, you have back pain? I have an idea: let's pulverize a couple of your vertebrae and see what happens."). He's doing his best to earn what the RS pay him, but I too doubt he'll ever be back.

Daniel Nava should have retired after the first MLB pitch he saw.

That was astounding. But there are so many jaw-dropping defensive plays, I realize it is difficult to know which one I am talking about.

Totally agree, although tonight, we can't count on SL catching the damn thing.