jad

Normally I think the psychological factor in pro sports is WAY over-rated. But it must be very very hard to play for this team.

Eck is not holding back!

Plenty of steam on the throw; it just wasn't to any particular base.

That started well!

Can Devers pitch?

MOre stellar base-running by RS.

DAMN!! Cool! I was thinking along the lines: "There is an argument out there that benching JD for a 9-game slump is a good idea. This idea is obvious; i.e., it's not rocket science. But [i personally am] not in agreement with this idea. i.e., I disagree with the notion that benching JD is an obvious move. i.e., it's so complicated I'm not sure what my position is." But you're saying: "There is an idea that benching JD is a good idea. But that's a stupid idea. And not agreeing to it is thus obvious; i.e., it's not rocket science; i.e., play JD."

Haven't been following this discussion: could you (or anyone) diagram or at least construe that last sentence.

THank God for eighth inning sleep aids.

More classic RS base-running.

Well, as the announcers said, he had to make a pitch. And he sure did.

Shouldn't an average MLB cf'er have made that catch?

Yeah, he totally sucks! I said many times it was idiotic to sign him, but would anyone listen??

I'm trying to imagine the response had Devers' double been caught. That would have been two 420-foot game-losing outs in a row for him! And before we annoint T.S. as a first baseman, let's review film of that dropped foul ball.

Didn't I just say that getting Travis Shaw was a stupid idea?

Who is the radio announcer who is effectively trashing the RS? (I haven't been listening to them enough to know. Usually they are very circumspect about RS mis-plays and screw-ups.)

DFA Devers.

Like Grady Little and Pedro. If whass-is-name (Posada) had actually put a good swing on the ball, it would have been a lazy fly ball and both Little and Pedro would have been hailed as heroes. I loved Schiraldi!

When the RS announcers ask: "Would other first basemen have caught that?" "Average ones would have." -- then this is NOT the solution at 1b.

Now now! If success were the only factor in fan support, why don't the Rays pack their stadium in all season? "Winning/losing" doesn't seem to have affected the support for the team among us here, and most of us survived a good part of that 86-year drought without a hitch (although I guess the bean-counters look at that evidence and say 'See? Don't worry about die-hard fans; they'll support us no matter what we do. The ones who put the pennies in the seats will only come if we win and don't give a rat's behind who they're watching, or whether they've ever heard of them.)

This is spot on. You're right. These things absolutely "feel real." But they're likely not. Just as we all "feel" that deep down inside, we are good people (which we likely aren't). (Wasn't there a survey done once where subjects were asked to rate themselves on morality and ethics? Nearly everyone rated themselves higher than Mother Teresa--btw, this was in the days when M.T. was considered flawless). Similarly, my students all consider themselves really smart, and exceptionally hard workers; and members of certain political parties (no names here) all sincerely believe that on matters of public health ... well, perhaps I won't get into it. This and other sports boards provide plenty of evidence that we really don't know sh*t, although we ALWAYS think we do.

Stop! The tactic of getting rid of productive and popular players is a great recipe for turning your fan base into the Rays fan base.

Now if I remember correctly (a big IF!) such a study (an extensive one) was done on basketball players and the notion of the 'hot' shooter. What that study found was that there was no such thing. All that was out there were different quality shooters: the ones with high shooting percentages had more and longer 'hot' streaks than those with low shooting percentages. Duh. Larry Bird would appear to get 'hot' (i.e., have more baskets in a row), than, say, Bo Outlaw. And both groups performed pretty much as statistics would indicate. (eg., as the most obvious example, a guy say with a 50% shooting average had the same groupings of 'hits' and 'misses' and extended 'streaks' as would a series of coin flips. Of course all of us have had the illusion of 'streaks'. 'I just can't miss'! 'I'm seeing the ball really well!' 'The fairways look wide!' But we tend to think this AFTER the fact. (As for me, given that I'm a mediocre athlete, whenever I get this feeling, I almost inevitably screw up--now that may be due to pressure, or it may simply be due to the fact that I suck, and eventually that will show up. No matter how hot or cold I'm feeling, my golf score is remarkably stable!)

That's a very cool bit of history!

Or game 7 or 1967; or 7 in '86 ... And all I know of the earlier decades is another game 7 where "Pesky holds the ball!"