Sep
13

Sunday night open thread

By

Another game down and the Yankees are that much closer to clinching a playoff spot and the division. In fact, if Tampa loses to Boston tonight, not only will it be their 11th straight loss, it will officially eliminate them from the AL East race.

Anyway, while you enjoy the win, use this thread to talk about whatever you want. The ESPN Sunday night game is the Mets and Phillies, who actually played earlier today. Da Bears and Packers are your Sunday night football game. DotF will be along a little later tonight. Anything goes, just be cool.

Categories : Open Thread

402 Comments»

  1. Tom Zig says:

    How many more starts can we expect CC to make in the regular season?

      • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

        20 wins is a real possibility, then.

        CC’s done a great job, especially in this second half.

        • ADam says:

          I would say 3… But just a guess, I can imagine they dont want to get him as much rest as possible before the playoffs His 4th and final start would come the saturday before the playoffs… giving him only 3 days before game 1….

          But we’ll see… will be fascinating to watch..

  2. Steve H says:

    Need to root for a low scoring game. If either Howard/Werth/Castillo score a run, I lose my semi’s on the tiebreaker. With Redding on the mound, I’m screwed.

  3. Jose says:

    A chance to imagine what could have been:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09......html?_r=1

    The thought that there could have been a Maris, Mays, and Mantle outfield is scary. Imagine the talent of that group of players together. Can anyone think of some of the best outfields ever?

  4. Drew says:

    What it is, pat?

  5. pat says:

    Drew I’ll unveil your new handle when I get back from this nice Italian dinner. Peace.

  6. chriskeo says:

    Does anyone know what Ian Kennedy’s final pitch count was last night? I saw him go 2 seemingly uneventful innings. I thought he was supposed to go 50 pitches but 2 innings is usually quicker than that.

  7. Little Bill says:

    The Packers are the best team in the NFC North and the NFC. Aaron Rodgers will win MVP this year.

  8. Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

    Go Giants! Good job by the G-men. I liked how Manningham looked today.

    Scary moment seeing Nicks walking with the boot on, thought he broke his leg.

  9. Drew says:

    Hahaha this is just what I read on Lohud.
    FattyAbe:
    “As to what I think of you, I can’t express that here unfortunately. I do find it funny that Alex and Joe agreed with the point I made on the blog (which is why I made it), but I’m somehow biased against Alex. So I guess he’s biased against himself? Of course.

    In my next job, I’ll do a better job of ignoring people like you I hope. That’s my plan. You and your ilk have taken the fun out of covering baseball.”

    First, I think it’s hilarious that he took such offense to “It’s all A-Rod’s fault. What a surprise.”

    Secondly, does he honestly think he’s shown objectivity when covering Al throughout the year? He takes every and any shot at Al that he can.

    I thought it was pretty funny.

    • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

      I think he’s right.

      And this year, he’s actually been pretty objective with A-Rod, although he has made some horrible comments about him in the past so I’ve heard.

      • Salty Buggah says:

        Eh, I dunno. While recently (like past 2 months) he has been a little better regarding A-rod, he’s pretty much been against him this year and others, taking unnecessary shots at him. I mean, why is it irresponsible for him to get thrown out? We have a 7 game lead, CC is pitching, and we have enough fire in the offense to win.

        • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

          See below comment.

          However I don’t think he’s been anti-ARod this year at all, at least he hasn’t been since ARod came back. He’s allowed to have opinions.

      • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

        Never mind. Put the cart before the horse. Here’s the offending comment:

        “Peter,

        I heard your question to Joe, and he made it clear that he wasn’t blaming ARod for getting tossed there. Your immediate reaction, before anyone said anything, was that ARod was at fault for getting tossed.

        I never said you said “fault.” But that was clearly the implication of your post. As clear as your opinion that I’m neither a good person, nor a reasonable one.

        Since you don’t know me, I really don’t care what you think of me. But since you overreacted so severely to my post, clearly you care what I think of you, which I have made very, very clear: I think you have a personal bias against ARod that colors your perception, and your blog. I also think you are way too thin-skinned for someone who has been blogging as long as you have.”

        Holy shit. Pete flipped out for no reason. What an ass.

        • Drew says:

          Heh,
          “You and your ilk have taken the fun out of covering baseball.”
          That was my favorite quote.

          • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

            If this bothers him that much I bet he’s the type of guy that crys during romance comedies.

            Laugh it off, dude. This wasn’t bad at all. In fact it’s actually pretty reasonable.

      • RCK says:

        There has been an improvement in PA’s coverage of A-Rod this year, but that is an improvement over a virulent, near-malicious bias to only a petty and bitchy bias. As recently as this morning’s paper he wrote:

        The players seemed genuinely pleased to have been able to share the record-setting moment with Jeter.

        “Sometimes you try and watch what you say with the media,” Pettitte said afterward. “But with Derek, you can just speak from the heart.”

        Rodriguez, in a rarity for him, put it well.

        “We as players, coaches, media and fans are able to watch him every day, and that’s a privilege,” he said.

        Cheap shot, if you ask me.

    • JWagg says:

      What’s with all the Pete Abe hate??

    • The Artist says:

      “In my next job, I’ll do a better job of ignoring people like you I hope. That’s my plan.”

      I took those rumors of him leaving the Journal News with a grain of salt, but quotes like that sure make him sound like a guy with one foot out the door.

      Hope they’re not true. I think his biggest flaw is getting into the mud with the haters the way he does. You’ve got to let stuff like that go.

  10. Giants! Woo!

    I just played tennis at a friend’s house…I am awful at that game.

  11. Salty Buggah says:

    Mike Silva is an idiot sometimes.

    Because Halladay would have locked down a title for whomever acquired him. Remember when we talked about him being a luxury for the Yankees? I think we all agree the Bombers playoffs chances would look a heck of a lot better with Halladay/Sabathia as a one-two punch.
    You also have to think Toronto and Boston could open up the dialogue in the offseason again. A package of Buchholtz, Bowden, and a hitting prospect should be enticing to Ricciardi. Halladay and Beckett is probably even better than Sabathia/Halladay.
    I believe the Yankees will kick themselves for not offering Chamberlain to Toronto for Halladay. They could be focused on the greatest pitching tandem in history while the Jays worry about getting Joba to the fourth inning. Classic case of holding on to a stock too long.”

    Seriously? This guy thinks Joba’s not that good. And Since when is Beckett>CC???

    The article was about a rumor about Bahston offering Clay Buchholz, Justin Masterson, Daniel Bard, Michael Bowden, Felix Doubront, and Nick Hagadone all for Halladay.

    http://nybaseballdigest.com/?p=15714

    • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

      Wow that’s a stupid article.

    • Tom Zig says:

      Would have loved to have Halladay but it really would have cost too much and be the antithesis of what Cashman has been trying to do these past few years. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when Halladay hits free agency.

      • The Artist says:

        Right, Cash rarely makes those kinds of deals. He prefers the salary dump type deals where the Yanks use their financial edge and give up less in talent. Abreu+Lidle, Swisher, A-Rod, Nady+Marte, deals like that.

        (Though the Nady+Marte deal may turn out to have been better for Pirates than Yanks, but that’s mostly due to injury)

    • The Artist says:

      He’s a B-Jobber who doesn’t believe in innings limits. I’ve yet to see his medical degree, or his years of studies on the matter, but apparently he feels he knows better than the medical experts on this subject.

      I’ll assume he feels the Yanks have destroyed Joba as a pitcher by not pitching him out of the bullpen, so they’ll wish they would have traded him for a 33 year old Halladay while he still had some value left. That’s the type of analysis you get from Francesa, Wally Matthews and Mike Silva.

      • alex gonzalez says:

        i have yet to see the hard evidence that innings limits really effectively reduce injury. injuries have been going up over the last decade even with babying of pitchers. what happened to throwing to people like nolan ryan. he could throw 222 career complete games while still throwing near 100. joba has to be taken out early so he can take a nap so he isn’t cranky. what hard evidence is there that it works. joba has already been injured. i thought it prevents injury.

        • Tom Zig says:

          Nolan Ryan pitched in the pre-steroids era. Completely different.

          • alex gonzalez says:

            what does steroids have to do with anything? innings limits are needed nowadays because of steroids? what are you talking about.

            • Tom Zig says:

              The game back then was way more favorable to pitchers. Bigger parks, not as many HR hitters, etc.

              • alex gonzalez says:

                how does that effect injury? if nolan ryan could throw 200+ innings, 130+ pitches and 100 mph back then. what are you saying, that if he faced hitters who used steroids that would increase his risk of injury? hitters are independent of how are pitcher can get injured.

                • Yes, because with better hitters, the pitcher has to exert himself more. What second baseman do you think a guy’s gonna have a harder time facing: Bill Mazeroski or Chase Utley? What shortstop? Defense first guys like back in the day, or guys like Derek Jeter?

                  http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2.....uuuce.html

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  Not really. Worse hitters mean less baserunners and runs. Less runs and baserunners mean less stressful pitches/innings, which then leads to less injuries.

                  Pitching a 7 IP 2 ER with only 3 hits allowed is way better for your arm than 5 IP 9 hits 0 ER.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  what evidence is there that of that point you made about stressful innings. maybe in the longer outing you tighten up more between innings. in the 5 inning performance maybe you stay loose the entire time. i think it isn’t as concrete as all the statheads want it to be.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  True, its not as concrete. However, you must admit that those type of innings are more stressful to the arm.

                  SO if you combine those innings to you’re arm not being conditioned to throw 200 innings, it leads to injury.

                  Tomorrow, go RUN, not walk but run, 26 miles without rest. See if you can make it without breaking down.

                • My analogy: if I go out drinking tonight, after having nothing to drink last night, and down 10 beers very quickly, I’ll probably make it thorough the night alright. However, it totally screws my ability to have a good day tomorrow. Likewise, if I throw a whole hell of a lot of innings this year after not throwing that many last year, there’s a good possibility I’ll be negatively affected next season.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  im saying we don’t know if that is a legitimate analogy due to the fact that we don’t know how the stress works in a concrete manner. i repeat that those longer innings may keep you loose. here is an example. if i stretch and go on a 5 mile run i am loose the entire time. if i stretch go on a 2 mile run. then wait 1 hour, go on another 2 mile run, then wait another and go on a mile run, i am tight by that last run. maybe the arm during pitching acts the same way. there is no true hard evidence that those are more stressful innings on the arm.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  No, you’re not tight by that last run. I’ve run before, many many moons ago. You’re pretty well rested and quite glad you didn’t have to do all those runs at once.

                • Tom Zig says:

                  Okay but try running 5 miles without being conditioned to be able to run 5 miles. Your body would fall apart. You start with a certain amount and gradually increase your workload.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  In the 5 mile run, you will slow down and if you dont, you are pushing your body more, increasing the chance of injury. It’s like weight lifting. I could easily repeat 200 lbs 10 times. However, if I do an empty bar 2000 times, I wont be able to do it and if I push myself, I will tear a muscle. If I take rests in between and build myself up over a long time, I will be OK.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  In fact by the fourth mile of the five mile run you’re wishing you could take an hour long break then finish.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  that is a pretty anecdotal case. i know for a fact that many would rather stay loose and get the run out of the way. then risk the chance of tightening up between runs. the rest period can be detrimental by causing periods for the muscles to become tight. especially due to soreness, the last run would be terrible.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  No, every runner I’ve ever met would like to take a nice long break in between, even if for no reason to RECOVER (key word here) from cramps and such.

                  Sorry, but that just isn’t true.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  Ummm….No. If that is an anecdotal case, so is yours. As Tom Zig said, try running 5 miles for the 1st time. You will slow down A LOT. And if you can somehow push yourself and go at that same speed (remember you are running, not walking or joggin), you will hurt yourself. You dont find it bad because you are conditioned. Once pitchers are conditioned, then your point applies. Innings limits condition them. Try my weight lifting analogy.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  i guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. i can make up random anecdotes and say everyone i have ever known agrees. i know you believe to be right, but you are incorrect on their being any hard evidence that those are stressful innings. notice they have innings limits not pitch count limits. the more important thing even the experts believe is limiting innings. those stressful innings don’t cause damage if that means you pitch fewer overall innings.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  I don’t believe I’m right about the running bit. I’m sure of it. I ran for over six years almost every day. I was part of the track and cross country teams of my high school and college. I think I know what I’m talking about.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  OK, forget the stressful innings, Im not even arguing (except for one comment because you asked how steroids affect injuries and I said it leads to more stressful innings)

                  You said: “i have yet to see the hard evidence that innings limits really effectively reduce injury”

                  Now you said: “the more important thing even the experts believe is limiting innings. those stressful innings don’t cause damage if that means you pitch fewer overall innings.”

                  We were arguing that innings limits help reduce (not eliminate) injuries.
                  So you agreed with us all along…

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  no. i am saying that the experts and team persoanl believe that innings in young players cause injury. not pitch counts or “stressful innings”. i believe that there is no hard evidence that any of those lead to any significant change to injury risk.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  Exactly, what you said earlier was that innings limits dont do anything to help injury. We said they did. Now you are saying the same thing…

                  so you agreed with us all along.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  i am saying inning limits do not reduce injury. also on that stress level point. look at this http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=1480 it makes claims that stress is only accumulated past 100 pitches. it ignores “stressful” innings and shows that there is a better relationship between abuse over many starts than anything else.

                • i am saying inning limits do not reduce injury

                  You. Have. No. Proof. Of. This.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  my opinion, just like yours is that it does. unless you have something to prove otherwise with a convincing proof.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  Yea, I’ve seen that. You know what, those are stressful innings too. When you are past the 100 pitches, you have to push yourself harder to throw well, making it stressful (remember my argument about lifting/running at the same speed even you are tired?).

                  So, you believe in pitch count limits (which correlates with innings limits BTW), right?

                  But you said this 2 comments ago: no. i am saying that the experts and team persoanl believe that innings in young players cause injury. not pitch counts or “stressful innings”. i believe that there is no hard evidence that any of those lead to any significant change to injury risk.

                  I think you are confused and are contradicting yourself. I have a feeling you agree with our points but are arguing for the sake of arguing.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  i am saying that i disagree with any of these new precautions. i see nothing wrong with how young pitchers were brought up in the 70′s and 80′s. i posted that link to show that people are arguing that there is injury risk in all three of the possibilities of “innings limits, pitch counts and stressful innings”. i remain skeptical on all of them. i am not contradicting myself. there is just some disconnect between us. that is why i had to post in response to you putting my opinion in another way. i obviously believe that 300 innings for a young pitcher now would be bad. i agree 170 pitches in a game is bad. a 50 pitch inning is bad. i just disagree with some of the newer limits that they are placing on all of the above. that is what i am saying. maybe 200 innings for the second year of a young pitcher isn’t as bad as people say. maybe he can throw 120 pitches in a game and be fine. there is a lot more to understanding the mystery of pitcher injuries.

          • It would not surprise me one bit if Nolan Ryan used steroids.

          • The Artist says:

            Nolan Ryan had his inning held under 152 until he was 25 years old.

            http://www.baseball-reference......no01.shtml

            In his case, it was unintentional. He had blister problems that kept him from starting, worked out of the bullpen some, plus weekend military service in the National Guard. But he didn’t become a full fledged starter until he was 25 years old.

            So its ironic (and hypocritical) that the guy who the anti-innings limit types hold up as their savior followed the same restrictions that Dr Andrews suggests.

            • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

              Nolan Ryan is not anti-innings limits, exactly. He’s just trying to condition his pitchers to consistently go seven. Subtle but very important difference.

              • The Artist says:

                You’re right, his position is more nuanced than the neanderthals who’ve latched onto it claim, and the Rangers have followed their own version on the innings limits with pitchers like Neftali Feliz.

                But its just an interesting tidbit that he had his innings limited as a young pitcher, which kinda ruins the anti-innings limits types using him as their gold standard.

        • The Artist says:

          Read this article, for starters.

          http://www.fastcompany.com/mag.....octor.html

          After you’ve read it all the way through, then come back and let’s talk.

          • alex gonzalez says:

            7 pages. i can barely read people’s comments on here. i may pass out by the end.

          • alex gonzalez says:

            so i read through it and all i got was praise for a doctor. i learned how many championship teams he effected. it was basically a piece to just kiss up to a really rich doctor. that didn’t answer my question of how effective innings limits are.

            • Steve H says:

              There is 1 Nolan Ryan. There are about 10,000 Mark Priors. Which one is the outlier?

              Recent post from Rob Neyer:
              I caught just the middle of the conversation, but Wednesday night, Dewayne Staats and Kevin Kennedy were talking about pitch counts and such, and Kennedy said (among other things) this:

              When all this pitch-count stuff came in, Tommy Lasorda would pitch Valenzuela 160, 180 pitches. You know there were Dodger people that would critique Tommy Lasorda sometimes, but Fernando had the arm to do that. And yeah, OK, he got hurt later on. Was it because of that? Who knows?

              Who knows, indeed.

              In Fernando Valenzuela’s first six (full) seasons, he went 97-68 with a 2.97 ERA. Nobody in the National League was better. Over the next six seasons — one of which he missed, because he was hurt — Valenzuela went 42-50 with a 4.11 ERA.

              Lasorda didn’t get a hold of Orel Hershiser until Hershiser was 25, which did limit the damage somewhat. But in Hershiser’s first six seasons, he went 98-64 with 2.68 ERA. In three straight seasons, he led the National League in innings pitched. Over the next six seasons, Hershiser went 52-44 with a 3.70 ERA.

              In Ramon Martinez’s first full season, he was only 22 but went 20-6 with a 2.92 ERA and finished second in the Cy Young balloting. Martinez never won as many games or pitched as many innings or finished as high in the Cy Young balloting again. After turning 28, he never pitched 170 innings in one season.

              • alex gonzalez says:

                there are also people who get injured with innings limits. if we compare pitchers in 1990 and the number of injuries to pitchers in 2009 including those with inning limits, the rate isn’t much different. if anything injuries have been on the rise in recent times.

                • Where’s your evidence for this post? I’m not saying you’re wrong, hell, maybe you’re right, but where is your evidence for it?

                • Steve H says:

                  Ok. So every team in baseball keeps their pitchers, young and old, on pitch counts and innings limits. And you think they are wrong? Don’t you think they have just a little more data than the rest of us?

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  You have any real evidence like any stats?

                  Also, innings limits decrease the chance for injury, not eliminate. Every pitcher is very likely to get hurt, its just that those that go from 50 IP to 200+IP have a WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY greater chance to be hurt.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  http://riveraveblues.com/wp-co.....the-dl.jpg

                  this is with the use of innings limits continuing to increase in popularity. it was featured in this post http://riveraveblues.com/2009/.....006-14222/

                • Steve H says:

                  Was that player days on the DL, or pitchers?

                • That article had nothing to do with pitchers, and that graph doesn’t break down by position. The other graph in the post also doesn’t include pitchers.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  Two questions: How many of these injured players are pitchers, and do you think it’s coincidence that the jump started around when amphetamines were banned?

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  so players doesn’t include pitchers? pitchers are a type of player, which is why this study is showing that all types of player time on DL is up. this includes pitchers and positional players.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  You know, you probably have helped our points. Baseball teams really didnt start using innings limits until recently. They say the injuries go up so innings limit/studies would help decrease them.

                  Also, it could be because of steroids, since they actually hurt athlete’s bodies long-term. Additionally, There was a lot of steroid use in that early part of the graph. As time went along, steroid use went down too.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  I know it includes all players, but how many of those players are pitchers? Since the chart doesn’t tell us for all we know pitcher injuuries could have dropped but the rise in position players injuries could have been large enough to offset it.

                • so players doesn’t include pitchers? pitchers are a type of player, which is why this study is showing that all types of player time on DL is up. this includes pitchers and positional players.

                  The second graph doesn’t show pitchers listed, just C-1B-2B-3B-OF-DH. The first graph, which may include pitchers, doesn’t give any sort of usable evidence because the number of players on the DL may be artificially bringing up the numbers. Position player trips to the DL may be increasing, but neither graph addresses pitchers specifically.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  how does this help your point. it shows injuries going up even with the use of innings limits. if it were truly the case, innings limits should be reducing the occurance of injury. how did joba already have a shoulder problem even though he was on a innings limit. if he wasn’t would his arm have fallen off.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  It shows injuries of all players, not only pitchers. For all we know pitcher injuries could be going down. Doubtful, but we don’t know that.

                  Not to mention innings limits could still be helping, maybe even a lot, they could just be largely offset by the lack of steroid use.

                • While overall trips to the DL may be up, it says nothing about pitchers specifically. You can’t just say “DL trips are up, therefore innings limits do not prevent injuries.” The evidence you’re presenting is incomplete since it does not address pitchers specifically, let alone the pitchers who are given innings limits (25 and younger). Find me a graph or an article that shows injuries to pitchers 25 and under are up since the bloom of innings limits and I’ll believe you.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  “how does this help your point. it shows injuries going up even with the use of innings limits. if it were truly the case, innings limits should be reducing the occurance of injury.”

                  The graph could mean this: Injuries overall are going up. However, positional injuries are skyrocketing while pitching injuries are decreasing a lot.

                  Our point is that the graph doesnt tell you anything about pitchers independently.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  well there is at least a possibility that graph shows that pitcher injuries are going up.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  But we need proof for it to mean anything.

                • No, that graph does not hint at that at all. It hints injuries in general are up but does not discern well enough between positions. Let’s say that graph showed the amount of apples turning rotten. Yeah, more apples are getting rotten now but it doesn’t differentiate between red and green apples. The amount of red apples getting rotten could outweigh the amount of green ones going up, but we’d never know because that graph doesn’t specify. Therefore, from that graph, we can’t say more green apples are going rotten than red apples are going rotten, or vice versa. All we can say is that, in general, more apples are getting rotten.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  “well there is at least a possibility that graph shows that pitcher injuries are going up.”

                  And there is a possibility for it to mean otherwise. Someone asked you if you had evidence, and this obviously doesnt tell us anything for sure.

            • The Artist says:

              A page a minute, huh? After claiming you have trouble reading 50 word posts you’re now reading 500+ word pages in under a minute.

              Sorry, but I don’t believe you.

        • Salty Buggah says:

          YOU have yet to evidence? See Edinson Volquez and Mark Prior among many many others.

    • Drew says:

      Amidst ramped speculation by writers dying for an article, none of us know exactly what was offered for Halladay. One thing we know for sure, Joba and a couple prospects ain’t gettin’ no Doc.

  12. JGS says:

    Anyone else see Federer make the most ridiculous shot I’ve ever seen to set up match point? no way he loses tomorrow

    • E-ROC says:

      Del Potro is peaking right now though. I wouldn’t be surprised if wins. He rendered Nadal useless today, and no one has ever that to Nadal. I think it’ll be a classic 5 setter. Potro loses a devastating match much like Roddick did at Wimbledon. Federer is unreal.

      • JGS says:

        It’s not going to get that close

        I think Nadal is still having knee issues, and he also pulled an abdominal muscle–it’s amazing he even made it as far as he did.

        and del Potro is playing great, but this is the third time he is going to face Federer in a Slam this year. It went five in Paris, but that is Roger’s worst surface by far. Federer absolutely tore him apart in the Australian

        and Djokovic had been playing some pretty great tennis to this point too

    • Evan says:

      Yup. I wish I could have seen it live (though I did have a ticket to last night’s match in Arthur Ashe so it’s not like I went to a boring match, lol).

      • JGS says:

        nice. I didn’t see a foot fault on the replay, but Serena should have known better–you never curse out the officials. in any sport

        • Evan says:

          Yup. Another thing that surprised me somewhat was how during the course of the match, Clijsters really forced Serena to play much more defensively than usual which I have to give Kim credit for that.

          • JGS says:

            yup

            Wozniacki is also a counterpuncher though, that was what Oudin couldn’t adapt to. I think Clijsters will take this one though

  13. RCK says:

    Does anyone know how to buy tickets for the SI Yankees game tomorrow? I can’t figure it out from their website.

  14. JM says:

    I’m going to be at the game tomorrow that was supposed to be May 3rd. My first night game at the new Stadium, as well. To answer Joe’s comment before on the game wrap-up story about Joba being the starter when the game was originally scheduled, it was actually Hughes who was supposed to start that game (I have real good memory). So… let’s hope Joba does well through 4, i’m guessing, and that the Yankees just POUND the Angels.

  15. The Artist says:

    Miller keeps saying “On Base Average” which is such a 1940′s way of saying On Base Percentage.

    “Sullivan has an On Base Average of three hundred thirty, which is almost as good as a tall glass of Ballantine Beer with a Lucky Strike. Lucky Strike, the cigarette that’s winning the war!”

  16. The Artist says:

    Pedro is such a joy to watch when he’s on his game. Especially facing the younger hitters like Murphy, class is in session.

  17. If not for Pujols, Utley would be the MVP this year. Dude gets so underappreciated.

    • Omar says:

      Didn’t he get talk during the October last season?

      • No idea, but the fact that Ryan Howard got more MVP votes than him in the last few years is criminal. In ’07 and ’08, he posted 8+ WAR seasons.

        • alex gonzalez says:

          yeah cause some crazy stat is the most important factor in MVP voting. the ballot even stats you don’t only have to vote based on any stat.

          • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

            Come on dude, that’s ridiculous production.

          • Performance on the field isn’t what turns into stats? Isn’t the player’s performance on the field the first criteria listed for MVP voting?

            • alex gonzalez says:

              to quote the ballot. “It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team.” the voter decides what to consider and that can include “General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.” meaning if i feel someone puts up slightly better numbers but is abrasive i can vote for the guy who is a team player and put up slightly worse numbers.

              • Ty Cobb stabbed a guy.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  he put up incredible numbers and only was mvp once. i think that speaks for itself.

                • Baseball history comprehension fail. The MVP as we know it has been given out since 1931, three years after Cobb stopped playing.

                  http://sadtrombone.com/

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  the Chalmers award still factored it in with “should prove himself as the most important and useful player to his club and to the league at large in point of deportment and value of services rendered.” no comprehension fail.

                • You’re using the MVP criteria to put down Cobb, but then citing the Chalmers Award. We were talking about the MVP, not the Chalmers Award.

                  My point on Cobb also wasn’t much about the MVP in general, but rather the point that being a dick doesn’t make you a bad player and being a nice guy doesn’t make you a good player.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  the chalmers award was considered the earliest form of the mvp.

                • That doesn’t make it the same thing. FWIW, Cobb did win the first ever Chalmers Award. Again, though, my point isn’t about awards, it’s about why a player’s personality shouldn’t matter much when determining if he’s a good player. Yeah, Ty Cobb was a racist asshole who was just all around a bad person. However, he was a kickass baseball player.

              • Also, the first one listed is:

                “1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense

                That should hold more weight than if a player’s a good guy.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  the ballot doesn’t specify that. i could make a pool of the guys who put up the 15 best stats and then vote for the nicest one of those 15 for mvp. the ballot is insanely interpretive.

                • And that would be a stupid, stupid vote. A player’s personality should not factor into MVP voting. At all. The rules, in my opinion, should be tightened and less up for interpretation.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  It doesn’t specify that, but shouldn’t it?

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  writers should just be smart enough to weight the factors of mvp voting properly. do they? i would have to bet a lot of the time, no.

                • No, they don’t, and that’s why the rules need to be tightened. The award should be given based solely on the player’s performance on the field, that’s what’s valuable, not if he’s a fun guy in the clubhouse or who gets along best with the writers.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  I am wholeheartedly with Matt Acty…although the “swell guy” votes do give Jeet a good shot at the award.

                • But isn’t Joe Mauer a swell guy, too?

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  Not as swell as Jeter. As Pete Abe said, and he was right on this one “Derek Jeter is one of the top five living Americans. He is the defender of all that is good and right”.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  hey, if Arod one the mvp 3 times then they do properly weigh performance more than “General character, disposition, loyalty and effort” sometimes. im sure mauer is the mvp. no matter how nice jeter is over the next couple of weeks.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  Since when was A-Rod a bad guy? He’s not Derek Jeter but I don’t think the media hates him. Quite the contrary; he used to give them half their stories.

                • I just agreed with you. Wow. High five!

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  they weren’t exactly stories of praise.

                • Tom Zig says:

                  Using Barry Bonds as an example would have strengthened your argument.

                • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                  No, but now that he’s cleaned up his act the majority* of the media seems to be fair to him. And while they weren’t stories of praise, they were stories, and therefore bread and butter for the reporters.

                  *Pete Abe nowithstanding.

                • Salty Buggah says:

                  I dont know. A-rod shows a lot of that, especially effort, to me. (Maybe his character is flawed but a lot is because of the media hate)

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  oh so arod doesn’t? alright fine, see barry bonds as an example. or jose canseco.

                • Tom Zig says:

                  see barry bonds as an example

                  Bingo!

  18. Omar says:

    Isn’t it the Sunday Night ESPN game tonight?

  19. Redding made Werth look quite inferior with that curveball.

  20. Pedro just struck out Tatis twice.

  21. Evan says:

    Unnecesary dive, FTW!

  22. Steve H says:

    I was taking a look at Pedro’s 1999 season. I already knew this, but oh my Mo. He had an 7 game stretch from August into September. 6-0, 55 innings, 96 k’s vs. 8 bb’s. 28 hits. 0.65 WHIP. 0.82 ERA. 1 HR allowed. In the same season he had a completely different 9 game stretch: 9-0, 69.2 innings, 105 k’s vs. 15 bb’s. 51 hits. 0.95 WHIP. 1.55 ERA. 2 HR’s allowed. In the middle of the steroid explosion (not era, since they have been in the game since the 70′s), he put together two stretches that I would guess most HOF pitchers have never matched in their careers, nevermind the same season.

    • Steve H says:

      And oh yeah, that wasn’t even the best year of his career.

    • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

      It’s possible he was juicing himself.

      • Steve H says:

        You’re right, and I’d even say probable, though I really don’t think that takes too much away from it.

        • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

          But you make the comment that he did it in the steroid era when it was quite possible he was taking advantage of it.

          • Steve H says:

            You’re right, but while if he was juicing the playing field was generally leveled, I’d say the major increase in offense during the period despite both pitchers and hitters juicing show that steroids impacted the game far more for offensive players. If no players were on steroids, and then every player started to take steroids, offense would rise. So even if Pedro were juicing, there were a ton of other pitchers who were, but weren’t able to stop the offensive explosion of the era.

        • alex gonzalez says:

          lets just end the who was juicing thing. a couple of years ago we had certain idols who we said would never. lets just assume everyone guilty until proven innocent from now on.

          • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

            I still would be shocked if Jeet juiced.

            • alex gonzalez says:

              i agree, but at this point it seems so random about saying who did or didn’t. we really can’t know either way without proof. so if we are going to be suspicious about anyone, we mind as well just be suspicious about everyone.

              • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                Fair point.

              • Steve H says:

                Agreed. Assume they all juiced, and judge them against their peers. For the people that didn’t juice, boo hoo, they should have spoken up about it. Everyone knew it was going on for a long, long time.

          • Jack says:

            If everyone is guilty, then why do you still have this personal vendatta against A-Rod?

            • alex gonzalez says:

              there isn’t hard evidence against everyone, only suspicions. i dislike arod for reasons far beyond his obscene usage of chemicals to cheat and taint the name of baseball.

              • Salty Buggah says:

                like?

              • Jack says:

                OK, what reasons?

              • Like what? Being totally super awesome at baseball and banging a hot blonde actress none of us could ever possibly have a shot at? It’s not dislike, it’s jealousy.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  no jealousy at all. i would never be the type of person he is.

                • Steve H says:

                  And what type of person is that?

                • Unless you’ve met him, which I doubt you have, you have absolutely no clue what kind of person he is. How do you know that he’s not an awesome dad to his kids (you can be divorced and not be a bad father)? How do you know he doesn’t give fuck tons of money to charity, but does it on the DL? How do you know he doesn’t treat Kate Hudson like a queen? Unless you’ve met the dude, you know nothing about the guy. So, tell me, what kind of person is Alex Rodriguez?

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  how can you say i have never met him? that is a pretty strong statement. i don’t want to go into my problems with a-fraud. they are far too many.

                • I didn’t say you haven’t, I said it’s doubtful. If you’ve met him, and he’s not a nice guy, then sure, by all means, dislike him. Fine, don’t list them all, just list some. You say you dislike the guy but then don’t back up why. That’s pretty weak.

                • alex gonzalez says:

                  i’ll list just some of his on the field issues. he has been criticized in the past as someone who is tough to be a teammate with. he has a big personality. remember his early on relationship with jeter. he never hits in the clutch. i fear playoff games because he has turned into the offensive force of a pitcher in the last few appearances. he signed a huge contract for production he will never be able to deliver. he signed it with the intention of setting a clean homerun record. something he won’t do. his off the field is worse, but i don’t want to go into that.

                • he has been criticized in the past as someone who is tough to be a teammate with.

                  Doesn’t seem to be an issue anymore.

                  he has a big personality

                  So do lot’s of people. Why is that dislikable?

                  remember his early on relationship with jeter.

                  You mean when they were really good friends back when Rodriguez was on the M’s and Rangers? Sure, they’re probably not as tight now but why is that reason to dislike him?

                  he never hits in the clutch.

                  You clearly have not watched the New York Yankees in 2009.

                  he signed a huge contract for production he will never be able to deliver

                  Hank offered him a boatload of money. Would you not have taken the same contract? Yes, you would have in a heartbeat.

                  he signed it with the intention of setting a clean homerun record.

                  How do you know this?

                  something he won’t do.

                  How do you know this?

                  his off the field is worse, but i don’t want to go into that.

                  What has he done that is so much worse than what any pro athlete does? Hell, you can’t even be too pissy about his divorce–half the marriages in the country end the same way. Has he ever been involved in any domestic violence? Hard drug use? Any felonies? What’s so awful about his off field issues?

            • Jack says:

              Bah:

              lets just assume everyone guilty until proven innocent from now on.

              If everyone is guilty, then why do you still have this personal vendetta against A-Rod?

  23. Steve H says:

    Week 1 2009 NFL season overreaction:

    Kyle Orton>>>>>>Jay Cutler.

    That being said, I actually do like the move from the Broncos perspective, even if saying that makes Salty’s head explode.

    • Salty Buggah says:

      I still hate it. Cutler and the Broncos offense (with their awesome receivers, TE’s, RBs, and O-line) were a perfect match.

      • Steve H says:

        Ehh, won’t matter if their D is ranked in the 20′s. If they can take advantage of the extra picks and stockpile the D, they will get closer to the balance they need.

        • Salty Buggah says:

          Which they didnt by drafting Moreno 12th overall. And we need a LOT of help on D, a couple of pieces wont do anything. We signed some veteran FA’s that will help. The Broncos D was decent today though, so its progress.

        • Zack says:

          Or they could have had a pro bowl QB for the next 7-10 years and built the defense over time. So even with these new picks, your QB is still Kyle Orton- and very few teams can win it all with a QB like Orton- and thats IF they have a top defense like Ravens or Titans, but obviously they dont and its not fair to think they will in the next few years

          • Steve H says:

            At some point it’s hard to ignore Orton’s 23-12 record as a starter and Cutler’s 17-20 (and well below .500 college record).

            • Mike Axisa says:

              Is W-L record really a good measure of performance?

              I’m not trying to be a dick, it’s an honest question. It seems like it wouldn’t be…

              • Zack says:

                It’s not.

                Matt Leinart 37-2 at USC. Hows he doing now?

                What about Colt Brennan?

                • Steve H says:

                  College vs. Pros, apples and oranges.

                • Zack says:

                  ” (and well below .500 college record).”

                  Then why did you bring it up?

                • Steve H says:

                  Because it’s a pattern specific to Cutler. Danny Wuerffel was one of the greatest college QB’s of all time, Charlie Ward was great, so was Tommie Frazier, Ty Detmer, etc. My point was, Cutler hasn’t been a winning QB since high school, while much less talented players have. I think Cutler has a chance to be great, all of the tools are there. But he’s far from a sure thing, being a Super Bowl caliber QB. He might just be Jeff George.

                • Zack says:

                  So its apples v oranges for Matt Leinart. But its fair game for Cutler?

                  Since you like Orton’s W/L record I posted his stats lower, because its hard to ignore his defense carried him to 10 wins in ’05 and any other team 9 TDs in 15 games would probably get you 3-12.

              • Steve H says:

                It’s not perfect but at some point there is a reason the Jeff George’s of the world have 46-78 records. In football, a great team turnaround happens 99% of the time when there is an upgrade at QB. There is no bullpen in football, so I think W-L record in QB is in strong correlation to how he is playing. Because the QB is on offense, he has more control of what his team scores. There’s no, well the pitcher pitched great, but his team didn’t score. While the QB still has to rely on his D, I’d say the QB overall has much more control of the outcome of the game.

                • Zack says:

                  “There’s no, well the pitcher pitched great, but his team didn’t score”

                  A QB played great but his defense gave up 40 points?

                • Steve H says:

                  Cutler’s QB rating last year in losses. 71.9, 77.8, 64.3, 60.7, 49.8, 74.3, 72.4, 74.9.

                  In their 8 losses last year, Cutler played 0 good games.

                  Cutler’s QB rating in wins. 137.5, 109.6, 93.3, 96.1, 107.9, 106.4, 94.8, 102.7.

                  In their 8 wins last year, Cutler played 8 good games.

                  When Cutler played well, they won. When Cutler played poorly, they lost. Strong correlation there. There’s not a 6 inning, 6 ER win or a 8 inning 1 ER loss mixed in.

                • Zack says:

                  Sample size? if you’re going to use his CAREER record, then do the splits for his CAREER.

                  2007
                  Wins: 81.6, 79.0, 106.7, 75.7, 137.0, 141.0, 106.4
                  Loss: 96.6, 75.7, 70.6, 95.7, 85.4, 96.4, 45.6, 95.5, 32.7

                  2006
                  Wins: 101.7, 88.9
                  Loss: 62.3, 97.6, 84.1

                  So thats 5 losses in when his ratings was over 95, and 2 more with it over 84.

                • Steve H says:

                  But that helps my point, it’s very rare for Cutler to play well and lose, and it’s rare for him to play poorly and win. That’s the case with most all QB’s. Orton’s record is clearly skewed, but he’s the exception not the rule. I know Cutler>>>Orton, but I still think the trade makes sense.

                • Zack says:

                  Right, so then the whole discussion about bringing up Orton’s W/L to Cutler’s was pretty pointless.

                  The trade makes sense if Denver gets pieces that help them win in the future, if Cutler and Chicago gets a SB then they win too.

                • Steve H says:

                  Yeah, but the point was more Cutler’s W/L record, not Orton’s.

                • Zack says:

                  Yeah, but you compared it to Orton’s, who won 10 games in 2005 with a defense that gave up less than 13 points a game- thats where it was flawed.

            • Zack says:

              2005: 10-5 51.6% 9 TD 13 INT
              2007: 2-1 53.8% 3 TD 2 INT
              2008: 9-6 58.5% 18 TD 12 INT

              Those are his numbers along with his record. Now Kyle Orton won 10 games with 9 TD and 13 INT? For some reason I’m not giving him credit for those wins.

              • Zack says:

                Oh and his defense gave up 12.6 points per game (1st in NFL) in 2005. But yeah Cutler wouldnt have won 10 games with that defense.

  24. The Mets should at least try to bring Delgado back, right? They can’t survive another full year with Daniel Murphy at 1B unless he finds his power quick, right? I know the Mets want to build around pitching and all but you need hitters at the right positions. Getting Beltran and Reyes back will definitely help, but w/o Delgado, that still leaves only two power options in Wright and Beltran, and we’ve seen the former’s power disappear this year.

    • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

      I love how the NY media has totally given up on Murphy after ONE YEAR. Assholes.

      • I’m not saying his development is done, it’s obviously not, but he really hasn’t displayed any sort of power potential this year. His MiL SLG was “only” .444, too. So unless he turns into Keith Hernandez defensively, I don’t see how he’s gonna provide them much value there.

      • Steve H says:

        If Murphy could play a passable 2b I think he’d have some value, but he won’t hit enough for 1b. And as far as the NY media, they are the ones who built him up way for way higher expectations than ever should have come on him. His OPS in the minors was only .796.

    • Mike Axisa says:

      Murphy’s a classic ‘tweener. Not enough bat to play a corner, not enough defense to play up the middle. He has some value in the NL as a bench/platoon guy, especially while he’s cheap, but once he gets to arbitration and starts pulling down $3-4M a year, forget it. Nontender.

  25. Salty Buggah says:

    Cutler sucking bad against Green Bay today.

  26. Tom Zig says:

    Anyone know what happened with Kanye at the VMA’s?

  27. pete says:

    Re: innings limits, cashman, baseball writers, et all. In general, they have a better idea of what they are doing than we do. Maybe not the players, but the people pulling the strings. Chances are, if every damn team is monitoring pitchers innings, i think i’d trust the actuarial science being put in by the heavily invested franchises a lil’ more than the “experts” on FOX, ESPN, NY Post, etc. That’s just me, and that isn’t even including my own opinions/analysis. It just seems kinda stupid when people are so convinced that they are right when people who are being paid millions of dollars to keep track of this stuff are saying otherwise. I doubt there would be anybody nay-saying innings limits if it weren’t for the anecdotally-inclined-by-default sportswriters who like to show their sports worldliness by sanctifying the “good old days,” and demonizing everything that changes about the game. Sorry alex gonzalez, but there’s a pretty good chance that the GMs (or most of them), actuaries, doctors, and literally hundreds of other people who are able to be paid (and well) for what their minds are capable of wrapping themselves around, are smarter than you. Just because the data is varying and there is “no hard evidence” doesn’t mean there isn’t enough data for people to study, and the people who study them (the same breed who walk out of graduate programs w/ $200,000+ salaries at insurance companies) can sort through the noise pretty well. Obviously there are no foolproof plans, but some are, definitively, more likely to produce positive results than the others.

  28. I was at that Sept. 10, 1999 game. That game was just ridiculous.

  29. bonestock94 says:

    I’m no Green Bay fan, but it’s nice to see that loudmouth Cutler getting knocked around.

  30. aj says:

    I like Kristan Cunningham. I’m a little worried about LAA tomorrow.

  31. JMK says:

    So I check the open thread tonight thinking, “It’s Sunday–there’s no way much will be happening on a Sunday night open thread with football on.”

    My mistake was severely underestimating the baiting power of Alex Gonzalez. Love that guy.

  32. Dela G says:

    Pedro throws 130 pitches!!!!

  33. chriskeo says:

    I was debating picking up Joba in my fantasy league (he is a FA), any chance he goes 5 innings tomorrow?

    • JMK says:

      There’s a chance, but it’s certainly not something I’d bet on. 4 IP or less seems a more likely bet. I’d think the next two starts would be closer to 5-6 IP.

  34. Bob Stone says:

    Pedro is 5-0 with a 2.87 era and a 1.09 whip. He’s pitching like he’s 28 instead of 38 years old.

  35. This is actually a pretty good Sunday night football game. I’d rather a little bit more offense but it’s not bad.

  36. Tom Zig says:

    What internet browsers does everyone use?

  37. Jack says:

    Greg Jennings can kill two stones with one bird.

  38. Jack says:

    I heart Al Harris.

  39. JMK says:

    Watching the post game report with Harrison and Dungy is very weird. I know the man is revered and he’s been through a lot, but lord, Dungy is creepy. He has a funny look in his eye and that combined with his smile and voice makes me want to lock my doors.

    Also, not to say that Cutler had a good game by any stretch, but the last interception was his receiver’s fault.

  40. What do you tell a friend when he says he can throw a football 100yards, then says he can throw 250 feet(83 yards) then says he is good for at least this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....edded#t=15

    63ish yards?

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.