Didn't get to see the game until after midnight and it didn't finish until about 4:30. I am working on an hour's sleep or so and am still totally wired. What an excellent start for the Phillies. I don't think they got the memo about being the underdogs.
Damn, Cliff Lee has just been amazing. His first post-season and he is making a dazzling run. 0.54 ERA? Ten strikeouts and no walks against *that* lineup? Mercy.
Any notion that the Phillies would be tight or on edge because of the "Yankee mystique" was oh, so put to rest. When Utley hit that first home, the Phillies dugout was as jumpin' as a Sunday afternoon game in June. That was a real "yo, we've *been* here" moment.
But of course, that was nothing compared to what would follow. Lee's nonchalant look when he caught Damon's pop up? Priceless.
His behind the back catch a little later? Pricelesser.
Having Pedro return to the House that Daddy Built for game two? Pricelesserest.
>Didn't get to see the game until after midnight and it didn't finish >until about 4:30. I am working on an hour's sleep or so and am still >totally wired. What an excellent start for the Phillies. I don't think >they got the memo about being the underdogs.
>Damn, Cliff Lee has just been amazing. His first post-season and he is >making a dazzling run. 0.54 ERA? Ten strikeouts and no walks against >*that* lineup? Mercy.
>Any notion that the Phillies would be tight or on edge because of the >"Yankee mystique" was oh, so put to rest. When Utley hit that first >home, the Phillies dugout was as jumpin' as a Sunday afternoon game in >June. That was a real "yo, we've *been* here" moment.
>But of course, that was nothing compared to what would follow. Lee's >nonchalant look when he caught Damon's pop up? Priceless.
>His behind the back catch a little later? Pricelesser.
>Having Pedro return to the House that Daddy Built for game two? >Pricelesserest.
>Fred
Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. If either team has an overall advantage, it's negligible. Top to bottom, the Phils lineup is every bit as good as the Yanks, maybe a little better. If Hamels pitches up to his potential, starting pitching is pretty even as well. The one big edge the Yankees had was their bullpen, but the way they've performed of late that advantage has largely disappeared, except for Mariano. And he could well end up being the difference if the Yankees do win it.
There's a very good chance this thing will come down to Lee v. Sabbathia again in Game 7, and if both pitch up to form it could be a real classic.
JimK wrote: > Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really > doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
> If either team has > an overall advantage, it's negligible. Top to bottom, the Phils lineup > is every bit as good as the Yanks, maybe a little better. If Hamels > pitches up to his potential, starting pitching is pretty even as well.
Good lord. Starting pitching is "pretty even" !?!? Most of the grade school kids in the St. Louis area know enough about baseball to pick a rotation of Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte over Lee, Hamels and, and ... Martinez ? LOL !!
> The one big edge the Yankees had was their bullpen, but the way > they've performed of late that advantage has largely disappeared, > except for Mariano. And he could well end up being the difference if > the Yankees do win it.
So, Mariano Rivera is a better closer of late than Brad Lidge. Damn, you're good. You must really know your baseball. #####
> There's a very good chance this thing will come down to Lee v. > Sabbathia again in Game 7, and if both pitch up to form it could be a > real classic.
Uh oh. We agree on that point. I'll have to rethink that.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:03:03 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
<kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >JimK wrote: >> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
>Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. The Phillies are the defending champs and they've rolled through the last two postseasons up till now. They're a veteran team with an offense that's as good or better than any in baseball. They have a few pitching question marks, but so do the Yankees.
>> If either team has >> an overall advantage, it's negligible. Top to bottom, the Phils lineup >> is every bit as good as the Yanks, maybe a little better. If Hamels >> pitches up to his potential, starting pitching is pretty even as well.
>Good lord. Starting pitching is "pretty even" !?!? Most of the >grade school kids in the St. Louis area know enough about baseball >to pick a rotation of Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte over Lee, >Hamels and, and ... Martinez ? LOL !!
If you discounted Pedro coming into this series you know less than I thought about baseball, if that's possible. Have you seen him pitch at all this year? Did you see him against the Dodgers? Sabbathia and Lee are pretty much even. As far as Hamels goes, please pay attention. I said he would have to pitch up to his potential, and most who know baseball feel he could be a No. 1 starter not too far down the road. In fact, he was the ace of the Phils championship team last year as well as MVP of the WS. Or did you forget that?
As far as the other Yankee starters, I love Pettite and have a lot of confidence in him, but he now has games where he's very hittable, And despite his gem last night, Burnett has been wildly inconsistent this year, barely over a .500 pitcher with a tendency to implode.
So yes, I see the starting pitching as close to even if Hamels pitches well. Tell me why you don't. You have a tendency for making statements without backing them up with any explanation.
>> The one big edge the Yankees had was their bullpen, but the way >> they've performed of late that advantage has largely disappeared, >> except for Mariano. And he could well end up being the difference if >> the Yankees do win it.
>So, Mariano Rivera is a better closer of late than Brad Lidge. >Damn, you're good. You must really know your baseball. #####
Mariano is the greatest closer in the game and has been for a long, long time. If you're comparing him to Lidge, the conversation is over.
>> There's a very good chance this thing will come down to Lee v. >> Sabbathia again in Game 7, and if both pitch up to form it could be a >> real classic.
>Uh oh. We agree on that point. I'll have to rethink that.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:04 -0600, DG <xxxxx...@xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote: >Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>JimK wrote: >>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
>>Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>Absolutely.
Well, that does it. I guess I must be wrong.
>>> If either team has >>> an overall advantage, it's negligible. Top to bottom, the Phils lineup >>> is every bit as good as the Yanks, maybe a little better. If Hamels >>> pitches up to his potential, starting pitching is pretty even as well.
>>Good lord. Starting pitching is "pretty even" !?!? Most of the >>grade school kids in the St. Louis area know enough about baseball >>to pick a rotation of Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte over Lee, >>Hamels and, and ... Martinez ? LOL !!
>The pitching for the Phillies isn't nearly as good as the Yanks.
Tell me why.
>Here is the part that makes me laugh: "the Phils lineup is every bit >as good as the Yanks" Look at the stats and get back to me...
JimK wrote: > Ken Fortenberry wrote: >> JimK wrote: >>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:11:13 -0600, DG <xxxxx...@xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote: >JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:04 -0600, DG <xxxxx...@xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>>>JimK wrote: >>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
>>>>Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>>>Absolutely.
>>Well, that does it. I guess I must be wrong.
>Look at the Vegas odds and that will confirm you are wrong as well.
Surely you don't believe that the Vegas odds are proof of which team is better. The Vegas favorite is the team that gets the most betting action....and bettors in general are not experts, they're fans, and NY has more fans.
>>>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:04 -0600, DG <xxxxx...@xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>>>>>JimK wrote: >>>>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
>>>>>>Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>>>baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>>>>>Absolutely.
>>>>Well, that does it. I guess I must be wrong.
>>>Look at the Vegas odds and that will confirm you are wrong as well.
>>Surely you don't believe that the Vegas odds are proof of which team >>is better. The Vegas favorite is the team that gets the most betting >>action....and bettors in general are not experts, they're fans, and NY >>has more fans.
>If you want to bet on the Phillies then I'll take the other side.
I didn't say I wanted to bet on anybody. Besides, I'm a Yankee fan and I don't bet against my own team. I also never said I thought the Phils would win the Series. I said it was a virtual tossup. And again, Vegas odds have very little to do with which team will win.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:24:02 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
<kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >JimK wrote: >> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>> JimK wrote: >>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ...
>Uh huh.
>Well, that settles that.
I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my points.
>>>>>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:04 -0600, DG <xxxxx...@xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>>>>>>>JimK wrote: >>>>>>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>>>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
>>>>>>>>Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>>>>>baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>>>>>>>Absolutely.
>>>>>>Well, that does it. I guess I must be wrong.
>>>>>Look at the Vegas odds and that will confirm you are wrong as well.
>>>>Surely you don't believe that the Vegas odds are proof of which team >>>>is better. The Vegas favorite is the team that gets the most betting >>>>action....and bettors in general are not experts, they're fans, and NY >>>>has more fans.
>>>If you want to bet on the Phillies then I'll take the other side.
>>I didn't say I wanted to bet on anybody. Besides, I'm a Yankee fan and >>I don't bet against my own team. I also never said I thought the Phils >>would win the Series. I said it was a virtual tossup. And again, Vegas >>odds have very little to do with which team will win.
>So your money and your mouth disagree...
How do you manage to arrive at that conclusion? I've never once said I thought the Phillies would or should win, so why would you be surprised that I don't want to bet on them?
>Phils have the advantage at this moment since they have three games at >home.
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:24:02 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
> <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >JimK wrote: > >> Ken Fortenberry wrote: > >>> JimK wrote: > >>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really > >>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... > >>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about > >>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
> >> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ...
> >Uh huh.
> >Well, that settles that.
> I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my > points.
God, you're trying to talk reason simultaneously to both DG and Kenny boy. You'd have an easier time trying to convince Osama bin Laden to eat kosher while patronizing a Vegas brothel.
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:04 -0600, DG <xxxxx...@xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>JimK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
>>>>>>>>>>Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>>>>>>>baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>>>>>>>>>Absolutely.
>>>>>>>>Well, that does it. I guess I must be wrong.
>>>>>>>Look at the Vegas odds and that will confirm you are wrong as well.
>>>>>>Surely you don't believe that the Vegas odds are proof of which team >>>>>>is better. The Vegas favorite is the team that gets the most betting >>>>>>action....and bettors in general are not experts, they're fans, and NY >>>>>>has more fans.
>>>>>If you want to bet on the Phillies then I'll take the other side.
>>>>I didn't say I wanted to bet on anybody. Besides, I'm a Yankee fan and >>>>I don't bet against my own team. I also never said I thought the Phils >>>>would win the Series. I said it was a virtual tossup. And again, Vegas >>>>odds have very little to do with which team will win.
>>>So your money and your mouth disagree...
>>How do you manage to arrive at that conclusion? I've never once said I >>thought the Phillies would or should win, so why would you be >>surprised that I don't want to bet on them?
>You used "underdog", eh?
Well, I guess I did. I said that the Phillies should not be considered an underdog in this Series. Once again, I also said I thought the Series was a tossup.
>>>Phils have the advantage at this moment since they have three games at >>>home.
>>Duh! You're a regular Tim McCarver, aren't you?
>No. McCarver is terrible... He hates the Yanks.
You finally got something right. Timmy spent the whole game raving about how great Pedro was (and he did pitch very well), while pretty much ignoring the fact that Burnett was even better. And while we're on this subject, Joe Buck is a nitwit too.
>On Oct 31, 1:12 am, JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:24:02 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
>> <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >JimK wrote: >> >> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >> >>> JimK wrote: >> >>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >> >>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >> >>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >> >>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>> >> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ...
>> >Uh huh.
>> >Well, that settles that.
>> I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my >> points.
>God, you're trying to talk reason simultaneously to both DG and Kenny >boy. You'd have an easier time trying to convince Osama bin Laden to >eat kosher while patronizing a Vegas brothel.
>Peace, >Neil X.
I enjoy banging my head against a wall. It loosens the cobwebs.
JimK wrote: > Ken Fortenberry wrote: >> JimK wrote: >>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>> JimK wrote: >>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >>>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series. >>> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ... >> Uh huh.
>> Well, that settles that.
> I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my > points.
Your "point" appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you, and that is practically the whole baseball universe, really doesn't know baseball.
Since you are the only person on earth who really knows baseball perhaps you'd care to share your awesome credentials with us. I mean, you must be one hell of a GM for some ball club. Right ?
JimK wrote: > Neil X wrote: >> JimK wrote: >>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>> JimK wrote: >>>>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>>>> JimK wrote: >>>>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >>>>>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series. >>>>> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ... >>>> Uh huh. >>>> Well, that settles that. >>> I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my >>> points.
>> God, you're trying to talk reason simultaneously to both DG and Kenny >> boy. You'd have an easier time trying to convince Osama bin Laden to >> eat kosher while patronizing a Vegas brothel.
> I enjoy banging my head against a wall. It loosens the cobwebs.
Ah, brain damage. That goes a long way in explaining your silly pontificating about baseball lately.
Here's wishing you a complete and speedy recovery.
Neil X wrote: > JimK wrote: >> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>> JimK wrote: >>>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>>> JimK wrote: >>>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >>>>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series. >>>> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ... >>> Uh huh. >>> Well, that settles that. >> I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my >> points.
> God, you're trying to talk reason simultaneously to both DG and Kenny > boy. ...
Reason ? There is neither rhyme nor reason in the ridiculous pronouncements Mr. K has spouted forth. And it is impossible to "refute" something as nebulous as "Pedro is looking sharp lately".
<kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >JimK wrote: >> Neil X wrote: >>> JimK wrote: >>>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>>> JimK wrote: >>>>>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>>>>> JimK wrote: >>>>>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >>>>>>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>>>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series. >>>>>> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ... >>>>> Uh huh. >>>>> Well, that settles that. >>>> I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my >>>> points.
>>> God, you're trying to talk reason simultaneously to both DG and Kenny >>> boy. You'd have an easier time trying to convince Osama bin Laden to >>> eat kosher while patronizing a Vegas brothel.
>> I enjoy banging my head against a wall. It loosens the cobwebs.
>Ah, brain damage. That goes a long way in explaining your silly >pontificating about baseball lately.
>Here's wishing you a complete and speedy recovery.
At least I've backed up every pontification with an explanation, which is more than can be said for you.
<kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >Neil X wrote: >> JimK wrote: >>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>> JimK wrote: >>>>> Ken Fortenberry wrote: >>>>>> JimK wrote: >>>>>>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>>>>>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ... >>>>>> Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>>>>> baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series. >>>>> Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. ... >>>> Uh huh. >>>> Well, that settles that. >>> I guess it does since you were apparently unable to refute any of my >>> points.
>> God, you're trying to talk reason simultaneously to both DG and Kenny >> boy. ...
>Reason ? There is neither rhyme nor reason in the ridiculous >pronouncements Mr. K has spouted forth. And it is impossible >to "refute" something as nebulous as "Pedro is looking sharp >lately".
It wouldn't be impossible if it wasn't true. His recent stats back up the claim.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:49:09 -0700 (PDT), MARKmcmlx
<markmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 31, 1:54 am, JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >No. McCarver is terrible.
>> And while we're >> on this subject, Joe Buck is a nitwit too.
>Listen to ESPN radio - Jon Miller is THE BEST baseball announcer I've >ever heard. Of course you have to put up with Joe Morgan - but still.
Wow. IMO, Miller is one of THE WORST play by play announcers I've ever heard, with or without Morgan. He never, ever shuts up and rarely talks about what's going on in the game.
>Might have to try that tonight because McCarver and Buck are terrible >announcers. McCarver clearly hates the Yankees. As for Buck, >nepotism... I can't take between pitches when they drone on about >garbage.
Two of the best color analysts today are David Cone and Al Leiter for the Yankees. If they did the games on radio, I'd listen to them. Although both are former Yankees, you get very little homerism from them and they both give great insights to the game.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:55:48 -0700, JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote: >On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:03:03 -0500, Ken Fortenberry ><kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>JimK wrote: >>> Anyone who believed the Phillies were underdogs in this Series really >>> doesn't know baseball. I see it as a true tossup. ...
>>Practically everyone on earth who knows anything at all about >>baseball had the Phillies as the underdog in this Series.
>Then, like you, they really don't know baseball. The Phillies are the >defending champs and they've rolled through the last two postseasons >up till now. They're a veteran team with an offense that's as good or >better than any in baseball. They have a few pitching question marks, >but so do the Yankees.
>>> If either team has >>> an overall advantage, it's negligible. Top to bottom, the Phils lineup >>> is every bit as good as the Yanks, maybe a little better. If Hamels >>> pitches up to his potential, starting pitching is pretty even as well.
>>Good lord. Starting pitching is "pretty even" !?!? Most of the >>grade school kids in the St. Louis area know enough about baseball >>to pick a rotation of Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte over Lee, >>Hamels and, and ... Martinez ? LOL !!
>If you discounted Pedro coming into this series you know less than I >thought about baseball, if that's possible. Have you seen him pitch at >all this year? Did you see him against the Dodgers? Sabbathia and Lee >are pretty much even. As far as Hamels goes, please pay attention. I >said he would have to pitch up to his potential, and most who know >baseball feel he could be a No. 1 starter not too far down the road. >In fact, he was the ace of the Phils championship team last year as >well as MVP of the WS. Or did you forget that?
>As far as the other Yankee starters, I love Pettite and have a lot of >confidence in him, but he now has games where he's very hittable, And >despite his gem last night, Burnett has been wildly inconsistent this >year, barely over a .500 pitcher with a tendency to implode.
Are you still LOL? If Hamels had pitched up to his potential, as I said he would have to do, the starting pitching for the two teams would have been pretty even. Sabbathia and Lee were both very good, but Lee was probably a little better. Burnett had one outstanding game and one horrible game. Did I mention that he was wildly inconsistent this year? Petitte won two games with gritty performances, but he wasn't great in either of them. Martinez lost two games, but he was pretty good in one and so-so in the other. Blanton was decent in his start. Sounds pretty close to even to me.
>So yes, I see the starting pitching as close to even if Hamels pitches >well. Tell me why you don't. You have a tendency for making statements >without backing them up with any explanation.
<Crickets>
>>> The one big edge the Yankees had was their bullpen, but the way >>> they've performed of late that advantage has largely disappeared, >>> except for Mariano. And he could well end up being the difference if >>> the Yankees do win it.
>>So, Mariano Rivera is a better closer of late than Brad Lidge. >>Damn, you're good. You must really know your baseball. #####
>Mariano is the greatest closer in the game and has been for a long, >long time. If you're comparing him to Lidge, the conversation is over.
Like I said, the conversation is over. Mo was money while Lidge blew the most important game of the Series. If the Phils win Game 4, it's 2-2 and then 3-2 their way when they win Game 5 instead of the Yanks being up a game and going home for the last two. I guess I'm good and I really know my baseball!
>>> There's a very good chance this thing will come down to Lee v. >>> Sabbathia again in Game 7, and if both pitch up to form it could be a >>> real classic.
>>Uh oh. We agree on that point. I'll have to rethink that.
>You have a lot of things to rethink.
>JimK
It might have turned out that way if Manuel had done the smart thing and pitched Lee on three days rest in Game 4.
JimK wrote: > JimK wrote: >> So yes, I see the starting pitching as close to even if Hamels pitches >> well. Tell me why you don't. You have a tendency for making statements >> without backing them up with any explanation.
> <Crickets>
W-L ERA IP Sabathia 0-1 3.29 13.2 Burnett 1-1 7.00 9.0 Pettitte 2-0 5.40 11.2
Three Yankee starters went a combined 3-2 and pitched 34 1/3 innings while giving up 19 earned runs. The four Phillies starters combined for only two more innings and gave up 21 earned runs while going 2-3.
It's all fine and good to defy conventional wisdom and make ridiculous pronouncements, but when you proclaim that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about baseball you look like an idiot.
> It might have turned out that way if Manuel had done the smart thing > and pitched Lee on three days rest in Game 4.
Uh huh, and anyone who disagrees with that doesn't know anything about baseball, right ?
Congrats to your Yanks, that's a damn good ballclub.
> Didn't get to see the game until after midnight and it didn't finish > until about 4:30. I am working on an hour's sleep or so and am still > totally wired. What an excellent start for the Phillies. I don't think > they got the memo about being the underdogs.
> Damn, Cliff Lee has just been amazing. His first post-season and he is > making a dazzling run. 0.54 ERA? Ten strikeouts and no walks against > *that* lineup? Mercy.
> Any notion that the Phillies would be tight or on edge because of the > "Yankee mystique" was oh, so put to rest. When Utley hit that first > home, the Phillies dugout was as jumpin' as a Sunday afternoon game in > June. That was a real "yo, we've *been* here" moment.
> But of course, that was nothing compared to what would follow. Lee's > nonchalant look when he caught Damon's pop up? Priceless.
> His behind the back catch a little later? Pricelesser.
> Having Pedro return to the House that Daddy Built for game two? > Pricelesserest.
<kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >JimK wrote: >> JimK wrote: >>> So yes, I see the starting pitching as close to even if Hamels pitches >>> well. Tell me why you don't. You have a tendency for making statements >>> without backing them up with any explanation.
>> <Crickets>
> W-L ERA IP >Sabathia 0-1 3.29 13.2 >Burnett 1-1 7.00 9.0 >Pettitte 2-0 5.40 11.2
>Three Yankee starters went a combined 3-2 and pitched 34 1/3 >innings while giving up 19 earned runs. The four Phillies >starters combined for only two more innings and gave up 21 >earned runs while going 2-3.
>It's all fine and good to defy conventional wisdom and make >ridiculous pronouncements, but when you proclaim that anyone >who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about baseball >you look like an idiot.
And you don't know anything about math, either. The numbers you just cited prove my point that the starting pitching was pretty close to even, despite the fact that Hamels didn't pitch up to his potential like I said he would have to. If he had pitched well, the edge might even have gone to the Phils. So who's the idiot?
>> It might have turned out that way if Manuel had done the smart thing >> and pitched Lee on three days rest in Game 4.
>Uh huh, and anyone who disagrees with that doesn't know >anything about baseball, right ?
Do you disagree? In Manuel's defense, I think he decided not to go with Lee on three days rest because he threw 122 pitches in Game 1. Of course, the reason he probably let him throw that many was because he had no faith in the guy you claimed to better right now than Mariano. He let Lee pitch the 9th even though he had a 5 run lead.
>Congrats to your Yanks, that's a damn good ballclub.
Yes it is. And so is Philadelphia....almost as good as the Yanks, but not quite.
JimK wrote: > Ken Fortenberry wrote: >> JimK wrote: >>> JimK wrote: >>>> So yes, I see the starting pitching as close to even if Hamels pitches >>>> well. Tell me why you don't. You have a tendency for making statements >>>> without backing them up with any explanation.
>>> <Crickets>
>> W-L ERA IP >> Sabathia 0-1 3.29 13.2 >> Burnett 1-1 7.00 9.0 >> Pettitte 2-0 5.40 11.2
>> Three Yankee starters went a combined 3-2 and pitched 34 1/3 >> innings while giving up 19 earned runs. The four Phillies >> starters combined for only two more innings and gave up 21 >> earned runs while going 2-3.
>> It's all fine and good to defy conventional wisdom and make >> ridiculous pronouncements, but when you proclaim that anyone >> who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about baseball >> you look like an idiot.
> And you don't know anything about math, either. ...
I shouldn't have to explain the fundamentals of baseball to you.
>>> It might have turned out that way if Manuel had done the smart thing >>> and pitched Lee on three days rest in Game 4. >> Uh huh, and anyone who disagrees with that doesn't know >> anything about baseball, right ?
> Do you disagree? In Manuel's defense, I think he decided not to go > with Lee on three days rest because he threw 122 pitches in Game 1. Of > course, the reason he probably let him throw that many was because he > had no faith in the guy you claimed to better right now than Mariano.
Say what ?!?! Just who was it that I'm supposed to have claimed was better than Mariano Rivera ? Wherever you think you read that silliness, you better go back and read it again.
>> Congrats to your Yanks, that's a damn good ballclub.
> Yes it is. And so is Philadelphia....almost as good as the Yanks, but > not quite.
Yeah, the Yankees had better pitching and the better pitching usually wins a Series.
Just as an aside, Phillies pitchers batted a robust .333 while the Yankee pitchers hit a pathetic .143. ;-)
|
