By Tony Mazur
In years past, the awards handed out at the end of the season were pretty clear-cut. Throughout the 1990s, it was always obvious as to who would win the Cy Young Award or the MVP trophy. In 2009, the choices were not so cut-and-dry, which made the season more interesting. Here are my postseason awards for the 2009 season.
AL Cy Young Award: Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners
This choice may come as a shock, but check his stats. "King Felix" went 19-5 with a 2.49 ERA for a much improved Mariner team. While Zack Greinke has looked dominant most of the year, Hernandez has made even the best teams look silly. He may be the most underrated pitcher in the game today.
Runner-Up: Zack Greinke, Kansas City Royals
NL Cy Young Award: Adam Wainwright, St. Louis Cardinals
This will be up for debate for years to come, but Wainwright, in my humble opinion, should win the award. Unlike teammate Chris Carpenter, Wainwright has stayed healthy all year, and has provided the stability the Cardinals needed, especially in the second half, as they trounced the Cubs significantly. Also, a .263 ERA with 19-8 record doesn't look to bad, either.
Runner-Up: Tim Lincecum, San Francisco Giants
AL MVP: Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins
For the majority of the season, I was pretty sure the award would have gone to the Yankees' Mark Teixeira. But Mauer is indeed the Most Valuable Player. Aside from Johnny Bench, Mike Piazza, and, for one year, Todd Hundley, catchers aren't known for their bat. Mauer has won his third batting title in four years, a feat even Ichiro hasn't accomplished. Mauer also hit 28 home runs, more than doubling his previous record of 13 set in 2006.
Runner-Up: Mark Teixeira, New York Yankees
NL MVP: Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals
Is there any doubt? Pujols led the league in home runs with 47, and ranked near the top of every other offensive category. He also covers a lot of ground at first base, similar to former Cardinal first baseman Keith Hernandez. Pujols just might be one of the greatest right-handed hitters to have ever played the game.
Runner-Up: Prince Fielder, Milwaukee Brewers
AL Rookie of the Year: Gordon Beckham, Chicago White Sox
This was a very tough choice, but I chose Beckham because of his style of play. Beckham was one of the few bright spots to a mediocre White Sox club. One can make a case for Elvis Andrus, Rick Porcello, and Nolan Reimold, which would also be understandable. In my opinion, this one is a toss-up.
Runner-Up: Elvis Andrus, Texas Rangers
NL Rookie of the Year: Andrew McCutchen, Pittsburgh Pirates
Yes, the Pirates are certainly not a model organization, but I loved the performance from McCutchen. He has the skills to become a five-tool player in the near-future, even if the Bucs trade him for more prospects. What sets him apart from the rest is his speed. McCutchen stole 22 bases in 108 games, and pounded out 9 triples. He reminds me of Marquis Grissom in his Montreal days.
Runner-Up: Chris Coghlin, Florida Marlins
AL Manager of the Year: Mike Scioscia, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
The Angels have been a favorite in the baseball circles for a few years, but Scioscia has kept this team together after the tragic death of Nick Adenhart. Also, he has groomed players like Kendry Morales and Maicer Izturis to fill the big shoes of the injured Torii Hunter and Vladimir Guerrero, and they stepped up greatly.
Runner-Up: Ron Gardenhire, Minnesota Twins
NL Manager of the Year: Jim Tracy, Colorado Rockies
After an 18-28 record, the Rockies fired Clint Hurdle and replaced him with Jim Tracy. Since then, the Rockies went 74-42, and won the Wild Card for the second time in three seasons.
Runner-Up: Tony La Russa, St. Louis Cardinals
AL's Most Improved Team: Texas Rangers
Traditionally, the Rangers are stacked with hitters, but are thin in the pitching department. That improved immensely with Scott Feldman and Kevin Millwood, though they still have work to do if they want to give the Angels a run for their money. Still, an 87-75 mark is something nice to build on.
Runner-Up: Seattle Mariners
NL's Most Improved Team: Colorado Rockies
Can you blame me for picking the Rockies to finish in fourth in the NL West? The Rockies used the magic beans from 2007 and implemented them into the current team. Their 92 wins was third in the National League, though "Rocktober" may be short-lived.
Runner-Up: Atlanta Braves
AL's Biggest Disappointment: Cleveland Indians
Personally, I did not pick the Tribe to win anything this year, but many of my colleagues drank the Kool-Aid. When you part ways with all-stars and replace them with unproven prospects, negative results typically ensue. 2010 does not look too promising, either.
Runner-Up: Tampa Bay Rays
NL's Biggest Disappointment: New York Mets
For the fourth year in a row, the Mets let their fans down. This time, however, the Metropolitans finished 22 games under .500, reminiscent of the underachieving teams of the early '90s. The team fell short on everyone's expectations, though key injuries to Carlos Delgado, David Wright, and Jose Reyes did not help matters.
Runner-Up: Milwaukee Brewers
Showing posts with label Texas Rangers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Texas Rangers. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Hillary has to disembowel Obama
By Rick Morris
With the final Democratic presidential debate before the big March 4 primaries looming next Tuesday, the dilemma facing Hillary Clinton is very stark indeed. Ever since she lost
It’s clear that Hillary and her inner circle realized the full extent of the crisis even during their only upswing of the election season. The insane momentum realized by Obama after the Hawkeye state win set in motion a dynamic that even Hillary’s shocking comeback win in
Hillary’s attempt to come off graceful at the end of the
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Ron Paul withdrawal story FAQ
By Rick Morris
Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.
Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.
Without any further ado, the questions and answers:
Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...
A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...
Q: Did not!
A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.
Q: Did not!!!!!
A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.
Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!
A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.
Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?
A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.
Q: Still convinced?
A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.
Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?
A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!
Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.
A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.
Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.
A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.
Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.
A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.
Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!
A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.
Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!
A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).
Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?
A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."
Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.
A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.
Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.
Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.
Without any further ado, the questions and answers:
Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...
A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...
Q: Did not!
A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.
Q: Did not!!!!!
A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.
Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!
A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.
Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?
A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.
Q: Still convinced?
A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.
Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?
A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!
Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.
A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.
Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.
A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.
Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.
A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.
Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!
A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.
Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!
A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).
Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?
A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."
Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.
A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Brewers v. Cubs: The facts
By Nate Noy
On July 2nd the Brewers were 48-34 playing .585 ball and were 14 games over .500. The Cubs were 41-40 playing .506 ball and were a single game over .500 and 6.5 behind the Brewers.
At that time I thought to myself that the Brewers were a complete fraud and the Cubs would win the division. For the next few days and almost nightly thereafter Rick Morris and I debated how accurate my prediction would be.
Over the course of the next few weeks I continued to launch this debate with people I know, most of them responding that I was insane. However, the Cubs continued to chip away slowly at the division lead.
As of today, the Brewers are 65-66, they have gone 17-32 or .347 since I called them out. Their 14 game over .500 record is now one game under.
The Cubs are now 67-63 and have gone 26-23 since my infamous boast. No they have not exactly set the world on fire as I thought they would, (see impact of Soriano injury for that) but the Brewers did completely collapse as predicted.
As a side note, the Cards went from 37-42 and are now 64-64 going 27-22 over the same time period, one game better than the Cubs.
In two days the Brewers will be 65-68, their road record will be 25-43 (and since the Rangers and Astros both play at home this week), they will have the 29th best road record in baseball, only behind the D-Rays.
They will also be 4.5 games behind the Cubs and could be as many as 2.5 behind the Cards.
I know Rick Morris will still not concede the argument, but I am finding very little justification for a claim that the Brewers are even worth a crap at this point.
A final point: on August 12th when we did the Lounge show, the Brewers were 62-56. I blasted them from top to bottom and received a counter from every member of the show. However, since I called them out on air they have gone 3-10, and when the Cubs win the next two it will be 3-12.
Put a fork in the Brewers; they are DONE.
On July 2nd the Brewers were 48-34 playing .585 ball and were 14 games over .500. The Cubs were 41-40 playing .506 ball and were a single game over .500 and 6.5 behind the Brewers.
At that time I thought to myself that the Brewers were a complete fraud and the Cubs would win the division. For the next few days and almost nightly thereafter Rick Morris and I debated how accurate my prediction would be.
Over the course of the next few weeks I continued to launch this debate with people I know, most of them responding that I was insane. However, the Cubs continued to chip away slowly at the division lead.
As of today, the Brewers are 65-66, they have gone 17-32 or .347 since I called them out. Their 14 game over .500 record is now one game under.
The Cubs are now 67-63 and have gone 26-23 since my infamous boast. No they have not exactly set the world on fire as I thought they would, (see impact of Soriano injury for that) but the Brewers did completely collapse as predicted.
As a side note, the Cards went from 37-42 and are now 64-64 going 27-22 over the same time period, one game better than the Cubs.
In two days the Brewers will be 65-68, their road record will be 25-43 (and since the Rangers and Astros both play at home this week), they will have the 29th best road record in baseball, only behind the D-Rays.
They will also be 4.5 games behind the Cubs and could be as many as 2.5 behind the Cards.
I know Rick Morris will still not concede the argument, but I am finding very little justification for a claim that the Brewers are even worth a crap at this point.
A final point: on August 12th when we did the Lounge show, the Brewers were 62-56. I blasted them from top to bottom and received a counter from every member of the show. However, since I called them out on air they have gone 3-10, and when the Cubs win the next two it will be 3-12.
Put a fork in the Brewers; they are DONE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)