EVIL~! alkeiper

This is one of the things that makes baseball unbearable nowadays. It's 8:37 on the east coast and the game hasn't even started yet.

Chris Issak? Sweet.

Record attendance at both the major and minor league level.

First, let's date the dynasty at 1975. The A's actually had a better winning percentage than the 1972-74 clubs but lost in the ALCS. The first loss was Catfish Hunter but he went to crap after his first season out. The Reggie Jackson trade occurred just before the 1976 season, but the A's got Don Baylor and Mike Torrez in return. The big losses were November 1, 1976 when Sal Bando, Bert Campaneris, Don Baylor, Rollie Fingers, Joe Rudi and Gene Tenace left via free agency. The question then is whether that core could compete with the 1970s Kansas City Royals. Comparing the win shares of the 1976 A's (in 1977) with the '77 Royals, the Royals were clearly better at catcher, shortstop, third base, center field, designated hitter and right field. The A's pitching of the dynasty didn't last while the Royals produced pitching off the assembly line. I think the Royals of the late 70s beat out the preserved Athletics, who would grow old sans a rebuilding project. If they had made the World Series in '76 the Big Red Machine would be waiting so that's likely a no. I think the A's win no further World Championships without a firesale.

They likely win the '85 World Series as then it's one out and none on, and most teams go on to win at that point. Still, Jack Clark dropped a foul ball and Darrell Porter allowed a passed ball later in the inning. The tying run was on but the winning run was still at the plate, and the Cardinals from the moment that missed call occurred played ten of the most classless innings ever seen in postseason ball. That said, one loss does not cause a team to lose personnel. The Cardinals were completely dominated at the plate in that series, scoring 13 runs over all seven games, just two runs in the last three. Losing Coleman may have hurt a bit, but he was a left fielder with a .320 OBP. His replacement (Tito Landrum) went 15 for 39 in the postseason. If there is a moment that causes the Cardinals to slip, it's losing Jack Clark to free agency following the 1987 season. They could not replace his offense and that left the Cards with just one player above a .400 slugging percentage.

Coming into this season he needed 1,646 hits. Four players have done that after age 32. Pete Rose, Sam Rice, Cap Anson and Honus Wagner. Rice is actually a great comp for Ichiro. He debuted at age 25, played his first full season at age 27 and missed the following year to World War I. Would have stuck around for 3,000 hits if anyone was counting back then.

It depends on when he gets started. Ichiro collected 1,434 hits in Japan. He started at age 18 however. Given the differences in the systems, he would have spent a couple formulative years in the minor leagues. Then you have the differences between leagues that would case him to lose a few hits. I think 700-800 hits is a fair estimate. That puts him slightly ahead of Rose's pace. The thing is, Rose got his hits by holding on far past his prime. The only guys who collected near as many hits after age 32 were Rose, Sam Rice and Cap Anson. All held on well into their 40s. It would be a question of whether Ichiro was willing to play that long, and that is something we will find out eventually.

He sounded the same the day after the bodies were discovered. I get the impression that he wants to be open for questions, but he really doesn't have anything to add.

I think they should retire the concept, simply because the multi-man ladder match is overexposed and someone is bound to get seriously hurt again trying to continuously one-up previous matches. If they continue the concept, move it to a B level PPV like Backlash or No Way Out, where it can help spike buyrates.

I'm inclined to say no. Vizquel at his peak was never close to one of the top players in baseball, which is important. I know people will draw comparisons to Ozzie Smith. Ozzie was better with the glove however, and he was actually more valuable at the plate. Ozzie made 15 All-Star teams and drew votes in six MVP races, finishing as high as second. Vizquel made three All-Star teams, never started, and in his career was named on ONE MVP ballot. At eighth place. In Vizquel you have a player who was never considered a big star or contributor, but people give him consideration because he was a very good defensive player and played a long time. Essentially, he's the defensive equivalent of Harold Baines. I hope you're referring to Dustin Pedroia, because the Okajima love is starting to annoy me. I think there's a good argument for Matsuzaka. A 3.84 ERA is immensely valuable in Fenway Park.

Julio Lugo? You've got to go with probably Jason Kendall (lower OPS, less power, less speed). Craig Monroe is also a strong candidate since he plays a corner. In the National League it's (sadly) Omar Vizquel. Any of those choices are better than Pat Burrell. (Really now Jayson Stark, a player with an above-average OPS? Yes he's overpaid but that's not an MVP criteria. Otherwise we'd only give the MVP to players making the league minimum.)

Agreed. Dusty can still brawl when he needs to. He was never a high-impact performer so his advanced age isn't as much of a detriment as it was to a guy like Snuka. As long as they keep this under ten minutes it's completely watchable.

Of course. Usually that's the standard media response to a poor W/L record despite otherwise good statistics.

Also 3.43 in 2005. Which is an object lesson as to how a pitcher who obviously "knows how to win" can win just 13 games over a full season despite a 1.87 ERA.

These numbers are adjusted per 27 outs. Numbers are courtesy of baseball-reference.com. Brad Penny (5.31) Jake Peavy (5.02) Chris Young (4.14) What does it mean? Given a team with average pitching (4.5 runs allowed per game), the team scoring 5.31 runs/game would win 94 games a season. The 5.02 team would win 90 and the 4.14 team would win 74. That's just for perspective. If you click on any player on baseball-reference.com, check their gamelogs for 2007 and scroll to the bottom, you can check out their run support for the season.

Great stuff from Kenny Mayne. "Attention San Franciscans. Batting first, and playing left, Rickey Henderson!......Henderson. I have no idea who's batting second."

Absolutely. Foley had similar comments about King in his second book, that even when King doesn't know his subject, he appears to.

Why do I have my doubts that the Bronx is Burning will air at 10pm as planned?

Dusty's over, and if he's not give him two minutes on a microphone and he will be.

Erin Andrews is either freakishly tall or standing on a box. This has my attention until 9. Then it's Larry King, then Raw (or maybe this depending on if Howard is still hitting).

I just remembered how much I hate Chris Berman.

Judgment Day '06, King of the Ring finals.

If that were the case why would anyone ever buy a wrestling dvd? You know who wins already. I don't think we're all rushing to the shops to buy the DVD with Cena/Umaga on it. The thing with the Cena supporters on this board is they elevate anything Cena does. If he has a decent match, it's a great match. If he does a drop toe hold in a match he's fucking Dean Malenko. It's ridiculous looking at it from the outside. So is the opposite opinion. The truth is in the middle.

This is something I've never quite understood. When has the champion EVER been about who the best pure wrestler is? I think a lot of fans hate Cena but are overall entertained by the product. That's fine. If Cena is a heel to them, well the heel can withstand a long run as champion. To the eyes of the casual fan without a discerning taste for workrate, is it much different than say Ric Flair's heel run in 1988? Promoters have been able to sell a product with a disliked champion on top for years, and never had a problem.

If that were the case why would anyone ever buy a wrestling dvd? You know who wins already.