gus_dog

Who cares. It could be Toronto for all I care. The Cubs were eliminated on Sunday, so that 'clinch' game does not mean squat to the Cubs. It's just another game. I would not watch them celebrate though. No fun to watch another team do that....., ever.

Cleveland won, so now the Sox lead is down to five games, with 18 to play (for the Sox). 16 games left for the Indians. Six of them head-to-head. This is really getting interesting. I feel like I'm leading a death march....

IMO, Barrett is below average at both of these aspects.

It's now six games with both teams winning last night. I don't think the Sox are going to choke this one away, even with their best efforts. More interesting is that they just don't look all that great over the past month or so. They show the inconsistencies of a .500 club. If I were a Sox fan, THAT is what would worry me.

Here's the latest. G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG Pujols 145 533 117 180 35 2 39 108 336 85 61 15 2 0.434 0.630 0.338 Lee 141 536 111 182 45 3 42 100 354 74 92 15 3 0.420 0.670 0.340 They keep getting closer. By the end of the season, Pujols may match or be ahead. Total Bases & SLG are really where Lee still has a substantial lead.

I think that what he said was that was what they would need to do to win the WC.

Ha! BTW, I like the pic of Lex - nice touch.

Barrett's offence is nice to have from the catcher's spot. I would like to see him improve his defence. IMO, he's an average catcher, defencively speaking.

No, stop, don't do it. You are letting them suck you back into the mirage that this might be a good ball club. It's not. The CuBorg..., resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated.

Now the lead is down to 6.5 games. The Sox looking more and more like a .500 club every day.

Whhhaaaatttt???? But Vance, I thought you were against Carpenter? Uh, I mean, he is a Cardinal..... :wink:

:lol: Did you have sweat dripping on your keyboard? No, but my keys were rattling.

Um, no. You can't win if you don't score. You can pitch 50 straight scoreless innings, but it means nothing if you're team can't score. You cannot win without scoring at least one run. (Negatives are impossible in baseball, even if Ditka is on the mound) I think her point with the "game of chicken" is that if Clemens can hold the other team for another inning or two, then he puts his team in a better position to win in the late innings. In other words, if Clemens holds the other team scoreless into the 9th, then Houston might be able to "play for a run", by bunting a guy over or something, and win the game with one run. As it stands, Houston's bullpen gives up a couple of runs, and Houston is forced to play for a big inning late in the game, sometimes. It's nitpicking a little, but it's not completely irrelevant. No, it's nitpicking alot, and the fact that such scenarios are even brought into the argument illustrates how tenuous the argument is. I'm done too. Have a nice day, everyone. :D nitpicking? With that empty accusation, it's no wonder you're done. Have a nice afternoon. Empty accusation???? What the hades is that? Actually, it was K-town's 'accusation', and I just agreed and emphasized. Really, I think it was more of a personal observation. No offence intended. Finally, I do not recall anyone on the Clemens side of this argument trying to devalue Chris Carpenter's accomplishments. Nobody. Most of the devaluing I observed in this thread was certain folks trying to devalue Clemens' accomplishments. I also don't think anyone wrote that Carpenter was not deserving. Quite the contrary - he is deserving. I think the consensus was pretty much that Clemens was more deserving. It also seems that there was pretty much a consensus that Chris Carpenter will win it, that is if the voters vote the way they usually do. JMHO.

I made it too...., although I felt if someone was staring a hole right through my screen name!

No problem here. In fact, use of the inside area -off the plate, was encouraged by my high school coach, but throwing anywhere above the shoulder (purposely, that is) was strictly prohibited. UK, who was the batter in that scenario with Gibson?

Um, no. You can't win if you don't score. You can pitch 50 straight scoreless innings, but it means nothing if you're team can't score. You cannot win without scoring at least one run. (Negatives are impossible in baseball, even if Ditka is on the mound) I think her point with the "game of chicken" is that if Clemens can hold the other team for another inning or two, then he puts his team in a better position to win in the late innings. In other words, if Clemens holds the other team scoreless into the 9th, then Houston might be able to "play for a run", by bunting a guy over or something, and win the game with one run. As it stands, Houston's bullpen gives up a couple of runs, and Houston is forced to play for a big inning late in the game, sometimes. It's nitpicking a little, but it's not completely irrelevant. No, it's nitpicking alot, and the fact that such scenarios are even brought into the argument illustrates how tenuous the argument is. I'm done too. Have a nice day, everyone. :D

We've covered this over and over again. Bruce Springsteen would have gotten the exact same results (a loss), if he had pitched that day. In the grand scheme of things, do you think that anybody is going to care in September whether the Astros lost that game 1-0, or 13-0? Therefore, Springsteen would have been just as valuable as Clemens that day, if he had been pitching. Unfortunately, Springsteen never got the chance. I know, the VORP doesn't think so. Wow, you're really reaching now. Clemens performance isn't less valuable because his team can't score. His TEAM'S performance is what is lacking, not his. And since his team is lacking, I contend that he's less valuable. I know you disagree. So be it. It's like having a cassette player in your car (not much value in that). If you have 100 CD's, they're pretty valuable on the surface, but pretty worthless, in the context of only having a cassette player to put them in. I'd rather have 10 cassettes, in that context. Yes, but Cy is not a team award, it is an individual award. Your argument here does not hold water. Essentially, you think Carpenter deserves it because he played for a better team. Really, that's it in a nutshell. (and because he's a Redbird :wink: ) In the final analysis, I think the voters will fall on your side. That is somwhat flawed. Given, no more or less flawed than how it was done in prior years, but flawed nonetheless.

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores. Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings. I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important". But he didn't, and therein lies a major flaw in this approach. He didn't, and in fact, he performed excellently. What he may have done is not relevant, whereas what he actually did is very relevant. How is "what he actually did" relevant? His team loses, either way. The team loses. He kept his team in the game, which is VERY different than giving up 6.

I just don't fault a pitcher because his team is shut-out or only scores one run on a day he pitches. A pitcher's job in the "win" equation is to give up as few runs as he can over as many innings as he can. He has little, since he bats I won't say no, control over how many runs his team scores. Clemens value decreases none if his team is unable to win; his team just failed to take advantage of the value he brings. I quantify "value" with "importance". How "important" is it that he only gives up 1 run, if his team isn't going to score? He may as well have give up 6, and he would have been just as "important". But he didn't, and therein lies a major flaw in this approach. He didn't, and in fact, he performed excellently. What he may have done is not relevant, whereas what he actually did is very relevant.

There was some hope though.... :wink: I still like Cleveland's chances if they can get to the post-season. They have really been playing well in the second half. 30-20 since the ASB, and that includes getting swept in four vs. Sox right after the break.

The Sox seem to have caught their collective breath- the lead is 9.5 games now. The Tribe is only .5 back in the WC.

This thread has gradually and continuously deteriorated, and IMO should be locked. The arguments are the same and the logic (or illogic, as the case may be) has already been noted as circular in nature.

:lol:

Vance, Colon leads in wins, and since Clemens won the NL Cy Young last year the way he did, it's only fair that Colon should win the AL Cy Young this season. :wink: :lol: I am an Angels fan, but unbiased, however I do want my guy to win. :?

You almost had me, but then why wouldn't some key Wild Card wins count for Clemens? If the wins that Carpenter has are what's putting him up there count (along with his other excellent performance staistics), then Clemen's wins should count as well, no? I really have no problem with either guy winning, because they both are deserving. Like I wrote before, Carpenter will get voted the NL Cy Young award, IMO. Likely not a landslide, but he'll win it. Additionally, Cardinal fans will have the NL MVP to enjoy as well, since I also believe that Pujols will garner that award. Plus, the Cardinals will win the division, and likely win the pennant too. Man, you guys are spoiled. :P