Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Has to be the RIGHT variable!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]W.E.S. wrote:
Let's change a variable and replay it next week and it probably won't be a sweep. Hurdle could wipe his butt with his left hand instead of his right like he's been doing,
NO, a million times no. Hurdle can wipe his butt sideways, and it wouldn't make any difference. Nor would eliminating the Rockies' humidor. Nor would eliminating the NL rules that disallow the dh.
The ONLY thing that matters is the factor under which timing and performance skills decay and degenerate, and that is the layoff.
Had the Rockies gone down to AZ and played live teams to a fever pitch, as the Sporting News suggested, I am convinced there would have been NO sweep! The Rocks would have taken at least one game, more likely two.
Case closed.
Re: King's 1995 example, with the Braves, yeah I saw that Series. But the Indians were so much more "off", for whatever reason than the Braves, that nothing would have mattered. That was the Braves' series to lose, especially with David Justice in the lineup.
-
Rust theory redux (2)
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ClaudeProvost wrote:
Case Closed? I think not.
Seriously, how long are you going to cling to this layoff theory? How many games are required for a Major League Baseball team to shake off the rust? The Rockies certainly seemed sharp in Game 4, only to lose by one run.
First off, most of these queries were already addressed in the previous thread. It is not a matter here of "clinging to layoff theory" - but simply of akncowledging a subversive fact, owning it - and not running away from it.
There is NO doubt these Rockies had their edge off. It was blunted, their reflexes were blunted and their use of energy was inefficient. All the hallmarks of taking too much time off and allowing an excessive amount of brain, and muscle atrophy to accrue.
Here's what we know, from assorted reports in the Denver papers, blogs etc.:
i) The Rockies only had two full squad games and those were barely five innings each
ii) the pitchers like Francis never played full tilt or threw full speed.
iii) most of the time was spent in batting cages for the hitters. Well, hitting artificially pitched balls is ok as far as it goes, but not like trying to tee off on a 95 mph fastball
iv) the Rockies actually spent an inordinate time going up in the mtns. and snow boarding etc. Great to take the edge off, but not much help in preparing for a formidable Bosox team!
The accumulated evidence, therefore, shows this team was not ready to play. They needed at minimum another whole day (as I earlier predicted) to even meet the Sox to breakeven level.
The Rockies appeared SEMI-SHARP in game 4 (they were no where near as sharp as they were in the ALCS) and one can assess this by the improved ratio of hits to strikeouts. (In the prior three games it was like 22 strikeouts to 11 hits).
Clearly, the Rockies by Game 4 were on the cusp of readiness. BUT NOT QUITE THERE! My reading is that they needed only another game - by which end they could have gone toe to toe (or bat to bat) with the Sox. At least to the point of pulling out two wins.
And not suffer the humiliation of a sweep.
The Rust theory is viable - and explains all the assorted observed aspects of this Series. The Red Sox ARE good! But not as good as they appeared, in the near total domination. 90% of that was Rockies' rust!
-
Well, ok, amend that 90%
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ClaudeProvost wrote:
do see your point. There is something to the rust theory.
But 90 percent??????? That's just ridiculous.
Okay, on reconsidering it probably is. I got carried away by seeing too many negative remarks against the rust theory - which is the one that best explains all the aspects of what we observed. So I over-reacted an invoked a "90%" factor.
Anyway, let us amend that rust portion down to 50%. If it were as much as 90% then - if it could have been eliminated - the Rocks would indeed have swept the Sox! Which I could not see occurring in even the most optimal circumstances.
-
Really?
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The season is over - now the REAL stuff begins! I'm speaking, of course, about Figure Skating season
You mean to say that figure skating is a real, bona fide sport??
I always thought it was a form of modeling, with the models using a rink instead of a runway.
Anyway, at least football season is still hereL GO PACK!
-
Routs
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Olav VI wrote:
this was a bought-and-paid-for win (yeah, yeah, I know about those losing richer-boy Yanks, but that's incompetance in spite of the money). It's time to stop this nonsense, time for MLB to level the field at least to the degree the NFL did, so then we really see good baseball, not just easy, predictable routs
I agree, and therefore there ought to be salary caps imposed. That way, those teams with the most money don't necessarily garner the most wins. It was damned near inevitable for the Bosox to win the Series, given their humongous purse strings. The Rocks, I still maintain, would have put up much more competition had they not fallen victim to the "rust effect" - already described in multiple posts (see e.g. my post on page 1)
If baseball doesn't change it will lose many more fans, especially of the long sujffering poor teams. The Rockies performance was fabulous considering all their team was "home grown" and not paid for mercs like the Bosox rustled up for their conquests.
Personally, I'd be more proud of a team if they had a humble money spigot and still managed to win. Something to depart from the ignominous money culture.