2015 MLB Season Thread

[Rick N. Backer]

Kudos to the Jays. Down 3-1 it would be easy to lay down like dogs, but they didn't.

I guess when your season is over in May, you lose enough interest in your league's championship series that you can only use it to make veiled comments about games played in the other league.

Maybe you can help me out. When I mentioned that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013, you mocked it as referencing "glory days" or "history." That means your team and my team are, right now, on the exact same plane, right? Because the 2015 season is irrelevant, right?

 

Except it ended for the Cubs the same way the last 107 did.

[Disembodied Spirit]

Kudos to the Jays. Down 3-1 it would be easy to lay down like dogs, but they didn't.

I guess when your season is over in May, you lose enough interest in your league's championship series that you can only use it to make veiled comments about games played in the other league.

Maybe you can help me out. When I mentioned that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013, you mocked it as referencing "glory days" or "history." That means your team and my team are, right now, on the exact same plane, right? Because the 2015 season is irrelevant, right?

 

Except it ended for the Cubs the same way the last 107 did.

http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag153/Freedom80065/acf1df7705d11ead80866a9dfb030aee_zpsntopjiqm.jpg

[goose]

^^^

[laughedatbytime]

Kudos to the Jays. Down 3-1 it would be easy to lay down like dogs, but they didn't.

I guess when your season is over in May, you lose enough interest in your league's championship series that you can only use it to make veiled comments about games played in the other league.

Maybe you can help me out. When I mentioned that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013, you mocked it as referencing "glory days" or "history." That means your team and my team are, right now, on the exact same plane, right? Because the 2015 season is irrelevant, right?

 

Except it ended for the Cubs the same way the last 107 did.

When I was in college there was a DJ who, every Friday at 5, used to tell his listeners to take their arm, sweep it across their desk so that all of the papers would fall on the floor, run out of the office, and tell the boss to shove it. At least you're not that brazen, you just take to the internet, and implicitly tell the world that you can't be made to use all of those logical skills you need for your job here in OLV, you'll just do the opposite and tell anyone who tells you you need to construct a logical argument that they're not the boss of you.

 

Deep down, though, you have a sense that you know your arguments are ridiculous and why they are...if you didn't there's no way you could recover your senses in the little time you have before you have to work again and turn the logic part of your brain on all over again.

[Rick N. Backer]

Kudos to the Jays. Down 3-1 it would be easy to lay down like dogs, but they didn't.

I guess when your season is over in May, you lose enough interest in your league's championship series that you can only use it to make veiled comments about games played in the other league.

Maybe you can help me out. When I mentioned that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013, you mocked it as referencing "glory days" or "history." That means your team and my team are, right now, on the exact same plane, right? Because the 2015 season is irrelevant, right?

 

Except it ended for the Cubs the same way the last 107 did.

When I was in college there was a DJ who, every Friday at 5, used to tell his listeners to take their arm, sweep it across their desk so that all of the papers would fall on the floor, run out of the office, and tell the boss to shove it. At least you're not that brazen, you just take to the internet, and implicitly tell the world that you can't be made to use all of those logical skills you need for your job here in OLV, you'll just do the opposite and tell anyone who tells you you need to construct a logical argument that they're not the boss of you.

 

Deep down, though, you have a sense that you know your arguments are ridiculous and why they are...if you didn't there's no way you could recover your senses in the little time you have before you have to work again and turn the logic part of your brain on all over again.

 

So, your answer is, in essence, the past is relevant when it can be referenced favorably for your position?

[laughedatbytime]

Kudos to the Jays. Down 3-1 it would be easy to lay down like dogs, but they didn't.

I guess when your season is over in May, you lose enough interest in your league's championship series that you can only use it to make veiled comments about games played in the other league.

Maybe you can help me out. When I mentioned that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013, you mocked it as referencing "glory days" or "history." That means your team and my team are, right now, on the exact same plane, right? Because the 2015 season is irrelevant, right?

 

Except it ended for the Cubs the same way the last 107 did.

When I was in college there was a DJ who, every Friday at 5, used to tell his listeners to take their arm, sweep it across their desk so that all of the papers would fall on the floor, run out of the office, and tell the boss to shove it. At least you're not that brazen, you just take to the internet, and implicitly tell the world that you can't be made to use all of those logical skills you need for your job here in OLV, you'll just do the opposite and tell anyone who tells you you need to construct a logical argument that they're not the boss of you.

 

Deep down, though, you have a sense that you know your arguments are ridiculous and why they are...if you didn't there's no way you could recover your senses in the little time you have before you have to work again and turn the logic part of your brain on all over again.

 

So, your answer is, in essence, the past is relevant when it can be referenced favorably for your position?

No. Then again, you don't even think that.

[goose]

^^^ Just a few more posts, guys...I'm almost there...

 

 

:fapfapfap:

Edited October 23, 2015 by goose

[The Analog Cub]

^^^ Just a few more posts, guys...I'm almost there...

 

 

:fapfapfap:

 

The old married couple of TRF - RNB and LABT.

[laughedatbytime]

^^^ Just a few more posts, guys...I'm almost there...

 

 

:fapfapfap:

Consider it a service to anyone who would consider raising their kids in Massachusetts...

[RushCanuck]

It was a good year for the Jays. They exceeded my expectations and provided much of Canada with some exciting games.

I hope Jays ownership realized that if they spend the money and invest in good players which results in a contending team, the fans will come. The pitching is an issue that needs immediate addressing. Price and Estrada are free agents. If Buerhle and Hutchinson weren't on the playoff roster, what future do they play in the Jays plan? Dickey at 41 is always a question mark when he starts, and that 14-2 loss should act as a wake up call. Bullpen needs overhaul - putting Price in the bullpen during the Rangers series proves that. Come on Jays - make the right moves and avoid a return to mediocrity!

[Rick N. Backer]

^^^ Just a few more posts, guys...I'm almost there...

 

 

:fapfapfap:

Consider it a service to anyone who would consider raising their kids in Massachusetts...

 

I believe we have the best public schools in the nation.

 

https://wallethub.co...t-schools/5335/

 

And, oh, by the way, of the four major sports, our team with the longest championship drought is the Celtics. After this season, assuming they don't win it all, they'll have gone 8 years between championships. That's like the Cubs in 1916. But they went farther than the Red Sox this year. And that's relevant because it's a fact in the Cubs' favor, if I follow the logic correctly.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

 

Not sure if the same thing happened to the Reds, but it definitely happened to the Cardinals in the NL East. St. Louis ended up with a 59-43 record, the best overall, but was in second place in both halves.

 

I'd still be a reda** about it had we not won it all in 1982.

 

Now, the 1985 World Series is a whole other story. I have finally forgiven Denkinger for the worst call in the history of sports, but I still haven't gotten over it.

[goose]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

 

Not sure if the same thing happened to the Reds, but it definitely happened to the Cardinals in the NL East. St. Louis ended up with a 59-43 record, the best overall, but was in second place in both halves.

 

I'd still be a reda** about it had we not won it all in 1982.

 

Now, the 1985 World Series is a whole other story. I have finally forgiven Denkinger for the worst call in the history of sports, but I still haven't gotten over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iL_W9MucEk

 

 

That runner that was safe via the bad call gets out at 3rd. The two errors end up costing the cards the game...

Edited October 27, 2015 by goose

[The Analog Cub]

Went tailgating at the Iowa State game (we actually f***ing won with a shutout, that never happens), and my friend last minute decided to be Jake Arrieta for Halloween :rfl:

 

[The Analog Cub]

I'd say he's more of a Carlos Zambrano minus the temper tantrums.

[laughedatbytime]

I'd say he's more of a Carlos Zambrano minus the temper tantrums.

He certainly got the cap wrong.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

I'd say he's more of a Carlos Zambrano minus the temper tantrums.

He certainly got the cap wrong.

 

He's got those pants on and you are discrediting the accuracy of the cap?! LOL.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

By the way, congrats to the Royals fans on their title championship... are there any on the board? Not likely, I think have met like 3 Royals fans in my life.... and I grew up in Missouri! :P

 

Alas, KC finally got the '85 monkey off their back.... as did Don Denkinger on some levels. Hell, these days, even this Cardinal fan can talk about 1985 without a blood pressure spike of near stroke levels.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

 

Not sure if the same thing happened to the Reds, but it definitely happened to the Cardinals in the NL East. St. Louis ended up with a 59-43 record, the best overall, but was in second place in both halves.

 

I'd still be a reda** about it had we not won it all in 1982.

 

Now, the 1985 World Series is a whole other story. I have finally forgiven Denkinger for the worst call in the history of sports, but I still haven't gotten over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iL_W9MucEk

 

 

That runner that was safe via the bad call gets out at 3rd. The two errors end up costing the cards the game...

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

That argument is made all the time... it's inaccurate. A) it assumes all the plays would have worked out the same way even though baseball is situational. B) it ignores the fact the first out would have been recorded leaving no one on base.

 

But, still let's play it out anyway.... let's assume Orta is called out correctly and the known next hitters go the same way....

 

* Balboni singles after Clark misses the foul in the dugout. Balboni is sitting on first with one out, instead of Balboni on first and Orta on second with nobody out.

 

* Sundberg bunts to Worrell. Worrell forces Concepcion (subbed for Balboni at first) at second not Orta at third, leaving Sundberg at first with two outs, instead of Concepcion on second and Sundberg on first. Again, Concepcion, who scored the tying run, is no longer on base... and the Cardinals have two, rather than one, out.

 

* Porter allows the passed ball, Sundberg is sitting on second with two outs. Concepcion is not on third, because he was out.

 

* Herzog walks McCrae, putting Sundberg on second and McRae on first with two outs, not the bases loaded with one out.

 

* Iorg bloops a single and Van Slyke still throws a strike to home with Sundberg lumbering around third, but Porter can't apply the tag. Concepcion does not score the tying run because he was already out, Sundberg does not score the winning run because he scores the tying run. The game is 1-1, with McRae likely at third and Iorg likely at second, not a KC 2-1 victory.

 

Granted, that puts KC is a good position to still win the game and St. Louis still needs one more out.... but the point is the blown call for Orta gave the Royals a different route to getting 2 runs. In the scenario above.... the correct scenario if the call is right and we follow the rest of the plays.... the game is still undecided with the known hitters and plays.

 

But, here's the rub for the Royals fans, with the Iorg bloop, without Concepcion ahead of him to get the tie, does Sundberg risk the attempt at home down by one with two outs? Does he risk getting thrown out and ending not just the game, but ending the World Series, or does he hold at third? I would suggest that is 50/50 in a regular season game. But with the World Series literally on the line if you get thrown out? When the runner is Jim Sundberg and the arm is Andy Van Slyke? No, it's more likely 90/10 he holds at third. Actually, I am being kind, it's 99.998/0.002 he holds at third. The situation would have been KC still down 1-0 and the bases loaded with two outs with Lonnie Smith coming to the plate. That's a situation that could bode well for the Royals, but it's also a force out at every base to end the game and win the Series for St. Louis.... with a hitter known for grounders and a hitter the Cardinals knew very well. But we will never know because Denkinger blew the call and then refused to listen to reason.

 

Now, I would agree the Cardinals lost their composure following the blown call. I think Clark's bad miss of the pop foul speaks to that. I think Porter's passed ball speaks to that. But I would also suggest that if the call is right, they don't lose their composure and very likely close it out.

Edited November 3, 2015 by WorkingAllTheTime

[goose]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

 

Not sure if the same thing happened to the Reds, but it definitely happened to the Cardinals in the NL East. St. Louis ended up with a 59-43 record, the best overall, but was in second place in both halves.

 

I'd still be a reda** about it had we not won it all in 1982.

 

Now, the 1985 World Series is a whole other story. I have finally forgiven Denkinger for the worst call in the history of sports, but I still haven't gotten over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iL_W9MucEk

 

 

That runner that was safe via the bad call gets out at 3rd. The two errors end up costing the cards the game...

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

That argument is made all the time... it's inaccurate. A) it assumes all the plays would have worked out the same way even though baseball is situational. B) it ignores the fact the first out would have been recorded leaving no one on base.

 

But, still let's play it out anyway.... let's assume Orta is called out correctly and the known next hitters go the same way....

 

* Balboni singles after Clark misses the foul in the dugout. Balboni is sitting on first with one out, instead of Balboni on first and Orta on second with nobody out.

 

* Sundberg bunts to Worrell. Worrell forces Concepcion (subbed for Balboni at first) at second not Orta at third, leaving Sundberg at first with two outs, instead of Concepcion on second and Sundberg on first. Again, Concepcion, who scored the tying run, is no longer on base... and the Cardinals have two, rather than one, out.

 

* Porter allows the passed ball, Sundberg is sitting on second with two outs. Concepcion is not on third, because he was out.

 

* Herzog walks McCrae, putting Sundberg on second and McRae on first with two outs, not the bases loaded with one out.

 

* Iorg bloops a single and Van Slyke still throws a strike to home with Sundberg lumbering around third, but Porter can't apply the tag. Concepcion does not score the tying run because he was already out, Sundberg does not score the winning run because he scores the tying run. The game is 1-1, with McRae likely at third and Iorg likely at second, not a KC 2-1 victory.

 

Granted, that puts KC is a good position to still win the game and St. Louis still needs one more out.... but the point is the blown call for Orta gave the Royals a different route to getting 2 runs. In the scenario above.... the correct scenario if the call is right and we follow the rest of the plays.... the game is still undecided with the known hitters and plays.

 

But, here's the rub for the Royals fans, with the Iorg bloop, without Concepcion ahead of him to get the tie, does Sundberg risk the attempt at home down by one with two outs? Does he risk getting thrown out and ending not just the game, but ending the World Series, or does he hold at third? I would suggest that is 50/50 in a regular season game. But with the World Series literally on the line if you get thrown out? When the runner is Jim Sundberg and the arm is Andy Van Slyke? No, it's more likely 90/10 he holds at third. Actually, I am being kind, it's 99.998/0.002 he holds at third. The situation would have been KC still down 1-0 and the bases loaded with two outs with Lonnie Smith coming to the plate. That's a situation that could bode well for the Royals, but it's also a force out at every base to end the game and win the Series for St. Louis.... with a hitter known for grounders and a hitter the Cardinals knew very well. But we will never know because Denkinger blew the call and then refused to listen to reason.

 

Now, I would agree the Cardinals lost their composure following the blown call. I think Clark's bad miss of the pop foul speaks to that. I think Porter's passed ball speaks to that. But I would also suggest that if the call is right, they don't lose their composure and very likely close it out.

If one bad call is all it takes for a team to crumble like that, then the better team won. :)

[blueschica]

Well, Geddy will be happy; Blue Jays made the easy call and exercised their options on Encarnacion and Bautista, and the pitcher Dickey. Looking forward to Spring 2016 !!

[LaFellaStrangiato]

By the way, congrats to the Royals fans on their title championship... are there any on the board?

 

Yes.

 

I grew up in Kansas City and have carried my love for the team across the country with me ever since.

 

And I've never carried a monkey on my back over the Denkinger call. I don't think most Royals fans have, but this championship has certainly erased any of that. I've known a lot of Cardinals fans through the years and most of them would tell you that it was over for them too, once the Cards took their next championship in 2006.

 

But, yeah...this is a virtually untarnished championship. The Royals outplayed everyone they faced in the postseason and on balance, was probably the most "complete" team in the league this year. They should remain competitive for a few years to come.

 

I was 18 when they took their first Series and I'm 48 now. I just hope I don't have to wait until I'm 78 for the next one. ;)

[WorkingAllTheTime]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

 

Not sure if the same thing happened to the Reds, but it definitely happened to the Cardinals in the NL East. St. Louis ended up with a 59-43 record, the best overall, but was in second place in both halves.

 

I'd still be a reda** about it had we not won it all in 1982.

 

Now, the 1985 World Series is a whole other story. I have finally forgiven Denkinger for the worst call in the history of sports, but I still haven't gotten over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iL_W9MucEk

 

 

That runner that was safe via the bad call gets out at 3rd. The two errors end up costing the cards the game...

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

That argument is made all the time... it's inaccurate. A) it assumes all the plays would have worked out the same way even though baseball is situational. B) it ignores the fact the first out would have been recorded leaving no one on base.

 

But, still let's play it out anyway.... let's assume Orta is called out correctly and the known next hitters go the same way....

 

* Balboni singles after Clark misses the foul in the dugout. Balboni is sitting on first with one out, instead of Balboni on first and Orta on second with nobody out.

 

* Sundberg bunts to Worrell. Worrell forces Concepcion (subbed for Balboni at first) at second not Orta at third, leaving Sundberg at first with two outs, instead of Concepcion on second and Sundberg on first. Again, Concepcion, who scored the tying run, is no longer on base... and the Cardinals have two, rather than one, out.

 

* Porter allows the passed ball, Sundberg is sitting on second with two outs. Concepcion is not on third, because he was out.

 

* Herzog walks McCrae, putting Sundberg on second and McRae on first with two outs, not the bases loaded with one out.

 

* Iorg bloops a single and Van Slyke still throws a strike to home with Sundberg lumbering around third, but Porter can't apply the tag. Concepcion does not score the tying run because he was already out, Sundberg does not score the winning run because he scores the tying run. The game is 1-1, with McRae likely at third and Iorg likely at second, not a KC 2-1 victory.

 

Granted, that puts KC is a good position to still win the game and St. Louis still needs one more out.... but the point is the blown call for Orta gave the Royals a different route to getting 2 runs. In the scenario above.... the correct scenario if the call is right and we follow the rest of the plays.... the game is still undecided with the known hitters and plays.

 

But, here's the rub for the Royals fans, with the Iorg bloop, without Concepcion ahead of him to get the tie, does Sundberg risk the attempt at home down by one with two outs? Does he risk getting thrown out and ending not just the game, but ending the World Series, or does he hold at third? I would suggest that is 50/50 in a regular season game. But with the World Series literally on the line if you get thrown out? When the runner is Jim Sundberg and the arm is Andy Van Slyke? No, it's more likely 90/10 he holds at third. Actually, I am being kind, it's 99.998/0.002 he holds at third. The situation would have been KC still down 1-0 and the bases loaded with two outs with Lonnie Smith coming to the plate. That's a situation that could bode well for the Royals, but it's also a force out at every base to end the game and win the Series for St. Louis.... with a hitter known for grounders and a hitter the Cardinals knew very well. But we will never know because Denkinger blew the call and then refused to listen to reason.

 

Now, I would agree the Cardinals lost their composure following the blown call. I think Clark's bad miss of the pop foul speaks to that. I think Porter's passed ball speaks to that. But I would also suggest that if the call is right, they don't lose their composure and very likely close it out.

If one bad call is all it takes for a team to crumble like that, then the better team won. :)

 

One bad call in the biggest of situations. The blown call was a crack in the glass.... Clark's missing the easy pop up in the dugout coupled with the blown call likely caused a few of them (namely Porter) to get a case of the yips. Worrell still actually held his own pitching (he only gave up two bloop hits and fielded the bunt correctly). Van Slyke threw a perfect strike.

 

But I noticed you conceded the point the blown call still led to one of the two runs (?). It's still *the* factor. Denkinger even admits it was A) a blown call and B) changed the tide of the game.

 

Alas, this is why I am *very* okay with replay in baseball.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

By the way, congrats to the Royals fans on their title championship... are there any on the board?

 

Yes.

 

I grew up in Kansas City and have carried my love for the team across the country with me ever since.

 

And I've never carried a monkey on my back over the Denkinger call. I don't think most Royals fans have, but this championship has certainly erased any of that. I've known a lot of Cardinals fans through the years and most of them would tell you that it was over for them too, once the Cards took their next championship in 2006.

 

But, yeah...this is a virtually untarnished championship. The Royals outplayed everyone they faced in the postseason and on balance, was probably the most "complete" team in the league this year. They should remain competitive for a few years to come.

 

I was 18 when they took their first Series and I'm 48 now. I just hope I don't have to wait until I'm 78 for the next one. ;)

 

You are a rare Royal fan to not let the 85 situation bother you. Most of the ones I know admit the lone title being under that cloud was frustrating.

 

For me, getting past 85 wasn't finally getting back on the World Series ride in 2006, it was the interview Denkinger did with ESPN... the one talking about his artwork and the mural of his career in baseball..... with the blown call painted smack dab, and larger than the rest of it, in the middle. He owned it. He accepted it. He talked about realizing it impacted the outcome in a way that made the entire series jaded for both Kansas City and St. Louis. It's hard to hold a grudge against a guy who does that. Like I said, I let go of Denkinger and the call, but I will never lose the feeling of being robbed. Without the blown call, KC might have still tied that game and taken it to extras or even found another way to get that second run in the ninth. St. Louis might have closed it out quickly. The problem is we won't ever really know. I feel like we got some sort of alternate movie ending and not the real one. But, alas, 85 is now one of two rings in KC and that changes things.

 

But, yeah, St. Louis getting two more since 85 does help take off the sting. ;)

[blueschica]

Congratulations to the Pirates' Starling Marte on winning his first Golden Glove award Tuesday night! He did some awesome fielding this year. Fingers crossed for Jung Ho Kang when Rookie of the Year is announced next week; although his mid September injury probably keeps him from being the front runner . . . .

 

http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/images-3_5.jpeg