gusmoney wrote:"Can't lose: Obama backs Rays, Phillies"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14750.html

Barack Obama, campaigning in the key swing state of Florida, is seeking to capitalize on the excitement over the World Series-bound Tampa Bay Rays, telling a Tampa crowd he was “showing some love for the Rays,” several members of which joined him onstage.

Only problem?

Obama, a self-avowed Chicago White Sox fan, declared his allegiance earlier this month for the Rays’ National League opponent in baseball’s championship, the Philadelphia Phillies.

Let's hope he isn't pushed to take sides in the Ohio St./Penn St. game. But he can I think pretty safely root against Texas and Alabama.

steagles wrote:

gusmoney wrote:"Can't lose: Obama backs Rays, Phillies"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14750.html

Barack Obama, campaigning in the key swing state of Florida, is seeking to capitalize on the excitement over the World Series-bound Tampa Bay Rays, telling a Tampa crowd he was “showing some love for the Rays,” several members of which joined him onstage.

Only problem?

Obama, a self-avowed Chicago White Sox fan, declared his allegiance earlier this month for the Rays’ National League opponent in baseball’s championship, the Philadelphia Phillies.

firstly, he's a politician.

secondly, he can still root for the phillies and show the rays some love. he's not a phillies fan, and is there anyone that can actually say that they hate the rays.

I hate the Rays. And their foney fans.

TenuredVulture wrote:

steagles wrote:

gusmoney wrote:"Can't lose: Obama backs Rays, Phillies"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14750.html

Barack Obama, campaigning in the key swing state of Florida, is seeking to capitalize on the excitement over the World Series-bound Tampa Bay Rays, telling a Tampa crowd he was “showing some love for the Rays,” several members of which joined him onstage.

Only problem?

Obama, a self-avowed Chicago White Sox fan, declared his allegiance earlier this month for the Rays’ National League opponent in baseball’s championship, the Philadelphia Phillies.

firstly, he's a politician.

secondly, he can still root for the phillies and show the rays some love. he's not a phillies fan, and is there anyone that can actually say that they hate the rays.

I hate the Rays. And their foney fans.

yeah, but you're a partisan hack.

VoxOrion wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Game 1 - Phils 5 TB 2
Game 2 - Phils 8 TB 4
Game 3 - Phils 7 TB 5
Game 4 - TB 5 Phils 2
Game 5 - Phils 9 TB 3

Phillies in Five.

You have the phils winning a Moyer start? Ballzy.

Man, Game 4 is the game to which I have tickets. They'd better win, and I'm looking at you, fatty.

Also, here is the easiest prediction ever: this will be the least watched WS in history, just as the last Phillies WS appearance was at the time it happened in 1993.

As long as he doesn't call Ohio Stadium "The Big House" he's still way ahead of 2004.

mozartpc27 wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Game 1 - Phils 5 TB 2
Game 2 - Phils 8 TB 4
Game 3 - Phils 7 TB 5
Game 4 - TB 5 Phils 2
Game 5 - Phils 9 TB 3

Phillies in Five.

You have the phils winning a Moyer start? Ballzy.

Man, Game 4 is the game to which I have tickets. They'd better win, and I'm looking at you, fatty.

Also, here is the easiest prediction ever: this will be the least watched WS in history, just as the last Phillies WS appearance was at the time it happened in 1993.

the 1989 series did worse

phils in 5 and i will be there to see it. book it.

great article by maury brown:

So, the Tampa Bay Rays have gone worst to first and will meet the Philadelphia Phillies in Game 1 of the World Series on Weds. at Tropicana Field.

Congrats, St. Pete and Philly, you deserve it.

But, as opined last week, it should be the lowest rated World Series in history.

More than a few have said, “So what? Ratings don’t mean a thing.”

I’m here to say, it means a whole lot.

The low ratings we’re about to embark on have nothing to do with bad teams, or some Series prone to be a lopsided affair. On the contrary, it may be one of the best match-ups in recent history.

Low ratings show, in part, that when you spend week after week, year after year showing the Red Sox and the Yankees during the regular season, you brainwash the average fan. If you want to make October something special, no matter who is playing, you better get America to follow all 30 teams.

This requires doing a bit of detox on FOX, ESPN, and TBS' part. Understandably, you have America hooked on the Red Sox and Yankees, and with that you get your precious regular season ratings. The problem is, if one or the other team isn’t in the World Series and ratings are low, there’s a mountain of articles talking about how it’s a matter of being a “poor Series.”

That’s a load of manure.

So, I say, the low ratings do mean something. It means that broadcasters will decide that, in the end, they will get on bended knee and pray for the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels or Cubs to make the World Series, and hope that they drew high ratings during the regular season.

Or, they’ll wean America off their addiction to Red Sox and Yankees games and get the country interested in baseball. After all, there are 30 teams, not just 2.

linkage

Very cool. I've always wished baseball could work it out to do an NFL-style Sunday package (which could be moved to Saturdays once September rolled around so as not to compete directly with the NFL, and also to let FOX continue to do the coverage, if that's what they want), where ALL teams appeared on a "regional national" broadcast every week. In other words, just like they do with the NFL: one and four o'clock games, with a headliner at each time, plus other games, based on region, at those times. They could even make one network the network of the NL and the other the network of the AL, a la football (since I assume they could get TBS or someone in on this as well).

Wouldn't regular, weekly, regional coverage of baseball be better than the mess they have now? And promote the exact kind of thing this guy is talking about? Also, I would stipulate that, at least once during every season, EVERY team would have to appear in either the one or four o'clock "national" game. Doesn't the NFL still require that every team appear in at least one prime time game during the year?

The problem with that article is that it assumes the people who run ESPN and TBS and FOX are thoughtful people. But they're more or less morons. Major League Baseball would have to force the issue, I think. But they're morons also.

Does the NFL's broadcast agreement require the Sunday and Monday night games rotate around? I mean, otherwise, wouldn't it be Cowboys, Packers, Giants, Patriots, Eagles, week after week, right?

Umpires:

Hallion
Kellogg
Culbreth
Danley
Tschida
Welke (CC)

Stark has a decent article up on ESPN.com. I quickly read through it but was pleased to see that he mentioned that CBP is not the bandbox everyone claims it to be.

On what the Phillies are going to do with the DH for the first game since they can't really use Coste and they have no good right handed batters on the bench

Rosenthal on DNL: "I would think Greg Dobbs. He can hit lefties and righties."

Uh, sure, good research

TenuredVulture wrote:Does the NFL's broadcast agreement require the Sunday and Monday night games rotate around? I mean, otherwise, wouldn't it be Cowboys, Packers, Giants, Patriots, Eagles, week after week, right?

In the NFL, the teams are allowed a max of 6 primetime games per season and it doesn't depend on the network.

In baseball, Fox is allowed to show each team up to 9 times on Saturday afternoon and ESPN is allowed to show each team up to 5 times on Sunday night (and, I believe, the same rule applies for TBS on Sunday afternoon). However, there is no (realistic) limit on the number of times ESPN can show the Red Sox and/or Yankees during the middle of the week and I'm pretty sure they are not required to show every team.

Despite being such a "yawn"-inducing team, the Phillies are a big enough draw to have received the maximum 9 Fox games and 5 Sunday night games (including a mid-August game against the 63-99 San Diego Padres) this season. The Philly market is only small when it comes to October ratings, apparently.

I don't think this series will do great ratings. But let's remember that the Yankees/Mets series (2000?) got very poor ratings. I just don't believe people tune in to watch because a major market is involved.

If it's a great series, it will build an audience. Who held big expectations for the 1991 Series between Atlanta and Minnesota. Yet, it was one of the best ever, and I suspect it gained audience as it went along.

gusmoney wrote:"Can't lose: Obama backs Rays, Phillies"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14750.html

Barack Obama, campaigning in the key swing state of Florida, is seeking to capitalize on the excitement over the World Series-bound Tampa Bay Rays, telling a Tampa crowd he was “showing some love for the Rays,” several members of which joined him onstage.

Only problem?

Obama, a self-avowed Chicago White Sox fan, declared his allegiance earlier this month for the Rays’ National League opponent in baseball’s championship, the Philadelphia Phillies.

Just another Obama flip flop, how many more do we have to see.

More importantly, Tim McCarver said on FoxSports Radio today that the "Rays are FLAWLESS baseball team". That's right he said flawless.

Tim McCarver is a sack o' shizit.

ek wrote:jesus, everyone is dogging us. I've seen two, that's right, two people picking the phillies

fine by me, the same dopes picked the Dodgers

ek wrote:jesus, everyone is dogging us. I've seen two, that's right, two people picking the phillies

Gammons and Kruk?

The Red Tornado wrote:

ek wrote:jesus, everyone is dogging us. I've seen two, that's right, two people picking the phillies

fine by me, the same dopes picked the Dodgers

That one guy that picked us to lose 4-1 to the Dodgers picked the Rays to beat us 4-0