wiegie Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 You don't need a HR in that situation, you need a hit--he should have pinch-hit So Taguchi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Yadi is the man this post season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitem0nkey Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 looks like he's been up to it all year  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) While it is obvious that Rogers is guilty, I think the story is blown WAY out of proportion. Larussa himself said today it is commonplace among pitchers. Funny how this is overshadowing a very exciting World Series so far. Like has been mentioned before, he pitched 7 innings of 1-hit ball after he washed it off. The Cardinals should have challenged it if they thought there was an issue. They didn't. If they would have, I'm confident that Rogers would have been ejected and who knows what would have happened after that. Larussa is to blame for letting it slide. Â Â Â Oh and Go Tigers!!!! Edited October 24, 2006 by Puddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Washing it off and having the stickiness of the substance "off" are two seperate things. I'm sure you know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Washing it off and having the stickiness of the substance "off" are two seperate things. I'm sure you know that. Â Â Come on Gil. Are you suggesting that Rogers benefited from the pine tar from innings 2 through 8. Like I said, dude was guilty and should have been ejected (if Larussa had done his due diligence and asked for an inspection). However, given the fact that Rogers knew that the whole world was now watching, I'm guessing that he got rid of the 'stickiness' once he knew the microscope was on. Fact remains that he has been a beast this postseason and it is now getting overshadowed by what amounts to a minor infraction IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Yes. Â I'm saying that if he was benefitting from it while you could visibly see it on his hand, he very well could have benefitted from it when you could not visibly see it on his hand. Â Why is that a stretch? Â Have you ever sprayed a softball bat with stickum? Get it on your hands and then get your hands wet? Your hands are still sticky. Â I'm just saying it's not a stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Cards in 6 Â Maybe 5! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Maybe 5! Â Â Wow, I'm (pleasantly) shocked. When was the last time that an 83-79 team won a WS? Â I'll say this about the Tigers: When I watched them earlier this season, I thought that their pitching and offense would take them far, but that their below-average defense would come back to bite them at some point. And I think that Leyland is making a huge mistake in starting Verlander with his team on the brink of elimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 And I think that Leyland is making a huge mistake in starting Verlander with his team on the brink of elimination. Â Â Yeah, his refusal to use Rogers on the road is puzzling. Can he only pitch in Detroit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) Yeah, his refusal to use Rogers on the road is puzzling. Can he only pitch in Detroit? Â Â That's pretty much the only justification that I can think of. I haven't bothered to look up Rogers' splits for this season, but he can't be THAT bad on the road. Â The Tigers are in a must-win situation tonight, Rogers is their ace, it's Rogers' day in the rotation to pitch, and Verlander had lost about 5 mph off of his fastball in Game 1 (most likely a "dead arm"). It's a freaking no-brainer, IMO. Â EDIT: Rogers' home/away splits for '06... Home: 7-3, 3.26 ERA, 1.25 WHIP Away: 10-5, 4.41 ERA, 1.26 WHIP Â He's a little better at home, but the most important stat (WHIP) is basically the same. What the heck is Leyland thinking? Edited October 27, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 That's pretty much the only justification that I can think of. I haven't bothered to look up Rogers' splits for this season, but he can't be THAT bad on the road. Â The Tigers are in a must-win situation tonight, Rogers is their ace, it's Rogers' day in the rotation to pitch, and Verlander had lost about 5 mph off of his fastball in Game 1 (most likely a "dead arm"). It's a freaking no-brainer, IMO. Â EDIT: Rogers' home/away splits for '06... Home: 7-3, 3.26 ERA, 1.25 WHIP Away: 10-5, 4.41 ERA, 1.26 WHIP Â He's a little better at home, but the most important stat (WHIP) is basically the same. What the heck is Leyland thinking? Â Â Every game is a must win from here on out. If Rogers pitches game 5 then Verlander is in the exact same situation in Game 6. Rogers has been lights-out during the playoffs and all three games have been at home. He is feeding off of the energy of the fans and I think Leyland feels he will perform much better at home (especially since there would be a ton of distractions pitching away from Comerica because of the Palm Sunday). If Verlander doesn't win game 5 we are done, but that would also be the case in Game 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) Every game is a must win from here on out. If Rogers pitches game 5 then Verlander is in the exact same situation in Game 6. Â I don't agree with that logic. The Tigers need to put their best team on the field TONIGHT and fight like hell to stay alive. They're better off doing everything they can to win tonight and losing Game 6 or 7 than saying "Whatever happens, happens" and losing the Series in St. Louis. Lots of things can happen between tonight and Game 6 that could turn the series in Detroit's favor. Rolen or Eckstein could get hurt sliding into second. Pujols could slip on the grass and strain his groin. Wainwright could blow out his elbow. You never know. Â Rogers has been lights-out during the playoffs and all three games have been at home. He is feeding off of the energy of the fans and I think Leyland feels he will perform much better at home (especially since there would be a ton of distractions pitching away from Comerica because of the Palm Sunday)... If Verlander doesn't win game 5 we are done, but that would also be the case in Game 6. Â I agree that Rogers probably pitches better at home than on the road. But so do most other pitchers. I'd rather have the vet on the road and the rookie on the road than vice-versa. Rogers is a hot-head, but he's also a veteran who knows how to handle pressure on the road. I don't think that the pine tar incident would hurt him on the road tonight (especially since Cards fans are freakishly polite... they're NOTHING like Yankees or Red Sox fans). He was so dominant in Game 2 that I can't really see a justification for skipping his start. Â Another thing that disturbs me about Verlander going tonight is that he was awful in Game 1. And part of that had to do with his fastball being in the low/mid-90's, rather than the upper 90's. That's the sign of a "dead arm". A lot of rookies go through that and I think that it'd be better for Verlander's arm to have a couple more days of rest. Â My feeling is that Leyland is gambling on Weaver reverting to the crappy Weaver of recent past and doesn't want to "waste" a Rogers start on him. It's not an unwise gamble (he's bound to come back to earth at some point), but I think that the stakes are just too high at this point. He needs his ace out there tonight. Edited October 27, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primetime9287 Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 Cards in 6 Â Closer than anyone. I'm guessing it was probably sarcasm tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Closer than anyone. I'm guessing it was probably sarcasm tho. Â Life long Cardinals fan. I had a feeling about this series and I picked it like I saw it. I was just off by a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I predict The Cardinals in 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I predict The Cardinals in 5 Â Â I agree with Whomp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Low TV ratings!   World Series TV Ratings at Record Low   By RONALD BLUM AP Baseball Writer © 2006 The Associated Press  ST. LOUIS — World Series television ratings are as meager as the Detroit Tigers' offense.  The St. Louis Cardinals' 5-0 victory Tuesday night was the lowest-rated Game 3 in Series history, and the three-game average also was the lowest ever.  Game 3 drew a 10.2 fast national rating and 17 share, Fox said Wednesday, down 7 percent from the 11.0 rating last year for the 7-5, 14-inning win by the Chicago White Sox over the Houston Astros. The previous record low for Game 3 was the 10.8 rating for the Anaheim Angels' 10-4 win over the San Francisco Giants in 2002.  The three-game average of 9.9/17 was down 7 percent from the previous low of 10.6/19, set last year.  In St. Louis, the game got a 51.9 rating and 66 share, and in Detroit it received a 37.1 rating and 52 share. Fox spokesman Lou D'Ermilio said that because smaller markets are involved in the World Series this year, about 1 million fewer homes from the local teams are tuned in.  Asked about lower postseason ratings last week, baseball commissioner Bud Selig said he didn't want to leap to conclusions.  "I'm not overly concerned," he said. "The teams' television ratings all year have been spectacular. Let's wait until the World Series is over."  He cited baseball's new seven-year deals with Fox and Turner Sports, which will bring the sport a total of about $3 billion from 2007-2013.  "We've now renewed all our contracts for seven years and had lots of competition," Selig said, "so apparently the people in the television business like what they're seeing."  The national rating is the percentage of U.S. television households tuned to a program, and each point represents 1,114,000 homes. The share is the percentage of households watching a broadcast among those homes with televisions in use at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefjay Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 World Series TV Ratings at Record Low By RONALD BLUM AP Baseball Writer © 2006 The Associated Press  ST. LOUIS — World Series television ratings are as meager as the Detroit Tigers' offense.  The St. Louis Cardinals' 5-0 victory Tuesday night was the lowest-rated Game 3 in Series history, and the three-game average also was the lowest ever.  Game 3 drew a 10.2 fast national rating and 17 share, Fox said Wednesday, down 7 percent from the 11.0 rating last year for the 7-5, 14-inning win by the Chicago White Sox over the Houston Astros. The previous record low for Game 3 was the 10.8 rating for the Anaheim Angels' 10-4 win over the San Francisco Giants in 2002.  The three-game average of 9.9/17 was down 7 percent from the previous low of 10.6/19, set last year.  In St. Louis, the game got a 51.9 rating and 66 share, and in Detroit it received a 37.1 rating and 52 share. Fox spokesman Lou D'Ermilio said that because smaller markets are involved in the World Series this year, about 1 million fewer homes from the local teams are tuned in.  Asked about lower postseason ratings last week, baseball commissioner Bud Selig said he didn't want to leap to conclusions.  "I'm not overly concerned," he said. "The teams' television ratings all year have been spectacular. Let's wait until the World Series is over."  He cited baseball's new seven-year deals with Fox and Turner Sports, which will bring the sport a total of about $3 billion from 2007-2013.  "We've now renewed all our contracts for seven years and had lots of competition," Selig said, "so apparently the people in the television business like what they're seeing."  The national rating is the percentage of U.S. television households tuned to a program, and each point represents 1,114,000 homes. The share is the percentage of households watching a broadcast among those homes with televisions in use at the time.   Wow, you called it. You are Smarte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackshi17 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Wow, you called it. You are Smarte. Â Â Thanks! Your acumen is abysmal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Obviously the people who come up with this TV rating stuff didn't call my house because this series TIED THE HIGHEST RATING EVER for a World Series in the HR household. Â Perhaps the East Coast media doesn't know phone service extends past New Jersey. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 World Series TV Ratings at Record Low  Too bad. The elitists on the coasts missed an exciting upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 So, uhhhh, who won? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 So, uhhhh, who won? Â Â Who cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Who cares. Â Â About 50 times the amount of people who give a chit about the Stanley Cup. And I'm a hockey fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.