Rockies Sweep Reds 6-4, Win in Extras for First Time in 2009

by Jeff Aberle on Aug 2, 2009 4:14 PM MDT in Game Wrap Comment 162 comments

It was a game of wild emotion swings, extra fun, internet unreliability, and ultimately sweet, sweet victory for the Rockies. At least it was for me.

This game had the look of an easy victory, with Jason Marquis cruising with a three run lead (courtesy almost entirely of Ian Stewart) going into the bottom of the seventh. Then Laynce Nix hit a Marquis mistake out to right field for a three-run homer to even the game.

Okay, I said to myself, this isn't good. Then Troy Tulowitzki showed off his considerable power off of Arthur Rhodes in the eighth, going oppo to give the Rockies a one run lead. The Rockies looked solid...and then Jim Tracy out-thought himself, bringing in Joe Beimel for a lefty-lefty matchup against big bad Joey Votto. Boom, tie ball game on a monster shot to center. When the game went to extras, I had basically conceded this game as the most frustrating loss of the season--after all, the Rockies were the last team in the majors without an extra-inning win (they had previously been 0-4).

Thankfully, the Rockies' bullpen (Matt Daley and Franklin Morales) pitched well enough to get the team past Reds closer Francisco Cordero and to Nick Masset, who gave up the tie-breaking triple to Dexter Fowler, who hasn't started for four games. Garrett Atkins "beat out" an infield single, scoring Fowler, and Huston Street shut the door. Morales (3-0) picked up his second win in three days.

Other than the Nix blast, Marquis was once again marvelous, giving up only four hits over seven innings. Meanwhile, Stewart (2-4, HR, 2 RBI), Tulowitzki (2-5, HR) and Carlos Gonzalez (3-3, BB) were offensive stalwarts for Colorado.

Box Score

With the victory (their fourth straight), the Rockies move to eleven games over .500 (and also to 17-8 vs. the NL Central), their high-water mark of the season--though it appears that they will remain tied with the Giants for the NL Wild Card lead. They will finish their ten game road trip with a three game set in Philadelphia beginning Tuesday.

58 - 47

Games Back: 6.5

Streak: Won 4

Games Left: 57

Graph, Roll Call, and Panda Rating after the jump.

via www.fangraphs.com

Jukebox Heroes: Fowler (.284), Stewart (.224), Tulowitzki (.188), Morales (.180), Gonzalez (.170)
William Hung Impersonators: Beimel (-.325), Omar Quintanilla (-.188), Brad Hawpe (-.161)

Rowbot Roll Call: The Lodo Magic Man, Mondogarage, GoRockies!! (silver), jrockies, Russ, theshiva, Rockie4Ever, Hollidayrain (most prolific), coolopotamous, Jabberwocky, SDcat09 (bronze), Since1993, Chrysicat, biondino, ch3cooh1, WalkInRight, holly96, frightenedinmate#2, WolfMarauder, fantasyfencing, bballrox4717, lizardlad01, FooMan, ALrockies, Rocktober 2007, free7694, Rebel14, pedalpusher, nkrause, herewereyouwish, alex colfax, alacy9513, Junction Rox, RockiesMagicNumber, Angélique C. Murray, walkoff59, NewMexicanSteven, Rox Girl, theoldgrizzlybear
Total Users: 39
Total Posts: 1268

It was a monster thread in no small part due to after-game discussion and a lack of an overflow thread (mea culpa).

Panda Rating

Relieved Panda

0 recs | Comment 162 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

First

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 4:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I would like to say THANK YOU

to all those in the thread giving live updates as the game went on. I have been busy lately so I do appreciate all the help and updates.

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 4:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and I totally called the Tulo homer, but my internet left me right before I was going to post the prediction.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Aug 2, 2009 4:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

im beginning to like this whole tulo power thing

if you're reading this, it means my undying support for your team will result in its failure.

by fantasyfencing on Aug 2, 2009 4:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Prediction....

I expect the Rockies to win tomorrow against the Philies because a plan trip from San Francisco to Philly sucks for anybody much less a team. With that said, hopefully will have a sweep. my main worry is Cliff Lee.

And thank God that CarGo is hitting now.

by lizardlad01 on Aug 2, 2009 4:35 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Off day tomorrow

so the Phillies will be able to settle in a little bit.

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 4:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll post this here

’ve been meaning to ask for a while, so here goes:

Why are some folks on this site so offended at the idea that someone doesn’t believe the Rockies will make the playoffs? I mean, only four teams can make the playoffs and there’s a chance — although, that chance is shrinking by the day — that we could miss the playoffs.

There’s a growing level of insecurity that is a little bit weird. Just because ESPN doesn’t put the Rockies on the front page, because Kruk doesn’t think the Rockies are great, because some talking heads think the Rockies will miss the postseason, this causes a mild uprising. Why does this bother folks? Does anyone really care if ESPN is sucking at DOD’s teet? Do we get bonus points for number of national stories?

Can’t we just stick to commentary about what occurs on the field? I don’t recall feeling slighted in 07 when we were left out of SI’s postseason preview because the mathematical odds were so against us. I recall being jubilated because we made the playoffs. Let’s stick to that rather than feign angst toward something that does not matter.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 4:39 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

It's human nature. If you're not with us, you're against us

And nothing mobilises feeling like the thought that everyone else is against us. Supporting a team goes hand in hand with antipathy towards your rivals, and by extension those who favour your rivals.

In short, it exaggerates the way we react to our team and the sport in general. The highs are higher, the anticipation is more delicious, and we can get more and deeper involved.

It’s a slightly artifical situation – as you say, what does it actually matter if the press ignore the team, or people reckon we won’t succeed? Objectively, it’s an irrelevance. But the way we psychologically co-opt this sentiment into our support of a team (and, by extension, our own self-worth) is extremely addictive. We don’t even need to win for it to work – we feel just as emotionally stimulated in defeat.

So I sympathise with you in a way, but I also think that all the things you wish weren’t an issue are a vital and integral part of making sport what it is. And I wouldn’t give that up for the world.

by biondino on Aug 2, 2009 4:46 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs

+1

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 4:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

WOW

that was a great response to a question that I wouldn’t know how to answer. Perfect

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 4:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice!

by Arimaris on Aug 2, 2009 4:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

I enjoy sports more than most and couldn’t care less what’s on ESPN’s front page or who Olney features in his daily blog. I think some take it too far, as well, not settling until a talking head claims the Rockies are the best team in the league, something that would be foolish to say.

And if you’re aware of how asinine it is to care what John effing Kruk says, why can’t you stop? If I know that my clothes don’t match, wouldn’t it make sense to wear matching clothes?

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

We don't want someone to say the Rockies are the best team in the league

But just a modicum of respect is appreciated. To dismiss a team out of hand, like Kruk did, without really saying why…is why we give Kruk a bad time….

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

But he truly believed the Rockies weren’t a great team and had a ton of reasons to think so. The team had stunk for, at that point, the majority of the season and were only being buoyed by an unsustainable hot streak. Can you really blame him?

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

When he said it, we were like no more than 3.0 games back in the wild card chase, at most. He didn’t just say we wouldn’t win it, he said we wouldn’t even be contenders for the wild card, and that the Mets were a much better team.

Well, even then the wheels were falling off the Mets.

One person having a soapbox and an opinion is one thing. That person reflecting abject ignorance is something else entirely. To say we wouldn’t even contend at that point (this was after our 11 game winning streak) was ludicrous.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Mets do have a better team if all players are healthy and performing as they should be expected.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 7:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

But there not so they don't

question if we win the WC couldn’t you say the same about us last year?

by Roxfan24 on Aug 2, 2009 8:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if this was ever actually true this year.

It certainly wasn’t true at the point the statement was made. The Mets major flaw with the rotation along with severe holes in the lineup outside the Wright/Reyes/Beltran part always seemed to be understated too much.

by Rox Girl on Aug 2, 2009 8:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This response is sort of weird...

You already know from your first question that your experience is separate from many Rockies fans in the matter, yet you try and bring it back to how you’d react to try and argue against biondino’s response, which seemed perfectly valid.

“I don’t like fish,”
“But some people like fish”
“But I don’t like fish…”

This is going to get circular very fast. If your purpose is actually not a legitimate question, but to convert people to your opinion, than I guess this approach is valid.

by Rox Girl on Aug 2, 2009 5:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

For one, I am a superior human being in nearly all facets of life, so I assume others should just go ahead and, I don’t know, strive to Achieve My Level Of Greatness.

In all seriousness, the argument I think you’re referencing is still confusing. He’s stating that the angst toward MSM is natural because it’s just part of being a fan. My point was, though I clearly didn’t state it well enough, that irrational behavior is OK; intentionally acting irrational isn’t as OK.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

intentionally acting irrational isn’t as OK.

But being a sports fan is irrational. Why should it matter to me if the Rockies or even more so the OU Sooners win or lose? It’s really just 3 hours of entertainment. My self worth doesn’t come from sports. My career, or ability to feed myself does not come from it. My love, my friends, doesn’t come from it. The measure of one’s life doesn’t come from it.

But…..being a sports fan is irrational. And important

Start Seth Smith! Free Eric Young Jr.!

by Redhawk on Aug 2, 2009 5:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not a matter of intentionally acting irrational; it's a matter of irrationality fueled by passion.

As far as I see it, our reaction to ESPN not recognizing us and our own writers saying we won’t make the playoffs is comparable to uproars caused by pieces of literature or articles that denounce America. Sports fanaticism is comparable to nationalism; and in a way, it’s a microcosm of it.

As anyone in the criminal justice field could cite, irrationality is spurred by passion. Nationalism is passion. As we all know, this is among the most significant reasons WWI even happened (along with alliances).
We celebrate wins and stew over losses even though we’re not actually on the team because we have a bond with them. We fly the Rockies flag and we expect other to recognize the great things we are doing! And if/when we start failing, we call for a regime change or a new movement.

"There are only two important things in life: baseball and breathing. But at least you can survive without breathing for 3 minutes."
www.soundclick.com/hollidayrain

by Hollidayrain on Aug 2, 2009 5:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Part of me also

doesn’t blame the national media for not recognizing our greatness (whatever that may consist of). The Rockies have pretty much sucked since their inception, they’ve made huge busts with FA like Neagle and Hampton which they only recently liberated themselves from, and then there’s the occasional Vinny Castilla who comes along and puts up HOF numbers in purple and average numbers in anything else. Also, there was that whole “they only draft Christians” or whatever stuff.

They really don’t have too many positives on their resume aside from Helton, Walker, 2007, and the single season attendance record…

Hopefully 2007 and onward is the beginning of them getting some swagger and some media love. Look at the Rays, they’ve been embraced pretty quickly after being terrible for a long time…

The Rockies need some oldschool purple/white striped high socks. The team’s problem is it’s lack of swagger. I feel strongly that these socks will provide the swagger necessary to tap the potential that are the Rockies.

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose that's true.

There’s also the simple fact that we have a smaller percentage of the total number of baseball fans than the Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers and Phillies. People are interested in what applies to them, and we don’t interest as many people as those aforementioned big market clubs.

"There are only two important things in life: baseball and breathing. But at least you can survive without breathing for 3 minutes."
www.soundclick.com/hollidayrain

by Hollidayrain on Aug 2, 2009 6:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno man

they really do have the single season attendance record. Over the course of one season, the Rockies got more people to pay for tickets than the Red Sox or Yankees or whoever else has ever. I mean, it was because they played in a football stadium with like 70k seats, but still.

They could be a large market team. Plus don’t they have a decent amount of territory – like Montana and stuff?

I mean, this entire discussion is moot if they actually string together a few playoff appearances and have another player who puts up sexy numbers like Holliday did the ticket sales and media attention will follow that quickly…

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy?

We’re 12th in the major leagues in attendance. We have something like the top 3-4 years of all time season attendance. Arguably, a large measure of ignorance of the team is not because no one cares…it’s that no one knows because national media presumes no one cares.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

intentionally acting irrational isn’t as OK

I have a question…

How does one determine when one is intentionally acting irrational and when one isn’t?

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it's so much intentionally acting irrational

but being self-aware enough to realize that certain irrational feelings are, in fact, irrational. Doesn’t mean we can’t have them, but just realize that it’s not totally logical.

This is sort of how I feel about superstition in sports. Most of us deep down know that we don’t really have any impact on the game from our living rooms. But that doesn’t mean the irrational parts of our brains don’t truly believe we can effect our teams play through good luck charms or jinxes or whatever. It actually adds to the fun of being a sports fan for many of us. But we can, at the same time, know that it’s not totally rational.

by holly96 on Aug 2, 2009 5:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

I’m failing to see how a sports fan’s complaint about the lack of coverage of a legitmately contending team by a major media sports outlet amounts to discussion of irrational behavior. And I don’t think its equivalent to superstition.

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying it's equivalent and I'm not saying the complaint's might not be legitimate.

(Although I do think they go above and beyond what is warranted a lot of the time.)

What I mean is that the idea that it matters so much to us is what is slightly irrational.

by holly96 on Aug 2, 2009 6:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup; I think the idea of intentionally acting irrational

is almost a contradiction. Intentionally acting irrational implies that one understands what is rational and makes a conscious decision to ignore it; essentially meaning that they are abiding to their own perception of rationality. Even if this isn’t the case, it most certainly doesn’t apply to this instance because our irrationality is fueled by unmitigated passion.

"There are only two important things in life: baseball and breathing. But at least you can survive without breathing for 3 minutes."
www.soundclick.com/hollidayrain

by Hollidayrain on Aug 2, 2009 6:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

is Level Of Greatness one of those new Sabermetric witchcraft stats? Keep your numbers and your dark magick outta the blog!!!!

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah damn, I just responded to this on the other thread

and this answer definitely beats mine

by bballrox4717 on Aug 2, 2009 5:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

thought that thread was dead. Total blowhard move by me.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah don't worry about it....

Should I post it here?

by bballrox4717 on Aug 2, 2009 5:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I saw it.

The perception that the Rockies are a poorly-run, pitching-deprived flukey team is fairly accurate. The team was near the bottom of the standings for an awful long time and were poorly run for an awful long time. Who can really blame someone for thinking the team is bad?

And I, for one, don’t recall an awful lot of ‘negative’ media coverage. I think people are confusing ‘neutral’ with ‘negative’ which is precisely why I initially wrote that people aren’t going to be satisfied until someone goes above-and-beyond and annoint the Rockies The Team To Beat In All Of Baseball.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

But that perception of our pitching staff was right ONLY in 2008 and the beginning of 2009

Since Hurdle was fired, day in and day out, we get quality starts from our starting pitching, who always give the shot to win. They may not be as sexy as the Giants staff who the media won’t shut up about their 4 Cy Young caliber pitchers (one is overpaid and bad, one is old and injured, one is really lucky, and one is the best pitcher in baseball), but the Rockies pitching staff almost always gives them a shot to win everyday. The bullpen was significantly improved, and while their lineup may be young, streaky, and have low averages, they score the second most runs in the league. Our run differential is third in the NL, and since Hurdle was fired, win a lot of 1 run games. This team is GOOD and LEGITIMATE.

While being anointed the team to beat in baseball by the media would be nice, that would be false and all Rockies fans know it. All we want is respect for our players and for us to be known a good franchise, which this is becoming quickly.

by bballrox4717 on Aug 2, 2009 5:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

But is it really so crazy to think that it might not have turned out this well? I mean, a large part of our success has been JDLR. Could anyone have accurately predicted his success this season using a normal means of evaluating players?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m very happy the Rockies are winning. But there’s a growing sentiment that the team ‘deserves’ more coverage from the MSM. I was merely hoping for an open discourse about this thought process.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The results (58-47, etc, etc.) are there, ergo so should the coverage.

It’s that simple for me.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Aug 2, 2009 5:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I love it when ergo is used

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 5:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I’m saying it’ll happen. But coverage is based off more than W-L. Reader interest drives coverage, not results.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great, then let the ESPallNewYork network stop talking about the Mets

Because outside of the five boroughs, nobody cares.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Mets are truly Amazin'

when it comes to getting media attention for non-baseball stuff, they’ve probably earned the attention albeit in a less-than-desirable way…

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

A Rockies fan thinks their team "deserves" coverage just like any fan does for their team

The thing that gets most Rockies faithful riled up is that the Rockies tend to get ignored even when they are playing well. Case in point: earlier this year, the team rattled off 11 straight wins including sweeps of the Cardinals and Brewers and dropping only 1 to the defending AL champs. The team didn’t even crack the top MLB.com or ESPN.com stories until the streak had reached 9 games, and as far as MLB.com was concerned the team didn’t even make one of the top 6 “picture” stories until the streak hit 11. However, earlier in the year, the Red Sox were the top story in almost all the major media outlets when they won 5 straight. It’s things like that that tend to get to Rockies fans and give them a sense of “blame the mainstream sports reporters first”.

"Admirably obsessive." - Uni Watch, March 24th, 2009
NA34 | HK | RMN

by oo_nrb on Aug 2, 2009 5:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+10

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+100

Order a Purple Row t-shirt and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares

by Charlie77 on Aug 2, 2009 11:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1000

if you're reading this, it means my undying support for your team will result in its failure.

by fantasyfencing on Aug 3, 2009 12:41 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

...And we're done with this.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Aug 3, 2009 12:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by Resolution on Aug 3, 2009 3:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

a coupla things:

1) Nobody could have accurately predicted DLR’s success, because there wasn’t a whole lot we could have accurately predicted at the beginning of the season. For as many things that have gone right this season, there have been a number of things that have gone wrong. Most people predicted that our bullpen would be among the teams’ biggest strengths, not that our entire bullpen would simultaneously end up on the DL and we’d have to go out and get ourselves a new one (slight hyperbole there). Rox Girl or someone else could tell you better, but we are pretty much on par with our beginning of the season projections.

2) Sports and media coverage go hand in hand. It’s not like they are really separate and distinct entities. To say that a team playing good, winning baseball should be getting a proportionate amount of media coverage is incredibly fair.

by coolopotamus on Aug 2, 2009 5:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

During yesterday's game

the Rockies had their own slide on the mlb.com homepage. Had some pic of Tulo on it. Cool stuff…

I also think some of the frustration isn’t necessarily generated by us being neglected (though that generates the bulk of it). However, it gets generated by the fact that the Rockies get neglected in favor of the same handful of teams – oftentimes teams whose headlines/attention are over seemingly equal or less significant things… How many games in a row did we have to win before ESPN stopped talking about a big hit by J.D. Drew or Yankee’s bullpen issues or something…

Lastly, if you live outside of Colorado the whole lack of attention thing becomes much much more salient, you would really like to hear more about the team from “impartial” outlets…

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 5:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you !!! I was just about to post a similar notion

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is both fair and unfair. The reason ESPN largely ignores the Rockies is because most of their constituents ignore the Rockies. It takes more than a few good seasons to build respect among the casual fan.

But, like I said, there are a lot of places to go for baseball news, places that provide far more in-depth analysis than ESPN. The four-letter has an obligation to serve the big markets.

I think another cause for this is that we just don’t have a charismatic beat writer. I suppose Ringolsby qualifies, but he’s not exactly ‘popular’ among media circles, for reasons that are all his own fault. Renck is largely a good guy, but he’s not exactly going to create a ratings increase.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right about ESPN (though it's still frustrating)

but I’m not sure I can buy into that as much with regard to mlb.com or the mlb network (though I honestly haven’t watched enough of the network to critique it’s attention)…

I mean, right now on MLB.com there’s a frontpage link talking about the Angels and how they swept the Twins. The Rockies swept the Reds and seem to be in a tighter race for the postseason and there’s no mention of it.

But w/e, I’ll take winning with no attention over losing with all the attention

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Playing Devil's Advocate here,

but why does ESPN have an “obligation” to serve the big markets? They are the self-proclaimed “worldwide leader in sports”, so doesn’t that mean that they have an obligation to cover all aspects of the sports world, not just ones that include the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers and Cubs?

"Admirably obsessive." - Uni Watch, March 24th, 2009
NA34 | HK | RMN

by oo_nrb on Aug 2, 2009 5:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

good question

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

They do cover the world. But they cover things that matter to their readers more than things that don’t matter to their readers. I don’t see a ton of coverage in the Denver Post about, say, the Fort Collins Foxes. It’s not because they hate Fort Collins. It’s because nobody cares about the team.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

(Devil's Advocate again)

So nobody cares about the Colorado Rockies, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants, Arizona Diamondbacks, Seattle Mariners, Oakland Athletics, Texas Rangers, Houston Astros, Milwaukee Brewers, Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates, Florida Marlins, Atlanta Braves, Washington Nationals, Tampa Bay Rays, Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles, Detroit Tigers, Chicago White Sox, Minnesota Twins, Kansas City Royals or the Cleveland Indians?

My point is that sports networks like ESPN say that they provide the best sports coverage but only cover maybe 10% of the news in the MLB (or insert your sports league here). The Denver Post doesn’t cover news from Fort Collins because the Denver Post covers Denver sports, not Fort Collins sports. ESPN is supposed to cover the nation, and yet they can’t seem to cover anything besides East Coast + Dodgers.

I think the worst offender in my mind is watching the lone ESPN broadcast of the Rockies in 2008 and listening to the announcers as they had to pause mid-sentence and flip through their media guides to find out who each player was. “And coming home to score issss……………….Garrett Atkins, #27”. They can’t even be bothered to prepare enough for the game to know the starting lineup.

"Admirably obsessive." - Uni Watch, March 24th, 2009
NA34 | HK | RMN

by oo_nrb on Aug 2, 2009 6:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

People care about those teams, but nearly as many as care about the big market teams.

That’s just a fact, and one that is not likely to change any time soon.

And I know you were just making a point, but I’m not sure how you can conclude they cover only 10% of the news. They give all the scores and nearly always show highlights from every game, and usually point out any noteworthy accomplishments (for example, last night’s Pirates/Nationals game was in the first 3 minutes of SportsCenter). The question of how much coverage they give certain games or teams is different than whether they cover it at all.

by holly96 on Aug 2, 2009 6:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're comparing equal coverage

with the notion that all markets are equal. ESPN is a television network. Television networks are driven by ratings, not by any desire to be fair. ESPN largely covers the east and west coasts because that’s where the largest markets, and ratings, are. Ratings sell advertising which pays for everything. Yankees vs. Red Sox will draw huge ratings ($$) for them. Rockies vs Royals, would be at the other end of the spectrum, as no one in NY and Boston would care, nor would they watch. Hence no $$ from advertising. It’s strictly a capitalist enterprise, not a referendum on impartial journalism.

Free Seth Smith, damnit!

by rockhead on Aug 2, 2009 6:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget...

ESPN cares about the Cubs, too.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

and sometimes the Cardinals...

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Watching the Dodgers-Braves game on ESPN

because it’s baseball and they just mentioned a busy trade deadline. “There were a lot of people traded: some hitters, a few starting pitchers, but only one reliever: Sherrill to the Dodgers. That is all, and other teams could have shored up their bullpens.”

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 7:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow...........

by bballrox4717 on Aug 2, 2009 7:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I bet Cubs fans are ticked off right now...

Everybody should know that they shored up their bullpen as well as the Dodgers. That’s what you meant, right?

by Rox Girl on Aug 2, 2009 8:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any way you want to take that RG

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 8:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I must admit that I forgot who

Grabow and Gorzelanny were traded to.

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 8:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't the Rockies get a reliever or two?

Oh no, they suck, so they must’ve been sellers. So where did that Hawpe guy end up, and is Street in the Yankee’s bullpen yet?

by bballrox4717 on Aug 2, 2009 8:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

bad attempt at sarcasm

by bballrox4717 on Aug 2, 2009 8:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just Mentioned Winners at Trade Dedline

Dodgers, Giants, Rockies, Cubs are on the list but the Giants and Dodgers are the overall winners

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 8:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The deals the Giants made

kinda sucked. I guess they won in that they had a lot of activity.

The Pirates are probably the winners of the trade deadline…

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 9:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

omg...i'm late on this but I heard the same thing

and was ranting to my friend…who thought I was a loon

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 9:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

but about a few minutes they did finally make mention of it....doofi

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 9:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just stunned that it was an emphatic statement

by Steve Phillips that NO team other than the Dodgers moved to improve their bullpen. I wouldv’e been shocked at the poor research no matter what team they failed to mention

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 9:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder

if there’s even ever been a trade deadline where just 1 team made moves for their bullpen. I’d bet against it.

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 9:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not that I disagree

about ESPN being somewhat obligated to cover larger market teams since they theoretically have more fans across the country and more fans plagued by those blackout problems.

But it could also be said that things like ESPN giving attention to larger market teams, helps keep the large markets large (not that they’d ever really be anything less), but also helps keep the small markets small. The person who’s only a casual fan, or the person who grew up watching the team and then moved away, these are people who could support the team but may become too distanced from them and may focus their attention elsewhere. Make of that what you will, but the bandwagoners and such, their money counts just as much as the die hard’s and could be a real factor towards financing the team.

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I should really stop using ESPN

as my only culprit. MLB.com and the MLB Network might be better…

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a major difference between comparing a minor league soccer team...

…and one of only 30 Major League Baseball teams.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a faulty assumption (at least the top paragraph)

I suspect it’s pretty hard to ignore a team two years removed from a World Series appearance. Especially when that team is playing very well.

The issue is that ESPN presumes that nobody cares about the Rockies.

And that is why MLB Network >>>>>>>>>>>> ESPN.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes its better....but unfortunately ESPN is included with Basic Cable packages mostly

and not everyone gets or wants to pay for MLB network….

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is true.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+5280

"There are only two important things in life: baseball and breathing. But at least you can survive without breathing for 3 minutes."
www.soundclick.com/hollidayrain

by Hollidayrain on Aug 2, 2009 6:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any words on why Fowler is playing less?

I thought he was doing fine recently. Not spectacular, but still very strong. Anyone know/hear why he has not started for the last 4 days?

Or is it because CarGo is going good and Smith is still a very good ballplayer?

by Arimaris on Aug 2, 2009 4:56 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Mostly the latter...

Tracy’s using a revolving door with whoever has the hot hand, which is probably frustrating for fantasy owners, but as long as the Rockies keep on winning, there’s not much reason to change the practice. CarGon’s been on fire the last couple of weeks. Which is good, we’ve needed the help.

by Rox Girl on Aug 2, 2009 5:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't the revolving door part of the frustration some players had with Hurdle?

I hope they don’t start getting frustrated with Tracy…

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Things are a lot easier to take in a pennant race than they are 10 games under .500

by Rox Girl on Aug 2, 2009 6:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's true! ha...good point

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

And hurdle's logic seemed to be different

I’m sure Tracy told Dex he is going to take a couple of games off and the reason. Hurdle just seemed to change for change sake. Now the lineups that he put out for most of the mets series were a joke. I think this is the best rotation for 4 OF’s and when it is rookies or younger players they seem to understand as opposed to veterans getting yanked around.

by Roxfan24 on Aug 2, 2009 6:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense

And it is much easier to sit when the guys ahead of you are at least equaling your production. Thank you

by Arimaris on Aug 3, 2009 11:26 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do think there is some validity to feeling "slighted"

The media have a huge influence in voting or outright vote themselves, in things like MVP, ROY, Gold Glove awards, etc. These are accolades that are quite important to players. And we in turn support our players.

Since you mention the 07 Rox, how do you explain not one player getting a Gold Glove, even when they set a new record for best fielding percentage in the MLB? How do you think Tulo lost out on the 07 ROY to Ryan Braun? Or Matt Holliday losing the MVP?

I think Rockies fans aren’t feigning angst. I think the disrespect shown by the media even after we made the 07 WS, still lingers….

and I, for one, am mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore :)

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 4:59 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

10 years from now, nobody will care who won any awards from 2007.

Tulowitzki should have won the Gold Glove and probably should have won the Rookie of the Year award. I don’t think that stopped the TBS announcers from absolutely gushing about him in the playoffs that year, leading to him being on the cover of SI.

I suppose this could cause harm for Tulo when it comes to the Hall, but in 20 years, when this batch of Rockies would theoretically become eligible for the Hall of Fame, voters will be using more in-depth analysis to make their decisions. There will be fewer curmudgeons and more stat-based analysts making these decisions.

And if you’re still clamoring for Rockies news… Well, you’re just not looking hard enough. Maybe it’s not on ESPN and SI regularly, but there is plenty of coverage out there.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't know we were talking about 10 years from now...

But I’m pretty sure these players receive monetary compensation and have contract negotiating power attached to these awards. Which is current, not 10 years from now….

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

If your agent is using awards as a means for negotiating, you need to get a new agent.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some players are making bank on deals like that

see: Rodriguez, Alex

"Admirably obsessive." - Uni Watch, March 24th, 2009
NA34 | HK | RMN

by oo_nrb on Aug 2, 2009 5:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

All MLB contracts (or most any way)

have incentives and bonuses for awards, and All-Star appearances. Most are actually boiler plate inclusions….I mean…Jason Marquis won’t ever be an all-star will he?

Start Seth Smith! Free Eric Young Jr.!

by Redhawk on Aug 2, 2009 5:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks guys for taking up my point...

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

But that’s the agent’s fault. Not the award’s fault. More and more contracts have performance clauses that are more specific (PAs, IP, things like that) and I suspect that these incentives will become more specific.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a "fault"

that Marquis got a quarter of a million dollars for making the All-Star game?

Also specific incentives are limited by % in the collective bargaining agreement. For example, The players don’t want want a guy that say has a bonus of 300 plate apperances being sat at the end of the season.

Start Seth Smith! Free Eric Young Jr.!

by Redhawk on Aug 2, 2009 5:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus, man. You’re argument was that the awards matter because money is on the line. I’m merely saying that if a player is pissed that he lost out on money because of an award voting, then he shouldn’t be mad at the voters. He should be mad at his agent for including that language.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Awards matter….Players get Money for the Awards. So not winning the award, and thus the money…and the real point of blame is the Agent who got the money for the award incentive in the player’s contract is to blame?

Start Seth Smith! Free Eric Young Jr.!

by Redhawk on Aug 2, 2009 6:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

When the reason the player doesn't win the award is the ignorance of the media

…then there is a direct correlation between media bias and a player’s income potential. That is a serious matter, though perhaps not to you.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps the biggest problem of all

is mixing finances with completely unscientific, subjective “awards”. I wonder if a player who got snubbed (Albert Bell in ’95, or whoever lost out on the Gold Glove to Rafael Palmeiro) would actually have a legal case against the BBWAA or MLB or something.

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a good question...

…I’m pretty certain the answer is no, because the BBWAA does not have a fiduciary duty to the players.

And I agree in principle that award-based incentives are problematic. But the reality is that they exist, and that’s the framework.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

To me, it's reminiscent, though not identical,

to the way the all-star games matter. If awards are going to be given on results, then the awards should be judged and decided on objectively.

by coolopotamus on Aug 2, 2009 6:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really don't care too much

about gold gloves and MVP awards and stuff. To me, they’re not even icing on the cake, they’re like the candles, they look pretty, but they really don’t impact my cake experience.

But man the all-star game deciding homefield WS advantage always angers me.

As for the actual construction of rosters, yea if they’re going to award AS appearances, they probably shouldn’t have to have a rep from every team.

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best. line. evar.

they look pretty, but they really don’t impact my cake experience.

I wish to hell I had said that. Mad props.

Free Seth Smith, damnit!

by rockhead on Aug 2, 2009 6:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hah

law of averages. It’s about time I said something that didn’t suck.

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I mean, if you make 8 million a year,

and you miss out on a few extra hundred thou because of some seriously bad awards decisions, I’m not going to feel very sorry for you.

But the scenario is the same. It’s still applying a very real award to a somewhat arbitrary and definitely subjective awards system.

The all-star game actually mattering to the post season is absolutely bogus. Especially if playoff irrelevant teams ruin the chances of legitimately contending teams (Cough…Padres…Cough)

by coolopotamus on Aug 2, 2009 6:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not gonna lie

it’d be fun as hell to be on a total suck team and screw everything up for the teams in your league come October. Especially when it looks like 2 out of the 4 teams making the playoffs will come from your division…

Heath Bell, I salute you. Well played sir, well played.

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 6:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a silly argument

Almost ALL player contracts include incentives related to Gold Gloves, MVP voting, Cy Young voting, and the like, except for pre-arbitration eligible players on their first contracts.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

So? It’s still dumb and good agents shouldn’t do stuff like that. Rewarding a player for something he has no control over is stupid.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 7:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

but in 20 years, when this batch of Rockies would theoretically become eligible for the Hall of Fame, voters will be using more in-depth analysis to make their decisions.

I’m not so sure about that. If the writers of 2007 couldn’t see past the offensive statistics when they awarded the ROY award then I’m not sure that I can see them using things like BABIP or WPA in 20 years. These are the same baseball writers who refuse to vote anyone in unanimously “just because”. There are a lot of stubborn things in baseball, and I think that putting people into the Hall of Fame “just because” is too time-honored of a tradition for the traditionalists.

"Admirably obsessive." - Uni Watch, March 24th, 2009
NA34 | HK | RMN

by oo_nrb on Aug 2, 2009 5:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re referencing really, really old writers who will likely be long dead by the time this crop of athletes is up for awards. Baseball is very slow to embrace changes, but the statistical revolution has been in motion, basically, since fantasy sports began to boom. The most influential voters in 10 years will be far more likely to embrace stats.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope you're right

I’m just not holding my breath.

"Admirably obsessive." - Uni Watch, March 24th, 2009
NA34 | HK | RMN

by oo_nrb on Aug 2, 2009 5:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Letting Law and Neyer (among others) into their club was a big start. FJM was a huge influence (secretly one of the most revolutionary Web sites out there). It’ll happen.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+3

for FJM reference

"Admirably obsessive." - Uni Watch, March 24th, 2009
NA34 | HK | RMN

by oo_nrb on Aug 2, 2009 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Revolutionary. Hysterical. I can go back and read an article from, say, 2006 and laugh my ass off. Michael Schur really should have parlayed that site into a book deal.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 5:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand your argument

And why focus is on big cities.but when we were winning 17 of 18 and got our highlight in the last 15 seconds of the show and they “break into sportscenter” to show how amazing it is that the Phillies won 5 straight. it can be annoying. Tonight’s BBTN was a perfect example, they spend most of the analysis on the Giants game on there playoff run, and out highlight is next and don’t even mention that we are in playoff contention.

by Roxfan24 on Aug 2, 2009 6:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me put it this way: The folks at ESPN know more about news judgment than you.

That’s a bit harsh and certainly not without its flaws (which I’m sure Rox Girl will point out), but, on the whole, they do a damned fine job of covering sports, a helluva lot better than people give them credit for.

Basically, chances are that if they choose to cover something (or not cover something), they’re probably spot on in the grand scheme of things. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect, but they do have a pretty good pulse on sports.

I suspect they use SportsNation as a means of evaluating what people want to read about. If you really feel that the Rockies are being slighted — and none of my comments are meant to make you feel any different than the way you feel. That’s both obtuse and slightly invasive. But if you truly feel that they deserve more coverage, participate in more of their surveys. Vote in polls. Write to Gammons, Law, Olney and the ilk.

Voice, make, heard, etc.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 9:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

As long as we keep in mind that it's commercial news, though

They do have an active interest in drawing in and retaining as many viewers as possible. Which in the case of sports news means to put emphasis on the evergreen franchises. I wonder if Colorado fans feel slighted because they see the coverage of the Broncos and wonder why the Rockies can’t get the same treatment. The Broncos are a huge national brand, the Rockies are not.

by Rox Girl on Aug 3, 2009 6:26 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a win that really shows

that we’re getting hot. We’re hitting in the clutch again and we beat a team that during the second half of the game (like 7th inning on) played better than us.

I don’t like the offday tomorrow, but we really could beat the Phillies considering they couldn’t hit against San Fran (well, nobody does, but our pitching is nearly as good) and their pitching (Cliff lee not included) was terrible. If both us and San Fran defeats Philly, then we really show to the media that the NL West is the best division in the National League, and we’ll probably pass the Giants with a series win.

by bballrox4717 on Aug 2, 2009 5:14 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

It is really nice that the what everyone thought was going to be the NL Worst,

has 3 legitimate teams in the playoff hunt….Very nice….

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 5:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I need to follow more closely.

I was just watching the bottom of the 9th in the Cubs/Marlins game, and all of the sudden Jeff Baker pops up on the screen in a Cubs uniform, at 3rd base. I was like, “Huh?” I guess it never registered in my mind that we had let him go. Last I was aware, he was on the DL. But now that I think about it, that was a while ago.

I guess I need to try reading more than just the headlines around here.

by dogs on Aug 2, 2009 5:55 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

We traded him

For Al Alburquerque. I’m not kidding, though I may be misspelling his last name.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

a-l-b-u…uhhh…querque

"Good is not good when better is expected." -Vin Scully
Purple objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

by The Lodo Magic Man on Aug 2, 2009 6:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, Mondogarage's spelling is correct. For the prospect's name, anyway.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Aug 2, 2009 8:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had to leave for church around the 4th inning when we were up 1-0.

Came home and followed along on Gameday from where I left off (I have it down so I can do it without seeing any results). The annoying thing was that I could tell from the start that it would go extras because of the little arrow over next to the 9th inning. So even when the Rockies went up 3-0, I knew the Reds would come back. Then after the Tulo homer, I knew the Reds would come back. The suspense didn’t really start until I got to the extras.

Anyway, I cheered when I saw Dex’s triple, and then I knew that Huston was going to shut them down (it was either that or a walk-off, since the 11th was the last inning). Woo!

by holly96 on Aug 2, 2009 6:01 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I heart this thread so much.

Reminds me of my Theory of Knowledge class from high school. International Baccalaureate program FTW!

"There are only two important things in life: baseball and breathing. But at least you can survive without breathing for 3 minutes."
www.soundclick.com/hollidayrain

by Hollidayrain on Aug 2, 2009 6:08 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Been there, done that.

I personally found it to be a waste of time. Perhaps coolopotamous disagrees (she was in it too, at my high school)

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Aug 2, 2009 8:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, more a waste of sleep than waste of time for me (7 am is a horrible, horrible time of day)

It did come in handy when I had to argue a philosophy called phenomenology in the 3rd (and last) paper I ever wrote in undergrad.

Seeing the words Theory of Knowledge made me shudder reflexively.

by coolopotamus on Aug 2, 2009 9:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

So where did LawrenceDavis go...since he started this discourse...

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:26 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Dunno, I gotta run for a few...

Turns out my band showed up in today’s Denver Post in text and pictures, and I gotta score a copy or three.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice congratulations!

do you ever play in San Diego?

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, we don't tour, and probably won't

We’re all older farts with jobs and such. But we play semi-regularly around Denver, and were part of the Denver Post Underground Music Showcase last weekend.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Aug 2, 2009 6:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

cool....well keep on keeping on you old farts

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

SWEET man.

I want to hear! What style of music?

"There are only two important things in life: baseball and breathing. But at least you can survive without breathing for 3 minutes."
www.soundclick.com/hollidayrain

by Hollidayrain on Aug 2, 2009 7:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is at work and unable to truly participate in a discussion when it involves scrolling up and down. Can’t keep up and finish work tonight. Perhaps I’ll catch up and write one singular, snarky response when I get home. But probably not since I have got some Entourage to watch and some Scotch to drink.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 7:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have a completely unrelated question

What is the Rowbot RowCall all about?

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 6:35 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Listing of verybody who posted during the game thread.

by WolfMarauder on Aug 2, 2009 7:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

so I have lurked on Purple Row since spring training and something about this thread made me want to finally sign up. I loved the insightful (and civil!) exchange of thoughts. Thanks for the good work PR!

by MissR on Aug 2, 2009 7:08 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

It's usually civil.

Welcome, and thanks for signing up. Make sure you join us for discussion regularly. :)

by WolfMarauder on Aug 2, 2009 7:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Welcome aboard

(It doesn’t happen often that I post that twice in a day). This place is very civil, even in game threads where we are losing. If you don’t believe me hop on over to the Phillies thread today (potty-mouths). I love this place and they (most of the other posters) are intelligent and have great ideas. I am glad you signed up. Hang around.

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 7:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

word...I popped in

over there during the Phils Giants drubbing and I left …they scurred me

by SDcat09 on Aug 2, 2009 7:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m probably in the minority. I would love more swearing a far more ‘blue’ humor on here.

Alas.

by LawrenceDavis on Aug 2, 2009 9:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not gonna lie

not swearing is a mighty challenge. Almost as challenging as controlling my warped sense of humor. But sometimes you gotta meet someone (or in this case some online entity thingy) halfway. Argh

by Resolution on Aug 2, 2009 9:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't mind it

but you won’t see me do it. I also don’t like it in hoards like some of the other places I’ve seen.

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 9:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trust me, there are plenty of us that appreciate the atmosphere around here

and I thank everyone for being diligent about it. If PR were more like some of the other blogs, I would most certainly not be around as much.

by holly96 on Aug 2, 2009 9:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I meant that as a thank you to you, included.

by holly96 on Aug 2, 2009 9:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

non-vulgarity..

allows for more intelligent discourse in the game thread and I don’t mean just nerd talk although that’s fun too. Plus the lack of swearing seems to draw more female fans to Purple Row, which is always nice.

Order a Purple Row t-shirt and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares

by Charlie77 on Aug 2, 2009 11:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Order a Purple Row t-shirt and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares

by Charlie77 on Aug 2, 2009 11:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that’s what finally got me to sign up. I doubt I can contribute much to such discussions as there is still a lot about baseball that I just don’t know… but I definitely enjoy reading the other posts and following along with the game thread since I can’t watch the games on tv!

by MissR on Aug 2, 2009 7:20 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

agh.... supposed to be a reply but it froze up on me! still learning I guess :)

by MissR on Aug 2, 2009 7:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Feel free to ask any questions you have

we will answer as biondino has learned. You were quick to realize the reply button compared to a lot of new comers so you learn pretty quick.

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 7:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

(Redacted) YOUR REPLY LINK

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Aug 2, 2009 8:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is probably going to get old at some point, but that day is not even close to coming.

by holly96 on Aug 2, 2009 10:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

If that's the case I'm missing something

please fill me in

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 2, 2009 10:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean on Jabberwocky's post?

There was a fanpost recently about Clint Barmes, and at one point someone tried to tell the newbie about using the reply link and the post replied (without, of course, using the actual reply link with: **** YOUR REPLY LINK. I think the original comment (plus some others in that thread) were deleted.

by holly96 on Aug 3, 2009 12:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup, my noob questions are expertly and politely answered, without exception.

Which is much appreciated. I reckon I now know about 95% of baseball rules and terms which only leaves me with about 10,000 more to learn.

by biondino on Aug 3, 2009 5:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The official Rule Book from 2008

only has 215 pages to it before the index and a notes section. The read is a little dry but a lot of it is fun to know, like this.

"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra
"The ballplayer who loses his head, who can't keep his cool, is worse than no ballplayer at all." ~Lou Gehrig
JFK

by jrockies on Aug 3, 2009 4:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs