clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Friday Rockpile:

New, comments

I tired to create one of these yesterday, too, hopefully today's more successful.

The Rockies have positioned themselves fairly well for making up more ground this weekend. A Dodgers sweep over the D-backs and a Rockies sweep over the Padres would leave us in even better position, but don't think the Padres won't remember who it was that kept them out of the playoffs last year, and we can expect them to come out intent on returning the favor. They looked like a very strong team against Arizona, I'm a little worried we might be running into a trap here. If you reverse the optimal result I laid out, D-backs sweep, Padres sweep, the campaign will be over. Or then again, maybe not, because it seems I keep on thinking that only to find the Rox right back in a decent position a week or two later after they fail to take advantage of a good opportunity. At any rate, it's that consistent failure in the face of opportunity in 2008 that has me most dubious about what is about to happen this weekend.

Still, time to put the doubt aside and be a fan, this is where we as Rockies followers can finally have some real fun and interest in the season, and I want that more than more 2009 speculation, thank you very much.

Slightly off topic question, is it just me, or do some bad teams get labelled with "bad chemistry" more than others? In a video report on the FoxSports website, Ken Rosenthal says this is the cause of a Dodgers collapse. This seems to be the cause of the Dodgers collapse every year, though, and wasn't Joe Torre specifically brought in to stop it this time? Why doesn't anybody mention the Rockies bad chemistry? We were the NL champs in 2007, the only reason good teams would go bad is chemistry, right? I personally think it's mostly bunk, of course, but I wonder what others think.