Pretty interesting World Series match-up, but sadly, I don't think a lot of people will be watching.
White Sox vs. Astros. The Astros (or any Texas team, for that matter) have never been to the World Series. The last time the White Sox made it to the World Series was 1959, and the last time they won was 1917. Is this karma? Red Sox in '04 after 1918, White Sox in '05 after 1917? If that's so, maybe the Cubs will have a chance soon. On the other hand, the Astros have never won, much less, made it to the World Series, but they are the Wild Card.
The White Sox ALCS victory ends the streak of the team that knocks out the Yankees wins the Series (which has gone on since '01).
I have been enjoying Bill Simmons less and less each day. Statements like this after Houston's game 5 loss are why:
"Once you have the momentum, the other team has to take it back. And they can't do that when they're reeling on the road and wondering what the hell just happened. That's why I believe the Astros are finished, just like that '86 Angels team was."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/051018
To use an old cliche, "In baseball, momentum goes only as far as the next game's pitcher."
By the way, has anyone noticed all the former Yankee starting pitchers in this series? Clemens, Pettitte, Hernandez and Contreras! Wow.
Ok, I'll try to have some better posts coming up soon. Good night.
5 comments:
"Year 2000"
You know some of these same players were part of a pitching rotation that won the Yankees some rings. Why haven't the Yankees been able to keep them?
I think you may have a strong North East bias.
The highest TV ratings for a World Series in the last 10 years was for the Braves/Indians series in 1995 (granted after no world series in 1994). A 33 share. Followed by 1996 (Yankees/Braves) and 1997 (Marlins/Indians) (tied) at 29 share. Then 1999 Yankees/Braves 26 Share. Then 3 at 25 share 2001 (Yankees/Diamondbacks), 2003 (Yankees/Marlins), 2004 (Red Sox/Cardinals). Then 24 share (1998 Yankees/Padres), 21 share (2000 Yankees/Mets), 20 share (2002 Giants/Angels).
It looks like from the list that the Braves/Indians are a better draw than the Yankees/Red Sox.
source:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml
First of all, I didn't say that the Yankees won rings, I just said they were former Yankee pitchers. Read the post.
As for bias, I may suffer from NE bias, but I believe you have misinterpreted the information. Network television ratings steadily fall each year, and ratings are better numbers than share (because share measures percent of houses using tv at the time, and ratings measures a percent of the population). So perhaps the ratings are just falling fairly steadily each year from '95 until now (19-17-17-14-16-12-16-12-14-16) and the only abberations are '98, '00, '02. Which would mean that Red Sox is a bonus ('04 beats the trend) and World Series where both teams are from the same state ('00, '02) are the ones that hurt the most. What stings MLB about 2002 the most is that it was a competitive series with 7 games and still was a ratings dud. Notice that in general the longer series did better.
ESPN.com this morning pointed out an aspect to the World Series I totally forgot about - Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas both play in their first World Series, and they were born on the exact same day (5/27/68) and won the MVP the same year (1994).
What a great promo... Born on the same day. Drafted the same year. Only one man can win. Ha!
Apologies to my anonymous poster. I actually misread your post.
Yes, some of the Yankee pitchers were on teams that won World Series rings. I'm not going to defend or criticize the Yankees for not bringing them back.
But here are some points that make criticism a bit difficult:
Not bringing back Hernandez and Clemens weren't really hard decisions to make. As you may recall, Clemens actually told the Yankees he was retiring and is only pitching for Houston because it's close to home and he worked out a schedule where he woulnd't have to go on roadtrips and such. Hernandez, of course, was injured often and his age is unknown. He was not considered to be reliable enough as a starter in the rotation.
As for Contreras, he fits into the Javier Vasquez, Jeff Weaver, and probably even more pitchers I can't think of right now mold of players who have had increased success after leaving the Yankees. That may be because of less pressure, a change in leagues, better coaching, normal variation in pitching ability, or any other set of factors one can think of. Perhaps they gave up too soon on him, and perhaps they didn't. It's hard to get too bent out of shape about that decision.
Finally, Andy Pettitte. There are rumors that the Yankees treated him poorly in negotiations before his contract, but I don't know what to think in the end. He is enjoying a career year at the age of 33. That, to me, seems like it could not have been predicted, but the nostalgia in me would have liked to see him continue.
Regarding ratings:
Long Game, Low Ratings
Game 3 of the World Series, which required 14 innings and 5 hours 41 minutes to complete Tuesday night, generated an 11.0 Nielsen rating (with 16.7 million viewers) for Fox, down 30 percent from last year.
The game, which Chicago won, 7-5, ended at 2:20 a.m. Eastern, but the ratings did not evaporate. The rating peaked during the ninth inning, with 20.5 million viewers, then declined.
By 1:15 a.m., the rating was a 10.6 (15.7 million viewers), and by 2 a.m., it was at an 8.8 (12.7 million). At 2:15, it stood at an 8.1 (11.5 million), and it ended with a 7.9 (11.2 million). That final figure exceeded Tuesday's prime-time ratings for "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" and "Boston Legal."
For the full Series, the 10.6 three-game average rating was down 29 percent from last year and was on pace to be the lowest-rated World Series ever. (Richard Sandomir)
Post a Comment