lohud.com

Sponsored by:

Faceoff

Rick Carpiniello and Sam Borden debate the the hottest topics in sports

Archive for October, 2008

Question #89: Who do you like?

October
31

Sam and I both had stellar 6-7-1 weeks with our NFL picks. Oh, well, we did better with our second live internet chat, which you can still see here (just don’t try to ask questions, because this was live yesterday). We’re going to be doing that every couple of weeks, maybe weekly if it does well, so we’ll keep you posted before our next show.

In the meantime, I went off on a bunch of topics in my month-in-review column in today’s Journal News and on LoHud.com. You can see it here.

OK, I just wanted to show that we (or I) can do things other than pick football games.

This week I see a Giants victory. I could imagine Dallas giving it a go, but I could also imagine the Giants putting Brad Johnson on his fanny six or seven times and blowing out the Boys. Big Blue should be all fired up for this one, although it’s hard to imagine Antonio and the guys being unable to use the “nobody gave us a chance” card.

The Jets? I’ve been wrong on them pretty much every week, but I’m pretty confident they leave Buffalo with an L (and maybe a bucket of wings).

Season standings:
Sam 59-53-3—
Carp 55-57-3 4GB

Week 9

GIANTS (-9) over Cowboys
BILLS (-5 1/2) over Jets
VIKINGS (-4 1/2) over Texans
Jaguars (-7 1/2) over BENGALS
Bucs (-8 1/2) over CHIEFS
Ravens (+1 1/2) over BROWNS
RAMS (+3) over Cardinals
BEARS (-12 1/2) over Lions
TITANS (-5 1/2) over Packers
BRONCOS (-3 1/2) over Dolphins
Falcons (-3) over RAIDERS
Eagles (-6 1/2) over SEAHAWKS
Patriots (+6) over COLTS
Steelers (+2) over REDSKINS

11 p.m., Sam says:
Sam Borden

I’m headed off on vacation tomorrow, but let me get these picks in before I go …

GIANTS (-9) over Cowboys
Jets (+5 1/2) over BILLS
VIKINGS (-4 1/2) over Texans
Jaguars (-7 1/2) over BENGALS
Bucs (-8 1/2) over CHIEFS
Ravens (+1 1/2) over BROWNS
Cardinals (-3) over RAMS

Lions (+12 1/2) over BEARS
TITANS (-5 1/2) over Packers
BRONCOS (-3 1/2) over Dolphins
Falcons (-3) over RAIDERS
Eagles (-6 1/2) over SEAHAWKS
COLTS (-6) over Patriots
Steelers (+2) over REDSKINS

Posted by Carp on Friday, October 31st, 2008 at 10:35 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Question #88: Is Steph the next Plax? (And a live chat today!)

October
30

The Garden last night was great. Just great. The energy and electricity was as good as I’ve seen it in years and the Knicks actually won their season opener against the horrific Heat, giving Mike D’Antoni a solid start as new head coach.

But this is the Knicks we’re talking about, so of course there was a little controversy. D’Antoni had made it known ahead of time that one big Isiah Thomas signing wasn’t going to play (out-of-shape Eddy Curry) but it was a total surprise when a second Isiah addition, Stephon Marbury, also never got off the bench. The DNP-coach’s decision was a resounding statement by D’Antoni both to the public and to the players in his locker room. Doesn’t matter that Marbury’s making $20 million this year; D’Antoni is about the future, and it’s pretty clear Marbury isn’t a part of that future, so that also means he doesn’t figure to be a large part of the present, either.

Now the question: So far, Marbury has held his tongue. He’s been a good soldier, said all the right things, hasn’t blown up. Last night he was calm, collected and reasonable in his answers to questions after the game. But can it continue? Will Marbury – a former All-Star who, by the way, is still in excellent playing shape – be able to keep himself from exploding at some point if he becomes a permanent garbage time player?

I think it’s impossible. I think that if the Knicks are truly dedicated to minimizing Marbury’s playing time, they should be prepared to cut him (or trade him, probably for way below value) as well, because that may be where they have to go if Marbury does erupt. And odds seem pretty good that he will erupt at some point. The only question is when.
———
On an unrelated note (to the Knicks, not this blog), kudos to Carp for his correct World Series pick. Phillies in seven was way closer than my pick (Rays in six), though it’s hard to believe anyone will ever remember this World Series for anything other than a Game 5 that lasted – quite literally – three days.
———-

If you’re around during lunch hour today, why not join Carp and me as we discuss the Knicks, the World Series, Yankees and Mets offseason news and anything else that comes up during our second FACEOFF LIVE online video chat. Come on over to our FACEOFF LIVE channel by clicking here and submit your questions that we’ll answer live starting at 1 p.m. Tell your friends.

CARP SAYS:

We will certainly discuss this more during our live chat at 1 p.m., but it seems to me the Knicks are doing one of two things here, especially given James Dolan’s Garden’s priors.

Either they are willing to let Marbury sit and rot on the bench, whether he’s a good soldier or not, because the most valuable asset they have in him is his expiring contract, which comes off the salary cap at the end of the year.

Or, they are hoping Marbury does explode and violate all of Dolan’s Garden behavior policies, as Larry Brown did, so they can buy him out at a discount, so that he will either accept less to go away, or that they can reduce his contract payout as they did with Brown by charging that he broke team policy (by complaining, or worse, leaving the team or skipping practices or games).

I think they should just keep him around—especially if Mike D’Antoni is only going to use nine players—and let his contract expire. I think Steph is smart enough to collect ALL of his money by accepting his non-role.

Posted by Sam Borden on Thursday, October 30th, 2008 at 12:58 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Question #87: Will the Knicks be better?

October
29

Tonight a new era in Knickerbockers history begins. It is an era that has to be better than the previous era, right? Doesn’t it?

But how much better? And how much better should they be, are they expected to be?

I’m reading and hearing the popular number by all the experts predicting 35-39 wins for the Knicks this season, under new GM Donnie Walsh and new coach Mike D’Antoni.

But it’s basically the same Knicks, with a few changes. One is Chris Duhon, who will be an upgrade and a better point guard to run—literally—D’Antoni’s up-tempo offense, than Stephon Marbury. But Marbury is still here, and I think as a shooting guard he could actually be a pretty good player and contributor.

One other change is who is not playing: Eddie Curry is out of the rotation after being sick, and being out of shape, and being basically a bust since he got here.

The question remains: Should the Knicks strive to be good this year, or should they simply strive to identify and weed out players who are not part of the future? Should they spend the year learning D’Antoni’s system and integrating young players and hope for a decent spot in the next draft, with an eye toward shedding more expiring contracts (Marbury’s, for example) next year and being under the cap by 2010?

I think another year of losing wouldn’t be the worst thing for the Knicks at this point. However, with 15 percent of their season-ticket holders having opted not to renew this year, I’m sure there will be pressure from Jim Dolan to fix it right away.

So that’s one problem I foresee. If the Knicks have to choose between winning a few more games at the expense of being better and younger and cheaper next year, I think that’s a huge mistake.

The other problem is that, although D’Antoni’s system might be more fun to watch, and it might result in some more victories, how are these Knicks going to stop anybody? They didn’t play defense before, and they won’t be able to suddenly flip a switch and play better defense in a more offensive system. I see some 114-109 losses piling up. And some 128-96 blowout losses, too.

Posted by Carp on Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 at 11:10 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Advertisement

Question #86: Did Bud get it right?

October
28

Watched a little of the press conference with Bud Selig last night after the suspension of Game 5 and didn’t Bud Selig look a little strange? Granted, this is a man who typically has some unusual mannerisms and tics, but the way he spoke … like …. this … and fidgeted made it seem like he was talking about some great tragedy, not bad weather.

Then again, to some fans, it might have felt like a tragedy. Especially if the Phillies go on to lose the Series somehow.

Already today there has been a lot of debate over whether Selig handled the situation correctly. I submit that he did, that there was little else he could have done differently. Some would want him to have never allowed the game to be started, but considering the forecast in Philly yesterday afternoon – it called for 1/10 of an inch of rain from 7 p.m. to 12 a.m. – that would have been incredibly over-reactive. Weather changes sometimes; this time it did.

There’s also the school of thought that Selig should have just let the game continue. That bad conditions are a natural occurrence when you play games in late October (a discussion which, I believe, we’ve already had on this blog, and a phenomenon I’m in favor of avoiding by shortening the regular season). If you start the game, the logic goes, why not just finish it?

This is a fair point and since the conditions were the same for both teams, it’s not altogether untenable. But there is also the so-called “integrity of the game” and it does seem somewhat incongruous to play six months of games a certain way and then have the championship decided under such different conditions. If it’s at all possible, that scenario should be avoided.

So that’s what Selig did. He was NEVER going to allow the World Series to end on a rain-shortened game (which I’d like to think everyone can agree is a reasonable thing to do), so even if one team was winning, he would have done basically the same thing he did last night with it tied at 2: Stop the game right where it is, and pick it up at the next night when the weather is decent.

Here’s hoping that’s tonight. But even if it’s Thanksgiving, as Selig joked at one point, it would still be the fair thing to do. For a commish who has presided over a steroid scandal, a strike and a tied All-Star Game, this is one one night where Selig got it right.
CARP SAYS:

Selig didn’t get it right. He got lucky. He got lucky that the Rays tied the game. Otherwise the game would have ended and the Series would have ended with a rain-shortened game. A rain-shortened game that never should have begun.

I don’t know about that forecast for 1/10th of an inch of rain. The forecasts I was looking at all day said rain beginning in the evening and getting worse and worse all night and into Wednesday. Maybe 1/10th of an inch per hour. The Weather Channel’s radar map could not have been greener, with a blob of bad weather the size of Texas floating over the Philly area all night long. The chance of rain predicted started at 70 percent in the early evening and went quickly up to 100 percent and stayed there the rest of the night according to the forecast.

Of course there’s no way of going back and using the argument that MLB shouldn’t be allowing games between two Eastern teams, played in the Eastern time zone, to begin closer to 9 p.m. than 8 p.m, not to mention 7 p.m. MLB sold out to television long, long ago.

But, with that forecast, with what was at stake—and with fans playing a minimum of $400-plus per seat, and in many cases a lot more than that—Game 5 should have never begun. What if it had been called after 4 innings? Then they would have had to start over, and have burned their starting pitchers, their aces, for a game that didn’t count.

But far, far worse would have been the debacle of having the Phillies celebrate winning the World Series in a rain-shortened, 5-inning game … celebrating it in the clubhouse at, oh, 1 a.m. after a fruitless, long delay … and having the fans in the concourses at the stadium notified by the P.A. announcer that the Phillies had just won the World Series; or the fans notified of the championship via the radios in their cars, soaking wet, with the heat on full-blast, trying to get warm and dry on the ride home.

So you call off Game 5. The forecast is bad for today, too? Well, duh. So you play it tomorrow. It’s particularly no big deal to delay Game 5 a couple of days if the Phillies win that game, and if Tampa wins it, so Games 6 and 7 have to be pushed back, too. So what? Is Fox really calling the shots so strongly that MLB can’t move any of the games?

What a disgrace. Selig didn’t get it right. He got it wrong. He always gets it wrong. This would have been the biggest disaster of his disastrous money-hungry, bottom-line “commmissionership” if Tampa had not scored that last run. There has never been a World Series ended in a shortened game, and he would have presided over the first.

If B.J. Upton had slipped and fallen in the mud on his way home, would Selig have gotten it right then? He got it wrong. And he got very, very lucky.

Posted by Sam Borden on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 at 8:59 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Question #85: Is it over?

October
27

Are the Rays dead fish? Can the Phillies actually claim their second World Series title ever in Game 5 tonight?

I picked the Phils in seven, but I’m not giving them the series tonight, not automatically. It’s just too easy to say 3-1 means it’s over, especially when we’ve seen the Red Sox come back from 3-1 and 3-0 in two ALCSs and force a Game 7 when down 3-1 to these same Rays just a week or so ago.

Besides, I am a firm believer in this: That in playoff series (other than NBA series, where the home team just wins every game) whatever has happened up to any point in the series has no bearing on what happens next; that there is no such thing as momentum carrying over from game to game.

I think the biggest obstacle for Tampa Bay, obviously, is that its comeback has to begin against Cole Hamels. Tall task? No doubt.

But it’s as simple as this: Win tonight and get it back home, where the Rays are pretty darn good, and then anything can happen. It really can. These Rays aren’t throwing in any towel, I guarantee that.

PS, all along the broadcasters (and some print media members) have been talking about home-field advantage. Yes, some teams are better than others at home, but home-field is no huge advantage. Anyway, you don’t steal home-field advantage (as they claimed the Phils did by winning Game 1). Home-field advantage only comes into play in a seven-game series, when the final game is at home. The Rays would have that. First they have to get there. Then they can thank baseball and FOX for that idiotic idea that the all-star game winner gets the seventh game at home, and they can thank all those Rays who contributed to the all-star game win at Yankee Stadium … over Philly’s Brad Lidge, by the way.

9:15 a.m., Sam says:
Sam Borden

No way it’s over! While my Rays in six pick isn’t looking great right now, I do think the Rays can come back in this series. Carlos Pena and Evan Longoria can’t hit like this forever … right? Right?

Posted by Carp on Monday, October 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Question #84: Who do you like?

October
24

The NFL is off to London again—the Chargers and Saints will play there and they can both bring motivation that the Giants beat the Dolphins (by a brutal 13-10 score in the rain) there last year and then went onto the Super Bowl championship. And the Dolphins went on to 1-15.

Neither the Chargers or Saints will be 1-15 this year.

Nor will Sam or I.

I still happen to be floundering below .500, but I rebounded to whup Sam last week with a 9-5 mark (thanks, Jets) to his 8-6. So I gained a single game in the standings and still trail by four:

Sam 53-46-3
Carp 49-50-3

For the record, Sam picked the Rays to win the World Series and I picked the Phillies, so we’re all even there.

WEEK 8

STEELERS (-3) over Giants
JETS (-13 1/2) over Chiefs
RAVENS (-7) over Raiders
Chargers (-3) over Saints
Bills (-1 1/2) over DOLPHINS
COWBOYS (-2 1/2) over Bucs
EAGLES (-9) over Falcons
PATRIOTS (-7 1/2) over Rams
PANTHERS (-4) over Cardinals
Redskins (-7 1/2) over LIONS
JAGUARS (-7) over Browns
49ERS (-5) over Seahawks
TEXANS (-9) over Bengals
TITANS (-4) over Colts

11:15 a.m.,  Sam says:
Sam Borden

First of all, I think Carp’s use of the word “whup” needs to be re-evaluated. Whup? He beat me by ONE GAME last week. One game! Believe me, I’ll take 8-6 weeks the rest of the way and waltz to the season title. Carp going 9-5 is hardly a whupping (and, frankly, not much cause for concern). Next thing you know he’ll be talking about how the Rays “whupped” the Red Sox in that seven-game ALCS …

Anyway, on to the picks.

Giants (+3) over STEELERS
JETS (-13 1/2) over Chiefs
RAVENS (-7) over Raiders
SAINTS (+3) over Chargers
Bills (-1 1/2) over DOLPHINS
COWBOYS (-2 1/2) over Bucs
Falcons (+9) over EAGLES
PATRIOTS (-7 1/2) over Rams
PANTHERS (-4) over Cardinals
Redskins (-7 1/2) over LIONS
JAGUARS (-7) over Browns
49ERS (-5) over Seahawks
TEXANS (-9) over Bengals
Colts (+4) over TITANS

Posted by Carp on Friday, October 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Advertisement

Question #83: Best skippers in the city?

October
23

Sam and I had this discussion on our web chat, and I’m just wondering what you think.

Out of the six pro teams in New York—or you can count those who go by “New Jersey” and play in Long Island if you want, how would you rank the coaches/managers?

It’s remarkable, really, how many of those guys have only been here for five minutes and still have so much to prove.

Here’s my list in order.

1. Tom Coughlin. He has the ring.
2. Tom Renney. The brightest of any of them.
3. Lawrence Frank. At least has a track record.
4. Mike D’Antoni. All on rep at this point.
5. Jerry Manuel. Let’s see him duplicate his half season.
6. Joe Girardi. Has a lot to prove after missing playoffs.
7. Eric Mangini.. Has even more to prove.
8. Brent Sutter. The Devils coach-of-the-moment.
9. Scott Gordon. Who? Exactly.

Posted by Carp on Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Question #82: Who do you like (World Series Edition)?

October
22

At this point, I think it’s fair to assert that neither one of us has much of a future in baseball predicting. I had Angels over Cubs, Carp had Red Sox over Dodgers. Safe to say that FOX would have much preferred at least one of the teams we picked making it that far, but nonetheless they’re planning to show the games anyway.

So, Rays-Phillies. First, let me just say that it’s pretty insane that the Rays are actually favorites in the World Series against anyone, since before the season you could have had them at 200-1 to win it. As it is, they’re a slight fave against the Phillies and when all is said and done, I like baseball fans to be the ultimate winners: I’m betting we’ll finally have a series that actually goes to six or seven games (something that hasn’t happened since the Marlins beat the Yankees in six in 2003).

The matchup is a good one but ultimately I think pitching wins in the playoffs and the Rays have more of it. Jamie Moyer has been rough for Philly lately and Joe Blanton – if the Phillies actually use him – scares me a lot. More likely, I see the Phillies throwing Cole Hamels in Games 1 and 4 (and winning both), but losing the rest, with the Rays winning the Series at home in Game 6.

Rays in six. How strange does that sound?
CARP SAYS:

I’ll take your pick one step farther … and say that Hamels also pitches and wins Game 7.

I can’t jump on that Rays bandwagon now, after being off it all year, although I must admit they’ve certainly impressed me (good luck catching that team AND Boston next year, Yankees). The Rays will be good for a long time, and this story won’t lose any shine if they lose a Game 7 in the World Series.

But I’m going with the Phillies for two reasons—I think that they’re a better team right now, and I always stick with the “Whatever is the worst possible scenario for Mets fans will happen.” (I tend to substitute Jets fans in football situations).

The Phillies big guy, Ryan Howard, is just starting to hit his stride again, and as good as Tampa Bay’s pitching was against Boston, I think a lot of the Red Sox failures had to do with Big Papi’s slump along with those of Jason Varitek, not to mention the one that put Jacoby Ellsbury on the bench. Boston’s offense looked like the Mets and Yankees—three or four guys carrying the whole lineup every day. The Phillies won’t go for days without hitting as the Red Sox did. And the Phillies’ pitching is as good as Boston’s, if not better, when you consider what Beckett and Lester did in the middle of the ALCS.

I think guys like Shane Victorino and Jimmy Rollins would fit perfectly on Tampa Bay, just as B.J. Upton and Evan Longoria would fit on the Phillies. Both rosters are loaded with this type of scrappy guy. I think that scrappiness plus pitching makes this a terrific World Series … after three straight complete duds.

I’m an American League guy as a rule, and not a big fan of the Philadelphia fandom, so it pains me to say: Phillies in seven.

Posted by Sam Borden on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | 1 Comment »

Question #81: When does the NFL start?

October
21

Did you see the Denver Broncos last night? Did you see the Jets Sunday? Did you see the Giants in Cleveland? Have you heard about the Cowboys? The Patriots? The Colts?

What is going on here? The NFL has turned into a junkyard league, a billion-dollar industry made up of 32 terrible franchises. Does anybody play good football anymore?

Once, parity meant equity. Now it means that everybody is pretty much in the same lousy, sinking boat. The Giants, touted as the best team in football, and the defending champs by the way, have had three lousy games: Cincinnati, Cleveland and San Francisco. That’s out of six games played. And that’s with the weakest schedule they possibly could have had.

The Jets? Yeah, right, Brett Favre was going to cure everything. He was going to make them a lock for the playoffs and a contender for the Super Bowl. That loss Sunday was pathetic. They look to be going nowhere. Again.

There have already been four coaches fired, plus a GM, in the NFL this season. There continue to be arrests and bad-behavior suspensions, and fines for illegal hits. Not to mention PSLs. I’m telling you, it’s getting bad.

In the past, you could always fall back on the idea that at least the football was always good. Now?

10:15 a.m., Wednesday, Sam says:
Sam Borden

This is one of those questions that, while reasonable, is also pretty unfair. History always smooths out the edges of what we remember from years gone by, and I think that saying the quality of football in the NFL is suffering is somewhat misleading; the style of football is very different than what it once was, and thus the quality is different, too.

It is a quarterback’s league now. QBs and wide receivers are the dominant personalities, whereas in the past, running backs and, at various points, linebackers (or superior defensive players) were the flashpoint players. Is it better that players like Drew Brees and Eli Manning and Chad Johnson (Ocho Cinco) are the stars now instead of guys like Barry Sanders or Lawrence Taylor? Frankly, I find the NFL more entertaining with more passing and scoring, though I concede it’s not for everybody.

Beyond that, I think it’s impossible to ignore the fact that the NFL has actively sought out this particular situation. They wanted parity, wanted the teams to be close to each other in talent level so that no market could ever feel like playoff contention is that far away. It’s part of the league’s overall business model. And in a time when expansion has pushed the number of teams higher and higher, it’s hardly surprising that getting everyone to a similar talent level means lowering that level slightly. That’s just basic human natural selection, no?

Oh, and by the way: In Week 6, six of the 14 games played finished with less than seven points separating the teams. In Week 7, it was four out of 14. If right around a third of the games played are that close in the fourth quarter, it means there’s a good chance you’re going to see some drama on Sunday. And isn’t that the whole idea of pro sports being entertaining?

Posted by Carp on Tuesday, October 21st, 2008 at 10:46 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | Post a Comment »

Advertisement

Question #80: Are the Rays the best story?

October
20

Like, ever?

The family that I married into – hello, Weltmans/Boxers – is a big Red Sox family and, despite (or perhaps because of) my history covering the Yankees, I’ve always had a little bit of a soft spot for the Sox. I like Terry Francona, like David Ortiz (though not when he’s called “David Orrrrrrrr-tess” like the TBS announcers kept saying) and enjoy the off-beat style of team owner John Henry (who once likened George Steinbrenner to Don Rickles).

That said, I think deep down I was rooting for the Rays in the ALCS, even as my wife was shooting me glares during Game 7 last night. It’s not even just because I like Rays owner, Stu Sternberg, who is a Westchester guy. It’s because if you’re a sports fan of any level, the Rays are what you believe in.

Worst to first. It’s usually just a pipe dream for bad teams to talk about, but when it happens it’s magic. The Sox have a ton of good stories – including last night’s starter, Jon Lester, who beat cancer and is one of the best pitchers in the game now – but the Sox (and Lester) have already been to the top of the mountain. The Rays have spent their entire lives at the bottom.

The last team to go from last place one year to the World Series the next was the 1991 Atlanta Braves. They lost to the Twins in seven games, in a World Series that many believe was the greatest series ever played. Check back on Wednesday to see our predictions for this year’s World Series, but even before another pitch is thrown, take a moment to consider whether the Rays are the best comeback story you’ve ever seen.

If they’re not, they’ve got to be pretty darn close, no?

CARP SAYS:

The Rays are the ‘69 Mets. They are. From years of laughingstocks to the World Series. Like the Mets, the Rays’ young arms threaten to be pitching postseason games for years … unfortunately for the Mets, they got back to the World Series in ‘73 and didn’t win it, instead of building a dynasty with Seaver, Koosman, Matlack, not to mention Ryan.

I don’t know if these Rays will build a dynasty—let’s see them win this World Series first, then come out of the best division in baseball again next year—but their worst-to-first story is one of the best ever. I can’t remember another one.

The 1994 Rangers won the Stanley Cup a year after missing the playoffs in a dreadful manner. But that team was ready to win, probably should have won in ‘92, and was done in by injuries and a mutiny against Roger Neilson in ‘93. So when they went to worst (in the division) to first overall to Cup, it wasn’t that big a surprise.

You know what was a surprise? That so many people on Sunday, and even Saturday, figured the Rays had no shot if they lost Game 6 at home. Which, of course, is ridiculous. Baseball—and most playoffs, really—isn’t a game of momentum from game-to-game. There is momentum inside a single game, but it rarely carries over to the next game because the pitchers change.

Yes, it would have been a huge blow to the franchise to lose three in a row after pummelling Boston to go up 3-1. It would have been tough to recover next year, to start all over to get to the same spot next fall. But I don’t think there ever is a momentum thing going in Game 7. Even in 1986, when the Red Sox lost in the most heart-breaking, gut-wrenching fashion in Game 6, they had chances to win Game 7.

I just hope that Phillies-Rays goes the distance, because the World Series has been a dud in recent years.

Posted by Sam Borden on Monday, October 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am | del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Help
| | Post a Comment »

Advertisement
About this blog
Rick Carpiniello and Sam Borden debate the hottest topics in sports.

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner





About the author
Sam BordenSam Borden grew up in Larchmont, graduated from Mamaroneck High School and has spent all 29 years of his life following the local sports scene. The drama of sports has always fascinated him, and his columns are designed to take a side or tell a story. The best days are the ones where he gets to do both.
Rick CarpinielloRick Carpiniello grew up in lower Westchester and began working in The Journal News' sports department (back when it was The Reporter Dispatch and eight other newspapers) in October of 1977 after a year of covering high school sports as a stringer. For more than 20 years he covered the New York Rangers and the National Hockey League. Carpiniello has been writing columns on everything from local sports to the big leagues since 2002.
Other recent entries

Recently Updated LoHud Blogs
Monthly Archives
Links



Bad Behavior has blocked 346 access attempts in the last 7 days.