Ed. note: to see the previous installment in the 1914 Braves saga, click here
The National League’s regular season after the games on October 6, with the Boston Braves as the unlikely league champions. Starting with games on Sept. 18, Boston finished the season going 17-4-3.
The standings on the morning of Sept. 18 1914 looked like this:
| Â | W | L | Pct. | GB | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Braves | 77 | 55 | .583 | — | 5-1 |
| New York Giants | 74 | 59 | .556 | 3.5 | 5-3 |
| Chicago Cubs | 72 | 64 | .529 | 7 | 3-3 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 71 | 64 | .526 | 7.5 | 3-2 |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 64 | 71 | .474 | 14.5 | 6-3 |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 62 | 71 | .466 | 15.5 | 3-5 |
| Brooklyn Dodgers | 59 | 74 | .444 | 18.5 | 2-4 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 56 | 77 | .421 | 21.5 | 0-6 |
For the remainder of September, the Braves posted a 12-1-3 mark, clinching the pennant by winning the first game of a doubleheader from the second place Giants at the Polo Grounds. (The second game was called after 8 innings with the score tied 7-7.) Over this stretch Boston played five doubleheaders, including on four consecutive days (!) from September 23-26.
Stallings’ use of pitchers during this grueling stretch was very regular. The “Big Three†were Bill James, Dick Rudolph, and Lefty Tyler. One of them would start the first game of the doubleheader and then someone else — Dick Crutcher, Iron Davis, Otto Hess, or Tom Hughes — filled the gap in the second game. (That said, Dick Rudolph started game one on both Sept. 24 and 25 while Bill James pitched game two on the 25th.)
The Braves would play eight more regular season games in October, including three more doubleheaders, posting a 5-3 mark. In these games, Stallings rested his regulars, letting the reserves play most of the time. James and Rudolph made one start each, but each pitched only three innings. Perhaps more problematic was the injury suffered by Red Smith, a broken ankle, in the next to last game. Smith, acquired in August from Brooklyn, had hit at a .319 clip over the last 60 games, but his season was over and the Braves would be forced to play the World Series without him.
The final season standings looked like this:
| Â | W | L | Pct | GB | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston Braves | 94 | 59 | 0.614 | — | 17-4 |
| New York Giants | 84 | 70 | 0.545 | 10.5 | 10-11 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 81 | 72 | 0.529 | 13 | 10-8 |
| Chicago Cubs | 78 | 76 | 0.506 | 16.5 | 6-12 |
| Brooklyn Dodgers | 75 | 79 | 0.487 | 19.5 | 16-5 |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 74 | 80 | 0.481 | 20.5 | 10-9 |
| Pittsburg Pirates | 69 | 85 | 0.448 | 25.5 | 7-14 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 60 | 94 | 0.39 | 34.5 | 4-17 |
Boston essentially performed its miracle in slightly less than three months, from July 5 to September 30. A total of 14 doubleheaders were played during this run with Boston going 20-7-1 in twinbills. Twelve extra-inning games were played, and Boston went 7-3-2 in those games. Boston threw 19 shutouts during the season, with 17 coming after July 4. The Braves were held scoreless 12 times during the season, but only three times after July 4, as their team batting average rose from .241 on July 4 to .251 at season end. Fielding remained constant, as the Braves fielding average stood at .959 after July 4 and at .963 on October 6. (For reference purposes, the National League’s batting average was .251 and fielding average .958).
The Braves went from 14 games under .500 and 15 games out of first place to 31 games above .500 with a ten-game lead after clinching the pennant on Sept. 30. Boston posted a 63-16-4 mark over that stretch. That’s why they call it a miracle.
Carrying over the conversation from the last thread, it is apparent and clear that John Hart is working hand in hand with John Scheuerholz and Bobby Cox to bring back into the fold all of the scouting and development people that Wren apparently alienated along the way. It’s also pretty clear that they are content to rebuild their org with Hart at the helm and position Coppolella to take over for him in a few years. Absolutely nothing they’ve done suggests they’re “waiting for Dayton Moore.” They’re hired or rehired coaches and development personnel who are internal to one of three power circles: the friends of Bobby Cox, the friends of John Schuerholz (often the same people) or the friends of John Coppolella…
Sound analysis Sam. How do you feel this will work out?
Even though you asked Sam, I will give my answer… can it work out any worse than this year?
It will work out. But it will require time and patience. Lots of patience. You don’t rebuild a farm system in an off season.
I think Mike has it @4. As a fan, I cut my teeth on Bobby’s five year plan (1986-90; seemed to work out pretty well.) I believe fully that Bobby, JS, Roy Clark and the folks who built and maintained the Atlanta Braves from 1986-2007 are more than capable of rebuilding the org. And I’m quite excited that Coppolella is being touted as the “missing link” between those old school scouting gurus and more advanced analysis in the front offices. But I think it is going to take time and pain to crowbar out of the train wreck of last year. We are still under the burden of Uggla’s last year. We are still under the burden of 3 more years of BJ Upton. We still don’t have anyone in the high minors to step in and help fill holes.
I think the net-net of this entire debacle is that the Braves’ overall go-to-market plan just moved from “compete every year and be primed for a deep run in 2017 when we open the new park” to “get rebuilt and primed to compete again by 2017, when we open the new park.”
It will work because these people know what they are doing
I think you’re right about the dry years to come between now and the Cobb (County) Salad Days.
I’ve alluded to the idea that I’d Braves adopting some part of the Athletics strategy; building parts of a team to get more bang for your buck (platoons, lots of rest, deep bench, trading high), but I’m completely fine with the strategy being taken this offseason, especially if it’ll come with more money.
On this special day, lovingly dedicated to the Washington Nationals:
I’ve decided, all instincts to the contrary, to root for the Dodgers to make it to the WS. We are assured of an AL team making their first appearance since the 1980s (Royals 1985, O’s 1983.) Last WS trip by the Dogs was 1988. Maybe Madonna could sing the national anthem.
Bad Sam.
A near-exact replay of the 1966 World Series would certainly work for me.
I don’t know why the “people that Wren apparently alienated” thing gets to me so much, because I was in the camp of wanting Wren gone by the end of the season.
You have to figure this is how it works: when Wren gets the GM job, he gets to call the shots, have things done his way, and bring in his own people. The people who aren’t his people, of course, leave, and if they’re important enough to not offend unnecessarily (i.e. Bobby), they get to say that they resigned or retired or whatever. The Braves really did a number on Wren on his way out because it LOOKS like he offended all these people, and now that Bobby’s back, they come back too…I’d bet Wren saw more or less the same turnover as in a normal GM transition.
The Braves felt they needed something to hang on Wren that the average fan can understand (though you would think BJ/Uggla would be enough). That, and I guess, texting players too much.
Dayton Moore is just a bargaining position against Coppolella.
@13 I don’t know, I’m getting the impression that there was real friction there and that this is more than just a rationalization. I don’t think JS comes out and says they would have fired Wren even if they made the playoffs this year if their goal is simply to find “something to hang on Wren that the average fan can understand,” since on its face that’s a rather hard thing for the average fan, who associates results directly with GM performance, to understand. I think they were genuinely dismayed by the direction Wren was taking player development and saw a bleaker future for the team than the fanbase has come to expect from the franchise.
I don’t know that Wren had more turnover than Random GM Guy X, but that’s not really the point. Prior to Wren, the franchise consistently scouted and developed players for 20 years. Under Wren the pipeline began to dry up and deteriorate, to the point where the one or two guys that the old guard who hadn’t left yet managed to find (Alex Wood, Mike Minor) were essentially promoted directly from A or AA because there was no one else available. If your previous team was successful for 20 years and the new guys failed, then going back to the status quo ante isn’t an unreasonable move.
Amen.
But citing someone’s minor league player development record is a completely different thing than “This guy can’t get along with anybody.”
Frankly, that’s what you say when you’re on the losing (in this case, Bobby’s) side of a power play, and you’re still butthurt over it years later. No shit, you didn’t get along with Wren; he wanted someone else to do your job…
@15, that’s not really true. As Mac often pointed out, the late-’90s farm system was a complete disaster. The Braves didn’t really develop anyone between Andruw Jones in 1996 and Rafael Furcal in 2000, and they were both international free agents. If you think the last four drafts were bad, take a look at the 1990s.
Here’s the ugly truth: between the 1993 draft, which brought in both Kevin Millwood and Jermaine Dye, and the 2000 draft (which brought in Wainwright, Kelly Johnson, and Adam LaRoche), the Braves had a great draft in 1996 and five appallingly bad ones. Here are the best players signed and drafted by the Braves in each of those six drafts (with rWAR in parentheses):
1994: no players with positive WAR. (The best player they drafted in 1994 was Wes Helms, who finished with a career WAR of -0.8.)
1995: Kevin McGlinchy (1.5)
1996: Marcus Giles (16.7), Mark DeRosa (9.9), Jason Marquis (9.4)
1997: Horacio Ramirez (2.0)
1998: Matt Belisle (6.2)
1999: Garrett Jones (3.7)
Moreover, of those five terrible drafts, the two best players — Jones and Belisle — earned almost all of their career value outside of the Atlanta organization. It was a catastrophically bad period for the Braves player development organization, and Schuerholz never gets blamed for this. He should be.
Even Wren’s track record of bringing in Simmons, Wood, Minor, and Gattis is better than that.
Wren’s minor league development directly runs from “he can’t get along with anyone.” The only people who he could work with were scouts he hired, like his own brother. If his personality drove established, skilled scouting/development people out of the org (it seems to have done just that) then his personality is directly problematic with regard to the failing development pipeline.
Again, I trust Bobby Cox and Roy Clark to rebuild that pipeline. I don’t think the game has passed them by on the “identify young talent, draft it and develop it” front. I don’t think that happens overnight, but I trust those guys to do it more than I’d trust anyone else, really.
The poor draft classes of the late 1990s is directly attributable to the performance of the MLB squad of the early 1990s. They were not drafting very high those years. (And according to reporting from the AJC, the guy that drafted Wood and Minor is one of the few guys that are staying; one of the few BC/JS guys who didn’t jump ship already.)
@19, I don’t buy it. It’s not like Wren couldn’t keep a staff together and had to deal with constant turnover. Wasn’t it Wren’s prerogative to have the front office team he wanted? If I’m a leader or manager, I only want to work with the people I want to work with! (And of course they also have to be able to get the job done.)
It seems clear that there was some disagreement between Wren and Bobby — and who really knows if that was personality-driven or if there were more substantive things at play? — and if you were unfortunate enough to be on Team Bobby, you got the old heave-ho, so of course you come out of that disliking Wren.
But yeah….I do agree that the team is in better hands now. It just rankles me that the front office gets to call Wren a jerk, and then people take that at face value.
@18, Food for thought. Reading that, I also thought about which draft picks we were getting. Plus, I guess between the team he was fielding and the resources he had, JS just didn’t have to put a great deal of effort into the farm.
Wren was dealt a worse hand from the outset and played it fairly well, until it all came crashing down this year.
I’ll believe all this “Wren was the devil; JS and Bobby are going to bring us back to the promised land” routine when we actually start seeing some good moves being made. We’re still stuck with Uggla and Upton and Dayton Moore’s out there popping champagne bottles!
Some random thoughts about Wren, Cox, Schuerholz, Hart and Gonzalez.
1. Those of us who cut their teeth on the Braves long before the 1990’s can remember some equally terrible drafting stretches and barren farm systems.
2. Growing up in the ’60s and early ’70s I remember the paens to the O’Malleys, Walter Alston and the ‘Dodger Way’ of playing baseball. (The Orioles were similar but their run didn’t last as long.) Essentially the ‘Dodger Way’ and the ‘Braves Way’ are the same as any franchise with a lengthy period of success. (We’ll ignore the Yankees who have done it differently for most of their existence.) Good scouting and acquiring talent, solid pitching and executing fundamental baseball whether on defense or offense.
3. When Ted Turner brought Bobby Cox back from Toronto as GM, the first part of “the Way’ began to fall into place. It didn’t hurt that the Braves were so bad the draft position was high. Cox also pulled off perhaps the best trade in Atlanta history (maybe Braves history) Doyle Alexander for an A-ball pitcher named Smoltz.
4. After Cox moved back to the dugout during the 1990 season, Schuerholz came in as the GM, having a track record with the Royals for player development ‘the Way;.
5. When I hear the phrase “people alienated by Wren” I view that as the PC phrase for being an A*#@hole. If that’s truly the reason, and I have my doubts, then Wren forgot a key facet of survival in any organization: there is the organization chart showing who is the boss, and there is the unofficial, unwritten power structure of who really runs the show. On the baseball field, it’s become apparent that neither Schuerholz nor Cox really retired, at least from the front office.
Hart’s track record with Cleveland indicates he subscribes to ‘the Way’, although I suspect his reputations rests more on his foresight on contractually locking up a bunch of talent before their arbitration years expired.
6. While attending SABR’s annual meeting in 2010, held in Atlanta shortly after the Marlins had let Gonzalez go, it should have been apparent to all attending that Fredi was replacing Bobby as manager. Fredi apparently knows who the boss really is!
So:
John Hart is the front man for Cox and Schuerholz. The Braves (Wren) have let many of the scouts drift away and need to address a farm system that is barren except for pitching?. Fundamental baseball needs to be re-instilled throughout the organization.
Oh, and there is a new stadium on 2 1/2 years which is what the team owner is really focused on as after that opens is probably when they will cash out.
@20, I might buy some of that for the first round (which is appalling all by itself), but really, go look at those drafts. That’s nothing to put the band back together for.
Here’s a way to both believe there was significant backbiting and to understand why it occurred — they’re all assholes. Some lovable, some not, but all, to some extent, assholes.
Relevant.
Martin Gandy’s been defending Frank Wren’s tenure (http://www.gondeee.com/2014/10/04/braves-bring-back-roy-clark-to-lead-scouting-department/). I can’t exactly make heads-or-tails of his point.
It goes something like: “Well, Wren was good because he wasn’t as good because it wasn’t as easy and it was easy before so you could be good before and that wasn’t Wren.”
Which is tough to follow.
Little help?
I don’t see one mention of Wren in that article.
If only Frank had adopted the Roy Clark method
@27, I know you’re playing it up a bit, but I didn’t find the premise to hard to elucidate at all, if difficult to prove – Clark’s reputation as an evaluator of talent is in part a function of draft and follow and plentiful compensation picks, neither of which were in place for his successor’s term, as well as a reduced budget to sign draftees.
@sdp/28
Sorry, you’re right. I read it sometime yesterday, and memory can turn red lights green. I do think there is an implied defense of the Wren administration, especially if you read it alongside his other recent work.
@30
Maybe the part I’m missing is what the draft-and-follow advantage entails. Why does it make it easier to draft players? And why did draft-and-follow make it easier for Roy Clark to compete against his peers compared to the rules in place for DeMacio? The rules didn’t only change for the Braves; it was a league-wide adjustment. Why should it hinder the Braves more than any other team?
Because you could draft guys that were never going to sign that year and get to negotiate with them prior to their re-entry into the draft – it was like a lotto ticket of sorts for JUCO players that you could cash in “if” you had budget, which Clark did. Success relative to the league isn’t in question – it’s success relative to his successor that is being. If the conditions of Clark’s success were fundamentally different than DeMacio, then this must be accounted for to get a relevant comparison. I mean, I don’t particularly care, and I certainly don’t have a rooting interest either way, but the argument is pretty straightforward “Money, more picks, and draft-and-follow opportunities should be factored in before comparing Clark and his successor”
Draft and follow rule/example: https://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/9911dfe.html
“In the first draft under the new rules, the Astros used their 30th-round pick on Darryl Kile, an anonymous righthander/first baseman from Chaffey (Calif.) Junior College. They also took fliers on players such as Scott Erickson and future first-rounders Lance Dickson and Anthony Manahan.
Rather than sign with the Astros, Kile returned to school for his sophomore year and blossomed into a sure first-round pick. The Astros, though, kept him out of the 1988 draft and signed him to a $100,000 bonus, an unprecedented amount for a late-round pick. Ken Griffey, the No. 1 overall pick in the 1987 draft, had signed for $160,000.”
The argument “but more low round picks made the majors after Clark left” isn’t particularly compelling, because in order for that to happen, more of your high round picks have to fail.
After working with Atlanta, Clark was hired away by Stan Kasten when he took over in Washington. Clark’s arrival in DC coincided with the turnaround of the Nationals from a laughingstock into a contender, due mostly to player development and smart trades for undervalued assets from other teams.
Clark followed Kasten west to when he moved on to the Dodgers, who have been consistently above par in scouting and development during his tenure.
@32 Thanks for the good explanation. I think I follow now.
So there are two arguments at play.
1.) The farm system under Clark was better than the farm system under DeMacio. This is a bad comparison because of the changes in drafting rules, as Gandy points out.
2.) The second argument, to which I don’t know the answer, is that one or the other of them was better at developing a farm system relative to the rest of the league. That’s really the grounds on which to begin an evaluation, and what Sam did a good job starting @34, the key phrase being “consistently above par”.
Can someone make the “consistently above par” argument for DeMacio (who, in this argument, is really a proxy for Wren)?
@27 – In a nutshell: Clark had more high round draft picks than DeMacio. Gandy has good points in both his compare/contrast between Clark and DeMacio’s operating conditions and his defense of Frank Wren. That being said, I’m ok with the direction the team is going with the front office. This off season will be a good test to see what we have there.
I would have been ok with Wren staying too. As I’ve stated before I think he has been a net positive for the Braves during his tenure. Its clear that he wore out his welcome by pissing off one or two many folks that John Schuerholz values to the point that Schuerholz couldn’t defend him any more.
I’m not going to argue that Demacio was or was not good, as I never really pondered it. Whether or not Clark is relatively better than Demacio isn’t important in the slightest – “is Clark as good or better than the other people filling those jobs today, and if so, enough to warrant his hiring?” is the question.
Clark’s arrival in DC coincided with the turnaround of the Nationals from a laughingstock into a contender, due mostly to player development and smart trades for undervalued assets from other teams.
My arrival in Ormewood Park coincided with real estate prices going through the roof, but I ain’t taking credit for it. If you are going handwave poor Braves drafts in the 90’s as a result of poor draft position, you’d have to similarly devalue good Washington drafts by value of exceptional draft position – Strasberg, Storen, Harper, Rendon, Detwiler etc – all Top 10 overall.
Spike your summer evening cocktail hour is definitely the reason Ormewood’s a total destination market.
One hates to brag.
Look, you seem to want to have it both ways. If we compare Braves with Clark to Braves without Clark you argue that we can’t line those up because draft rules have changed. If we compare the Braves to the Nats during the same time periods, you say that’s no good because the Nats had higher draft order positions. It’s almost like you just want a reason to write it off and complain about the org.
Mattingly benching Puig for Game 4.
I don’t want it “either” way. All I did was note two things:
1. That the Braves 94-99 drafts were so terrible, all the draft positioning in the world wouldn’t have changed it. The team was bad at evaluating/developing talent at that time
2. That drafting #1 for several straight years and landing some big name talent is no particular indicator of expertise.
These are not mutually exclusive by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, @41, christ what a moron.
Moron? Who? Mattingly, Puig, or both?
Puig should be benched.
Puig is 3-12 with 7 straight Ks in the NLDS.
@44, why not both?
@45 to start Ethier, who has been demonstrably way worse in both the field and against RHP?
If Kimbrel blew saves in Game one and two of a div series, would you bench him and use someone else in game 3?
Puig is 1 for 1 with a triple in his last at bat.
Puig actually struck out in his last AB. His triple came in the 6th—he struck out the other 3 times.
Career-wise, Ethier vs RHPs is essentially the same as Puig (888 OPS vs. 899). Both have great numbers there, but Ethier’s not the same player he was.
As bad as he’s looked at the plate—and he’s been essentially lost—I’d still prefer Puig in CF. But hey, maybe for one game the gamble works out. That’s what makes it interesting.
With the Return of the Lost Sons of Atlanta, I hope we see Chino Cadahia come back into the fold.
Well, I did officially declare for the Dodgers yesterday. So we can expect them to lose horrifically in short order.
I’m glad they sat him and I also hope they lose this game. Best of all Scenarios
A Cards win is never the best.
@48
Mac would flip over little JS!
There’s your lead, Clayton. On short rest, can you hold onto this one?
Sadly, no.
Ugh—I can’t believe I actually want to Dodgers to win, but I do. Can we just declare the ALCS to be the World Series and disqualify the remaining NL teams?
If/when San Franciso finishes off the Nats, the choice to support either the Cards or the Giants poses a moral dilemma.
Mattingly makes Fredi look like a genius.
Clayton Kershaw in the post-season: 1-5 with 5.11 ERA in 51 IP (11 games, 8 starts)
And I think we remember that one victory.
Maybe he’s not Koufax quite yet.
@59
The Giants, and it’s not that close. Cards or Nats, now that would be a moral dilemma.
Updated Seat Painter Rooting List:
1. KC
1A. Bal’mer
2. Zombie Apocalypse (ZA swept Cometary Impact in 3 games).
3. Nuclear Apocalypse
4. Zombie Nations starting a Nuclear Apocalypse
5. Nuclear Zombie Apocalypse
Co-sign.
Bringing back Roy Clark is great — there is very little question that Roy Clark is very good at his job. Just how good is unclear. I maintain that Wren’s badness at running the farm system has been overblown, but there’s no question that his track record has been undistinguished. Basically, he’s a not-very-good drafter, an absolutely terrible high-dollar spender, a terrific budget free agent signer, and a terrific trader. You can live with that unless he’s literally alienated everyone in the command structure. Which, I guess, he did.
OK, what just happened? Giants score, Posey out in a rundown on an intentional walk? Did the catcher throw the ball away or something?
The intentional ball went over the catcher’s head but bounced back to him perfectly, Posey was hosed at the plate.
You think Tim Hudson is experiencing some schadenfreude right now?
Ding dong, the Nats are dead.
Strasburg has been shut down for the season.
Die, Nationals.
And if there was ever any doubt about the draining pustule that is Bryce Harper…
One day he might learn how to act like a pro, but he’s still a punk.
#NATITUDE
Choke and die, Nationals. Choke and die.
Boy, that sure was a nice epic fail by the Nationals. I was told by the media they were the most likely team to win the World Series. Oops!
Well, they won 98 games once in the last 10 years. If that doesn’t make them favorites for next year, then I don’t know what.
On the significance of the draft and follow rule change.
The key is that that area was one where the Braves were better than anybody. Why and what percentage of the credit should go to Roy Clark I do not know. But if somebody could pull a “Draft and Follow signees WAR by singing club”, IF the Braves were at 100 then next is probably 60 and lots of clubs are in the teens. EVERYBODY said that rule change would hurt the Braves relative to MLB generally. The “go the college route” may have partially been a response to losing “draft and follow”.
I don’t remember exactly when, but the other “Braves specific” thing that hurt our talent pipeline was when Schuerholz was involved in enforcing the “non binding signing bonus guidelines.” During that time we NEVER went over official slot. During that time the Red Sox would draft somebody who had dropped because of “signability” concerns in the 3rd round and offer first round money. The Braves didn’t do that stuff. That actually worked a lot like “draft and follow.”
Also, our international system seemed to be very focused on finding the unfound talent off the beaten path and spent more time and money in Curacao, Panama, and Venezuela relative to Dominican Republic. Again, trying to get off with paying cheap bonuses.
And, we have never (Kenshin Kawakami) plunged into the Asian / Cuban big money true free agent group. And that has been a good pool to play in, for the most part.
The Braves lost both Brandon Belt and Anthony Rendon to draft and follow redrafts. For what it’s worth. Rendon was a D&F in 2008 when Clark was in ATL. He was the Nats first pick in 2009 when Clark joined them.
I have to say, I’m disappointed not to see the following two rationales, re: whom to root for:
1) always root for the NL / down with the DH
2) always root for the team with the most deserving former Braves
Giants all the way. Go, Huddy.
Don’t forget Uggla! He’s in line for a ring also.
Uggla was cut by the Giants.
@78
Yeah, I don’t buy that rationale for SEC football (minus the DH part) and I don’t buy it here. I hate all of these teams. I’m supposed to root for them because they’re arbitrarily in the same league I am? No sale. I do buy Tim Hudson as the main reason that rooting for the Giants over the Cards (because you can’t cheer for the Cards) will be somewhat bearable, but I still don’t like the Giants very much. I’m not gonna root for them over the entertaining plucky underdog stories of KC and Baltimore just because they’re in the NL.
And if the Cards beat the Giants and you root for them over the two likeable AL teams just because they’re in the NL…well, I don’t really know what to say about that. It would be difficult for me to express how much I hate the Cardinals and their fans without breaking into the no-politics zone, so I’ll just leave it. Suffice it to say, they’re insufferable for a huge variety of reasons.
I always root for the SEC in bowl games, always have—although it still pains me to do it for a certain orange-&-blue-clad school.
But yeah, I’ll take San Francisco over St. Louis, for sure. Everyone’s entitled to create their own narrative.
Don’t forget that someone has to root for the Nuclear Zombies.
I too root for SEC teams up to a point. My two favorite teams are Georgia and whoever’s playing Florida.
I generally root for the SEC unless it’s Florida. The only time I’d even consider rooting for Florida would be against Ohio State or Notre Dame.
I’m rooming in a hotel right now with a Cards fan for work, and boy, the smugness is tough to take. I subtly tried to bring up how lucky they are, re: situational hitting, and his retort, “Well, when you’re so good at getting on base…” was a) exaggerated and b) vomit-inducing. And this was before he got around to “I totally expected to be in the LCS.” Fuck that team and their fans.
Harper…
can we get over it please? do what he did, carry a team who couldn’t hit a lick and put on a show like that…when it mattered…
age 21, what do we expect, what would we rather have on our team, another polite October apologist? dear Lord, enough already…
hit those two monsters in and around the Cove and, excuse me, i look at it too…and when i get back to the dugout i just might yell at the 2, 3, 4, 5. and 6 guys who hadn’t done a damn thing – encourager les autres don’t you know… you’re not 21 every day, do it…
would we had a fraction of his passion and ability to further our cause…you would be embarrassed/ashamed/disgusted, right? those were the same adjectives we used watching our own O so polite and proper Braves go through the motions the second half this season…
one last thing…can anyone name another instance of a 21 year old accounting for this percentage of his team’s total offense over an entire playoff series? I’m no stats guy but I doubt it.
at 21 his skills and his behavior are a fair swap…
77—You have your Rendon facts mixed up, I believe. The Braves drafted Rendon out of HS in the second half of the draft, but he turned them down and went to Rice. Washington drafted him in 2011 after his junior year at Rice.
Well said blazon. Well said.
Stu! Welcome back.
And Blazon, right on!
Yes. The point being that Rendon was on Roy Clark’s radar in both years.
We’ve probably reached the end of the stretch of time where Harper won’t be a major thorn in our side. Get ready to hate him for being great.
I just hope we keep dusting his punk ass.
@DOBrienAJC: I really don’t get the indignation some have over fact that Dan Uggla might get a World Series ring for playing 4 games for Giants. So what?
New thread.