The San Francisco Giants did a terrific job down the stretch, pitching their way to the NL West crown and then a four-game dismantling of the Atlanta Braves in the NLDS.
The question that has come up most, in my mind, has been a chicken-and-egg thing: Did the Giants pitch so well as to overwhelm their opponents' bats? Or were the teams they faced down the stretch in batting funks of their own, which may have had as much to do with the Giants' success as anything the pitchers may have done?
Of course, the question was really spurred on by what happened to the Phils in May, June, and into July. They couldn't hit. If you recall, in one series, they made the Mets starting staff look like Spahn, Sain, Koufax, Gibson, and Mathewson, all rolled into one. So, is it possible that the Giants benefitted in September, October, and the NLCS by playing weak-hitting teams that played into the Giants' strength?
I took the batting splits for September/October from Baseball-Reference.com and did some very base analysis, using a simple weighted-average method to determine whether the Giants, or even the Phils, may have had super stretch runs because of the batting woes of their stretch-run opponents. Let's take a look at the Giants:
SEP/OCT
OPPONENT GMS VS OPP AVG WEIGHTED
COL 4 .264 1.056
LA 6 .212 1.272
ARI 6 .235 1.410
SD 7 .230 1.610
MIL 3 .253 .759
CHI 3 .232 .696
ATL (NLDS) 4 .247 .988
TOTALS 33 .236 7.791
Games vs. teams hitting .250+ in SEP/OCT: 7
Games vs. teams hitting .240-.249: 4
Games vs. teams hitting .230-.239: 9
Games vs. teams hitting .220-.229: 7
Games vs. teams hitting .210-.219: 6
As you can see, the Giants played 22 games against teams hitting .239 or less in the stretch run. The NL average for September and October regular season games was .247. The Giants played teams that hit a combined 4 percent lower than the league average. Obviously, that's not much; about two hits over a five-game series. But, they still faced competition that hit lower than the average of all teams, including the Phils, who hit .285 in September and October.
Let's now turn our attention to the Phils ...
SEP/OCT
OPPONENT GMS VS OPP AVG WEIGHTED
LA 1 .212 .212
COL 1 .264 .264
MIL 3 .253 .759
FLA 7 .246 1.722
NY 6 .252 1.512
WAS 6 .228 1.368
ATL 6 .247 1.482
CIN (NLDS) 3 .265 .795
TOTALS 33 .246 8.114
Games vs. teams hitting .250+ in SEP/OCT: 13
Games vs. teams hitting .240-.249: 13
Games vs. teams hitting .230-.239: 0
Games vs. teams hitting .220-.229: 6
Games vs. teams hitting .210-.219: 1
The Phils, on the other hand, played only seven games against teams that hit .239 or less in the months of September and October. Their opponents' weighted-average of .246 is just one point less than the league average of .247. Additionally, while the Giants faced only two opponents down the stretch with batting averages over .250 (Colorado and Milwaukee), the Phils faced four such teams (Colorado, Milwaukee, the Mets, and Cincinnati).
The Giants' record in those seven games? 4-3 (3-1 vs. COL, 1-2 vs. MIL) And the Phillies? 9-4 (1-0 vs. COL, 2-1 vs. MIL, 3-3 vs. NY, 3-0 vs. CIN).
What does all this mean? It simply means that the Phillies faced better-hitting (.250 or better) clubs down the stretch than the Giants did. It means that the Phils handled those teams very well (9-4, including the sweep of the vaunted Reds' offense in the NLDS), but that the Giants were so-so at 4-3.
Does this translate into a Phillies series win? On paper, it certainly makes a series win seem more likely. As the series unfolds, we'll find out more about the true nature of the Giants' pitching staff down the stretch, and we'll finally be able to answer whether the Giants' staff is that good, or whether they took advantage of favorable opposing batting conditions to get themselves into the NLCS.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Dr. No
October 6, Game 1, NLDS: PHILLIES 4, Cincinnati 0
When you look at the record books, there aren't very many places where the Phillies hold some special record that everyone who's a baseball fan knows by heart. It's not Steve Carlton with seven no-hitters. It wasn't Mike Schmidt with 755 homeruns. Pete Rose had his 44-game hitting streak the year before he became a Phillie.
But tonight, the Phillies finally were able to have one of their own etched into the pantheon of great postseason games with Roy Halladay's no-hitter. Doc joins Don Larsen as the only pitchers in the history of the game to pitch a no-hitter in the post-season. And for a change, Phillies fans get to proudly puff their chests as they celebrate, literally, a game for the ages.
There really are no words to express how many fans, including myself, feel on this momentous occasion. That we are joyous, proud, ecstatic, pumped, psyched, or whatever adjective you wish to use should come as no surprise to even the most casual of fans. That this means so much, to so many, is simply beyond the comprehension of "outsiders".
We're like everyone else. We want our teams to win. We're not just satisfied to make the playoffs; we want the teams to go all the way. In that respect, we're not much different than fans in Boston, LA, Chicago, or even our fellow fans in Cincinnati.
But in many ways, it's vey different for us. So many years of watching others continue playing baseball while our guys were hitting the golf course. So many decades of futility, amassing over 10,000 losses, the most in the history of the game. After awhile, the losing becomes so customary that the winning seasons, the big wins, and the championships -- few and far between --- take on mythical status and a meaning beyond the joy of rooting for a winner.
If you watched the movie, "Invincible", the story about Vince Papale (and what self-respecting Philadelphia sports fan hasn't?), there is a scene in the movie where Vince's dad, who has mentioned Steve Van Buren's touchdown in the 1948 NFL Championship Game more than a few times already, has a heart-to-heart talk with his son on the steps of his rowhome.
He tells Vince that he knows how he talks about that touchdown all the time because, after his wife had died, the joy of that memory helped him get through the pain. That the joy of that memory had helped him get through the tough times at work, or in general. And if you grew up in Philadelphia, or the Philadelphia area, you understood what he meant. For his generation, it was Van Buren's TD. For my generation, it was Rick MacLeish, tipping home Andre Dupont's slapper from the point, or Willie Wilson, striking out to end Game Six.
And tonight, a new generation of Philadelphia sports fans have been granted the privilege of being witness to another memory that will be with us, and bring a smile to our faces, and joy to our hearts, for the rest of our lives. Tonight, we didn't just witness the brilliance of Roy Halladay, we witnessed a moment for the ages; a game that will be mentioned for as long as there are playoff games to be played.
Thanks, Doc. Bet you never thought being in the postseason would be this good, did you?
When you look at the record books, there aren't very many places where the Phillies hold some special record that everyone who's a baseball fan knows by heart. It's not Steve Carlton with seven no-hitters. It wasn't Mike Schmidt with 755 homeruns. Pete Rose had his 44-game hitting streak the year before he became a Phillie.
But tonight, the Phillies finally were able to have one of their own etched into the pantheon of great postseason games with Roy Halladay's no-hitter. Doc joins Don Larsen as the only pitchers in the history of the game to pitch a no-hitter in the post-season. And for a change, Phillies fans get to proudly puff their chests as they celebrate, literally, a game for the ages.
There really are no words to express how many fans, including myself, feel on this momentous occasion. That we are joyous, proud, ecstatic, pumped, psyched, or whatever adjective you wish to use should come as no surprise to even the most casual of fans. That this means so much, to so many, is simply beyond the comprehension of "outsiders".
We're like everyone else. We want our teams to win. We're not just satisfied to make the playoffs; we want the teams to go all the way. In that respect, we're not much different than fans in Boston, LA, Chicago, or even our fellow fans in Cincinnati.
But in many ways, it's vey different for us. So many years of watching others continue playing baseball while our guys were hitting the golf course. So many decades of futility, amassing over 10,000 losses, the most in the history of the game. After awhile, the losing becomes so customary that the winning seasons, the big wins, and the championships -- few and far between --- take on mythical status and a meaning beyond the joy of rooting for a winner.
If you watched the movie, "Invincible", the story about Vince Papale (and what self-respecting Philadelphia sports fan hasn't?), there is a scene in the movie where Vince's dad, who has mentioned Steve Van Buren's touchdown in the 1948 NFL Championship Game more than a few times already, has a heart-to-heart talk with his son on the steps of his rowhome.
He tells Vince that he knows how he talks about that touchdown all the time because, after his wife had died, the joy of that memory helped him get through the pain. That the joy of that memory had helped him get through the tough times at work, or in general. And if you grew up in Philadelphia, or the Philadelphia area, you understood what he meant. For his generation, it was Van Buren's TD. For my generation, it was Rick MacLeish, tipping home Andre Dupont's slapper from the point, or Willie Wilson, striking out to end Game Six.
And tonight, a new generation of Philadelphia sports fans have been granted the privilege of being witness to another memory that will be with us, and bring a smile to our faces, and joy to our hearts, for the rest of our lives. Tonight, we didn't just witness the brilliance of Roy Halladay, we witnessed a moment for the ages; a game that will be mentioned for as long as there are playoff games to be played.
Thanks, Doc. Bet you never thought being in the postseason would be this good, did you?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Worley Gives Braves The Bird
Although the game is still in progress (Phils lead, 5-0, middle of eight), I have to say ... what a great performance by Vance Worley!! One hit in five innings against a team desperate to make the playoffs.
Fantastic job, Vance!! And THANK YOU!!!
Fantastic job, Vance!! And THANK YOU!!!
National League Playoff Possibilities
Here's what we know at 12:50PM, Central Time:
1) The PHILLIES are the #1 seed in the NL, and will host either Cincinnati (if Atlanta wins the Wild Card), or San Francisco/San Diego if they win the Wild Card
2) The Cincinnati Reds are the #3 seed in the NL, and will play the PHILLIES or the NL West Champion if both the Giants and Padres qualify for the postseason.
Here's where it gets tricky:
First, the "automatic clinch" scenarios:
1) Braves clinch the Wild Card with two wins
2) Braves clinch the Wild Card with one win and one Padres loss
3) Padres and Giants clinch playoff spots with two Padres wins and two Braves losses (the Padres would win the West on a tie-breaker)
Next, the simple playoff scenario:
1) Braves and Padres would play a one-game playoff for the Wild Card if the Braves lose two games and the Padres win one game
Finally, the complex playoff scenario:
The Braves win one game, while the Padres win both games. That would leave the Braves at 91-71, the Giants at 91-71, and the Padres at 91-71.
In a situation such as this, there is no simple tie-breaker. Instead, two additional games are needed to determine playoff seeding and divisional champion:
1) The Padres and Giants would play a one-game playoff on Monday to determine the NL West Champion
2) The loser of that game would play the Braves on Tuesday to determine the Wild Card
This is the situation that would greatly benefit the Phils. Why? Because the Giants and Padres would have to burn through their #1 starters to win the NL West, leaving them unavailable for the NLDS opener. Additionally, if the NL West loser then wins the Wild Card, they'll have burned through their top two starters to win the Wild Card, making them unavailable for the first two games against the Phils.
Interesting times, eh?
1) The PHILLIES are the #1 seed in the NL, and will host either Cincinnati (if Atlanta wins the Wild Card), or San Francisco/San Diego if they win the Wild Card
2) The Cincinnati Reds are the #3 seed in the NL, and will play the PHILLIES or the NL West Champion if both the Giants and Padres qualify for the postseason.
Here's where it gets tricky:
First, the "automatic clinch" scenarios:
1) Braves clinch the Wild Card with two wins
2) Braves clinch the Wild Card with one win and one Padres loss
3) Padres and Giants clinch playoff spots with two Padres wins and two Braves losses (the Padres would win the West on a tie-breaker)
Next, the simple playoff scenario:
1) Braves and Padres would play a one-game playoff for the Wild Card if the Braves lose two games and the Padres win one game
Finally, the complex playoff scenario:
The Braves win one game, while the Padres win both games. That would leave the Braves at 91-71, the Giants at 91-71, and the Padres at 91-71.
In a situation such as this, there is no simple tie-breaker. Instead, two additional games are needed to determine playoff seeding and divisional champion:
1) The Padres and Giants would play a one-game playoff on Monday to determine the NL West Champion
2) The loser of that game would play the Braves on Tuesday to determine the Wild Card
This is the situation that would greatly benefit the Phils. Why? Because the Giants and Padres would have to burn through their #1 starters to win the NL West, leaving them unavailable for the NLDS opener. Additionally, if the NL West loser then wins the Wild Card, they'll have burned through their top two starters to win the Wild Card, making them unavailable for the first two games against the Phils.
Interesting times, eh?
The First Cliff Lee Deal: How It Made The Phils Better
When the Phillies traded Cliff Lee this past off-season for the chance to get Roy Halladay, Phillies fans were left scratching their heads. Sure, Halladay was a great addition, they said. But why not have Halladay *and* Lee? The thought here being that Cole Hamels may not return to 2008 form, but would fall somewhere between 2008 and 2009. So, we needed a #2 starter.
But here's why what actually happened turned out brilliantly, even if it all was simply a happy accident.
Let's go back to July 2009. J.P. Ricciardi, then the GM of the Blue Jays, saw the young, less-experienced Ruben Amaro coming to ask for Roy Halladay. Ricciardi, eager to prove to Jays fans that he was a shrewd wheeler-dealer who would get max value for a guy the Jays weren't going to be able to keep, stuck a gun in Ruben's ribs and demanded J.A. Happ, Kyle Drabek, and others, in return for Doc.
Ruben laughed, claiming that the gun was tickling his ribs. Looking back at Ricciardi, Amaro's response was akin to: "Seriously, J.P., who do you really want?" Informed that he wasn't kidding, Amaro pinned a $20 bill to Ricciardi's shirt and wished him the best of luck.
Amaro then turned his sights on Lee, who cost the Phils some of their Top Ten prospects, but not Drabek, Brown, or Taylor. "Genius!", we said. "Brilliant!", said the two Guinness guys. "Outstanding, Private Pyle!", said Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.
The commotion of Lee's subsequent trade centered, from the fans' standpoint, on "Why can't we have them both?" From the club's standpoint, they saw Lee as a rent-a-pitcher who wanted a longer contract and bigger payday than the Phils' management were philosophically prepared to give. From Lee's standpoint (if his agent is to be believed), he wanted to stay in Philadelphia.
Here's the connundrum, if you're Ruben Amaro: Your big acquisition wants a bigger deal than you're willing to give. Your big acquisition's agent, hoping to forment anger in the fan base, tells the media that no such demands were made and that his client loves the city and its fans. You can hold the line, and then watch the Yankees swoop in and get your big acqusition, leaving you with nothing to show for your bold move.
If I was Ruben, I would have done exactly what he did when faced with the same situation: maximize the moves I can make, and pray that what was essentially Lee-for-Halladay doesn't blow up in my face.
But here's why I think the first Lee deal ended up making the Phils even better than they would have been if Ruben had been afraid of the gun J.P. Ricciardi held to his ribs in July 2009 ...
It would be foolish to believe that anyone would have planned for J.P. Riccardi to be fired back in July of 2009, so I'm not giving Ruben any credit for being clairvoyant. But, anyone who's been around baseball as long as Ruben has knew that the Jays were in trouble last year. Riccardi, despite his bravado, was desperate to get something for Halladay, but couldn't sit back and take peanuts. That he over-played his hand probably doomed him more in Toronto than the play of the Jays on the field. But in over-playing his hand, Amaro did discover something ... the Phils may have been the only team with a legitimate chance of being able to trade for Halladay, anyway.
So, when Riccardi got the axe, his replacement, Alex Anthopoulos, knew that he had to get a Halladay deal done. He also knew he had a suitor in Amaro, and he also knew how badly his predecessor had over-played his hand. What better way to get started than by finishing what others had begun, especially when Jays fans all knew that Doc was going and never coming back, anyway?
Now, here's where the original Lee deal makes the Phils better today than they would have otherwise been. And it's a "Jack Sprat"-type of logic and thinking that gets us there.
By not trading Drabek and Happ, Ruben still had pieces to trade. However, because Anthopoulos already knew that he would never get both Drabek and Happ, he could lower his price and take one, but not both. That allowed Ruben to have two bullets in his gun (three, if you recall that Lee was still on the Phils when the Halladay deal was being negotiated) for deals, rather than just one.
Trading Lee, despite the bad press, negative repercussions, and the like, brought back prospects to the club that may help them in the future (or may help them land established players in a trade). That allowed Drabek to be dealt for Halladay.
The Halladay trade made the Phils better instantly, because Cliff Lee, for all his innings-eating, is no Roy Halladay. But the original deal for Lee made the Phils better because having J.A. Happ still around allowed Ruben to go out and get Roy Oswalt, arguably one of the best second-half pitchers in the game.
Yes, the Oswalt trade was probably a concession/admission that Ruben probably shouldn't have dealt Cliff Lee. Or, perhaps, the Oswalt trade was Ruben, doing the Walt Jocketty thing and starting a trend of big-time, trade-deadline deals that keep the Phils contending, even in years where they might seem to be out of it. It wouldn't surprise me if that's not part of the equation here.
So, had Ruben not run from the gun that Ricciardi was holding, we would have had Halladay as the ace, Hamels at #2, Blanton #3, Moyer #4, and Kendrick #5. That would mean a playoff rotation of Halladay, Hamels, and Blanton. With a potential 2011 rotation of Halladay, Hamels, Blanton, Moyer, and Kendrick.
But today, we have Halladay, Oswalt, Hamels, Blanton, and Kendrick, with a playoff rotation of Halladay, Oswalt, and Hamels. With a 2011 rotation of Halladay, Oswalt, Hamels, Blanton, and Kendrick.
It could just be me, but I like the 2010 versions with Halladay and Oswalt, and the 2011 rotation with those guys, much, much better than I like what we could have had.
Just another example of the best deals sometimes being the deals you don't make.
But here's why what actually happened turned out brilliantly, even if it all was simply a happy accident.
Let's go back to July 2009. J.P. Ricciardi, then the GM of the Blue Jays, saw the young, less-experienced Ruben Amaro coming to ask for Roy Halladay. Ricciardi, eager to prove to Jays fans that he was a shrewd wheeler-dealer who would get max value for a guy the Jays weren't going to be able to keep, stuck a gun in Ruben's ribs and demanded J.A. Happ, Kyle Drabek, and others, in return for Doc.
Ruben laughed, claiming that the gun was tickling his ribs. Looking back at Ricciardi, Amaro's response was akin to: "Seriously, J.P., who do you really want?" Informed that he wasn't kidding, Amaro pinned a $20 bill to Ricciardi's shirt and wished him the best of luck.
Amaro then turned his sights on Lee, who cost the Phils some of their Top Ten prospects, but not Drabek, Brown, or Taylor. "Genius!", we said. "Brilliant!", said the two Guinness guys. "Outstanding, Private Pyle!", said Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.
The commotion of Lee's subsequent trade centered, from the fans' standpoint, on "Why can't we have them both?" From the club's standpoint, they saw Lee as a rent-a-pitcher who wanted a longer contract and bigger payday than the Phils' management were philosophically prepared to give. From Lee's standpoint (if his agent is to be believed), he wanted to stay in Philadelphia.
Here's the connundrum, if you're Ruben Amaro: Your big acquisition wants a bigger deal than you're willing to give. Your big acquisition's agent, hoping to forment anger in the fan base, tells the media that no such demands were made and that his client loves the city and its fans. You can hold the line, and then watch the Yankees swoop in and get your big acqusition, leaving you with nothing to show for your bold move.
If I was Ruben, I would have done exactly what he did when faced with the same situation: maximize the moves I can make, and pray that what was essentially Lee-for-Halladay doesn't blow up in my face.
But here's why I think the first Lee deal ended up making the Phils even better than they would have been if Ruben had been afraid of the gun J.P. Ricciardi held to his ribs in July 2009 ...
It would be foolish to believe that anyone would have planned for J.P. Riccardi to be fired back in July of 2009, so I'm not giving Ruben any credit for being clairvoyant. But, anyone who's been around baseball as long as Ruben has knew that the Jays were in trouble last year. Riccardi, despite his bravado, was desperate to get something for Halladay, but couldn't sit back and take peanuts. That he over-played his hand probably doomed him more in Toronto than the play of the Jays on the field. But in over-playing his hand, Amaro did discover something ... the Phils may have been the only team with a legitimate chance of being able to trade for Halladay, anyway.
So, when Riccardi got the axe, his replacement, Alex Anthopoulos, knew that he had to get a Halladay deal done. He also knew he had a suitor in Amaro, and he also knew how badly his predecessor had over-played his hand. What better way to get started than by finishing what others had begun, especially when Jays fans all knew that Doc was going and never coming back, anyway?
Now, here's where the original Lee deal makes the Phils better today than they would have otherwise been. And it's a "Jack Sprat"-type of logic and thinking that gets us there.
By not trading Drabek and Happ, Ruben still had pieces to trade. However, because Anthopoulos already knew that he would never get both Drabek and Happ, he could lower his price and take one, but not both. That allowed Ruben to have two bullets in his gun (three, if you recall that Lee was still on the Phils when the Halladay deal was being negotiated) for deals, rather than just one.
Trading Lee, despite the bad press, negative repercussions, and the like, brought back prospects to the club that may help them in the future (or may help them land established players in a trade). That allowed Drabek to be dealt for Halladay.
The Halladay trade made the Phils better instantly, because Cliff Lee, for all his innings-eating, is no Roy Halladay. But the original deal for Lee made the Phils better because having J.A. Happ still around allowed Ruben to go out and get Roy Oswalt, arguably one of the best second-half pitchers in the game.
Yes, the Oswalt trade was probably a concession/admission that Ruben probably shouldn't have dealt Cliff Lee. Or, perhaps, the Oswalt trade was Ruben, doing the Walt Jocketty thing and starting a trend of big-time, trade-deadline deals that keep the Phils contending, even in years where they might seem to be out of it. It wouldn't surprise me if that's not part of the equation here.
So, had Ruben not run from the gun that Ricciardi was holding, we would have had Halladay as the ace, Hamels at #2, Blanton #3, Moyer #4, and Kendrick #5. That would mean a playoff rotation of Halladay, Hamels, and Blanton. With a potential 2011 rotation of Halladay, Hamels, Blanton, Moyer, and Kendrick.
But today, we have Halladay, Oswalt, Hamels, Blanton, and Kendrick, with a playoff rotation of Halladay, Oswalt, and Hamels. With a 2011 rotation of Halladay, Oswalt, Hamels, Blanton, and Kendrick.
It could just be me, but I like the 2010 versions with Halladay and Oswalt, and the 2011 rotation with those guys, much, much better than I like what we could have had.
Just another example of the best deals sometimes being the deals you don't make.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Sending A Message
October 1: PHILLIES 11, Atlanta 5
Just in case the Braves thought they would roll over a Phillies club with nothing more to play for tonight, the Phils sent a message ... we're the Beast of the East, the Best of the NL.
J-Roll sent a message ... I'm not fully back from the leg problems ... but don't think I'm not a dangerous hitter.
Kyle Kendrick sent a message ... I may have been inconsistent against the rest of the National League, but I have the Braves' number.
Domonic Brown sent a message ... I may be a rookie, but I can draw a key two-out walk to drive home the go-ahead run.
The bullpen, save Zagurski in the ninth, sent a message ... Charlie's going to keep us loose and give us innings, but he's also keeping us fresh ... and while he's doing that, we'll chuck a bunch of goose eggs.
What makes 2010 so much different than the last four years is that:
In 2007, no one expected us to catch the Mets, let alone win the division
In 2008, we were just happy as all get-out to get to the World Series
In 2009, we just wanted a chance to defend the title
In 2010, expectations entering the season were high, became tempered with the offensive malaise of June and July, and soared with the team's play following "The Houston Massacre". I think folks expect the Phils to win. Not hope that they'll win. Not hope for a chance to repeat.
We'll see.
For me, I will follow what has become tradition in my house ... cheesesteaks served for good luck.
Just in case the Braves thought they would roll over a Phillies club with nothing more to play for tonight, the Phils sent a message ... we're the Beast of the East, the Best of the NL.
J-Roll sent a message ... I'm not fully back from the leg problems ... but don't think I'm not a dangerous hitter.
Kyle Kendrick sent a message ... I may have been inconsistent against the rest of the National League, but I have the Braves' number.
Domonic Brown sent a message ... I may be a rookie, but I can draw a key two-out walk to drive home the go-ahead run.
The bullpen, save Zagurski in the ninth, sent a message ... Charlie's going to keep us loose and give us innings, but he's also keeping us fresh ... and while he's doing that, we'll chuck a bunch of goose eggs.
What makes 2010 so much different than the last four years is that:
In 2007, no one expected us to catch the Mets, let alone win the division
In 2008, we were just happy as all get-out to get to the World Series
In 2009, we just wanted a chance to defend the title
In 2010, expectations entering the season were high, became tempered with the offensive malaise of June and July, and soared with the team's play following "The Houston Massacre". I think folks expect the Phils to win. Not hope that they'll win. Not hope for a chance to repeat.
We'll see.
For me, I will follow what has become tradition in my house ... cheesesteaks served for good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)