Baseball thread No. VII

I knew they were good, but without looking at the standings, never even realized that.

 

Me either, until I started doing the agate.

God bless baseball and its obsession with numbers.

 

And the Mets, Cardinals, Padres and Reds all have better records than the AL West leading A's.

 

Hate to interrupt the mathematicians here, but it's Clemens vs. Maddux Wednesday night.

 

The way the Angels are playing, you can probably cross off the Reds and Padres by Saturday.

 

Could it be the last-ever 300-v-300 matchup?

 

Yes. It will be, barring a Heston-caliber miracle

 

Clemens is on my roto team. I had to trade JD Drew to get him for this season, but I wanted to have Clemens when he rode his fastballs into retirement. Unfortunately, the damn Astros won't score enough to get him a win.

Tonight's the night: Houston 12, Sausage King of Chicago 3.

 

I guess you might see Glavine-Maddux sometime next season ... but point taken -- the 300-game winner is a dying species. That's another example why baseball's benchmarks of greatness need to evolve with the game. It's also why I generally don't buy into all the "cherished records" hysteria with regard to Bonds possibly overtaking Aaron. All eras are different, very different.

 

Glavine-Maddux this season, too, if the skeddualing works out.

 

Not unless Glavine picks up about 14 wins between now and then. Isn't he at 286 right now?

 

OK, I feel better. Just a little.