Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Cards Not Good at Being Bad

Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 9:23 AM

Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


The Cards have hit a rough patch lately.  To be as negative a possible, we won't count the doubleheader sweep June 1st.  Since then we have played 14 games in 15 days, 5 home and 9 on the road. 

We have gone 7-7, and lost 2 in a row for the first time since April, but we won two in a row twice. 

We only outscored the opposition by 16 runs, 83-67.  Starters are only 6-6.

Nobody got hurt and a veteran starter has returned from the DL. 

After the doubleheader sweep we were 2.5 games up and after the rough patch we are still 2.5 games up. 

In conclusion, we tried, but we haven't done a very good job of being bad.

So now we have 24 games left before the brake, a third of them vs the Cubs.  3 vs the best .240 hitter in baseball, 3 more vs Mike Redmond and the '27 Yankees in Marlin suits.  We might as well give up trying to be bad.

(edit:  2.5 up, not 2.5 out.)

Last edited 6/17/2013 10:37 AM by blingboy

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 9:32 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


I could say I understood all that but that would be me trying to be bad at lying.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 9:58 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



crdswmn wrote: I could say I understood all that but that would be me trying to be bad at lying.
just agree . . . . . . . . understanding will come later . . . .
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:07 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


I've seen enough....Crdswmn wins poster of the day...and it's not even close. My only regret is that I'm just leaving for work and will miss more of this. However, I'll issue this warning.... I should be back by game time to engage in a little PBP action.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:08 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



blingboy wrote:
crdswmn wrote: I could say I understood all that but that would be me trying to be bad at lying.
just agree . . . . . . . . understanding will come later . . . .
Said every flim flam person who has ever tried to sell me something thinking I was a pea brain because I had breasts and 2 X chromosomes.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:11 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


I'm scared: I understood the point Bling was trying to make.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:17 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



Jmodene1 wrote: I'm scared: I understood the point Bling was trying to make.



You understand "not good at being bad"

I certainly don't and all the points made were very chaotic.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:30 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



Jmodene1 wrote: I'm scared: I understood the point Bling was trying to make.

I actually understood it too, except that BB said we were (and are) 2.5 games "out", when in reality we are (and were) 2.5 games "up". Usually "out" refers to being behind, and "up" refers to being ahead. We're ahead.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:35 AM

RE: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


I'll edit to correct, thanks for noticing the mistake.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:42 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



crdswmn wrote:
Said every flim flam person who has ever tried to sell me something thinking I was a pea brain because I had breasts and 2 X chromosomes.
I would not associate pea-brainedness with gender.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 10:43 AM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



blingboy wrote:
crdswmn wrote:
Said every flim flam person who has ever tried to sell me something thinking I was a pea brain because I had breasts and 2 X chromosomes.
I would not associate pea-brainedness with gender.
No, but I have had plenty of experience with those who did.

And I don't consider you a flim flam person, just someone who doesn't like others disagreeing with him.  wink

Last edited 6/17/2013 10:46 AM by crdswmn

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 11:21 AM

RE: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


The Rangers are very good at being bad. Looking at the same stretch, June 2 to date, they started out 2 games up. They got outscored by a whopping 77-38 and are lucky to have gone 4-10. Now they are 3 games out, a turn-around of 5 games in 15 days. Very efficient.

Two things helped. They have a whopping six game losing streak, compared to the Cards' measly 2 gamer. And their starting pitching has gone 0-7 with 7 no decisions. Our starters were 6-6 with 2 no decisions. So in order to be good at being bad, we would have to put together a respectable losing streak. We had a 3 gamer and a 2 back in April, nothing at all in May, and another 2 in June. We are not making any headway there. And our starting pitching would have to stop factoring in so many decisions and racking up so many wins. Perhaps a trade would help. Couldn't hurt.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 11:27 AM

RE: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



blingboy wrote: The Rangers are very good at being bad. Looking at the same stretch, June 2 to date, they started out 2 games up. They got outscored by a whopping 77-38 and are lucky to have gone 4-10. Now they are 3 games out, a turn-around of 5 games in 15 days. Very efficient.

Two things helped. They have a whopping six game losing streak, compared to the Cards' measly 2 gamer. And their starting pitching has gone 0-7 with 7 no decisions. Our starters were 6-6 with 2 no decisions. So in order to be good at being bad, we would have to put together a respectable losing streak. We had a 3 gamer and a 2 back in April, nothing at all in May, and another 2 in June. We are not making any headway there. And our starting pitching would have to stop factoring in so many decisions and racking up so many wins. Perhaps a trade would help. Couldn't hurt.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with examples of teams who are bad at being good.  Or good at being good.  Or mediocre at being fair to middling, or.............
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2013 11:40 AM

RE: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


A thread time out is in order here. It's become painfully obvious that not one person(this means you too, JMo), including it's author, fully understands the immense complexities of this monumental thread. There's only one person in these parts with the raw intellect to piece by piece dissect and explain what's going on here. This person possesses a documented IQ rating of an almost unsurpassable 181....would NathanLeopoldJr. please stand up!
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 11:47 AM

RE: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


You are just being silly crdswmn. This is serious.

The Rangers are quite similar to the Cardinals. Lots of talent, highly rated farm system, used to winning. Both have played some unispired baseball lately. But the bottom line is vastly different. Why are the Cards so much worse at being bad than the Rangers?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 11:54 AM

RE: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



blingboy wrote: You are just being silly crdswmn. This is serious.

The Rangers are quite similar to the Cardinals. Lots of talent, highly rated farm system, used to winning. Both have played some unispired baseball lately. But the bottom line is vastly different. Why are the Cards so much worse at being bad than the Rangers?
Silly?  Who's talking in riddles here?

Are you upset that the Cardinals aren't actually bad or is it that you just want to complain about something without appearing to complain?

I don't see the issue here.  If you wait long enough, the team might actually be bad for long enough stretches that you will have plenty of people to throw in your Virtual Gulag.  tongue
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2013 1:31 PM

RE: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



blingboy wrote: The Rangers are very good at being bad. Looking at the same stretch, June 2 to date, they started out 2 games up. They got outscored by a whopping 77-38 and are lucky to have gone 4-10. Now they are 3 games out, a turn-around of 5 games in 15 days. Very efficient.

Two things helped. They have a whopping six game losing streak, compared to the Cards' measly 2 gamer. And their starting pitching has gone 0-7 with 7 no decisions. Our starters were 6-6 with 2 no decisions. So in order to be good at being bad, we would have to put together a respectable losing streak. We had a 3 gamer and a 2 back in April, nothing at all in May, and another 2 in June. We are not making any headway there. And our starting pitching would have to stop factoring in so many decisions and racking up so many wins. Perhaps a trade would help. Couldn't hurt.



I see what you mean now. Thanks.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 2:46 PM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 


The point he is trying to make is that while we tend to think of this recent stretch for the Cards as "bad", we've actually done OK, we'll enough to maintain our 2 1/2 game led and our status as holding the Best Record in Baseball. The Rangers, OTOH, are suffering thru something of a collapse and have fallen behind the Oakland A's.

In other words, we've done too well to actually be "bad".
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 2:54 PM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



Jmodene1 wrote: The point he is trying to make is that while we tend to think of this recent stretch for the Cards as "bad", we've actually done OK, we'll enough to maintain our 2 1/2 game led and our status as holding the Best Record in Baseball. The Rangers, OTOH, are suffering thru something of a collapse and have fallen behind the Oakland A's.

In other words, we've done too well to actually be "bad".
I get the point, I just don't get the method of making it.  It's like trying to couch a positive to sound negative.

Why not come out and say "The Cardinals are not as bad as it may appear" or something like that.  Instead we get the Not Good at Being Bad, as if being bad was a goal.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2013 3:37 PM

Re: Cards Not Good at Being Bad 



crdswmn wrote:
Jmodene1 wrote: The point he is trying to make is that while we tend to think of this recent stretch for the Cards as "bad", we've actually done OK, we'll enough to maintain our 2 1/2 game led and our status as holding the Best Record in Baseball. The Rangers, OTOH, are suffering thru something of a collapse and have fallen behind the Oakland A's.

In other words, we've done too well to actually be "bad".
I get the point, I just don't get the method of making it.  It's like trying to couch a positive to sound negative.

Why not come out and say "The Cardinals are not as bad as it may appear" or something like that.  Instead we get the Not Good at Being Bad, as if being bad was a goal.

I suspect he was trying to be clever.  Besides, I've had the copyright on "things aren't as bad as we like to think" posts over the past few years, having had to write one after practically every over-reacted-by-the-fans loss.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >