2009 schedule
by itsalemmon1019 on Nov 15, 2008 2:37 AM EST
Email
PrintApologies if this has been discussed earlier, and my regrets for interrupting the hot-stove chatter.
But have you seen the first half of the '09 schedule?
Three series against the Cubs in the first seven (or so) weeks? A first-half ending road trip to Milwaukee and Chicago with the distraction of the All-Star Game looming. Series against the Mets and the D-Backs in April? Interleague against Cleveland and Minnesota?
Just look it over and comment here. Goodness. I hope we're healthy.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
it's stupid to not put the divisional head-to-head at the end, though
it makes all of the divisional races more exciting, because six head to head games in september can wreak havoc on the standings. Why would mlb want all of these matchups settled in July?
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
the schedulers are completely stupid
the schedules over the past few years have been completely idiotic, like how we played detroit the last 3 years there and they havent played here yet, for one.
The only thought I have
is that they’re trying to keep Cardinals-Cubs from happening at the same time as Yankees-Red Sox, which definitely costs them national TV revenue.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Or the fact...
that the Cardinals played Detroit three years in a row, and haven’t played the Twins at all since 2001 (until this year).
According to Dan and Al
The schedulers didn’t even notice that they had done such a thing 3 years in a row. Don’t we get such amazing priority as the most stoic, historic and winningest (Championships, Pennants) NL team!!!
For some reason, I don't enjoy watching Big Mac hit #62, but I fondly remember Ray Lankford blasting the ball out of the park in the same game. He had one sweet swing!!
by miniboscorino on Nov 17, 2008 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
On another note...
Since 1901, the Cardinals two most common opponents have been the Pirates (2,128 games) and the Cubs (2,121 games). But would it surprise you to learn the Cardinals have a losing record against both teams during that time? It certainly surprised me…
http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/head2head.cgi?teams=STL&from=1901&to=2008&submit=Submit
However...
they have a winning record against every other NL team except the Giants during that time.
The pre-Hornsby Cardinals were REALLY horrible.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
And the Cubs were pretty damn dominant in the first decade of the century.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
and the Pirates from 1901-1912
weren’t too shabby either. They averaged 93 wins a year during that span, and some of those seasons were played with a 139 game schedule.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
- Dennis ‘Oil Can’ Boyd claims he used cocaine before a majority of his games
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
