You want to say well, there's a guy like Randy Arozarena who shows up every World Series.
Somebody you never heard of who becomes a hero.
But that's not really true in this case.
Those guys are more like the Game 4 hero, Brett Phillips, with the Big Hit that wins a game.
Arozarena has had an impossibly awesome, sustained performance throughout the 2020 playoffs.
In 19 post season games, he's got 27 hits and 9 of 'em went over the fence.
He's slashing .370/.439/.808.
Out of everything I've seen during this series, he'll be the guy to watch next season just to see if this is really real.
I remember thinking Kyle Schwarber was gonna be THE #1 Beast of All Baseball, which... I mean he's awesome but that didn't happen.
Anyway, as kind of expected the Dodgers are a win away from sewing up this year's championship, and while the Rays have surprised again and again, I figure that's how it'll turn out.
After all, the Dodgers players cost about 3 times what the Rays do.
There's all kindsa stuff going on - confusing stuff with the pandemic and is Theo staying thru his contract and how many core guys are gonna get traded and will fans be able to pack Wrigley again... a tornado of crap to ponder. But as far as baseball things go, there are only a couple that really interest me right now.
The first is completely selfish, but we got a message from Hulu saying they couldn't come to terms with Sinclair.
This quote from here:
“While we offered Hulu a deal consistent with terms agreed to by other distributors, the streaming service refused to accept these fair and market-based terms,” Barry Faber, Sinclair’s president of distribution and network relations, said in a statement sent to Bloomberg. “It is unfortunate that Hulu has chosen to take away some of the most popular programming on TV from millions of subscribers, particularly given that Hulu has promised its subscribers that it has live sports.”
Barry sounds pleasant, doesn't he?
When robot lawyers speak like that, I always think they're banging on a trashcan.
So I'll have to do this "where am I gonna watch the Cubs" thing all over again, which pisses me off.
And the other thing that's WAY more interesting is the Commish Rob Manfred thinking about limiting shifts.
I'm so not a fan of the shift, and here's what I'd suggest...
"A shift is defined as when three infielders are on the same side of second base."
(That's out of the same linked article above.)
Instead of limiting it, I'd reward the batter for beating it.
One extra base for either him or, if someone's on base move that guy up one more.
Say Anthony Rizzo's up and the shift is on, he lays down a bunt towards third.
Instead of a single, he moves to second.
Or if KB was on first, Rizzo would get the single but KB moves to third.
Don't you think that'd have managers thinking twice about using it?
And conversely if you're a batter, would you not work to become more skilled at going the other way?
Poke holes in it, please - I'm not the best at thinking things all the way through.
Okay, tonight is Bears vs Rams on MNF.
Oh and I forgot to mention... I think "Arozarena" is maybe the coolest, most lyrical baseball name I've ever heard.
For sure someone's going to write this headline: "Arozarena by any other name..."