It just doesn't feel right for some reason. Sure, the White Sox "swept" the Royals Monday and Tuesday, but I couldn't help but feeling that there was something dishonest about calling a two-game winning streak--against the Royals, at that--a "sweep". Somehow it just cheapens the thrill of a sweep. And I think the pitiful Royals deserve the opportunity to "salvage" a series after two losses. After all, their whole season is something akin to a salvage job--an opportunity to say, "Hey, we won one out of three! Sure, it's not a good winning percentage, but .333 might win the batting title!"
In other sweep news, the Oakland swept Baltimore in a two game series no one in Baltimore even cared about (total attendance both nights: 28,000) and the BoSox were swept (in a two-game series, natch. That's right, natch) by Toronto after sweeping the Yankees in a three game series. Even disregarding opponents, you get the sense that Boston couldn't care less about dropping two to Toronto (with the back end of their rotation, Wakefield and Tavarez) after coming from behind to beat up on New York's craptastic pitching in three straight.
Maybe it's just because two games can't constitute a streak, while if three doesn't constitute a small streak, I don't know what does. But while I'm at it, I'll just go ahead and say that I'm not a fan of 4 game series either. Call me an idiot. I don't care.
I'm just happy because my Sox are on ESPN against the Tigers tonight and I get my first look at John Danks. Time to sit back, relax, strap it down, and shun some schoolwork.
1 comment:
I don't understand the two-game series at all. Doesn't it just make for more travel? Dumb.
I want to write a book called "Why is Baseball So Stupid?"
Post a Comment