Don't know what it is, but I find Greenberg intolerably annoying.

It's good to see some fresh blood winning ballgames in the AL East. Go Rays.

Anyone click the link? It's from "www.Mike-Greenberg.com -- The site for fans of Mike Greenberg: Sports Personality, Author, and Host." I'm so embarrassed for those people.

Well, he is smart as a whip.

I certainly agree with him about the Rays, and I don't think that their being for real this year was the consensus view among BTF posters in March.

You keep sitting there and waiting for them to go away

I do?

that incident is gonna be the msm story, people--it's gonna be why they did it, a hardening of the collective proboscis--or am I too pessimistic?

Then you better look again AJM. This is a solid team with good players at every position and terrific depth. Too many people evaluate based on cursory looks at the recent past instead of actually observing what actually exists.

I think AJM is suggesting that he isn't waiting for them to go away because he thinks they're not going to.

I don't think that their being for real this year was the consensus view among BTF posters in March.

No consensus is probably an understatement. I'd venture there was as much disagreement about Tampa Bay's prospects for 2008 as there were for any team in baseball. A few, most notably AROM, saw them as a possible contender. Others saw them threatening .500, but not likely to contend for the division or wild card. And many others, perhaps burned by too many "This is the year the Rays take a step forward" stories in the past, preferred a wait and see approach.

There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the Devil Rays, to think that the improvement they've shown this season (with respect to last season) is sustainable, but I think there's no reason to bet the house on its being real. It very well could be, but it doesn't have to be.

The 2003 Royals were once 13 games above .500. They led their division by 7.5 games in mid-July and shared a tie for the division lead at the end of August. They ended up 4 games over .500 in 2003, 83-79. They haven't been particularly good since.

The 2005 Orioles were once 14 games above .500. They shared the division lead as late as June 23rd. They ended up 14 games below .500, 74-88. They haven't been particularly good since.

Of course, a (major) difference is that the above two teams are older than the Devil Rays. And this is certainly true...

2003 Royals hitters: 29.2
2005 Orioles hitters: 31.3
2008 Devil Rays hitters: 27.0

2003 Royals pitchers: 28.0
2005 Orioles pitchers: 28.3
2008 Devil Rays pitchers: 27.8

...(although it's less true for the pitchers than the hitters), but let's not make too much of that. Yes, young teams are more likely to improve and sustain it, and old teams are more likely to decline, but there are certainly plenty of instances of young players having good/great seasons (or great half-seasons) and then falling off.

The 1989 Orioles were 15 games over .500. Their largest lead was 7.5 games (on July 20th) and they last shared the lead on August 31st. They finished 87-75, 2 games behind the division winner, a tremendous turnaround from the year before when the team was 54-107 and lost its first 21 games of the year. And they were even younger than the Devil Rays...

1989 Orioles hitters: 27.1
1989 Orioles pitchers: 26.9

...but they couldn't quite sustain the success. They dropped below .500 the next season (76-85), and fell further back the next year (67-95), before finally recovering (89-73), and starting a run of 5 out of 6 years in which they were over .500 (they were 71-73 in the exception).

Here to stay? I like their chances (both in the long run and in the short run), but I think success is far from a certainty. This season isn't over yet.

I think AJM is suggesting that he isn't waiting for them to go away because he thinks they're not going to.

Correct.

Don't know what it is, but I find Greenberg intolerably annoying.

He's a company man, and he also takes sports very seriously.

He's a company man,

He works for the CIA?

Your essential point is correct, Robert, but I don't think the reasoning is. Comparisons such as those you make are similar to the kind that Joe Sheehan made when he said no team ever improved by 200 runs allowed from one season to the next. It may be true, but it is not an argument because there is no necessary relationship between what happened historically and what is happening in this particular case. It is akin to saying that because the Cubs have not won a World Series in 100 years, it is unlikely they will do so this year.

To determine if the Rays are for real, the comparison is not to other team's similar records or place in the standings but to the talent base of the teams. You do a bit of that with the age comparison, but that is hardly a convincing point all alone. The real issue is whether there is reason now to think that Kazmir/Shields/Garza et al can continue to pitch well all year. Whether Upton/Crawford/Navarro et al can continue to hit well or even improve over the course of the season. Whether the defense is for real and will maintain its current effectiveness. Whether the schedule favors them in any way or not.

On all those points, there are reasonable disagreements. But whether the Royals or Orioles once had a similar run of success followed by a falloff is not really relevant to whether the Rays will do similarly.

"Well, he is smart as a whip."

I've never been impressed by his wit on the radio. I wonder what makes you think he's anything other than an average ESPN talking head when it comes to smarts? In other words, smarter than Sean Salisbury and dumber than Steve Young.

Rifkin,

It was a joke. Mariotti had a column recently where he said Mike Greenberg was as smart as a whip. (Mariotti said how cowardly the Chicago media was for not trying to fire Guillen, but how the national media knew better, and then he had a blurb from Greenberg, who "is as smart as a whip.")

He's a company man, and he also takes sports very seriously.

He essentially plays the role of Felix Unger on the radio. I listen to the show occasionally as background at work and I can honestly say that he's never done anything that's caused me to form an opinion of him either positive or negative. Well, the Sheets of Integrity was annoying.

He essentially plays the role of Felix Unger on the radio. I listen to the show occasionally as background at work and I can honestly say that he's never done anything that's caused me to form an opinion of him either positive or negative. Well, the Sheets of Integrity was annoying.

That sums it pretty well (particularly that horrendous Sheets of Integrity), and I listen fairly regularly on my drive to work. My biggest complaint is the hyperbole. Every ESPN analyst "knows more about this subject than anyone." I'll give him this though - he sure can tease. His leads into commercial break do get you wondering what the hell is up next, even if the payoff isn't nearly as interesting as he led you to believe.

...but they (89 Orioles) couldn't quite sustain the success. They dropped below .500 the next season (76-85), and fell further back the next year (67-95), before finally recovering (89-73), and starting a run of 5 out of 6 years in which they were over .500 (they were 71-73 in the exception).

Umm, between those 76-85 and 67-95 years, O's made an offseason trade: 1 multiple all-star cf (Steve Finley); 1 multiple all-star starter (Pete Harnisch); 1 borderline HOF starter (Curt Schilling) for a 1b (Glenn Davis).

Rumor has it the deal didn't quite pan out... and may have set the squad back a bit. Rays have way more young offensive talent than those O's teams did, some really good starters, and a bullpen that's dramatically improved over last year. Also, I think the Rays are playing solid defense now...

Sheet of integrity is just an example of the problem. They find some little fake controversy about manliness or sports or a contest or a perceived slight and drill it into the ground, all the while doing their lame odd couple bit.

Mike Greenberg is passionately opposed to the existence of time zones.

Doc,

Thanks for letting me know.

I wonder what makes you think he's anything other than an average ESPN talking head when it comes to smarts? In other words, smarter than Sean Salisbury and dumber than Steve Young.

Which is exactly why I like Mike Greenberg. Yeah, the schtick is over the top. Yeah, the last few years, Home Plate's Baseball This Morning was better, but everywhere doesn't have XM, and the show's pretty bad in the offseason. However, compared to the other screamers and glorified weathermen that ESPN puts on tv/radio, Greenberg's better than most of them. Sure, insert your joke about "the smartest kid with cerebal palsy" or "gold medal at the Special Olympics"; ESPN's still the biggest 800 lb. gorilla in the sporting world.

"Sports Page" on Chicagoland Television News was too big a platform for this assw¡pe. How he managed to use that as a springboard to national "stardom" is beyond me.

For heaven's sakes people. M squared doesn't care about YOU, they are after the motherload demographics, young men and women.

They appeal to young men via the schtick (which is fresh to someone under 22), the goofy stunts and the odd couple routine with Greenberg playing the "sissy".

Women like their family talk and whether you agree or not find Greenberg "cute". Gag all you want. It's fact.

They took over morning radio once Imus stuck his foot in his mouth and last I checked haven't surrendered that position.

Again, they are not targeting the BBTF demographic which for the most part wouldn't spend a nickel if they can get by on a penny.

Young men and chicks. The ones who throw cash arounf carelessly.

Capiche?

Let me get this straight, HW: The BBTF demographic aren't young men and hot chicks? What am I doing on this website?

I thought I could get laid chatting it up with a cute chick in a pink Mets cap interested in family talk.

Raskol:

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings.

And there are young men and then there are thoughtful young men. The latter are not a target audience for the light patter that is M and M.

I thought I could get laid chatting it up with a cute chick in a pink Mets cap interested in family talk.

And then, there is a certain Yankee poster, who likes to whale on them in a non-sexual way!

I'll be the voice of dissent, sorta. I enjoy M&M;, and usually have them on in my work vehicle. I'm not of their demographic, but I find them amusing, and sometimes interesting.

Sadly, they are also the best Orlando has to offer, as there is only one sportstalk station serving the entire area (the second one closed up about 6 months ago). So my options are limited. They are much more preferable to what else we get around here. Colin Cowherd seems to have changed his demographic to "Sportstalk for the Drudge Report crowd". We get Jim Rome at noon, and if his were the only station I could dial in from 12-3, I'd sooner set my van on fire.

From 3-6 we get two local guys, Brady Ackerman and Jerry O'Neal, who are tolerable, but not great. After that it could be anything from their golf show (which the local station will play to it's entirety from 6-8pm and join Rays baseball "in progress", rather than close that show early), to a pro wrestling and MMA show.

This is not sportstalk heaven.

They find some little fake controversy about manliness or sports or a contest or a perceived slight and drill it into the ground, all the while doing their lame odd couple bit.

I think that part of this is because they've run studies and the average listener only listens @ 20 minutes so sports talk radio gets a little repetitive. Of course, I could be talking out of my ass. It wouldn't be the first time.

I think that part of this is because they've run studies and the average listener only listens @ 20 minutes so sports talk radio gets a little repetitive. Of course, I could be talking out of my ass. It wouldn't be the first time.
Page 1 of 1 pages

I'm fairly sure that your point is right. The first segment of each hour of M & M is generally the same discussion of the big news of the previous day. They figure the first hour is when people are getting up or getting in their car for each time zone across the country, and they don't want anyome to miss their take on the big story.

Yeah, I understand what 32 and 33 are saying but I'm only listening on and off for less than an hour each day. They drill things into the ground by repeating them day after day.