Just a thought before going idle for a return to reason in March or make you dress like Brett MMS or burning empty houses for fun:
the worst of the season, listeners are clearly trying to terrible conclusions on a small sample to make a small sample.
For example, short of breath on how to make good teams, when the first two games of the series, the obvious fact that it is easier to win two races of 5 4 of 5 races to confirm the winner. on'm told reporters pointing out the obvious to note that the three big wins (the last being 1954) came after Games 1 and 2, Caramba! You need the Giants to win the club their DNA, the capital after taking the first two games? or is it just an excuse rather than the obvious point of the above?
similar demands troublesome back as a hitter in the postseason, as a pitcher is throwing, etc., these statistics indicate that there is no apparent irony or explain a concept that the meaning of a player for 2 of 10 in the series (JUI) v . 4 out of 10 (large) is essentially zero.
if he does so during this interview, anything to throw the TV, radio or computer, does it better than me.
It occurred to me recently that the Giants could be the answer to a question I asked earlier this year - what better team rookie of the penalty? Bumgarner and Posey were excellent.
Cardinals in the AFL can not achieve much, but Hadron Chambers has a good performance on the beam.
Here's a question for debate: If Tony La Russa was a "guest Manage ring for both teams, which would be like? How else would drive? Who would be better with each team? If you rub the wrong way? That the team would have done better?
Listen
Read phonetically