The way the St. Louis Cardinals finished the 2006, I didn't figure they would last the first round of the playoffs. After almost losing a comfortable lead the last two weeks of the season, I figured the Padres would finish them in four. So when the Cardinals took the first two games of the series, I knew my prediction was wrong. Meanwhile, in the opposite league, I felt that no one would stop the Yankees bats. Even when the Tigers were up 2-1, I still thought the Yankees would come back to win the final two. But good pitching prevailed, and the Yankees can get some rest. George Steinbrenner will spend the off-season pouting, then spending tons of money for another team that lacks chemistry. Now, which direction do the playoffs go?
Since I know more about the National League, I'll start there. While the Cardinals have mediocre pitching, the Mets seem to be hurting in that category at the moment. Manager Willie Randolph expects to tap into the bullpen a lot, so you'll probably see several four and five inning starts. So the Cardinals have the advantage there. However, I think the Mets line-up is a little more balanced. Pujols is a huge threat, but they'll need a couple other guys to step up. If it's a short series, I'd go with the Mets... long series, Cardinals. I say Mets in five.
In the American League, Detroit doesn't have quite the pop that Oakland has in their line-up. However, they've got some major adrenaline flowing after the Yankee series and those young arms will come through. A tough series, but I go Detroit in six.
Those are my predictions for this round of playoffs. But then again, I could be wrong.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Check Your Local Listings
The new network television season started a few weeks ago with plenty of shows vying for your attention. But the trouble with choosing which new program to watch goes beyond just the quality of the show. One also has to wonder; how quickly could this get cancelled?
Back before the onslaught of cable channels, television shows generally got half a season to prove themselves. That would usually mean around 13 episodes, less if the show was a summer/mid-season replacement series. If a network was floundering in third place, a show would sometimes be given more time, mostly due to a lack of a better option. Of course, if the show was a disaster and had no audience, the axe would naturally drop sooner. The quick axe would happen a couple times a season.
But now with so many choices competing for your eyeballs, the shelf life of a new show seems much shorter. Shows now get cancelled (or put on hiatus) after two, maybe three airings. A television program now has to get out of the gate quickly, or it's put down. And with the current trend of shows with continuing plotlines, it's hard to know what show to invest time in. Fans of "Reunion" discovered that last season. I don't know much about the show expect that it was to follow a group of classmates over I believe a 20 year span and a murder was involved. The show got cancelled and the murderer never revealed. And while the show didn't have a big audience, there were a few million people left with a big question mark.
Of course, big ratings early don't guarantee anything either. Remember "Commander in Chief"? One of the best rated new dramas to start the season, but cancelled by the end of the season. But there, you're dealing with a lot of internal problems that lead to the decline in viewership.
FOX seems to be the most inconsistant with the handling of shows, as they'll nurture some and quickly cancel others. "House" didn't start strong, but when paired with "American Idol", it found an audience, and now does quite well. Meanwhile, "Arrested Development" received strong critical support, but never found an audience. Many fans were upset when it wasn't brought back this year, but I'm more amazed that FOX stuck with it for three seasons. However, FOX is also the quickest in pulling the trigger. When "Family Guy" returned to the air, one segment had Peter naming the shows that had been cancelled on FOX during the time "Family Guy" was off the air. It's quite a list.
I don't know how these frequent schedule changes effect viewers. After all, I've found a couple new shows that have piqued my interest, but with some trepidation. I guess before I sit down, I'll need to check my local listings.
Back before the onslaught of cable channels, television shows generally got half a season to prove themselves. That would usually mean around 13 episodes, less if the show was a summer/mid-season replacement series. If a network was floundering in third place, a show would sometimes be given more time, mostly due to a lack of a better option. Of course, if the show was a disaster and had no audience, the axe would naturally drop sooner. The quick axe would happen a couple times a season.
But now with so many choices competing for your eyeballs, the shelf life of a new show seems much shorter. Shows now get cancelled (or put on hiatus) after two, maybe three airings. A television program now has to get out of the gate quickly, or it's put down. And with the current trend of shows with continuing plotlines, it's hard to know what show to invest time in. Fans of "Reunion" discovered that last season. I don't know much about the show expect that it was to follow a group of classmates over I believe a 20 year span and a murder was involved. The show got cancelled and the murderer never revealed. And while the show didn't have a big audience, there were a few million people left with a big question mark.
Of course, big ratings early don't guarantee anything either. Remember "Commander in Chief"? One of the best rated new dramas to start the season, but cancelled by the end of the season. But there, you're dealing with a lot of internal problems that lead to the decline in viewership.
FOX seems to be the most inconsistant with the handling of shows, as they'll nurture some and quickly cancel others. "House" didn't start strong, but when paired with "American Idol", it found an audience, and now does quite well. Meanwhile, "Arrested Development" received strong critical support, but never found an audience. Many fans were upset when it wasn't brought back this year, but I'm more amazed that FOX stuck with it for three seasons. However, FOX is also the quickest in pulling the trigger. When "Family Guy" returned to the air, one segment had Peter naming the shows that had been cancelled on FOX during the time "Family Guy" was off the air. It's quite a list.
I don't know how these frequent schedule changes effect viewers. After all, I've found a couple new shows that have piqued my interest, but with some trepidation. I guess before I sit down, I'll need to check my local listings.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)