Joe Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Jeff Sullivan: http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2011/10/25/2512498/quickly-on-game-5-of-the-world-series It's a funny thing about a series like this. In a playoff series, the idea is that, by the end, one team will have clearly outplayed the other, and will thus either advance or win a trophy. And a lot of times it happens that way. The 2007 Red Sox clearly outplayed the 2007 Rockies. The 2004 Red Sox clearly outplayed the 2004 Cardinals. Pretty much every team that's faced them in the playoffs this decade has clearly outplayed the Twins. But look at the Rangers and the Cardinals. It's been five games, and who the hell is winning? The Cardinals have 22 runs. The Rangers have 19 runs. Three of the games have been unbelievably close. The other two games were close for a while before the winning team pulled away. Based on what we've seen so far, has either team looked better than the other? If you say yes, you're lying. Don't. It's a handy reminder that the MLB playoffs don't really prove anything, except that one team outscored its opponent 11 times. I just remembered that all four teams who won in the first round were outscored by the teams that they beat. That's crazy, and that's the MLB playoffs - a month when everything suddenly starts to mean so much more, even while everything starts to mean so much less. Wednesday or Thursday - or Friday, in the event of rain, which is in the forecast! - the Rangers or the Cardinals will win the World Series. They will get a trophy for their efforts. "Congratulations on something" is not engraved on the base, but it should be, and all the little flags should have question marks. I don't know about the flags having question marks on them, that seems a little silly, but...this whole thing...at some point you just gotta sit back, say a heartfelt "thank you" to whatever and whoever you say such things to, and then just watch it all play out. Interesting, but, to paraphrase Wash, championships are NOT about identifying which team is best in some abstract (or statistical) sense. Championships are about determining who wins, and wins when it really, really, really matters. For every Finley-era Oakland A's or Torre-led Yankees, there's an '88 Dodgers, or '86 Mets, or '60 Pirates, or 2010 Giants... in fact, there might be even more of the latter than the former. Edited October 25, 2011 by Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal Pomea Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Well put, Joe and JSngry! Other than the blowout game 3, the games could have gone either way. It's not remembered as a great World Series (well, it was to me!), but when the White Sox beat the Astros the teams were very close. Little things meant a lot. And it sounds like Big Al doesn't want to jinx things for his team by being too optimistic! Edited October 25, 2011 by Neal Pomea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Championships are about determining who wins, and wins when it really, really, really matters. And see, that's the part I have a hard time getting with, the "when it really, really, really matters" part....I don't know but that except when lives are truly on the line that it ever "matters" to such an extent...not in that way...Within the confines of the profession, yes, but outside of that...st some point, everything becomes "outside of that", ya' know? This gets complicated for me, because in my life, I've seen a lot of "champions" who have actually been miserable failures, and I've seen a lot of "nobodies" who were actually champions, at least in the sense that even when they got beat, they were never beaten. I know that's not how "sports" work, and not really how "in the world" works, but...there's short term "glory", there's long term triumph, and in my eyes, those paths only sometimes cross. So why do I want the Rangers to win? Mainly, I guess, to see what it's like to have a team you love end the season on top. Never had that before (liked the early JJ/JJ Cowboys, but mainly because they were the Anti-SchrammLandry...never really loved them for themselves). And also to see some "vindication" for the whole "concept" of this organization, of Wash, of the way the team is built and the way that it plays, but....there will always be naysayers, so even that is...silly. Maybe the whole "reconciliation of sports and music thing" is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 So why do I want the Rangers to win? Mainly, I guess, to see what it's like to have a team you love end the season on top. Living in Portland, Oregon deprives one of very many opportunities to celebrate a world championship. The one exception being the Trailblazers run to the 1977 NBA title. I had the good fortune to be able to attend the last game of the finals with Philadelphia and I can tell you this, it was a sporting experience like none other. And it pales in comparison with the celebrations that ensued. I'd say if Texas wins, you're in for a mighty fun ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I like fun! Seriously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Championships are about determining who wins, and wins when it really, really, really matters. And see, that's the part I have a hard time getting with, the "when it really, really, really matters" part....I don't know but that except when lives are truly on the line that it ever "matters" to such an extent...not in that way...Within the confines of the profession, yes, but outside of that...st some point, everything becomes "outside of that", ya' know? This gets complicated for me, because in my life, I've seen a lot of "champions" who have actually been miserable failures, and I've seen a lot of "nobodies" who were actually champions, at least in the sense that even when they got beat, they were never beaten. I know that's not how "sports" work, and not really how "in the world" works, but...there's short term "glory", there's long term triumph, and in my eyes, those paths only sometimes cross. So why do I want the Rangers to win? Mainly, I guess, to see what it's like to have a team you love end the season on top. Never had that before (liked the early JJ/JJ Cowboys, but mainly because they were the Anti-SchrammLandry...never really loved them for themselves). And also to see some "vindication" for the whole "concept" of this organization, of Wash, of the way the team is built and the way that it plays, but....there will always be naysayers, so even that is...silly. Maybe the whole "reconciliation of sports and music thing" is beyond me. Winning is never permanent in the sense that to win makes one, for all time, a "winner". At least not as far as I am concerned. When it matters? To me, that just means "you seize the opportunity when it is presented to you", which makes that pretty evanescent as well. Win or lose, afterwards you don't get a free pass on making decisions for the rest of your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 3) If the Cards win Wednesday, that shifts the momentum back to them Momentum in sports is highly overrated, at least in terms of one game to the next. Remember when Pujols launched that rocket off of Lidge vs. the Astros. Almost every sportswriter came out said "No way the Astros can overcome that!" but of course they did. 4) In their backyard in front of THEIR frenzied fans Hey, if Washington & the pitching coach decide to text who they want up in the bullpen, they'll be one up on The Genius. Sheeeeeeeeeeeessh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Jeff Sullivan: http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2011/10/25/2512498/quickly-on-game-5-of-the-world-series It's a funny thing about a series like this. In a playoff series, the idea is that, by the end, one team will have clearly outplayed the other, and will thus either advance or win a trophy. And a lot of times it happens that way. The 2007 Red Sox clearly outplayed the 2007 Rockies. The 2004 Red Sox clearly outplayed the 2004 Cardinals. Pretty much every team that's faced them in the playoffs this decade has clearly outplayed the Twins. But look at the Rangers and the Cardinals. It's been five games, and who the hell is winning? The Cardinals have 22 runs. The Rangers have 19 runs. Three of the games have been unbelievably close. The other two games were close for a while before the winning team pulled away. Based on what we've seen so far, has either team looked better than the other? If you say yes, you're lying. Don't. It's a handy reminder that the MLB playoffs don't really prove anything, except that one team outscored its opponent 11 times. I just remembered that all four teams who won in the first round were outscored by the teams that they beat. That's crazy, and that's the MLB playoffs - a month when everything suddenly starts to mean so much more, even while everything starts to mean so much less. Wednesday or Thursday - or Friday, in the event of rain, which is in the forecast! - the Rangers or the Cardinals will win the World Series. They will get a trophy for their efforts. "Congratulations on something" is not engraved on the base, but it should be, and all the little flags should have question marks. I don't know about the flags having question marks on them, that seems a little silly, but...this whole thing...at some point you just gotta sit back, say a heartfelt "thank you" to whatever and whoever you say such things to, and then just watch it all play out. Interesting, but, to paraphrase Wash, championships are NOT about identifying which team is best in some abstract (or statistical) sense. Championships are about determining who wins, and wins when it really, really, really matters. For every Finley-era Oakland A's or Torre-led Yankees, there's an '88 Dodgers, or '86 Mets, or '60 Pirates, or 2010 Giants... in fact, there might be even more of the latter than the former. The '86 Mets do not belong in that group; they were not a Cinderella team. They kicked ass and took no prisoners all season long until a lame pitcher who cut his fastball and drugs nearly got in their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Jeff Sullivan: http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2011/10/25/2512498/quickly-on-game-5-of-the-world-series It's a funny thing about a series like this. In a playoff series, the idea is that, by the end, one team will have clearly outplayed the other, and will thus either advance or win a trophy. And a lot of times it happens that way. The 2007 Red Sox clearly outplayed the 2007 Rockies. The 2004 Red Sox clearly outplayed the 2004 Cardinals. Pretty much every team that's faced them in the playoffs this decade has clearly outplayed the Twins. But look at the Rangers and the Cardinals. It's been five games, and who the hell is winning? The Cardinals have 22 runs. The Rangers have 19 runs. Three of the games have been unbelievably close. The other two games were close for a while before the winning team pulled away. Based on what we've seen so far, has either team looked better than the other? If you say yes, you're lying. Don't. It's a handy reminder that the MLB playoffs don't really prove anything, except that one team outscored its opponent 11 times. I just remembered that all four teams who won in the first round were outscored by the teams that they beat. That's crazy, and that's the MLB playoffs - a month when everything suddenly starts to mean so much more, even while everything starts to mean so much less. Wednesday or Thursday - or Friday, in the event of rain, which is in the forecast! - the Rangers or the Cardinals will win the World Series. They will get a trophy for their efforts. "Congratulations on something" is not engraved on the base, but it should be, and all the little flags should have question marks. I don't know about the flags having question marks on them, that seems a little silly, but...this whole thing...at some point you just gotta sit back, say a heartfelt "thank you" to whatever and whoever you say such things to, and then just watch it all play out. Interesting, but, to paraphrase Wash, championships are NOT about identifying which team is best in some abstract (or statistical) sense. Championships are about determining who wins, and wins when it really, really, really matters. For every Finley-era Oakland A's or Torre-led Yankees, there's an '88 Dodgers, or '86 Mets, or '60 Pirates, or 2010 Giants... in fact, there might be even more of the latter than the former. The '86 Mets do not belong in that group; they were not a Cinderella team. They kicked ass and took no prisoners all season long until a lame pitcher who cut his fastball and drugs nearly got in their way. Yea, it was a great team, but they did win in a rather improbable / wild comeback fashion (Ray Knight as Series MVP). Let's not forget that Houston pushed them to the brink in the NLCS. But, OK, let's remove them and insert the '97 Marlins instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 So why do I want the Rangers to win? Mainly, I guess, to see what it's like to have a team you love end the season on top. Never had that before (liked the early JJ/JJ Cowboys, but mainly because they were the Anti-SchrammLandry...never really loved them for themselves). And also to see some "vindication" for the whole "concept" of this organization, of Wash, of the way the team is built and the way that it plays... Add confusing the hell out of the DFW Sports Media Industry (and the sycophantic element of their fandom), which has had its gag reflex permanently numbed by years of Cowboy/Mavs c**ks***ing to the list. Please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 3) If the Cards win Wednesday, that shifts the momentum back to them Momentum in sports is highly overrated, at least in terms of one game to the next. Remember when Pujols launched that rocket off of Lidge vs. the Astros. Almost every sportswriter came out said "No way the Astros can overcome that!" but of course they did. There was a fascinating (to me, anyway) debate on Lone Star Ball earlier this year about whether or not there really was such a thing as "momentum", meaning that if it was truly real, it could be manufactured at will, or at least channeled/controlled in some consistent manner, or at the very least, measured in some way. The argument was made that it's actually an "optical illusion" of some sort, a by-product of the "randomness factor", a time when everything goes right not because of any particular, exact stimuli, but,,,just because. That runs counter-intuitive to everything I know and have seen, but on the other hand, the way it can leave just as quickly and arbitrarily as it comes suggest that maybe that is right after all. I'm not fully convinced one way or the other, not now. But what it definitely suggests is that the players who don't get flustered by those shifts in randomness but just keep playing their game the way they play it are more apt to survive in the end, provided, of course, that their game is in fact that good to begin with. Maybe that's the real "championship mentality", just honing your skills as finely as they can be honed and then keep on keepin' on no matter what. Now that's something I can believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 (re. big mo.) That runs counter-intuitive to everything I know and have seen, but on the other hand, the way it can leave just as quickly and arbitrarily as it comes suggest that maybe that is right after all. I'm not fully convinced one way or the other, not now. But what it definitely suggests is that the players who don't get flustered by those shifts in randomness but just keep playing their game the way they play it are more apt to survive in the end, provided, of course, that their game is in fact that good to begin with. Maybe that's the real "championship mentality", just honing your skills as finely as they can be honed and then keep on keepin' on no matter what. Now that's something I can believe in. I tend to believe in it more within a game than across games in series, although even within games momentum can swing (irony always drips, momentum always swings) to such a degree that I'm more a believer in everything you say in paragraph 2 above. It's still hard to shake "uh oh, momentum" as last night when Craig was out on what was later revealed to be the Pujols directed hit & run I said right there, "That's it, the Rangers will be World Champions." It was based on the assumption that 1) they'd then IBB Pujols and 2) that he might not come to bat again in the 9th. But then of all things the Cards got the next guy & the next on base so it looked much more likely that Albert would come around in the 9th. I sure as hell didn't envision a double play at bat for him in the 9th however. And what a relief it was that it was phone & crowd loudness that explained the pitcher coming in for an IBB. With a manager who tends to burn through relievers I truly thought his Genius circuits had been fried by the earlier happenings. Also kudos for the Cardinal bullpen coach for not blaming Arlington phone technology as blaming phones has happened in other situations in past years. He even directly said something like "their phones are as good as any other." Score one for the boisterous fans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alocispepraluger102 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 dismal world series ratings for baseball---- http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/even-against-series-viewers-flock-to-the-n-f-l/?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Findex.jsonp October 25, 2011, 4:34 PM Even Against Series, Viewers Flock to the N.F.L. By BILL CARTERIf Major League Baseball truly wants to make an argument about still being America’s pastime after this year’s World Series, it will need some real voodoo mathematics. The ratings results for the Series games this year have been nothing short of dismal, with the latest evidence being the games played on Sunday and Monday nights. In the initial big cities metered by the Nielsen Company, viewership on Monday night was down 8 percent from Game 5 last season. At a 9.8 rating, it was the lowest metered-market number in the history of the sport on television. Even worse for those defending baseball against the onslaught of football popularity was what took place on Sunday. Major League Baseball had what might have been considered a stroke of good luck in its matchup against N.F.L. football on Sunday night. NBC had what looked like a dreadful game on paper, with the winless Colts – minus the marquee quarterback Peyton Manning – against the powerful New Orleans Saints. The game was a blowout from the start, with the final 62-7 score the most lopsided regular-season game since the merger of the N.F.L. with the A.F.L. in 1970. If ever the World Series had a chance to demonstrate its ratings strength, this was it. Instead, it seems that younger viewers prefer even the least-compelling N.F.L. game to one of baseball’s most compelling. In the 18-49 rating that determines so much about ratings supremacy in television, Sunday night football beat the World Series game — a close contest with a 1-0 score through seven innings — with a 5.2 rating to a 4.2 for the baseball game. The World Series did manage to pull in more total viewers —15.2 million to 12.5 million. But that only underscored how old the audience is for baseball. Even among the other audience group that most advertisers buy, viewers between the ages of 25 and 54, the football game stayed ahead, with a 5.5 rating to a 5.2 for baseball. The single biggest rating for the World Series was among men over 50 years old, where it scored a huge 11.5 rating. The evidence also suggests that a stronger football game Sunday night have produced an embarrassing result for baseball. The N.F.L. always has more football rated in prime time on Sundays because of afternoon games that run past 7 p.m. in the East. The rating for the games that ran over last Sunday on Fox was an enormous 9.6 in the 18-49 audience — more than double what the World Series Game 4 was able to score. Even Fox’s postgame N.F.L. show, “The OT,” scored a superior 18-49 number, a 5.3. A matchup of more appealing teams, say the Yankees or Red Sox against the Dodgers, or especially the Cubs, would most likely generate much better ratings for baseball. But the Rangers and Cardinals are not in small cities or television markets, and they boast many familiar players like Josh Hamilton of Texas and Albert Pujols of St. Louis. That, and hard-fought games, have not been enough to stir much interest in the World Series, especially when sports fans have the N.F.L. option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I like fun! Seriously! I don't know about you, but I sure had a lotta fun when the Mavs finally won their championship earlier this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I tried... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 And it sounds like Big Al doesn't want to jinx things for his team by being too optimistic! Already tried that; this series has been too crazy even for my own ridiculously rambling doom&gloom predictions! dismal world series ratings for baseball---- http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/even-against-series-viewers-flock-to-the-n-f-l/?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Findex.jsonp October 25, 2011, 4:34 PM Even Against Series, Viewers Flock to the N.F.L. And THAT, sadly, is the way baseball go.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Too bad there couldn't have been (per the New York Times blogger quoted above) "A matchup of more appealing teams, say the Yankees or Red Sox against the Dodgers, or especially the Cubs," Casual provincialism would have been rewarded, appreciation of craftsmanship would have been rendered even further irrelevant, money would have been made, and Wall Street would get a ray of sunshine. And THAT, sadly, is the way America go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 If the Yankees or Red Sox were in it game 2 would still be going on. I was too young to fully appreciate the beauty of Grich-Belanger-Brooks in the infield, but Kinsler-Elvis-Beltre will do just fine! Surely some maker of leather goods could have whipped an tie-in ad. Maybe a lil' leather case for gout & boner meds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 To make matters worse, if tomorrow's game is rained out and if there is a Game 7 on Friday night instead of Thursday night, I will be unable to view it, since I have a gig booked for that night. My impending rage at having an employment opportunity possibly conflict with the culmination of a six-month investment of more life-energy than I've been able to muster for several years is exceeded only by my heartfelt disappointment that the World Series TV ratings will be even lower than they already would be if there is a game on Friday. Dammit Rangers, why can't cha' be more appealing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 And it sounds like Big Al doesn't want to jinx things for his team by being too optimistic! Already tried that; this series has been too crazy even for my own ridiculously rambling doom&gloom predictions! dismal world series ratings for baseball---- http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/even-against-series-viewers-flock-to-the-n-f-l/?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Findex.jsonp October 25, 2011, 4:34 PM Even Against Series, Viewers Flock to the N.F.L. And THAT, sadly, is the way baseball go.... sigh.... so, no one outside of the two towns want to watch the Rangers (in their second straight W.S. from a very large market) or the Cardinals (a team around since 1882, with 10 W.S. titles) but if the Superbowl had to smallish town teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay, then there would be a huge audience for that...yeah, they both have "histories" but so do Cardinals and Rangers, just not together.... Do NOT get how the NFL becomes more and more popular. Even if "you" don't have the skill sets needed to play baseball, you can imagine playing the game....guys are successful that are 5 foot 8 in baseball. Who can imagine being a Center or defensive end???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Dammit Rangers, why can't cha' be more appealing? It's baseball that lacks appeal in general, not the Rangers. And I say that as a baseball fan. I grew up playing baseball, and so has my son. I've helped coach his teams for 6 straight years now. Yet he and other kids don't care to watch these games - those that will are exceptions, I think. Baseball is slower paced, with more breaks between actual plays. Less of a team sport and more a series of plays by individuals. But my son and his friends will pause from what they're doing and sit and watch a bit of football when I have it on though. I think football fits more in with the videogame lifestyle that younger folks like. It's more like a combat game than baseball is. Faster paced, with more action on any given play. And it's teamwork. I think all of that appeals to younger folks. People that like physical products like cds and dvds? We're dinosaurs. Maybe baseball fans are, too. sigh.... so, no one outside of the two towns want to watch the Rangers (in their second straight W.S. from a very large market) or the Cardinals (a team around since 1882, with 10 W.S. titles) but if the Superbowl had to smallish town teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay, then there would be a huge audience for that... The Superbowl is an 'event'. It's an event for everyone in the country. It's only one game, one Sunday night. People have parties for it, regardless if their team is in the game or not. It's an excuse to have fun. The World Series is a set of games that, like the regular season, occur on week nights and weekends. People don't typically throw parties on Wednesday nights and have a ton of folks over and have a wild time. Rangers fans will watch the WS, and Cardinal fans will watch it. Hardcore baseball fans will watch it. But that's about it. People don't throw parties for it though, generally. Edited October 26, 2011 by Aggie87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 I get that football has a more visceral appeal than baseball. It's got people hitting each other and wearing armored uniforms and all that good stuff. I enjoy it well enough myself. I understand that basketball is fast and furious and has flying sweaty people. I like it quite a bit myself. What I don't get is how anybody thinks that the way to broaden the appeal of baseball (which will then get you bigger ratings) is to just keep hoping for the "more appealing" teams to make it to the WS. That's just lazy thinking. There's a circular logic bordering on the inbred that drives the "only a few teams have any national appeal, so we'll just hard-pimp those teams, because they're the only ones with national appeal". There's plenty of young, appealing talent in the game these days...MLB needs to get off its ass and think forward about this, start getting creative and aggressive about marketing all its talent, invest in the future, ya' know? Not that the game will ever again regain its position of dominant mass popularity, but geez... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Hey, here's a video game right here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) MLB will make a decision at 1:00 CDT this morning as to whether game six will be played tonight in St. Louis. According to current forecasts, the weather is expected to be "atrocious". If the Series get pushed back a day, which team benefits the most? Should the Cardinals win game six, that could put Chris Carpenter on the mound for game seven with three days rest. Edited October 26, 2011 by Dave James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) I'm not getting "atrocious" out of this: http://www.kmov.com/...8;img=1&c=y Per: http://www.wundergro...%2C+mo#forecast Today Much cooler. Cloudy. Chance of showers and isolated thunderstorms in the morning...then occasional showers and isolated thunderstorms in the afternoon. High in the mid 60s. Temperature falling into the 50s in the afternoon. Northwest wind around 10 mph. Chance of rain 80 percent. Tonight Colder. Occasional rain. Low in the mid 40s. North wind around 10 mph. Chance of rain 80 percent. Not "perfect" weather by a long shot, but certainly playable unless some heavy, sustained stuff comes through. Edited October 26, 2011 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.