After today's big win, I'm wondering if I need to wear my #26 Charles Johnson t-shirt every time I watch (well, gameday) a game.

I found out that today that PETCO only plays one chorus of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seventh inning.

I don't think I can support that.

There's a lot of things you shouldn't support about PETCO.

Where would we build a new stadium, if we were to build one, which we shouldn't. But, I'm just asking.

Despite Bob's merciless spelling/grammar Nazism in my direction, I will not attack his subject-verb agreement in 3 .

I just won't do it. He's too fine a fellow.

5
You missed my unilateral surrender Saturday night to gpellamjr.

6 I just went back and read the grammar carnage.

It was like the Buckley/Vidal slugfest of grammar. I'm glad I stayed out of it.

I'm leading the nonaligned nations of grammar.

7
It was more like the time when Paraguay took on Brazil, Chile, and Argentina.

And I was Paraguay.

5 I couldn't respond to this quickly enough. There is perfect agreement of subject and verb here. "A lot" is one lot. "There is one lot of things..." That is a singular verb, followed by a singular noun followed by a partitive genitive (or whatever english grammarians call it). I hope your students don't read this site.

8 I see what you mean.

"There's a lot" is okay? "Of things?"
"There is things?" Not "There are things?"

I'm not buying it one bit. And my students don't read since I, at present, have no students.

But I'll concede because I don't like arguing.

gpellamjr is pushing the very boundaries of grammar. Like Tesla was to electricity, and Yeager to the sound barrier, gpellamjr will not be bound to our antiquated notions of grammar.

A visionary and pioneer, I say.

"There is a lot of things..." is correct, as "There is a group of people." One wouldn't say "There are a group of people." Let us examine the sentence:

"There is a lot of things."

"There" is the expletive, which is required by modern usage.

"is" is the 3rd person singular form of the verb "to be".

"a" is the indefinite pronoun, signifying a singular noun.

"lot", a singular noun (the plural is "lots"), is the subject of the sentence.

Both subject and verb are singular, both in perfect agreement.

"There is a lot of things..." is correct, as "There is a group of people." One wouldn't say "There are a group of people." Let us examine the sentence:

"There is a lot of things."

"There" is the expletive, which is required by modern usage.

"is" is the 3rd person singular form of the verb "to be".

"a" is the indefinite pronoun, signifying a singular noun.

"lot", a singular noun (the plural is "lots"), is the subject of the sentence.

Both subject and verb are singular, both in perfect agreement.

Nothing is worse than being lectured on grammar, except having that same pedantic lecture repeated.

This is going to be the most exciting thread ever. I can feel it.

There is a lot of people who will love this grammar thread. I know I do!

15 This are a nice thread, I agree.

Evidently gpellamjr's summer vacation has gone on much to long.

Werst. Thred. Evar.

17 I'll defend Bob's grammatical honor any time of year, so long as he's in the right. And he ocassionally is.

I am tired of correcting. Our nouns are killed. The adjective is dead. The conjunction is dead. My old brain cells are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who teaches the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no dependent clauses. The little children are writing poorly. My people, some of them, have run away to Arizona and root for a first place team, with food. No one knows where they are--perhaps sweating to death. I want to have time to look for my prepositions and see how many I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the adverbs.
Hear me, my commenters. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will correct no more forever.

20 Wow, Bob, I didn't know it meant so much to you. I'm truly deeply sorry.

9 -- Oh, good Lord! Grammar literalism run amok. It is not correct English to say that "There is a lot of people arguing about grammar today." It reminds me of a story I once heard about Winston Churchill's response to grammar police who rewrote a sentence he wanted in a speech, because the sentence he wanted ended with the preposition "with" (ending sentences with prepositions bothers the grammar police). Churchill struck out the "corrected" sentence and wrote in the margin, for the grammar police to see, the grammatically correct but nevertheless ridiculous sentence "This is nonsense up with which I will not put!"

20 Dear me. Chief Joseph is undoubtedly turning in his grave.

E.B. White, on the other hand, is undoubtedly applauding.

DTers!! DRaysBay needs your help!

http://www.draysbay.com/story/2007/8/19/174356/314

11! can I have a rule 11 here?

11-- I like'd Yeager behind the plate. His movie wasn't too bad. I never got to see Tesla play.

20-- I'm with you Chief Bob (brother of Joseph). I'll be wearing a pompadour to work tomorrow to show support. Just don't ask me to pierce my nose.

22 Good. You can pick up the slack. I know not of these intricate grammar rules that gpellam chooses to use. I'm just a simple man, with simple subject/verb agreement rules. The inner workings of proper grammar are/is/be beyond my pay grade. Carry the mantle, Canuck!

I are firmly behind Canuck. We is looking forward to his defenses.

Congratulations to JtD on his game winning hit in his 1st ab for the Devil Rays.

22 Yes, that is a story I often tell my students. Tell me, then, what the standard is by which you can declare that the one expression is correct and the other is not? I asserted one to be correct, it's far more difficult to show one to be incorrect. But, of course, the easiest way to deal with this is simply to make declarations without argument.

27 My argument defended the simple rules of agreement. I think it will take a far more complicated account to argue that "a lot" is a plural noun.

30 It wasn't "A lot" that was the plural. It was "things" that necessitated the plural.

"Things." As is more than one thing.

Dodger Thoughts: Come for the baseball analysis...Stay for the grammar minutae.

31 "Things" is subordinated to "a lot" by the preposition "of". "Things" is not the subject of the sentence. "Lot" is the subject.

33 Of course I sent that before I finished my idea. The object of a preposition is never the subject of a sentence, therefore it is not required to agree with the verb.

26 Always thought Steve Yeager's best work were in those Dura Lube infomercials. Certainly though not as groundbreakingly stellar as Steve Garveys performance in those Enforma's Fat Trapper pill infomercials.

30 -- You are throwing down the gauntlet for a fight on the grounds of grammar, but the point of my post, and Churchill's point with his shot at the grammar police who wanted to re-write him, is that there is far more to the English language than formal rules of grammar. Idiomatic correctness often trumps grammatical correctness in English, and that is something that people whose first language isn't English often have trouble with when they are learning English.

36 -- Actually, my post was a response to #29, not #30.

This can all be avoided by just not using the construction, "a lot."

On to more serious business, I've just seen on CSPAN the introduction of a new dollar coin. And it's spurred me into action. I'm not yet 35, so I can't do it myself, but if one of you lot want to run for President on the platform of ending the minting and distributing of dollar coins, I'll donate to, and volunteer for, your campaign.

38
I like dollar coins.

38 -- What's wrong with dollar coins? They are more durable than the paper dollars, so they will stay in circulation much, much long than the one dollar bills which become ridiculously ragged in your country, and that will actually save the US taxpayer money over time.

40- No, it won't save the US taxpayer money over time, because the US taxpayer has demonstrated, repeatedly, that he doesn't want anything to do with them. The only good that will come of the new ones is that it won't be attributable to racism or sexism this time, when we reject them.

Except Bob, apparently.

41

Americans don't like the metric system either.

Face it, sometimes we're just lame.

42- What's the volume, in cubic centimeters, of your change purse?

41 -- Accept them? Pardon me? The US taxpayer oughtn't to have any choice in accepting or rejecting them. People are creatures of habit. The US government has to take the paper bills out of circulation, burn them, and replace them with coins over time if it expects the people to "accept" the coins, as happened in Canada and Britain.

44
We're lame and we're creatures of habit too.

best dodger thoughts thread ever.

I am absolutely loving this thread.

46 What he said.

by the way, if you want to remain grammatically correct without sounding dumb, you can simply say "there are lots of things", couldn't you?

Lawyer: We have confiscated your car and all its contents

Translator: Nous avons confisqué votre voiture et tout son contenu

Lawyer: You may leave Canada but never return

Translator: Vous pouvez quitter le Canada mais ne jamais retourner

Lawyer: I am a big fat french idiot

Translator: Je suis un grand gros ... hey

49 This is not the time to find middle ground. Your attempts to find the center mean nothing. You're either with us or against us.

I are with us.

44 Loonies are just a pain in the butt. I prefer a paper bill.

Ten Canadian dollar coins weigh 2.5 ounces. Ten American dollar bills weigh 0.3 ounces. Which would you rather carry?

why don't we talk about metric some more while we're at it?

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/#metric

[51 ] that begs the question, if i are not with us, then am they without me?

50 -- What's that from, Andrew? If it's a movie, I'd like to see that.

54 Oh geez, here we go. Vishal, you ought to look up the meaning of the phrase "to beg the question".

As for dollar coins, I am for them. I've always wanted an excuse to carry a change purse. That would be awesome.

55 Also, the Canadian dollar is twelve sided rather than circular. Why do we need a twelve-sided dollar? What is this, Strat-O-Matic?

[56 ] mission accomplished. :)

good night!

54 If you are not with me, you is against me.

We have spelling rules about which we shall not ruin. We have grammar rules for which there is no middle ground. We are grammarians. We shall not yield ground. There is rules, and we will not defy them rules.

These rules I will not defy. I is very serious about this. Grammarians, divided against themselves, are not standing.

52 -- I certainly don't want a bunch of raggety dollar bills fattening up my wallet, that's for sure. But really, there are so many occasions throughout a day when one has to spend a dollar or two or three that I can't remember the last time I had 10 loonies on me at one time. Not in the last five years anyway.

55 The Simpsons, episode "Midnight Rx"

Would we get a lot of seigniorage from dollar coins?

36 That was my point to begin with. The discussion began when Brock criticized Bob's impeccable subject/verb agreement. My defense of Bob's usage was inclusive. "There are a lot" is no more idiomatic than "there's a lot". In fact, I'd say the latter is probably more common.

56 -- I don't carry a change purse. As I am always telling salesladies who say they love my purse, it's a change "pouch," and no, I don't have it because of loonies, which, as I said above, I never seem to have too many of at one time anyway. The pouch is necesarry for all the quarters, dimes, nickles, and pennies that are the real bane of the existence of somebody who would prefer to keep change in his pocket.

I can't believe people are defending "There's a lot of things."

"There's a lot" is wrong. "There are a lot of things" is correct.

Mein Gott.

Let's leave Jim Gott out of it.

Tim Teufel too.

67 You're out of it. This is bigger than Timmermann. This is about the soul of America.

And as smart as gpellamjr is, as much as I defer to his intellect, he is flat out wrong here.

While we're at it, can we get a ruling on the phrase "flat out"? Has it officially jumped the shark? (As, indeed, "jumped the shark" has.)

I'll accept the usefulness of "flat out" if someone can give me an example of any sentence to which it actually adds meaning.

"He can flat out hit" means the same as "He can hit."
"He's flat out wrong" means the same as "He's wrong."

70 -- There is nothing wrong with "flat out." It adds a hint of aggressiveness to a declarative sentence, so it serves it's purpose when one is driving home a point.

71 I'll accept the usefulness of "flat out" if someone can give me an example of any sentence to which it actually adds meaning.

"Flat out Wrong" doesn't mean "You are wrong."

"Flat out Wrong" means you are wrong, and you don't understand anything. You are wrong because A) You are intellectually inferior, and B) You don't understand anything...You are a fraud.

Being wrong is one thing. Being "Flat out wrong" is the worst kind of wrong. You are clueless.

A: I believe Derek Jeter is the best player is baseball

B: You are flat out wrong. You made an effort, and your effort is depressing. "Flat Out" wrong.

Try again.

I hereby nominate Canuck's post #65 to be placed on the cover of "Best of Dodger Thoughts 2."

(Including the Canadian spellings of "necessary" and "nickel.")

(Wakes up)

(Goes to work)

(Logs in)

(Sees 76 comments have been left since he went to bed)

(Braces himself for a riveting round of Dodger Thoughts After Dark)

(Shakes head)

"Flat out" sounds like something Joe Morgan would use in a sentence.

You are all flat out wrong. There is not a lot of people who would enjoy this thread, there is maybe a handful of people who would enjoy it, and they all participated in it last night, except for me. Thanks for having the courtesy of doing this after I had already gone to bed. A pox on all your houses.

I do not carry a change pouch because I immediately put all my change in a compartment in my car. This makes it available for parking meters, which is the only place said change is useful. I do, however, carry a satchel everywhere I go. I have to keep my very tiny laptop and a good book at the ready every moment.

78 Ouch.

With all of the attacking of errors last night, I am very surprised at the collective ignorance of this group. Every single person failed to point out the obvious flub of one Mr. Bob Timmermann in post #8. For shame, all of you. Everyone knows that the War of the Triple Alliance was fought by Argentina, Brasil & Uruguay against Paraguay, there was no Chilean involvement.

I just assumed Bob was talking about soccer.

The Chileans were busy skiing and eating delicious sea bass.

81
I'm going off to dig a hole. Then I will go lie down in it. My cat will then cover me up and put me out of my misery.

I will do my civic duty and conserve water if McCourt does his civic duty and signs Santana when the time comes. For the good of everyone in Los Angeles.

I feel sorry for the poor slob who stumbles upon Dodger Thoughts today and this is his/her first thread.

"There is a lot of things," "There's a lot of things" and "There are lots of things" get the official DT endorsement. This isn't a case for citing the Churchill story. Colloquially, I would still prefer these three statements over "There are a lot of things." "Are" followed by "a lot" sounds awkward, before you even get to "of things," so it fails that test. And certainly, grammatically it's incorrect.

Mostly, I'm just glad no one said, "There's a myriad of things."

These things are legion.

Yeah, myriad seems more math oriented.

Danica Mckellar's assets are myriad.

Wayne Gretzky's son is going to play football at Oaks Christian.

His mom has already bet $50,000 that he will catch 3 TD passes his freshman year.

Just spent a while catching up on this whole post. I learned nothing and felt it was worthless but by the end I was laughing for no particular reason and I still am. If one is cackling like this part of each day I think life has quality.

3 - There's a lot of things you shouldn't support about PETCO

For me, the big question is not subject/verb agreement but where would one find that lot. Is it the Petco parking lot where things are kept? What is a thing? I have questions.

89 - Myriad is an adjective, not a noun - that's all.

Jon, you may be dangerously close to getting this thing rolling again. I hope you post something new before it does.:0)

I'm hoping Derek Lowe pitches on 3 days rest as well, he more than Penny should have success you'd think right.

94 - When you think about it, what other direction could this thread have gone?

Jon Weisman and Eric Young -- together at last!

http://tinyurl.com/2avruz

IF anyone wants to try and talk Jon down off of Joe Beimel, now's the time!

I hope Jon chooses Don Stanhouse.

97 - I turned in my copy for this on June 10. I thought they had just decided not to do it.

Merriam-Webster notes, "Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective.... however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."

99 ESPN had to run "Who's Now?" instead.

Priorities.

What's the record for number of posts before someone mentions a topic even remotely related to baseball or the Dodgers? I'm not brave enough to slog through those 100+ posts again, but I am pretty sure that there wasn't a single mention of baseball or the greatness of Martinez' bi-annual game-winning hit.

Impressive indeed.

97
(crosses fingers)
Mike Ramsey!
Mike Ramsey!

And since it was already mentioned somewhere else in the thread, might I suggest a rousing debate over the utility of the metric system when everyone gets bored with "grammar talk".

87 -- "Are" followed by "a lot" sounds awkward only if you put something after "a lot" that makes it awkward. For instance, "There are a lot to be said for speaking and writing English properly" is obviously unacceptable. "There is a lot to be said for speaking and writing English properly" is clearly correct, grammatically and phonetically. However, "There is a lot of people standing outside the gate" sounds terribly awkward, notwithstanding that it is grammatically correct, because the plural word "people" imprints itself on the brain before tha brain sorts out that "a lot of people" is in fact singular, not plural. Because of this, because the "bad grammar usage" in this area has become universal, "There ARE a lot of people standing outside the gate" is correct English usage on idiomatic grounds. It's like saying "Hopefully, it won't rain today." Awful, awful grammar. But it is idiomatically proper English.

105 The expectation with "a lot of people standing outside the gate" is that this is the same as "many people". I agree that using "there are a lot of people" is correct in this case. In cases where "lot" refers to a specific quantity, then the singular is appropriate. For example, if gpellamjr bought some famous turnips at an auction, then I would say "there is a lot of turnips piled on your doorstep".

99 Uh oh, Jon. Crasnick already has dibs on Vin Scully. Looks like you'll have to put up choice #2, Jack Fimple.

Given that I have zero to add to a conversation about grammar, I will add my two cents to the dollar coin conversation.

They are very useful for public transportation. Buying round trip tickets with dollar coins is a pleasurable experience compared to trying to get a ticket machine to recognize a dirty old paper dollar.

"Hi...I'm Troy McLure you may remember me from such educational films as 'Lead Paint: Delicious But Deadly,' and 'Here Comes the Metric System!'

McLure. You may...

There. Fixed.

From Ken Rosenthal

Left-hander Eric Stults gave the Dodgers a boost when he struck out nine Rockies in a 6-4 victory on Friday night, but the Dodgers continued their pursuit of Wells, knowing that Stults hadn't exactly torn it up at Class AAA. Stults, 27, allowed 134 hits in 89 1/3 innings with Las Vegas, going 5-7 with a 7.56 ERA . . .

110 Get confident, Stupid!

Joe Posnanski's all-time "Boy they don't look right in that uniform" team:

1B: Willie McCovey, Oakland (11 games, 1976).
2B: Ryne Sandberg, Philadelphia (13 games, 1981).
SS: Mark Belanger, Los Angeles (54 games, 1982)
3B: Graig Nettles, Atlanta (112 games, 1987)
LF: Rickey Hendeson, Anaheim (32 games, 1997 -- you can take your pick with Rickey .. he played with like 394 teams, but I REALLY don't remember the Angels time).
CF: Willie Mays, New York Mets (135 games, 1972-73 -- the most famous "He looks all wrong" player-uniform combo ever).
RF: Dwight Evans, Baltimore (101 games, 1991).
C: Gary Carter, San Francisco (92 games, 1990 -- unless you think he looked worse in a Dodgers uni the next year).
DH: Harmon Killebrew, Kansas City (106 games, 1975)
P: Steve Carlton, Cleveland (14 starts, 1987 -- also played for the White Sox, Giants and Twins).
P: Tom Seaver, Boston (16 starts, 1986 -- I forgot about this too).

In other news, this post reports his blog is going dark. http://tinyurl.com/2d8qar

but the Dodgers continued their pursuit of Wells

If that is true I'm speechless.

112 Dig Your Own Grave and Save!

Smoke Yourself Thin.

Sorry, I was distracted from another viewing of Good Time Slim, Uncle Doobie and the Great Frisco Freakout.

I still think it is weird to see R. Martinez, 3RBI on the ESPN ticker.

Sorry to bring yet another Simpsons reference to the discussion, but I recall a Metric system line in the Stonecutters' song:

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg... a star?
We do! We do!

Just to change the subject, Vin Scully will be 80 in November. How much longer can we hope to have him announcing Dodger games?

And any guesses on who might replace him - hopefully someone other than Charley Steiner.

118 Good question. I think it's someone not currently with the organization, whoever that is. The current crop of potential replacements make me shudder, not that it'd be easy for anyone to fill his shoes.

118 What's wrong with Charley, he doesn't gab enough?

118 Head on down to San Diego to listen to a rumored replacement.

Thankfully, it ain't Ted Leitner. Unfortunately, it's Matt Vasgersian.

To bring this full circle:

There's a lot of things you shouldn't like about Matt Vasgersian.

I'll accept dollar coins if at the same time we eliminate pennies and make retailers include tax in their prices.

But don't get me started on roundabouts. And did you know Kiwis call napkins "serviettes"? Freaks I tell you.

118 - I nominate Suffering Bruin.

113 Great list. But for catcher Mike Piazza still looks odd to me in anything but Dodger Blue.

Juan Marichal looked pretty strange in a Dodger uniform.

re: Wells

You canNOT be serious (well not you, but whoever wrote the article).

Elaine: How could the Dodgers not want to keep Stults?

Jerry: How could ANYONE want Wells?

113
I don't know how Juan Marichal with the Dodgers doesn't make that list.

118. How about Russ Langer?

I'm on the get-rid-of-the-penny bandwagon. Tax included? Great. Roundabouts? Fantastic.

way off topic:

ANOTHER Tommy Lasorda Bobblehead? Sept. 14th game.

Lasorda has had at least two since 2000. I thought that was interesting.

129
What about the enormous industry that produces "take a penny, leave a penny" trays?

Think of all the displaced workers. Can the economy absorb them? We will have people lining the streets begging to make "take a nickel, leave a nickel" stitched together from sweater pills and bolstered with aluminum from discarded beer cans.

new name of this forum: Grammar and Dollar Coin Thoughts

I would defer to Vin Scully on any matter of grammar, should anyone ask him.

"Myriad" comes to english from Gk. "murias", which means "10,000". It can be used substantively, and so we end up with a noun or an adjective in english.

Announcers the Dodgers should consider hiring post-Vin:

Russ Langer
Don Sutton
Kyle Peterson
Ron Darling

129 As long as you don't mean Brad.

If dollar coins prevail, how could you amass a big wad of bills, put a rubber band around it, and look like a gangster?

Tony Soprano called it quits just in time.

129. I really thought that you were referring to our #1 pitcher. I thought "there's a bandwagon to get rid of Penny? Geez, tough crowd".

Duke Snider and Orel Hershiser looked pretty weird in Giants unifoms.

Some of the best baseball blogs around seem to be closing their doors... first Batgirl and now The Soul of Baseball. Jon, don't you go anywhere.

136. Not to mention stripper injuries.

134
Kyle Peterson or Ron Darling?

That Enders likes them pitchers who went to them fancy egghead schools.

140 Or, I just favor pitchers who can put a complete sentence together. Like Orel Hershiser. Actually, add him to the list.

Just be glad I didn't say Mike Mussina.

141

I react to "Mike Mussina" the same way Rigby Reardon reacted to hearing "cleaning woman."

The more I think about it, we probably need Hershiser as a broadcaster, if only so he can be there to broadcast the moment when Clayton Kershaw breaks Hershiser's record.

143
But who will be around to broadcast the moment when Kershaw breaks Webb's record?

144 Webb, naturally.

144 Now you're just being heretical for no good reason.

I will be extremely saddened if Webb breaks Hershiser's record, as I have a lot of fond memories from that streak.

146
Webb's record will end when he walks Kevin Mench with the bases loaded in his next start.

Right after Drysdale's 58 inning streak, Bob Gibson got to 47 innings, but gave up a run at Dodger Stadium when he wild pitched home Len Gabrielson. Gibson gave up no more runs in that game and then threw a shutout in his following game. In the game after that, he went six straight innings without giving up a run.

1 run allowed in 71 innings.

Plus, think of what it will do to Jose Gonzalez's self-esteem. His only big moment in the majors will be relegated to irrelevance.

149
Eric Byrnes could catch the last out and Andrew could revel in the awesomeness of the event.

Jose Gonzalez? Larkin scored the run and Benzinger got the hit to end the streak.

Next Start: Wed. Aug 22... get your MLB EI ready!

151
September 28, 1988
Bottom of the 10th, Padres Batting, Tied 0-0, Orel Hershiser facing 5-6-7

M Wynne Strikeout Swinging, Wild Pitch; Wynne to 1B
B Santiago Bunt Groundout: P-2B/Sacrifice; Wynne to 2B
R Ready Groundout: SS-1B; Wynne to 3B
G Templeton Intentional Walk
Keith Moreland pinch hits for Andy Hawkins batting 9th
K Moreland Defensive Indifference; Templeton to 2B
K Moreland Flyball: RF

0 runs, 0 hits, 0 errors, 2 LOB. Dodgers 0, Padres 0.

I had forgotten how close Hershiser came to ending in an exact tie with Drysdale. Runners on second and third with two outs.

I think the most touching thing was that Don Drysdale was at the game witnessing his own record being broken. I heard a rebroadcast of the radio call once.

I have all that stuff recorded on VHS tape. I should probably transfer them over to DVD soon, before the tape rots away.

Did anyone else "extend" their streak into the playoffs like Hershiser did? That's what was so impressive was that he kept doing it against the highest competition.

According to H. W. Fowler's Modern_English_Usage: "The plurals 'heaps' and 'lots' used colloquially for a great amount now always take a singular verb unless a plural noun with 'of' is added" (Oxford, 1965, p 403). So, one should say 'there is lots more to say on this topic' and also 'there were lots of strikeouts in that Twins-Ranger game last night'. Alas, Fowler doesn't cover the singular 'lot' but if 'lots' typically takes a singular verb, then one would think 'lot' would as well.

157 No. Of the players with long scoreless streaks, only Carl Hubbell and Bob Gibson's teams made the playoffs. But both of their streaks ended before the regular season did.

Hershiser's final total was 67.

Hershiser's totals over the final 101 innings of 1988:
9-0, 0.45 ERA, 1 SV

I hate to inject a baseball comment at this time but......

Why in the world would the Dodgers want anything to do with Wells? Even Hendrickson is preferable to Wells.

Is the Dodger GM trying to collect as many pieces of deadwood as possible (Hernandez/Hillenbrand) for the stretch run?

161 "I hate to inject a baseball comment at this time but......"

Sort of a strange thing to say when the previous 21 consecutive posts have dealt with baseball.

Enjoy prison, Michael Vick.

"Is the Dodger GM trying to collect as many pieces of deadwood as possible"

Well, that explains the Brad Dourif and Garrett Dillahunt signings!

Orel threw 267 (!) innings in '88. Last year's leader (C.C. Sabathia) threw 189.

165 His total was 311.7 if you count the postseason and the All-Star Game.

Did I mention how glad I am Tommy isn't managing anymore?

166 A quick jaunt to BB Ref gives us this ('85-'89): 239, 231, 264, 267, 256.

It's hard to believe Lasorda was a pitcher...Because he hates them so.

167 You left out the most relevant number of all: 239, 231, 264, 267, 256, 25.

If Ned manages collect enough Deadwood to get the show back on the air, then he will finally have accomplished something worth being remembered for.

163 I despise what Michael Vick allegedly did, but this is yet another case that makes me wonder how we can possibly set sentencing guidelines that are fair across a broad spectrum of crimes. There are people who have done worse things that will spend less time in jail.

168 et al., I assume the pitch counts are abnormally high too?

163 & 170 At least Falcons fans won't have to listen to that horrible Baja Men's song this year during their home games.

Show me some proof that the innings alone are what hurt Hershiser, or that the lack of innings nowadays are preventing injuries. I am very very far from convinced yet.

173 I see where you're coming from, but you're asking for proof of something that's essentially unprovable. Of course, the fact that it's unprovable doesn't mean it's false.

170 Grant me dictatorial powers. I'll put you on a tribunal of judges to decide sentences on a case by case basis.

173 Check out Prospectus and the studies on pitcher abuse points. Especially for pitchers under 25. I think Rany Jazayerli did most of the stuff on it. The stuff I read, at least.

164
That was great.

176
We can reprint dialog from "Deadwood" that doesn't run afoul of Rule 1:

"Good morning, Al!"

End of list.

167
Drysdale IP's '62 - '65: 314, 315, 321, 308

178 Conceded. There are some pitchers that are absolute horses. But does that mean that pitch counts and innings aren't better for most pitchers on the whole?

If they aren't, why are teams using them?

Announcers the Dodgers should consider hiring post-Vin:

Russ Langer
Don Sutton
Kyle Peterson
Ron Darling

I'm still holding some glimmer of hope Ross Porter & the Dodger organization can kiss & make up. Don Sutton sounds intriguing also.

As Bob has already pointed out: Any citation of Drysdale's heroic IP totals also needs to recognize that he was completely used up by age 31.

160

Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor.

If the Dodgers pick up Wells (David), I will stop following them until Colletti is gone. I feel bad for Hull. What is the argument against him? He has been lights out in Vegas this year.

Maybe Colletti's plan is do accumulate deadwood now, have them impart wisdom unto the youngsters arriving in Sept. and then jettison them all during the offseason.

BP: You mentioned Neifi Perez. This was a player who last year, and really throughout his career, has been one of the worst hitters in baseball. You got him off waivers, non-tendered him, then signed him to a two-year contract (for $4.25 million plus bonuses). What made the Giants believe he was worth that much money? Were there no other alternatives out there? Could someone like say, Cody Ransom have done the same job for the league minimum instead?

Colletti: When we were first in conversations with Neifi, we didn't know what would happen with Kent, or David Bell, and we had players like Reggie Sanders and Kenny Lofton possibly leaving too. So we really wanted a player who was versatile, who could play a bunch of positions for us to help make up for those losses. Talking to Felipe (Alou) about him, he said Neifi could play second, short and third, that he'd be an above-average fielder, a guy who'd occasionally get a big hit and who knew how to play the game. We felt that was a player we could use.

http://tinyurl.com/dhbtj

Wow, I just noticed Cody Ransom has 28 home runs with Houston's AAA team this year.

183 What does Wells have to do with Hull? One starts, one's a reliever.

Right now we have a four man rotation featuring Eric Stults. Wells still has shown the ability to throw strikes, so why not? He's probably not any better than any of our current options, but it can't hurt having him, especially when rosters expand.

183 The main argument against Hull is that he's a reliever and we need a starter. He hasn't started a single game this year and only two last year.

Now, you could put Houlton in the rotation and Hull in the bullpen and you wouldn't really get any arguments from me except perhaps of the James McDonald variety.

when discussing longevity of pitchers careers (or lack there of) one has to consider there work ethic & diet but I have to admit I've never seen a study on the issue to prove my point so....

New post up top. Hope you don't get Endersed.

Sorry, I meant for my Wells and Hull comments to be separate and unrelated. But on the Wells issue, I guess it just really annoys me to see us claiming players that other teams have cut for lack of ability. How would the contract work? Would we have to take his prorated contract for this year?

187 Speaking of Mr. McDonald, it appears his turn in the rotation is being skipped today and Kershaw is starting instead. Hmm.

189 &%#@!!!

Alex: When, where, as, if, though, that, than, because, before, after, while, till, since.

Contestant: What are the 13 words that can begin a dependent adverbial clause, Alex?

Alex: Noooooo . . . sorry.