The Giants sit at third place in the division and would love to finish with a winning record.
I would say they would: they would have to win every game for the rest of the season to do that. They are 65-80 and only a 17-game winning streak would bring them to finishing with a winning record - 16 wins would only bring them to 81-81, or .500.
If there were to do the impossible and finish with a winning record, and assuming the D-gers finish playing .500 for the rest of the season (and D-backs continue to fade or at most play .500), they would still be two games behind the D-gers for the division title. Just shows how far behind we are with so little games left.
Totally reminds me of this line from the cinema masterpiece, Dumb and Dumber:
ReplyDeleteLloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.
I love that movie! I would have bet anything that they would have had a sequel to it, but I guess Jim Carrey is too big to do sequels for a while now (the Mask was another natural; I think the only one was the one that launched him, Ace Ventura?)
ReplyDeleteI think the Giants chances of winning 17 games in a row is probably more like a Googol raised to a Googol power. But as James Bond once said, "Never Say Never Again." (Speaking of movies I love, I once attended a marathon viewing of James Bond movies at my college, it was named something like "5 Days of Bondage" or something kinky like that. Of course, there were less movies back then and I think Roger Moore just came out with OctoPussy around then... )
Nice, I've always been a fan of Moore as Bond. I think he's one of the better Bonds.
ReplyDeleteYes, I enjoyed his work as The Saint so I was pretty jazzed by him taking over the role. I would rank them in this order today:
ReplyDeleteSean Connery
Pierce Brosnan
Daniel Craig
Roger Moore
David Niven/Woody Allen
George Lazenby (though I sometimes switch him with Dalton; I really didn't like Dalton in the role, whereas Lazenby was just "eh", nothing much either way, which is a shame, since he was probably paired with one of the better Bond girls, Diana Riggs, from the Avengers)
Timothy Dalton
Hmm, I agree with most of your list, I might swap Moore with Brosan. I thought Pierce was OK but for some reason I've always liked Moore.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure to think of Craig yet.
Now that you got me thinking, perhaps I was a bit hasty with Craig's rank. I just really enjoyed his first movie, but perhaps that's the story line that grabbed me.
ReplyDeleteI was rooting for Brosnan when he was the skinny Steele and was selected then de-selected when his a-hole producer capitalized on his new fame by renewing the Remington Steele show, which made it impossible for him to do the Bond movie, leading to the atrocious Dalton years.
I really liked him in the role, and it was probably for the best, he, to me, was much better older, as he filled out his body and wasn't so skinny anymore.
I like Moore, but he was sleepwalking through the role at the end and that put him down in my eyes.
But Live and Let Die I consider to be one of the best Bond movies, up there with the best Connery.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it doesn't hurt that Paul McCartney penned the title song; I'm a big Beatles fan!