So on Tuesday night, on the eve of their series against the Mets, my wife (a Phillies fan) asked me if I'd heard what Cole Hamels said. No, I hadn't, and she told me that Hamels, in a TV interview, had said the Phils could (and would) sweep the Mets. Isn't this the type of swagger that the fans always want from the Phils, I asked? No, she said, because there's no way in hell that they would, and would probably get swept themselves.
Earlier that day, a co-worker of mine- also, of course, a Phillies fan- was on the phone with a buddy of his in New York, trying to make a bet about the upcoming series. He was betting, of course, against his own team, believing the Mets would sweep the Phils.
So what happened? You guessed it, the Phillies swept the Mets at Shea, getting strong starting pitching, bullpen help, and clutch hitting, three things that have been sorely missing all season. Even perennial whipping boy Pat Burrell had two crucial late hits on Thursday. And even though you'd think from the talk radio airwaves that the Phils must be the worst team in baseball, they're now two games over .500 and just five back of the first-place Mets, with two thirds of the season to go. Is there any reason not to think, with a few tweaks, that this team could make the playoffs?
Posted by Stephen Silver at June 8, 2007 12:33 PMCongrats to the Phillies for beating the Mets in 3 hard fought games.
But to answer your question "Is there any reason not to think, with a few tweaks, that this team could make the playoffs?"
Yes... and that is following up the mets sweep by losing 2 out of 3 to the Royals - 17-5? Ouch.