Dave on KUOW

Dave · April 14, 2009 at 9:29 am · Filed Under Mariners 

I’ll be doing a short interview on KUOW 94.9 at 12:40ish this afternoon. Probably only lasts five minutes or so, but tune in if you’d like.


26 Responses to “Dave on KUOW”

  1. egreenlaw9 on April 14th, 2009 9:40 am

    Something I’ve been hearing tons on the radio the last few days:

    “When can we know for sure that this team is ‘for real’ and has a shot at the division title?”

    My answer would be is whenever they get to 15 games over .500, because from that point on they would only need to play .500 ball to get to 96 wins.

    What’s your take on it Dave? When should the casual baseball fan start to ‘believe’ in this team’s chances?

  2. Luc on April 14th, 2009 9:42 am

    Hopefully I’m within range at that time for the radio. Going through the pass right now. Snowing heavily. About 3-4 inches. Nightmare. It’s not snowing in the city I hope?

  3. joser on April 14th, 2009 9:46 am

    Casual fans should always believe — that’s what makes them fans, not analysts. And all the more so if they’re “casual.”

  4. joser on April 14th, 2009 9:51 am

    There’s blue sky here at the moment Luc, and the Olympics (which are dusted with snow almost all the way down) look gorgeous. But it’s a very unsettled atmosphere with cumulus all around and we could see intense, localized showers (even thunderstorms) anywhere and any time. You should hit rain on this side of the pass and get out of it somewhere before Issaquah. And you should be able to pick up KUOW well before that.

    Whether the roof is open or closed for the ceremony and start of play is going to be a coin flip, however.

  5. Colm on April 14th, 2009 9:55 am


    I don’t think it’ll take 96 wins to carry the AL West. 85 wins might do it. 15 wins over .500 would make them a racing certainty.

  6. msb on April 14th, 2009 10:56 am

    KOMO’s Sistek sez: “Tuesday will begin with a few straggling showers in the South Sound, then drying and clearing as we get into the afternoon (although showers will be most stubborn in the Cascade foothills) with highs near 50.”

  7. forbin on April 14th, 2009 11:12 am

    Also to egreenlaw:

    Check your math. (Finishing with 96 wins would render the team 30, not 15, games over .500).


  8. ralphie81 on April 14th, 2009 11:24 am

    @Forbin: are you sure about that?

    If we finish 82-80, are we one game over .500 or two?

  9. forbin on April 14th, 2009 11:31 am

    Is this a trick question?

  10. forbin on April 14th, 2009 11:38 am

    Oh, I think I see the source of your confusion.

    Yes, 82-80 would be two games over .500. However, a team that is 82-80 would finish one game ahead of a team that finished 81-81. The word “game” is used differently in each case. A “game” ahead or behind equals one team’s win and one team’s loss (although two wins or losses by one team would also equal a game.)

  11. hark on April 14th, 2009 11:55 am


    Also note that a team that is 82-80, if they had lost one of those 82 wins, is now 81-81. It’s only a one game difference between their record and .500.

  12. Rainier Tall Boy on April 14th, 2009 11:58 am

    [ot, and please don’t post people’s email addresses in open text]

  13. forbin on April 14th, 2009 11:59 am

    Right, hark. One game is all it takes to make the difference between a .500 team and two games over .500. Similarly, if a team finishes 96-66, they are 30 games over .500. However, they’ve finished 15 games ahead of the team that went 82-82.

    Fun with numbers.

  14. forbin on April 14th, 2009 12:02 pm

    I mean 81-81.

  15. Nate on April 14th, 2009 12:27 pm

    Casual fans should always believe — that’s what makes them fans, not analysts. And all the more so if they’re “casual.”

    Probably just semantics, but I think a fan is someone who still watches, follows, and roots for the team regardless of the team’s chances of a playoff appearance. Not someone who believes they’ll make the playoffs every season, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    I imagine there are Nationals “Fans” who know they have almost no shot at a playoff run. I wouldn’t call them all analysts.

  16. ralphie81 on April 14th, 2009 12:28 pm

    Not to beat a dead horse, but the way I see it, the .500 mark is set at half of the total games you have played, not the number of games lost. Therefore, the equation should be:

    w = # wins
    l = # losses
    x = (w + l)/2
    y = w – x

    x is the .500 mark, y is the # of games over .500 (or under, if negative). Subtracting losses from wins is not an accurate representation of the term, in my opinion.

  17. jld on April 14th, 2009 12:31 pm

    Being that we’re 5-2 so far, I don’t see why we won’t be up for another 116-46 season.

    Wow – that joke just made me realize how unreal 2001 really was, keeping this pace for the whole season.

  18. sass on April 14th, 2009 12:34 pm

    Did I miss this already? They’re talking about money right now.

  19. cgmonk on April 14th, 2009 12:41 pm

    You haven’t missed the segment. I’ve been listening since 12:05 and they haven’t gotten to it yet.

    Also, the main post was updated to 12:40ish.

  20. cgmonk on April 14th, 2009 12:45 pm

    Ok, Dave is on right now.

  21. cgmonk on April 14th, 2009 12:48 pm

    It’s over now.

  22. sass on April 14th, 2009 12:49 pm

    Wow, that was fast.

  23. Dave on April 14th, 2009 12:50 pm

    I told you it’d be a short interview.

    Sorry for the time confusion, but at least you got a discussion about sales tax thrown in for free.

  24. sass on April 14th, 2009 1:03 pm

    I’m surprised you didn’t mention Griffey’s defensive liability.

  25. erich39 on April 14th, 2009 1:04 pm

    Nice comments Dave. I’m sure its tough for you to keep things on a basic level, but you gave a quick season outlook even I can understand.
    Your cadence seems slower from the earlier radio days…. makes for a nice interview pace.

  26. forbin on April 14th, 2009 1:17 pm


    Probably no one cares but us, but your formula doesn’t work to calculate games above or below .500. All you have to do is count the difference between wins and losses. It’s that simple.

    With maybe a slight tweak or two, your formula would work to calculate how many games ahead or behind in the standings a given team is. As I’ve already explained, this is a different definition of the word “game.”

    And now I promise to let this dead horse rest.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.