PDA

View Full Version : You have to agree


cheeses_h_rice
11-05-2001, 09:17 AM
The best team won this Series.

The D-backs deserved to win 6 of the 7 games. The Yankees had no hitting, and were fortunate to have faced a 22-year-old reliever in 2 of the games they should have lost.

The Yankees' run is over, folks. They're still going to be good, yes, but that certain je ne sais qois is gone. They probably should have been gone in 3 vs. the A's, but I'll take a 9th inning meltdown by Rivera any day of the week.

I'm just so glad that fate, luck, whatever, finally worked out for once.

FarWestChicago
11-05-2001, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
The best team won this Series.

The D-backs deserved to win 6 of the 7 games. The Yankees had no hitting, and were fortunate to have faced a 22-year-old reliever in 2 of the games they should have lost.You are correct, sir!

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
The best team won this Series.

The D-backs deserved to win 6 of the 7 games. The Yankees had no hitting, and were fortunate to have faced a 22-year-old reliever in 2 of the games they should have lost.

The Yankees' run is over, folks. They're still going to be good, yes, but that certain je ne sais qois is gone. They probably should have been gone in 3 vs. the A's, but I'll take a 9th inning meltdown by Rivera any day of the week.

I'm just so glad that fate, luck, whatever, finally worked out for once.

You can look at in two ways. One the d-backs dominated the yanks and deserved to win or two the d-backs relied on 2 players, which the current playoff format allows. Is that fair? I will leave that for debate....

PaleHoseGeorge
11-05-2001, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
You can look at in two ways. One the d-backs dominated the yanks and deserved to win or two the d-backs relied on 2 players, which the current playoff format allows. Is that fair? I will leave that for debate....

The current format has made the playoffs more a team effort than ever. The D-backs had to win eleven postseason games to become champions. Under old playoff formats, the champions needed as few as four wins. As for the World Series itself, it's been best of seven for 82 years now.

Arizona nearly got eliminated by Saint Louis in the first round. The same holds true for New York.

If this were college football and there wasn't a true national playoff, I could see discounting Arizona's accomplishment. However...

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


The current format has made the playoffs more a team effort than ever. The D-backs had to win eleven postseason games to become champions. Under old playoff formats, the champions needed as few as four wins. As for the World Series itself, it's been best of seven for 82 years now.

Arizona nearly got eliminated by Saint Louis in the first round. The same holds true for New York.

If this were college football and there wasn't a true national playoff, I could see discounting Arizona's accomplishment. However...

Oh i dont discount it. I would like to see them limit the number of games a SP can start to two games a series......

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Oh i dont discount it. I would like to see them limit the number of games a SP can start to two games a series......

or limit the amount of innings pitched? i dunno, it just doesnt seem right that one pitcher can start 3 of the games in a 7 game series. That doesnt spell TEAM to me......

cheeses_h_rice
11-05-2001, 01:30 PM
You have a point, BMR, but that's the way it is. After all, it takes many pitchers to string together the required number of victories to even make the playoffs. The only difference between the playoffs and regular season is that one (or two) starting pitchers get shaved off, and it then becomes a matchup of your 3 or so best pitchers.

Short of playing a 7-game series in 8 or 9 games, I don't know of any fairer way of matching up the two teams.

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
You have a point, BMR, but that's the way it is. After all, it takes many pitchers to string together the required number of victories to even make the playoffs. The only difference between the playoffs and regular season is that one (or two) starting pitchers get shaved off, and it then becomes a matchup of your 3 or so best pitchers.

Short of playing a 7-game series in 8 or 9 games, I don't know of any fairer way of matching up the two teams.

Yeah i know, but it just bothers me. Im so glad the yanks lost. On the other hand, if the sox lost to the d-backs in 7 games, because randy and schilling pitched in 6 games combined, id be PISSED.

Nellie_Fox
11-05-2001, 01:53 PM
If you had a Wilbur Wood type and he could somehow start all seven games, how is that any more wrong than a position player starting all seven? Are you going to limit how many games Jeter can play to make it more "fair?"

czalgosz
11-05-2001, 02:04 PM
No, I think it's fine for Brenly to lean on Schilling and Johnson... Remember, they still had to make the playoffs, and they had to win on the days that Schilling and Johnson didn't pitch. Even with 8 teams making the playoffs these days, you still have to win 90+ games during the regular season. Besides, seeing Clemens vs. Schilling in game 7 was exciting in a way that Clemens vs. Brian Anderson would never be...

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
If you had a Wilbur Wood type and he could somehow start all seven games, how is that any more wrong than a position player starting all seven? Are you going to limit how many games Jeter can play to make it more "fair?"




ummmmmmmm a starting pitcher contributes 40 to 50 percent of the outcome of a single game......

Procol Harum
11-05-2001, 03:13 PM
Been outta the loop but I was so pumped to see the D'backs win I had to send a shout out to the WSI homies!! Had quite a chuckle to see "Gracie" get his ring after leaving the Grubs.

On the Schilling/Johnson question--although I'd hate to have 2 guys spell doom for the Sox in the playoffs or Series I don't think it's practical to approach the Bigs like it's a Coaches Pitch Little League and limit innings. I know if we had two hosses like the D'backs (bulletin to Reinsdorf and crew--big pitching gets big wins--you guys might note that 4 prominent recent free agents were the creme de la creme of the Series pitching staffs--Schilling, Johnson, Clemens, and Mussina--sure woulda been nice to see at least ONE of these guys with "Sox" on his chest) or a latter-day rubber-armed Wilbur Wood (and how many games might he have won between '71 and '77 if he would have had a real good team behind him???) we wouldn't be complainin' about it!! More power to 'em! In a short series, ya do what ya need to do to win--no sense savin' up when there's no manana.

Nellie_Fox
11-05-2001, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31

ummmmmmmm a starting pitcher contributes 40 to 50 percent of the outcome of a single game......

So what? Even if your statistic is true (and it certainly sounds like one you know to be true because you made it up yourself,) what does that have to do with anything? The reason for multiple man rotations is because that's how long it takes for them to recover sufficiently to be effective again, not out of some sense of "fairness."

Tragg
11-05-2001, 06:08 PM
I don't know whether the best team won.

But the team that played the best sure did - the snakes definitely outplayed the yanks.

longshot7
11-05-2001, 06:11 PM
bmr, limiting a pitcher to two starts is like limiting the Bulls in the heyday to playing Jordan every other game. If you have the best, you may as well use them as much as you want.

Dadawg_77
11-05-2001, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Yeah i know, but it just bothers me. Im so glad the yanks lost. On the other hand, if the sox lost to the d-backs in 7 games, because randy and schilling pitched in 6 games combined, id be PISSED.

Its baseball, and all is fair. If Johnson and Schilling can go 6 games, more power to them. The Series isn't about not leaving anything on the field, to limit how much a guy can pitch is Little League. They have a rule like that, like a guy can only start once a week. Hell while we're at lets limit the cleanup hitters to batting only once every other at bat. Come on now.

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


So what? Even if your statistic is true (and it certainly sounds like one you know to be true because you made it up yourself,) what does that have to do with anything? The reason for multiple man rotations is because that's how long it takes for them to recover sufficiently to be effective again, not out of some sense of "fairness."

I believe i was responding to your comment about jeter.

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


Its baseball, and all is fair. If Johnson and Schilling can go 6 games, more power to them. The Series isn't about not leaving anything on the field, to limit how much a guy can pitch is Little League. They have a rule like that, like a guy can only start once a week. Hell while we're at lets limit the cleanup hitters to batting only once every other at bat. Come on now.

Did i ever demand a limit? I was just making a suggestion. I dont think its fair or good for baseball to have two players dominmate a world series, with the # of games they start.

Bmr31
11-05-2001, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
bmr, limiting a pitcher to two starts is like limiting the Bulls in the heyday to playing Jordan every other game. If you have the best, you may as well use them as much as you want.

No its not. Basketball plays 5 players at a time. Baseball plays 9.

FarWestChicago
11-06-2001, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


You can look at in two ways. One the d-backs dominated the yanks and deserved to win or two the d-backs relied on 2 players, which the current playoff format allows. Is that fair? I will leave that for debate.... Yes, it's fair. They had what they needed to win. The Skanks came up short. They have had an advantage over other teams for years...Rivera. It didn't work this time. He got out closed by the Unit. These things happen.

Don't forget, the Skanks couldn't hit Anderson or Bombtista either. They tried to win with pitching and defense alone. They got matched on pitching, their defense was not as solid as usual and they couldn't hit anybody.

doublem23
11-06-2001, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Did i ever demand a limit? I was just making a suggestion. I dont think its fair or good for baseball to have two players dominmate a world series, with the # of games they start.

I'm sure though, if the Sox had 2 pitchers who were that good, you'd love seeing them as often as possible in the World Series.

This is the World Series, man. Baseball has bigger problems that are killing the sport other than how often a pitcher pitches in the World Series.

Is it fair or good for baseball that the Yankees can buy guys like Roger Clemens and Mike Mussina, while the Royals can't afford to keep decent players around for more than 3 years?

doublem23
11-06-2001, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Yes, it's fair. They had what they needed to win. The Skanks came up short. They have had an advantage over other teams for years...Rivera. It didn't work this time. He got out closed by the Unit. These things happen.

Yeah. The basic question is, why wouldn't you want to play your best players, especially in Game 7 of the World Series? I'm sure there would have been some NASTY posts around here had Bob Brenly tried to keep things "fair" and put Kim in there in the 8th rather than The Big Unit.

That's just baseball. The team with better players wins, or at least, SHOULD win.

Moses_Scurry
11-06-2001, 08:00 AM
Plus, Brenly took a pretty big risk by pitching Schilling 3 times! I was one who thought he should not have, but I guess he was right which is why I am stuck in a science lab instead of managing baseball! Schilling was up to the task. Many pitchers of high calibre would have failed.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


I'm sure though, if the Sox had 2 pitchers who were that good, you'd love seeing them as often as possible in the World Series.

This is the World Series, man. Baseball has bigger problems that are killing the sport other than how often a pitcher pitches in the World Series.

Is it fair or good for baseball that the Yankees can buy guys like Roger Clemens and Mike Mussina, while the Royals can't afford to keep decent players around for more than 3 years?

no, thats not fair either. Baseball needs to fix these things. There is no way you can tell me pitching 2 guys the majority of the world series, makes baseball a better sport.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


Yeah. The basic question is, why wouldn't you want to play your best players, especially in Game 7 of the World Series? I'm sure there would have been some NASTY posts around here had Bob Brenly tried to keep things "fair" and put Kim in there in the 8th rather than The Big Unit.

That's just baseball. The team with better players wins, or at least, SHOULD win.


who gives a crap about "nasty posts" on this board? we are talking about whats good for the best sport in the world. Our opinions on who we want to win the world series, hardly matters.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-06-2001, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
no, thats not fair either. Baseball needs to fix these things. There is no way you can tell me pitching 2 guys the majority of the world series, makes baseball a better sport.

I don't remember anybody besides Bob Feller on Cleveland's world champion '48 staff, but I sure remember Boston's Spahn and Sain and three days of rain. I don't remember anyone besides Dean Chance on the '65 Twins staff but I most-definitely remember LA's Koufax and Drysdale.

Pitching two star pitchers in the World Series is preferable to pitching only one. The biggest problem with baseball is all the mediocre talent. The World Series needs to feature more stars, not fewer.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I don't remember anybody besides Bob Feller on Cleveland's world champion '48 staff, but I sure remember Boston's Spahn and Sain and three days of rain. I don't remember anyone besides Dean Chance on the '65 Twins staff but I most-definitely remember LA's Koufax and Drysdale.

Pitching two star pitchers in the World Series is preferable to pitching only one. The biggest problem with baseball is all the mediocre talent. The World Series needs to feature more stars, not fewer.

okay great. i'll start a franchise, sign the best two starting pitchers in baseball, and surround them with scrubs. Ill sneak into the playoffs with the worst team making the playoffs, but ill use my two pitchers to death, on my way to a world series title. Yeah thats good for baseball, youre so right.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-06-2001, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I don't remember anyone besides Dean Chance on the '65 Twins staff but I most-definitely remember LA's Koufax and Drysdale.


Whoops, I stand corrected. Dean Chance pitched for California. The best pitcher on the '65 Twins was Mudcat Grant, who won 21 games. How many baseball fans remember this? Not many, I bet.

The '65 Twins won 102 games and the A.L. pennant, but lost to the Dodgers for the world championship. Koufax and Drysdale started 5 of the 7 games for LA, and accounted for three of LA's four victories. Unlike Mudcat Grant's, their achievement is memorable. Certainly this is good for baseball, not bad.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



Whoops, I stand corrected. Dean Chance pitched for California. The best pitcher on the '65 Twins was Mudcat Grant, who won 21 games. How many baseball fans remember this? Not many, I bet.

The '65 Twins won 102 games and the A.L. pennant, but lost to the Dodgers for the world championship. Koufax and Drysdale started 5 of the 7 games for LA, and accounted for three of LA's four victories. Unlike Mudcat Grant's, their achievement is memorable. Certainly this is good for baseball, not bad.

players didnt move around through free agency, back then. Arizona is showing the world how to win a world series. Its going to destroy everything good about baseball.

cheeses_h_rice
11-06-2001, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


okay great. i'll start a franchise, sign the best two starting pitchers in baseball, and surround them with scrubs. Ill sneak into the playoffs with the worst team making the playoffs, but ill use my two pitchers to death, on my way to a world series title. Yeah thats good for baseball, youre so right.

BMR, I hate to bring this up, but weren't you the one all in favor of Alex Rodriguez being paid $25 million a year? What's the difference between what the Rangers did and what the D-backs did, except that the D-backs spent their money more wisely?

Iwritecode
11-06-2001, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
ummmmmmmm a starting pitcher contributes 40 to 50 percent of the outcome of a single game......


No its not. Basketball plays 5 players at a time. Baseball plays 9.


OK so you're saying that when Micheal Jordan went out and scored more points than the entire rest of the team combined he didn't contribute to 40 to 50 percent of the outcome of that game? Yet it's fair that he gets to play in every single game? These 2 pitchers play in 5 out of 7 games and it isn't fair? Plus guess what? They only got to play defense in Yankee staduim. Jordan got to play offense and defense.

Iwritecode
11-06-2001, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


BMR, I hate to bring this up, but weren't you the one all in favor of Alex Rodriguez being paid $25 million a year? What's the difference between what the Rangers did and what the D-backs did, except that the D-backs spent their money more wisely?

I don't know about being in favor of it. I know that a lot of people were called "jealous" because they complained about it.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


BMR, I hate to bring this up, but weren't you the one all in favor of Alex Rodriguez being paid $25 million a year? What's the difference between what the Rangers did and what the D-backs did, except that the D-backs spent their money more wisely?

yes i was and i still am. Im in favor of the PLAYER accepting what he can get, considering the structure of baseball. Ive said all along, its the owners and commish who need to fix things.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


I don't know about being in favor of it. I know that a lot of people were called "jealous" because they complained about it.

anyone who is mad at or puts down arod for accepting a salary given to him, is jealous.

Dadawg_77
11-06-2001, 02:27 PM
Yeah Zone showed you how to win it all, pitching. You got studs throwing the ball for you, you are going to win more then you are going to lose. The DBack weren't the worse team to make it to the playoff, see Clevland for that one.

I think thise series is one of the better things to happen to baseball, since more people watch a great game. Hey does anyone have the rating for game 7?

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Yeah Zone showed you how to win it all, pitching. You got studs throwing the ball for you, you are going to win more then you are going to lose. The DBack weren't the worse team to make it to the playoff, see Clevland for that one.

I think thise series is one of the better things to happen to baseball, since more people watch a great game. Hey does anyone have the rating for game 7?

im not talking about this year, im talking about the future of baseball and what this will do to it.....

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


im not talking about this year, im talking about the future of baseball and what this will do to it.....

let me make this a little more clearer. Take randy and curt off the diamondbacks and they are a far below average baseball team. all this is showing is, go out and spend big bucks on the two best free agent SPs, overuse them in the playoffs, and you have bought yourself a world series champion. This is more simplified than the yankees approach, and ultimately HORRIBLE for the game of baseball.

Spiff
11-06-2001, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


let me make this a little more clearer. Take randy and curt off the diamondbacks and they are a far below average baseball team. all this is showing is, go out and spend big bucks on the two best free agent SPs, overuse them in the playoffs, and you have bought yourself a world series champion. This is more simplified than the yankees approach, and ultimately HORRIBLE for the game of baseball.

Take the two best pitchers off any team and they'll be below average.

I really don't see where you got this argument it has no basis. Nobody else (besides obnoxious Yankee fans) is saying "oh man that is so cheap the D-Backs used their best pitchers to much they should have lobbed it over." You want cheap look at the Jeter 197-ft homerun look at all the calls the Yankees always always always get.

Having one team win every year is worse for baseball.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Take the two best pitchers off any team and they'll be below average.

I really don't see where you got this argument it has no basis. Nobody else (besides obnoxious Yankee fans) is saying "oh man that is so cheap the D-Backs used their best pitchers to much they should have lobbed it over." You want cheap look at the Jeter 197-ft homerun look at all the calls the Yankees always always always get.

Having one team win every year is worse for baseball.


oh geez, quit your crying.....

Spiff
11-06-2001, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



oh geez, quit your crying.....

That's your best argument? Haha man that's good.

And I'm not the one whining about the game of baseball. I see your argument but you cannot sit there and say the Diamondbacks winning the series was bad for baseball when you look at the alternative.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


That's your best argument? Haha man that's good.

And I'm not the one whining about the game of baseball. I see your argument but you cannot sit there and say the Diamondbacks winning the series was bad for baseball when you look at the alternative.

you have totally missed my point. Im ecstatic about the yankees not winning. I was jumping around the apartment. On the other hand, when i sit down and think about it, i know the yankees are better than the diamondbacks, overall. I know this year it worked out well. Its the future that scares me.

longshot7
11-06-2001, 02:59 PM
btw, bmr, the d-backs acquired Schilling through a trade - not free agency.

And free agency isn't killing the game. It didn't when it first started back in the 70's - when we got Fisk - and it's not now. it's just that now with the large discrepancies between big and small market teams, the problems are magnified. The economics of the game are what need to be fixed...

lastly, the Sox won the 1917 World Series with only two pitchers...

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
btw, bmr, the d-backs acquired Schilling through a trade - not free agency.

And free agency isn't killing the game. It didn't when it first started back in the 70's - when we got Fisk - and it's not now. it's just that now with the large discrepancies between big and small market teams, the problems are magnified. The economics of the game are what need to be fixed...

lastly, the Sox won the 1917 World Series with only two pitchers...


im aware of that....

FarWestChicago
11-06-2001, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I think thise series is one of the better things to happen to baseball, since more people watch a great game. Hey does anyone have the rating for game 7? I heard something on the radio yesterday about it being the highest rated Series game since before the "94 strike.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-07-2001, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I heard something on the radio yesterday about it being the highest rated Series game since before the "94 strike.

Correct. It's the highest ratings for the World Series since 1991, the surest sign that baseball has finally recovered from the 1994-95 strike. Given what the owners announced yesterday, it hardly seems to matter. Is ANYBODY talking about what a great World Series this was?

The owners could screw up a one car funeral.

FarWestChicago
11-07-2001, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Correct. It's the highest ratings for the World Series since 1991, the surest sign that baseball has finally recovered from the 1994-95 strike. Given what the owners announced yesterday, it hardly seems to matter. Is ANYBODY talking about what a great World Series this was?

The owners could screw up a one car funeral. It is truly amazing how idiotic the owners are. How about contracting the entire league and finding new owners?