PDA

View Full Version : wait a minute...


Bmr31
11-06-2001, 01:34 PM
Most of you guys who are saying its fair for the d-bucks to overuse randy and curt, are the same guys who whine about the yanks signing free agents, and "buying" a title. Do you realize that Arizona just "bought" a title? They have been a major league team for 4 years. They bought randy, they traded(and bought) schilling. They knew if they ever got to the world series, they could pitch them to death. This is WORSE than what the yankees have done. The yankees have a better TEAM. The diamondbacks literally bought a title.

cheeses_h_rice
11-06-2001, 01:54 PM
Of course the D-backs "bought" a title. It's hard to farm-raise your own great players when you've only been a franchise for 4 years.

But consider the matchup of the D-backs starting 4 vs. the Yanks:

Randy Johnson $13,350,000
Curt Schilling $6,500,000
Brian Anderson $4,125,000
Miguel Batista $400,000

Ave. salary = $6,093,750

Roger Clemens $10,300,000
Mike Mussina $10,000,000
Andy Pettitte $7,000,000
Orlando Hernandez $2,050,000

Ave. salary = $7,337,500

Plus the Yanks pay their top reliever:

Mariano Rivera $9,150,000

vs.

Byung-Hyun Kim $762,500

Plus the Yankees pay these salaries:

Derek Jeter $12,600,000
Bernie Williams $12,357,143

vs.

Matt Williams $9,000,000
Jay Bell $8,000,000

Granted, the D-backs are still paying some high salaries, but in general, they are about 75% of what the Yanks are doing. So let's keep the "buying championships" talk in perspective. The Yanks are by FAR the worst offenders. And if you're going to talk about the Yankees' minor leagues, etc., consider that they have the most money to spend on overseas scouting and development.

Paulwny
11-06-2001, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Most of you guys who are saying its fair for the d-bucks to overuse randy and curt, are the same guys who whine about the yanks signing free agents, and "buying" a title. Do you realize that Arizona just "bought" a title? They have been a major league team for 4 years. They bought randy, they traded(and bought) schilling. They knew if they ever got to the world series, they could pitch them to death. This is WORSE than what the yankees have done. The yankees have a better TEAM. The diamondbacks literally bought a title.

I guess the NL now has it's "Yankees". We live through it now let them live through it.

ma-gaga
11-06-2001, 02:16 PM
Don't forget each league has their idiot spender as well:
NL - LA Dodgers - $109M+
AL - Boston Red Sox - $110M+

We can thank these two teams for a lot of the labor problems. They spend INSANE money to miss the playoffs. What a great world for the players. Paid not to compete.

These are opening day payrolls, does anyone have total season payrolls?

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Of course the D-backs "bought" a title. It's hard to farm-raise your own great players when you've only been a franchise for 4 years.

But consider the matchup of the D-backs starting 4 vs. the Yanks:

Randy Johnson $13,350,000
Curt Schilling $6,500,000
Brian Anderson $4,125,000
Miguel Batista $400,000

Ave. salary = $6,093,750

Roger Clemens $10,300,000
Mike Mussina $10,000,000
Andy Pettitte $7,000,000
Orlando Hernandez $2,050,000

Ave. salary = $7,337,500

Plus the Yanks pay their top reliever:

Mariano Rivera $9,150,000

vs.

Byung-Hyun Kim $762,500

Plus the Yankees pay these salaries:

Derek Jeter $12,600,000
Bernie Williams $12,357,143

vs.

Matt Williams $9,000,000
Jay Bell $8,000,000

Granted, the D-backs are still paying some high salaries, but in general, they are about 75% of what the Yanks are doing. So let's keep the "buying championships" talk in perspective. The Yanks are by FAR the worst offenders. And if you're going to talk about the Yankees' minor leagues, etc., consider that they have the most money to spend on overseas scouting and development.


agreed. But the yankees used a 4 man rotation and the d-backs used a 2 1/2 man rotation.

cheeses_h_rice
11-06-2001, 02:25 PM
Miguel Batista pitched in 48 games, went 11-8 with an ERA of 3.36. 139.1 innings pitched, 60 BB vs. 90 Ks. With that record, he would have been one of the Sox's top few starters.

Besides the Yankees, A's and M's, who else can you name with an all-around solid starting rotation? Every team has weaknesses.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Miguel Batista pitched in 48 games, went 11-8 with an ERA of 3.36. 139.1 innings pitched, 60 BB vs. 90 Ks. With that record, he would have been one of the Sox's top few starters.

Besides the Yankees, A's and M's, who else can you name with an all-around solid starting rotation? Every team has weaknesses.

oh i know. My main point is being able to use two starters for the majority of 7 games,isnt fair or good for the game of baseball.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


oh i know. My main point is being able to use two starters for the majority of 7 games,isnt fair or good for the game of baseball.

and those of you comparing baseball to basketball, you need to stop. Those are two completely different sports.

Spiff
11-06-2001, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


oh i know. My main point is being able to use two starters for the majority of 7 games,isnt fair or good for the game of baseball.

Why the hell isn't it fair? If they can pitch that much you can't just say no you must wait your turn. As was brought up in other threads, pitchers can't usually do what Schilling and Johnson did, and that rotations aren't for fairness they're for recovering. There's nothing wrong with playing all your cards.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Why the hell isn't it fair? If they can pitch that much you can't just say no you must wait your turn. As was brought up in other threads, pitchers can't usually do what Schilling and Johnson did, and that rotations aren't for fairness they're for recovering. There's nothing wrong with playing all your cards.

see the other thread. Why cant you guys understand the i KNOW its okay to use the system to get a champion???? IM NOT BLAMING AROD. IM NOT BLAMING THE DIAMONDBACKS. Im blaming BASEBALL.

cheeses_h_rice
11-06-2001, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


see the other thread. Why cant you guys understand the i KNOW its okay to use the system to get a champion???? IM NOT BLAMING AROD. IM NOT BLAMING THE DIAMONDBACKS. Im blaming BASEBALL.

And those of us bashing the whole $252 million paid to A-Rod WEREN'T bashing baseball (along with A-Rod and Boras, that is)?!? Sorry, but I don't see much of a difference here. Paying A-Rod $252 million was "within the rules" of baseball; the D-backs relying on 2 pitchers is similarly "within the rules" as well.

Those of us bashing A-Rod took him to task for not having at least a little bit of a sense of "enough is enough," but we were also lambasting a system that allows one team to pay any one player this much money vs. what's historically been done.

If you think baseball's only problems are that it allows one team to have 2 great pitchers, you're wrong. And I could give you a dozen or so other examples of "take away these 2 players and you have a mediocre team left." Just because those 2 players happen to be pitchers? Big deal.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


And those of us bashing the whole $252 million paid to A-Rod WEREN'T bashing baseball (along with A-Rod and Boras, that is)?!? Sorry, but I don't see much of a difference here. Paying A-Rod $252 million was "within the rules" of baseball; the D-backs relying on 2 pitchers is similarly "within the rules" as well.

Those of us bashing A-Rod took him to task for not having at least a little bit of a sense of "enough is enough," but we were also lambasting a system that allows one team to pay any one player this much money vs. what's historically been done.

If you think baseball's only problems are that it allows one team to have 2 great pitchers, you're wrong. And I could give you a dozen or so other examples of "take away these 2 players and you have a mediocre team left." Just because those 2 players happen to be pitchers? Big deal.

no, the ones i debated with were attacking arod, not baseball.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


And those of us bashing the whole $252 million paid to A-Rod WEREN'T bashing baseball (along with A-Rod and Boras, that is)?!? Sorry, but I don't see much of a difference here. Paying A-Rod $252 million was "within the rules" of baseball; the D-backs relying on 2 pitchers is similarly "within the rules" as well.

Those of us bashing A-Rod took him to task for not having at least a little bit of a sense of "enough is enough," but we were also lambasting a system that allows one team to pay any one player this much money vs. what's historically been done.

If you think baseball's only problems are that it allows one team to have 2 great pitchers, you're wrong. And I could give you a dozen or so other examples of "take away these 2 players and you have a mediocre team left." Just because those 2 players happen to be pitchers? Big deal.

sure you can take any teams two best players away, and it would hurt them. But did all those teams buy those two players??????

Iwritecode
11-06-2001, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


and those of you comparing baseball to basketball, you need to stop. Those are two completely different sports.

OK, how about fast-pitch softball. Most teams only have 2-3 pitchers on the whole team. Those pitchers usually pitch every single game of the regular season and playoffs. That includes double-headers. Is it unfair for the team to use the same pitcher every single game?

Nellie_Fox
11-06-2001, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Most of you guys who are saying its fair for the d-bucks to overuse randy and curt, are the same guys who whine about the yanks signing free agents, and "buying" a title. Do you realize that Arizona just "bought" a title? They have been a major league team for 4 years. They bought randy, they traded(and bought) schilling. They knew if they ever got to the world series, they could pitch them to death. This is WORSE than what the yankees have done. The yankees have a better TEAM. The diamondbacks literally bought a title.

No argument here. The d-backs are nearly as big an example of what's wrong with baseball as are the Yankees. That just has nothing to do with whether it's wrong to trot your two best pitchers out as often as you can.

Iwritecode
11-06-2001, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


sure you can take any teams two best players away, and it would hurt them. But did all those teams buy those two players??????

So if Oakland would have won the WS with their 3-man rotation it would have been ok? Those guys weren't bought.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


So if Oakland would have won the WS with their 3-man rotation it would have been ok? Those guys weren't bought.

Yes, that promotes building a winner, on an equal basis.

duke of dorwood
11-06-2001, 03:41 PM
Dont the D'Backs charge really high ticket prices to pay for these type of players? Does anyone know their ticket and parking prices?

cheeses_h_rice
11-06-2001, 03:51 PM
So, what if the Rangers sign Jason Giambi for $16 million a year next year, and even with their brutal pitching staff, the Rangers score 8.5 runs a game and win the AL West (or Central) by 1 game.

Is that fair? I think the issue that BMR is avoiding is salary caps and revenue sharing, which dovetails quite nicely with the A-Rod discussions we had last offseason. Complaining about the D-backs buying great pitching is just a smokescreen for the overall problems that MLB has with teams overall overpaying for key players at the expense of the small market teams who can't afford to sign new guys or keep their own FAs when they bloom.

Daver
11-06-2001, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
Dont the D'Backs charge really high ticket prices to pay for these type of players? Does anyone know their ticket and parking prices?

The D-backs are operating at a loss and had to ask players to re-negotiate the terms of their contracts just to make payroll for the year,so in that instance they are worse than the Yankees,who at least actually have the money to spend.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
So, what if the Rangers sign Jason Giambi for $16 million a year next year, and even with their brutal pitching staff, the Rangers score 8.5 runs a game and win the AL West (or Central) by 1 game.

Is that fair? I think the issue that BMR is avoiding is salary caps and revenue sharing, which dovetails quite nicely with the A-Rod discussions we had last offseason. Complaining about the D-backs buying great pitching is just a smokescreen for the overall problems that MLB has with teams overall overpaying for key players at the expense of the small market teams who can't afford to sign new guys or keep their own FAs when they bloom.

cheeses i will respond to your misrepresentation of me one last time. Ive said this a dozen times. If you want to continue to assume i mean something else, thats your problem. I HAVE ZERO problem with arod taking all the money a team is going to offer him. Those who rip arod are jealous. I do, however, have a problem with baseball, and its ignorance to pay these players what they want. Its ruining the game of baseball. Can i make this any clearer??????

Paulwny
11-06-2001, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by daver


The D-backs are operating at a loss and had to ask players to re-negotiate the terms of their contracts just to make payroll for the year,so in that instance they are worse than the Yankees,who at least actually have the money to spend.

Dbacks have to wait 5 yrs. before receiving tv revenue. Part of the agreement to be able to get a ml franchise. ML owners thought this would stop expansion teams from acquiring high priced fa's, again they were wrong.

cheeses_h_rice
11-06-2001, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


cheeses i will respond to your misrepresentation of me one last time. Ive said this a dozen times. If you want to continue to assume i mean something else, thats your problem. I HAVE ZERO problem with arod taking all the money a team is going to offer him. Those who rip arod are jealous. I do, however, have a problem with baseball, and its ignorance to pay these players what they want. Its ruining the game of baseball. Can i make this any clearer??????

So, you assign culpability to "baseball" but not to Alex Rodriguez and Scott Boras for the slippery slope that is payroll escalation? You think they have no role at all in this, that they are just passive agents?

I have news for you: Alex Rodriguez *is* a part of baseball. The sport has many components; bashing just one side of the equation does not seem fair, in my opinion. Alex Rodriguez is helping to ruin the sport we love. I'm sorry, I can't state it any clearer than that.

What I, along with many other fans and sportswriters, have been arguing for is a salary cap and revenue sharing. With a salary cap, arguing about one player's ridiculous, cartoonish contract would cease to be a viable option. The players union needs to step up to the plate and accept some sort of scheme like this, just like the owners need to step up and allow their spending to be reined in, relative to other teams and relative to other players.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


So, you assign culpability to "baseball" but not to Alex Rodriguez and Scott Boras for the slippery slope that is payroll escalation? You think they have no role at all in this, that they are just passive agents?

I have news for you: Alex Rodriguez *is* a part of baseball. The sport has many components; bashing just one side of the equation does not seem fair, in my opinion. Alex Rodriguez is helping to ruin the sport we love. I'm sorry, I can't state it any clearer than that.

What I, along with many other fans and sportswriters, have been arguing for is a salary cap and revenue sharing. With a salary cap, arguing about one player's ridiculous, cartoonish contract would cease to be a viable option. The players union needs to step up to the plate and accept some sort of scheme like this, just like the owners need to step up and allow their spending to be reined in, relative to other teams and relative to other players.

alex rodriguez is an EMPLOYEE. He and every other employee on this earth take what they are offered.

cheeses_h_rice
11-06-2001, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


alex rodriguez is an EMPLOYEE. He and every other employee on this earth take what they are offered.

I don't think professional baseball players are considered employees, legally.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, baseball salaries are a zero-sum game, for the most part. Money spent on Alex Rodriguez is, more or less, money not spent on other players. Baseball is not a free capitalist market like the ordinary job market you and I compete in. There are not unlimited job positions available, just 25 on each of the 30 teams. The money the Rangers spend on A-Rod is money they won't be able to spend on, say, decent starting pitching, a fact that was borne out in spades this year. Salary escalations like A-Rod's only serve to further skew the disparities in player salaries, wherein you have a handful of mega-mega-millionaires and a lot more $400K a year guys.

And, one other byproduct of salary escalations is the INEVITABLE increase in other players' salaries, an increase that can only be recouped by further squeezing baseball fans for their $, through higher ticket prices, higher merchandise prices, etc.

As I've said all along, I don't begrudge Alex Rodriguez making more money than any other player in the game. What I do begrudge him is his unadorned greed and inability to push himself away from the table when he'd "had enough." He and Boras had to know what they were doing was bad for the sport.

Bmr31
11-06-2001, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


I don't think professional baseball players are considered employees, legally.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, baseball salaries are a zero-sum game, for the most part. Money spent on Alex Rodriguez is, more or less, money not spent on other players. Baseball is not a free capitalist market like the ordinary job market you and I compete in. There are not unlimited job positions available, just 25 on each of the 30 teams. The money the Rangers spend on A-Rod is money they won't be able to spend on, say, decent starting pitching, a fact that was borne out in spades this year. Salary escalations like A-Rod's only serve to further skew the disparities in player salaries, wherein you have a handful of mega-mega-millionaires and a lot more $400K a year guys.

And, one other byproduct of salary escalations is the INEVITABLE increase in other players' salaries, an increase that can only be recouped by further squeezing baseball fans for their $, through higher ticket prices, higher merchandise prices, etc.

As I've said all along, I don't begrudge Alex Rodriguez making more money than any other player in the game. What I do begrudge him is his unadorned greed and inability to push himself away from the table when he'd "had enough." He and Boras had to know what they were doing was bad for the sport.


agreed. He is greedy and selfish. But thats another issue.

longshot7
11-06-2001, 09:51 PM
Bmr, face it, you're just wrong.

There's nothing wrong with this system. Anyone who wants to "buy" a championship (see Dodgers and Red Sox for that possibiility)- all they have to do is shell out the money. Steinbrenner, Colangelo, etc do that. JR, Pohlad, and the rest aren't looking for championships - they're just looking to remain competitive - it is a business after all. You have to give props to the owners who actually want to win.

After 84 years, I'd love the Sox to pull a 97 Marlins and buy a championship, even if it meant the very next day we'd trade away all our players.

longshot7
11-06-2001, 09:59 PM
also, A-Rod isn't ruining the game. You turn down $252 million when it's offered to you...

LongDistanceFan
11-06-2001, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
also, A-Rod isn't ruining the game. You turn down $252 million when it's offered to you... everybody has a good reason here.

1. if a team is willing to pay that much, then who is at fault.
2. as the other way of thinking, i still boras continue to ask a lot of money and i hope teams will refuse to play.
3. ref randy and curt and the way they were used, i hate to disagree with you bmr, but if they were capable of doing what they did, i too would've asked that of them. they needed their aces and it was them.........

btw i remember randy was used in a harder situation when sea was playing for the series or world series....... randy came thru then as well.......... he is a gamer.

idseer
11-07-2001, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


oh i know. My main point is being able to use two starters for the majority of 7 games,isnt fair or good for the game of baseball.

i find it interesting that it used to be typical that your 2 best pitchers pitched 5 of the 7 games in almost EVERY world series that went 7. todays pitchers seem to be such wimps that they can hardly finish ANY games, let alone pitch every 4 days!
looking thru an old baseball encyclopedia proves that MOST 7 game series saw the starter in game 1 was also the stater in games 4 & 7.
in '59 wynn started 1,4,and 6 with ONE off day in the whole series.
in '65 koufax went in games 2,5 and 7 with 5 and 7 being complete games!

it's only recently that todays 'great' athletes seem to have no stamina or desire to work hard.
frankly i find it very worthy that arizona actually USED it's strength when it meant something. bravo to them!

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i find it interesting that it used to be typical that your 2 best pitchers pitched 5 of the 7 games in almost EVERY world series that went 7. todays pitchers seem to be such wimps that they can hardly finish ANY games, let alone pitch every 4 days!
looking thru an old baseball encyclopedia proves that MOST 7 game series saw the starter in game 1 was also the stater in games 4 & 7.
in '59 wynn started 1,4,and 6 with ONE off day in the whole series.
in '65 koufax went in games 2,5 and 7 with 5 and 7 being complete games!

it's only recently that todays 'great' athletes seem to have no stamina or desire to work hard.
frankly i find it very worthy that arizona actually USED it's strength when it meant something. bravo to them!


I challenge this post, i dont believe it to be true. Who gives a **** about early winn. Prove to me that many pitchers started 3 games of the world series. i dont believe it.....

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
Bmr, face it, you're just wrong.

There's nothing wrong with this system. Anyone who wants to "buy" a championship (see Dodgers and Red Sox for that possibiility)- all they have to do is shell out the money. Steinbrenner, Colangelo, etc do that. JR, Pohlad, and the rest aren't looking for championships - they're just looking to remain competitive - it is a business after all. You have to give props to the owners who actually want to win.

After 84 years, I'd love the Sox to pull a 97 Marlins and buy a championship, even if it meant the very next day we'd trade away all our players.

yeah im wrong cuz some dork says i am.......i feel horrible now lol

FarWestChicago
11-07-2001, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


yeah im wrong cuz some dork says i am.......i feel horrible now lol Please refrain from using personal insults. They are not necessary.

Iwritecode
11-07-2001, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


yeah im wrong cuz some dork says i am.......i feel horrible now lol

Itís funny how you conveniently misinterpret or flat out ignore the posts that disprove your argument(s).

PaleHoseGeorge
11-07-2001, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
yeah im wrong cuz some dork says i am.......i feel horrible now lol

So Bmr, much going on in your life these days?

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


So Bmr, much going on in your life these days?


oh a lot more than yours, im sure.

Paulwny
11-07-2001, 12:50 PM
Bob Gibson 1964 27 innings 2 cg
67 27 3
68 27 3

Mickey Lolich 68 27 3

Warren Spahn 58 28 2

Lew Burdette 57 27 3


They don't pitch this way anymore in the ws.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Bob Gibson 1964 27 innings 2 cg
67 27 3
68 27 3

Mickey Lolich 68 27 3

Warren Spahn 58 28 2

Lew Burdette 57 27 3


They don't pitch this way anymore in the ws.


agreed. This isnt 1964...

idseer
11-07-2001, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



I challenge this post, i dont believe it to be true. Who gives a **** about early winn. Prove to me that many pitchers started 3 games of the world series. i dont believe it.....

then you lose bmr. at least check before you start slinging mud.

in the 60's ALONE:

1968 lolich and gibson 3 games each
1967 gibson and lonborg 3 games each
1965 koufax and grant 3 games each
1964 gibson 3 games
1962 ford and sanford 3 games each
1960 law 3 games

the only reason there aren't more is because these are the only series that went 7 games!
and prior to the 60's pitchers went longer, pitched more innings, and way more games than anyone comes close to today.

and your right about this not being the 60's anymore. you don't see these kinds of pitchers with the sissified version of the game you seem to enjoy.

Joel Perez
11-07-2001, 02:57 PM
Last time I looked...as long as the ballplayer was on your team, you can use them in whatever the manager sees fit, right? I mean come on, even pitchers bat!

What Bob Brenly did was roll the dice and won. I applaud him for that...whether the D-Backs "brought" the team or not.

We should commend them for what nads they have shelling out the big $$$ to commit for the short term, and to work on the long term as well. Now, FA's are sure to view Arizona as an up-and-coming team to play for years to come.

Too bad our Sox management can't even attempt to commit to that.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by idseer


then you lose bmr. at least check before you start slinging mud.

in the 60's ALONE:
1968 matlock and holtzman 3 games each
1967 lolich and gibson 3 games each
1965 gibson and lonborg 3 games each
1964 koufax and grant 3 games each
1962 ford and sanford 3 games each
1960 law 3 games

the only reason there aren't more is because these are the only series that went 7 games!
and prior to the 60's pitchers went longer, pitched more innings, and way more games than anyone comes close to today.

and your right about this not being the 60's anymore. you don't see these kinds of pitchers with the sissified version of the game you seem to enjoy.

LOL!!! so they did it in the 1960's, so what? It was a trend. The fact is, RARELY have pitchers started 3 games in the world series. Not to mention, there are actually PLAYOFFS now, and the season is 162 games long. The pitchers today dont pitch 3 games in 7, nor have they in the history of baseball, in general.

idseer
11-07-2001, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


LOL!!! so they did it in the 1960's, so what? It was a trend. The fact is, RARELY have pitchers started 3 games in the world series. Not to mention, there are actually PLAYOFFS now, and the season is 162 games long. The pitchers today dont pitch 3 games in 7, nor have they in the history of baseball, in general.

LOL yourself! what can i say to an ignorant reply like this?

anyone can look up the facts bmr, but apparently you don't let facts get in your way.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Joel Perez
Last time I looked...as long as the ballplayer was on your team, you can use them in whatever the manager sees fit, right? I mean come on, even pitchers bat!

What Bob Brenly did was roll the dice and won. I applaud him for that...whether the D-Backs "brought" the team or not.

We should commend them for what nads they have shelling out the big $$$ to commit for the short term, and to work on the long term as well. Now, FA's are sure to view Arizona as an up-and-coming team to play for years to come.

Too bad our Sox management can't even attempt to commit to that.


i applaud brenly too. it worked. On the other hand, if you want baseball to be a team game, and have the best team actually win, you should be allowed to count on 2 players to contribute 50 percent to the outcome of the world series.

Iwritecode
11-07-2001, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


LOL!!! so they did it in the 1960's, so what? It was a trend. The fact is, RARELY have pitchers started 3 games in the world series. Not to mention, there are actually PLAYOFFS now, and the season is 162 games long. The pitchers today dont pitch 3 games in 7, nor have they in the history of baseball, in general.

You do what you have to do to win. Who cares if it goes against what's "normal"?

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by idseer


LOL yourself! what can i say to an ignorant reply like this?

anyone can look up the facts bmr, but apparently you don't let facts get in your way.

of course i dont. I dont need to look up anything. I have a memory. Pitchers have rarely started 3 times in a world series. Thats a fact.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


You do what you have to do to win. Who cares if it goes against what's "normal"?

because it will destroy the game of baseball.......

Iwritecode
11-07-2001, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



i applaud brenly too. it worked. On the other hand, if you want baseball to be a team game, and have the best team actually win, you should be allowed to count on 2 players to contribute 50 percent to the outcome of the world series.

That "team" had to get to the playoff's in the first place. Then make it through to get to the WS. How many guys on those 2 rosters didn't play at all? Or maybe only played 1 or 2 innings? The rule where "everyone has to play" ended in little league. Quit whining...

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


That "team" had to get to the playoff's in the first place. Then make it through to get to the WS. How many guys on those 2 rosters didn't play at all? Or maybe only played 1 or 2 innings? The rule where "everyone has to play" ended in little league. Quit whining...


Im not whining. I simply asked if it was fair. Then, as usual, everyone disagreed with my opinion. Gee, what a surprise. Anyway, just because you dont agree with me, doesnt mean that im not right. Im right quite often....... :)

Iwritecode
11-07-2001, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


because it will destroy the game of baseball.......

What, you really think that all the teams are going to look at the D-Backs and say "gee, if I get 2 dominant pitchers and a average team behind them, I can win the world series!"

There aren't enough pitchers that good to go around. Schilling pitching 3 games in 1 World Series isn't going to destroy the game.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


What, you really think that all the teams are going to look at the D-Backs and say "gee, if I get 2 dominant pitchers and a average team behind them, I can win the world series!"

There aren't enough pitchers that good to go around. Schilling pitching 3 games in 1 World Series isn't going to destroy the game.


YES! I do think that......

Iwritecode
11-07-2001, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



YES! I do think that......

Ah ha! There's your problem. I doubt the owners are thinking that. Plus, see what I said above, there aren't enough pitchers to go around.

The Yankees have 4.
D-backs have 2.
Pedro.
Maddux?

It's a very short list of pitchers who I would even think of using 3 games.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


Ah ha! There's your problem. I doubt the owners are thinking that. Plus, see what I said above, there aren't enough pitchers to go around.

The Yankees have 4.
D-backs have 2.
Pedro.
Maddux?

It's a very short list of pitchers who I would even think of using 3 games.


dude i didnt say all teams are gonna do it. It only takes one team a year to buy a title....if u can do it with 2 players, like arizona did, it will destroy the game...

Iwritecode
11-07-2001, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



dude i didnt say all teams are gonna do it. It only takes one team a year to buy a title....if u can do it with 2 players, like arizona did, it will destroy the game...

I can kinda see your point, but I don't think it will happen. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm out for now. Later.

Nellie_Fox
11-07-2001, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


I dont need to look up anything. I have a memory. Pitchers have rarely started 3 times in a world series. Thats a fact.

Once again, (as in the great 97 mph closer argument) people with whom you are debating offer concrete evidence to back up their arguments, and you dismiss the evidence, restate your opinion, and close with "that's a fact." The only thing about that statement that is "a fact" is that you are sticking to it, evidence be damned.

They show you numerous times it was done in just one decade (the 60's,) and you dismiss that as irrelevant because it's too long ago. However, it was before free agency, and done with players obtained the old-fashioned way.

You are sarcastically surprised that people argue with you. There would not be an argument if you would get over your tendency to stubbornly stick with your original position even when you've been proved wrong.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


Once again, (as in the great 97 mph closer argument) people with whom you are debating offer concrete evidence to back up their arguments, and you dismiss the evidence, restate your opinion, and close with "that's a fact." The only thing about that statement that is "a fact" is that you are sticking to it, evidence be damned.

They show you numerous times it was done in just one decade (the 60's,) and you dismiss that as irrelevant because it's too long ago. However, it was before free agency, and done with players obtained the old-fashioned way.

You are sarcastically surprised that people argue with you. There would not be an argument if you would get over your tendency to stubbornly stick with your original position even when you've been proved wrong.


okay maybe you guys arent thinking clearly. Too much to drink last night? lol. anyway, how many years has baseball had a world series? answer that for me and then tell me how many times a pitcher has started 3 times in a world series, in the last 50 years???? VERY FEW. why in the hell would i admit im wrong cuz a few did it in one decade?? please......lol

Nellie_Fox
11-07-2001, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
answer that for me and then tell me how many times a pitcher has started 3 times in a world series, in the last 50 years???? VERY FEW.

Okay, you tell us? How many times has it been done? VERY FEW is not a very definitive answer. And if you don't know, then you are arguing your opinion, not facts.

idseer
11-07-2001, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


of course i dont. I dont need to look up anything. I have a memory. Pitchers have rarely started 3 times in a world series. Thats a fact.

add to the already posted info ..

1959 wynn (in only 6 games)
1958 spahn and burdette (same team even!) and turley
1957 burdette
1952 reynolds and black
1946 breechen (won 2 starts and a 3rd in relief)
1945 newhouser
1940 derringer and newsome
1934 d. dean
1931 grove and earnshaw
1930 earnshaw
1926 pennock
1925 johnson
1924 johnson
1923 pennock (2 wins 1 save)
1920 coveleski and grimes
1918 vaughn (in 6 games)
1917 cicotte
1912 bender (in 6 games)
1909 mullin and adams

you're dead wrong about your history bmr
in MOST of the 7 game series' at least one pitcher went 3 games!
the only reason i started in the 60's is that's how old my book is. 1973! i'm sure there were more after that.
i'd add also there were even MORE that made 3 or more appearances but i didn't include them because i didn't think the innings weer sufficient.

face the fact! todays pitchers don't have nearly the stamina pitchers used to exhibit. that doesn't mean there isn't the occassional exception like johnson and shilling.

Moses_Scurry
11-07-2001, 03:53 PM
Don't forget that there have only been three 7 game series in the last 14 years. How many games did Morris pitch in '91?

Nellie_Fox
11-07-2001, 04:05 PM
I just started doing some more checking, and found at least one pitcher in every seven game series in the seventies who made three appearances:
71 McNally
72 Holtzman
73 Holtzman
75 Tiant
79 Flanagan

I'm not going to keep looking for the 80s and 90s, as there has been far more than enough evidence to prove that not only is it not true that three appearance is rare, it is true that it is extremely common in seven game World Series.

Anyone else want to keep digging, be my guest. (http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Track/4222/)

By the way, Morris started games 1, 4 and 7 in '91, including a complete game 10 inning job in game 7.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
I just started doing some more checking, and found at least one pitcher in every seven game series in the seventies who made three appearances:
71 McNally
72 Holtzman
73 Holtzman
75 Tiant
79 Flanagan

I'm not going to keep looking for the 80s and 90s, as there has been far more than enough evidence to prove that not only is it not true that three appearance is rare, it is true that it is extremely common in seven game World Series.

Anyone else want to keep digging, be my guest. (http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Track/4222/)

By the way, Morris started games 1, 4 and 7 in '91, including a complete game 10 inning job in game 7.

okay maybe it happened more times than i realized, but your point is mute. Back then in the early part of the century, pitchers pitched both ends of a doubleheader. In addition, all those players were before free agency. its a whole new ballgame now. You can buy a championship. Why are we talking about guys in the 1920s and 1970s?? In my lifetime, its been very rare.

fuzzy_patters
11-07-2001, 04:34 PM
BMR, you're just plain wrong. The only reason they don't throw three games very often is because the WS rarely goes seven games. Since 1991 only three WS have gone 7 games. Of those six WS participants, 1/2 started the same pitcher 3 games. Those pitchers are Jack Morris vs Tom Glavine in 91, and Curt Schilling this year.

FarWestChicago
11-07-2001, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
BMR, you're just plain wrong. The only reason they don't throw three games very often is because the WS rarely goes seven games. Since 1991 only three WS have gone 7 games. Of those six WS participants, 1/2 started the same pitcher 3 games. Those pitchers are Jack Morris vs Tom Glavine in 91, and Curt Schilling this year. One other factor is the addition of the LCS and LDS. They can mess up your rotation as far as getting the stud lined up for game 1.

Daver
11-07-2001, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


You do what you have to do to win. Who cares if it goes against what's "normal"?

IWC it is not a good idea to go against


.

National
Organization for the
Reform of
Marijuana
Laws

Spiff
11-07-2001, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by daver


IWC it is not a good idea to go against


.

National
Organization for the
Reform of
Marijuana
Laws

lol yeh they might womp you over the head with one of their birkenstocks.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
BMR, you're just plain wrong. The only reason they don't throw three games very often is because the WS rarely goes seven games. Since 1991 only three WS have gone 7 games. Of those six WS participants, 1/2 started the same pitcher 3 games. Those pitchers are Jack Morris vs Tom Glavine in 91, and Curt Schilling this year.


okay maybe i am wrong, on that point, but i had fun. :)

Nellie_Fox
11-07-2001, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


okay maybe it happened more times than i realized, but your point is mute.

The point was hardly mute, as it has taken up five pages. And your final concession means it wasn't moot either.

KempersRS
11-07-2001, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


The point was hardly mute, as it has taken up five pages. And your final concession means it wasn't moot either.

LMAO, I knew Nellie would come up with something witty. :)

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


The point was hardly mute, as it has taken up five pages. And your final concession means it wasn't moot either.


LOL!!! Nellie go have a beer or something, youre WAY too uptight! :) Ps anytime you want to have a spelling contest with me, let me know... :)

Nellie_Fox
11-07-2001, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



LOL!!! Nellie go have a beer or something, youre WAY too uptight! :) Ps anytime you want to have a spelling contest with me, let me know... :)

I'm having a beer right now. Better check with people who know me before challenging me to a spelling contest. Believe me, you'd lose.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


I'm having a beer right now. Better check with people who know me before challenging me to a spelling contest. Believe me, you'd lose.


I never lose.....

Daver
11-07-2001, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


I'm having a beer right now. Better check with people who know me before challenging me to a spelling contest. Believe me, you'd lose.

Can I challenge you in a marksmanship contest?

:)

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by daver


Can I challenge you in a marksmanship contest?

:)


well, i may lose at that..... :)

KempersRS
11-07-2001, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



I never lose.....

You lost the argument that was in this thread about pitchers in a 7 game series and you admited it too.

Nellie_Fox
11-07-2001, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by daver


Can I challenge you in a marksmanship contest?

:)

It's just been this week that my blown up finger has been strong enough to pull the trigger again. I'm scraping together the bucks to buy replacement cowboy revolvers right now, and I'll probably be flinching like a madman when I resume shooting. I was only a middle of the pack shooter before my gun blew up; I'll probably be the pits now.....lol.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS


You lost the argument that was in this thread about pitchers in a 7 game series and you admited it too.


oh wait! Lets start over! you guys didnt tell me that was a competition!! :)

Daver
11-07-2001, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox


It's just been this week that my blown up finger has been strong enough to pull the trigger again. I'm scraping together the bucks to buy replacement cowboy revolvers right now, and I'll probably be flinching like a madman when I resume shooting. I was only a middle of the pack shooter before my gun blew up; I'll probably be the pits now.....lol.

I will allow you to substitute a bow for a gun Nellie.

:)

Nellie_Fox
11-07-2001, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by daver


I will allow you to substitute a bow for a gun Nellie.

:)

The last time I used a bow, the arrows had rubber suction cups on the tips.

Jerry_Manuel
11-07-2001, 09:58 PM
May I cut in? Thank you.

I was going to ask if there was anyway that we could get a smiley face that does not rotate? When there are 3 or 4 of them in a row (as in consecutive posts) you can get dizzy. There I said it, I had to get that off my chest. I use those smiley faces but I'm not a fan of them. Ok with that being said let the record show I won my 2nd and 3rd grade spelling bee. I know it doesn't mean anything but what the hell, I won something.

KempersRS
11-07-2001, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
May I cut in? Thank you.

I was going to ask if there was anyway that we could get a smiley face that does not rotate? When there are 3 or 4 of them in a row (as in consecutive posts) you can get dizzy. There I said it, I had to get that off my chest. I use those smiley faces but I'm not a fan of them. Ok with that being said let the record show I won my 2nd and 3rd grade spelling bee. I know it doesn't mean anything but what the hell, I won something.

LOL, you waited this long to say something? I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but I try to include them so people understand when I am kidding around. And as long as we are on the subject...I won stuff too.

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
May I cut in? Thank you.

I was going to ask if there was anyway that we could get a smiley face that does not rotate? When there are 3 or 4 of them in a row (as in consecutive posts) you can get dizzy. There I said it, I had to get that off my chest. I use those smiley faces but I'm not a fan of them. Ok with that being said let the record show I won my 2nd and 3rd grade spelling bee. I know it doesn't mean anything but what the hell, I won something.

lol, well its safe to say rio didnt win any spelling contests....

Jerry_Manuel
11-07-2001, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
oh wait! Lets start over! you guys didnt tell me that was a competition!!

:reinsy
Yes, same here just wipe out the 21 years I've owned the team and watch me go!

Jerry_Manuel
11-07-2001, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS
LOL, you waited this long to say something

Yeah I'm thinking I should have said something sooner.

Daver
11-07-2001, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS


LOL, you waited this long to say something? I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but I try to include them so people understand when I am kidding around. And as long as we are on the subject...I won stuff too.

I win every time I come back from the woods with food for the family.

But then again what the hell do I know? ©

Bmr31
11-07-2001, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by daver


I win every time I come back from the woods with food for the family.

But then again what the hell do I know? ©



I win every morning i wake up.....

Spiff
11-08-2001, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31




I win every morning i wake up.....

yeh and we lose


:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Bmr31
11-10-2001, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


yeh and we lose


:) :) :) :) :) :) :)


lol, are you sure about that whitesox00? :)

Jerry_Manuel
11-10-2001, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
lol, are you sure about that whitesox00?

I'm sure that the next time I see 7 smiley faces in a post like Wh1tesox00 had I'm going to throw my computer monitor at a wall.

doublem23
11-10-2001, 06:49 PM
Wow... I'm getty a tad dizzy.

:) :) :)
:) :) :)
:) :) :)

KempersRS
11-10-2001, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I'm sure that the next time I see 7 smiley faces in a post like Wh1tesox00 had I'm going to throw my computer monitor at a wall.

LOL Jer. You really aren't a fan of those smileys. They are a little annoying, but I don't think I have the same hate you have for them.
:)
:) :)
:) :) :)
:) :)
:)

Jerry_Manuel
11-10-2001, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS
LOL Jer. You really aren't a fan of those smileys. They are a little annoying, but I don't think I have the same hate you have for them.


It's not that I don't like them it's just that people go overboard with them.

Jerry_Manuel
11-10-2001, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Wow... I'm getty a tad dizzy.

:( :( :(
:( :( :(
:( :( :(

That's better.

doublem23
11-10-2001, 06:53 PM
Oh, man, I'm gonna puke.

Bmr31
11-10-2001, 11:02 PM
haha jerry i knew you would love all those smiley faces!

Jerry_Manuel
11-10-2001, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
haha jerry i knew you would love all those smiley faces!

Oh yeah BMR I just can't get enough of them.

Bmr31
11-11-2001, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Oh yeah BMR I just can't get enough of them.


kkkkkk :) :) :)

Bmr31
11-16-2001, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31



kkkkkk :) :) :)


Hey Jerry, maybe you can get west to limit the smiley face option to one?

Jerry_Manuel
11-16-2001, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Hey Jerry, maybe you can get west to limit the smiley face option to one?

That would be sweet, but unfair.

Bmr31
11-21-2001, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


That would be sweet, but unfair.


im really confused. Why did i get nominated for least likely to let a topic go??

Bmr31
11-21-2001, 01:26 PM
so who do you think will be the next team to buy a championship? the yanks?

Iwritecode
11-21-2001, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
so who do you think will be the next team to buy a championship? the yanks?

AHA! trying to fool us by getting back to the original topic huh?



I vote for the Rangers. The owner has plenty of money and they've already got a good start.



:payrod
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Spiff
11-21-2001, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I'm sure that the next time I see 7 smiley faces in a post like Wh1tesox00 had I'm going to throw my computer monitor at a wall.

lol i didn't realize i was the one who brought out jerry's anger toward the smilies.

funny how i have that affect on people.

Bmr31
11-21-2001, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


lol i didn't realize i was the one who brought out jerry's anger toward the smilies.

funny how i have that affect on people.

oh jerry will get over it.....

Bmr31
11-21-2001, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


AHA! trying to fool us by getting back to the original topic huh?



I vote for the Rangers. The owner has plenty of money and they've already got a good start.



:payrod
I have no idea what you are talking about.


hmmm but dont ya think they have too much money tied up on arod to buy a championship?

Iwritecode
11-26-2001, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
hmmm but dont ya think they have too much money tied up on arod to buy a championship?

It's possible. You wouldn't think that an owner would be that stupid to blow his entire wad on one player and not leave any money left for any other decent players. But may be exactly what he did...

Bmr31
11-26-2001, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


It's possible. You wouldn't think that an owner would be that stupid to blow his entire wad on one player and not leave any money left for any other decent players. But may be exactly what he did...


i think he was hoping to fill the stadium with people everynight...

LongDistanceFan
11-26-2001, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



i think he was hoping to fill the stadium with people everynight... either way........... he has plenty of money and i don't know what is on his mind.............. unless he thought he was closer to the championship than they really were.

Jerry_Manuel
11-26-2001, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00
lol i didn't realize i was the one who brought out jerry's anger toward the smilies.

funny how i have that affect on people.


It wasn't you,
Yes it is funny.