OT: The Yankees
Posted by Dpperk29
OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Dpperk29 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 17, 2005 07:22PM
here's a question
what is wrong with the Yankees this year?
they are what, 4-8 or something... not very good
but the Sox are doing good, so who cares about the yanks
what is wrong with the Yankees this year?
they are what, 4-8 or something... not very good
but the Sox are doing good, so who cares about the yanks
___________________________
"That damn bell at Clarkson." -Ken Dryden in reference to his hatred for the Clarkson Bell.
"That damn bell at Clarkson." -Ken Dryden in reference to his hatred for the Clarkson Bell.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 17, 2005 08:59PM
Yes, but if the Yankees 4-8 was more like 8-4, would the Sox 7-5 still be "doing good (well)?" Eh, but that's just the antagonizing Yankee fan in me needing a winning streak to help pull me out of the sports-fan funk I've been in since Minnesota. They'll pull out of it soon (please God) because they know that too much more of this, and I'm going to lose it. Is it football season yet so I can watch the Giants lose? Or better yet, NHL season so my Rang-...eh, nevermind, this is getting depressing. Let's Go Yankees.
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: peterg (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 17, 2005 09:40PM
They'll be fine, although they are relying on some "old arms" this year. They are also built to win with the long ball. Keep them from hitting homers, and they don't seem to score much.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Kyle Rose (---.krose.org)
Date: April 17, 2005 09:51PM
[Q]peterg Wrote:
They are also built to win with the long ball. Keep them from hitting homers, and they don't seem to score much.[/q]
I'd personally like to see them play a real offensive game instead of this "Let's win with 4 home runs" crap they typically run with. It's effective over the long haul, but not terribly consistent, as we saw in the 2004 ALCS.
LGY!
Kyle
They are also built to win with the long ball. Keep them from hitting homers, and they don't seem to score much.[/q]
I'd personally like to see them play a real offensive game instead of this "Let's win with 4 home runs" crap they typically run with. It's effective over the long haul, but not terribly consistent, as we saw in the 2004 ALCS.
LGY!
Kyle
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: April 17, 2005 10:08PM
Ugh. As if I don't hear enough about the Yanks and Sox EVERYWHERE ELSE, it's here now too? 
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Will (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: April 17, 2005 10:20PM
Um...Let's Go Mets! 
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: April 17, 2005 10:33PM
Come on. It's April 17. Anyone who thinks a 4-8 record in April is reason to panic needs to reflect on the nature of the baseball season. If the team is still playing .333 ball in June then we'll have something to talk about.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Give My Regards (---.oracorp.com)
Date: April 17, 2005 11:18PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Anyone who thinks a 4-8 record in April is reason to panic needs to reflect on the nature of the baseball season.[/q]
... and, right on cue, George Steinbrenner blows a gasket.
[sportsillustrated.cnn.com]
Anyone who thinks a 4-8 record in April is reason to panic needs to reflect on the nature of the baseball season.[/q]
... and, right on cue, George Steinbrenner blows a gasket.
[sportsillustrated.cnn.com]
___________________________
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
If you lead a good life, go to Sunday school and church, and say your prayers every night, when you die, you'll go to LYNAH!
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 17, 2005 11:26PM
As a Yankee hater, I have to admit this is way too early to be a problem yet. The team is too good and paid way to much to stay this low. They've played 6 games against the Sox and 6 against the offensively potent O's (Palmero, Roberst, Sosa, Mora, Tejada). There's a WCHA effect here. Poor record against two teams that are looking to be serious contenders.
That said, I am thoroughly enjoying all the comments, jokes, and George blowing a gasket. First time in ages that WFAN is talking about the Yankees talking lessons from my Mets. Thoroughly exhilarating
That said, I am thoroughly enjoying all the comments, jokes, and George blowing a gasket. First time in ages that WFAN is talking about the Yankees talking lessons from my Mets. Thoroughly exhilarating
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 17, 2005 11:28PM
You know Grant, we're just having a little fun here. Besides, checking the site every 20 min and seeing no new responses is incredibly detrimental to my procrastination, and I demand to be distracted!
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: April 17, 2005 11:31PM
[Q]BCrespi Wrote:
You know Grant, we're just having a little fun here. Besides, checking the site every 20 min and seeing no new responses is incredibly detrimental to my procrastination, and I demand to be distracted![/q]
My completely irrational hatred for baseball often drives me to rash acts.
Now excuse me, I have to go to GNC to get ready for intramural softball...
You know Grant, we're just having a little fun here. Besides, checking the site every 20 min and seeing no new responses is incredibly detrimental to my procrastination, and I demand to be distracted![/q]
My completely irrational hatred for baseball often drives me to rash acts.
Now excuse me, I have to go to GNC to get ready for intramural softball...
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 12:32AM
IM softball is the only thing keeping me going right now. Best part of my week hands down. The Master Batters are going all the way.
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Avash (---.psych.cornell.edu)
Date: April 18, 2005 01:05AM
Just so you all know: The Reds are going to win the NL wild card and go to the World Series this year.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 02:00AM
If only they had a couple guys to throw the ball to the plate, you might be right. Until then, not now, not in that division.
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 04:44PM
I am sure the Yankees will snap out of it, but in the mean time I will enjoy am this slump which has taken over almost the entire team. Watching E-Rod blow plays is particularly amusing after his girly antics in the ALCS. In the mean time, the Sox are starting to click so I baseball is good right now.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 04:53PM
Wow, I agree with your sentiment, but your grammar is something else entirely 
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: jbeaber1998 (---.MCB.Berkeley.EDU)
Date: April 18, 2005 05:13PM
I agree, fun to watch the Yanks flounder but it likely is a temporary thing. I love the fact that the A-Rod antiperspirant ad is being shown constantly. Look at the lights at the end. Someone involved was a Red Sox fan....
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 05:42PM
Sorry about that. I reworded a couple of sentences and didn't realize that I had not erased everything.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 06:30PM
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: April 18, 2005 06:57PM
[Q]BCrespi Wrote:
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
I would hope that the other guy's empty net shot rolls wide and we tie the game with 30 seconds left and win it in OT.
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
I would hope that the other guy's empty net shot rolls wide and we tie the game with 30 seconds left and win it in OT.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 08:18PM
Cheating was the right thing to do? Total bull. He broke the rules and did so intentionally. Tried to cheat his way to a basehit?
ARod's actions were not within the lines of the rules, even general baseball behavior. It'd be one thing to run into a guy, which is legal in the baselines, it's another to try to slap the ball out of his glove.
For the hockey analogy, it'd be one thing to dive to block anything you can, even hook, which is within the realm of normal hockey behavior. It'd be an entirely different thing to take your stick and toss it in front of the net to try to block a shot. That's low class, against the rules,and results in it being called a goal anyway. Just like ARod's low class, illegal, and penalized move.
And no, if Down's or anyone else punched or maimed a guy to prevent a goal, they deserve and would receive all sorts of criticism. There's a line that you do not cross and ARod crossed it from playing hard, into being a whiny pansy cheater.
Take off your pinstriped glasses - not 'anything is okay' just because you tried to help your team. So goes for Cornell, they should do everything they can, but punching, maiming, etc, is just wrong. You can no more justify ARod's interference in the flow of the game then you can justify the Sox fan who interfered with Sheffield this weekend. You cannot interefere to get what you want, fan, athlete, or anyone else - plain and simple.
ARod's actions were not within the lines of the rules, even general baseball behavior. It'd be one thing to run into a guy, which is legal in the baselines, it's another to try to slap the ball out of his glove.
For the hockey analogy, it'd be one thing to dive to block anything you can, even hook, which is within the realm of normal hockey behavior. It'd be an entirely different thing to take your stick and toss it in front of the net to try to block a shot. That's low class, against the rules,and results in it being called a goal anyway. Just like ARod's low class, illegal, and penalized move.
And no, if Down's or anyone else punched or maimed a guy to prevent a goal, they deserve and would receive all sorts of criticism. There's a line that you do not cross and ARod crossed it from playing hard, into being a whiny pansy cheater.
Take off your pinstriped glasses - not 'anything is okay' just because you tried to help your team. So goes for Cornell, they should do everything they can, but punching, maiming, etc, is just wrong. You can no more justify ARod's interference in the flow of the game then you can justify the Sox fan who interfered with Sheffield this weekend. You cannot interefere to get what you want, fan, athlete, or anyone else - plain and simple.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2005 08:21PM by DeltaOne81.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Will (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 08:19PM
[Q]BCrespi Wrote:
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
Someone's touchy...
You're right, A-Rod made the right move. But that doesn't make the move any less agaisnt the rules, and the umpires absolutely made the right call to call him out on interference. Similarly, in your scenario, if Downs has to obstruct, interfere, clutch, grab, hook, or even slap to stop the play, yeah it's the right move at the time, but that shouldn't stop the referee from calling a penalty on Downs. Of course I wouldn't like it and I would probably be angry over it, but I would understand the call and begrudgingly have to agree with the referee's call. And, as a sports fan, I'd have to put up with the barbs and the insults and the jokes, because I know I can take it as well as I can dish it out. That's the nature of sports fandom in this country, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Therefore, A-Rod will always be Slap Happy in my mind.
Think of it this way. A-Rod's allegedly girly antics in the 2004 ALCS and his team's subsequent choke job still doesn't take away from the Yankees' 26 World Series championships, the most by a wide margin in baseball. So quit complaining and enjoy your team's laurels. In the meantime, I'll watch my Mets, await their inevitable seasonal choke job, and drink myself into a stupor until hockey season begins again. 
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
Someone's touchy...
You're right, A-Rod made the right move. But that doesn't make the move any less agaisnt the rules, and the umpires absolutely made the right call to call him out on interference. Similarly, in your scenario, if Downs has to obstruct, interfere, clutch, grab, hook, or even slap to stop the play, yeah it's the right move at the time, but that shouldn't stop the referee from calling a penalty on Downs. Of course I wouldn't like it and I would probably be angry over it, but I would understand the call and begrudgingly have to agree with the referee's call. And, as a sports fan, I'd have to put up with the barbs and the insults and the jokes, because I know I can take it as well as I can dish it out. That's the nature of sports fandom in this country, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Therefore, A-Rod will always be Slap Happy in my mind.
Think of it this way. A-Rod's allegedly girly antics in the 2004 ALCS and his team's subsequent choke job still doesn't take away from the Yankees' 26 World Series championships, the most by a wide margin in baseball. So quit complaining and enjoy your team's laurels.
In the meantime, I'll watch my Mets, await their inevitable seasonal choke job, and drink myself into a stupor until hockey season begins again. ___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Will (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 08:27PM
It's the off-season. Everything off-topic is fair game now.
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Tub(a) (---.music.cornell.edu)
Date: April 18, 2005 08:29PM
[Q]Will Wrote:
It's the off-season. Everything off-topic is fair game now.[/q]
I was just proud of myself figuring out the <img> tag
It's the off-season. Everything off-topic is fair game now.[/q]
I was just proud of myself figuring out the <img> tag
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 08:49PM
The Yankees put 13 across in the 2nd inning tonight. For those of us who hate or love them, they've recovered. For those of us who don't care about them... we still don't care about them.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 09:31PM
And have given up 8 since to the Devil Rays. They'll almost certainly win but I wouldn't call it a night to feel great about after the second inning. I'm sure they'll take it though.
Re: OT: The Yankees/Mets
Posted by: Rich S (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 09:46PM
What lessons are Torre's Yankees supposed to be taking from Randolph's Mets?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Avash (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 09:53PM
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2005 09:54PM by Avash '05.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Rich S (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 09:57PM
that "photo" is old news. What's the point here?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 10:09PM
Hell if I know, Rich. Small ball I think was mainly the point. Didn't say I agreed. Just said I am marvelously amused listening to it.
Speaking of marvelously amused, that is also the point of the picture
Speaking of marvelously amused, that is also the point of the picture
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 10:31PM
[Q]Will Wrote:
BCrespi Wrote:
if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? [/Q]
You're right, A-Rod made the right move. But that doesn't make the move any less agaisnt the rules, and the umpires absolutely made the right call to call him out on interference. Similarly, in your scenario, if Downs has to obstruct, interfere, clutch, grab, hook, or even slap to stop the play, yeah it's the right move at the time, but that shouldn't stop the referee from calling a penalty on Downs.[/q]
In fact, he should probably call a penalty shot, which with the net empty means an automatic goal.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: mjh89 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: April 18, 2005 11:23PM
You gotta do what you gotta do to try to win the games. A-Rod was right when he said that it put the umps in a terrible position having to make that call in front of 55,000 screaming New Yorkers. It probably would have been classier to 'accept defeat' but thats what usually left for the Red Sox.
World Series since 1918:
Yankees: 26
Sox: 1
Go Yanks.
World Series since 1918:
Yankees: 26
Sox: 1
Go Yanks.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Dpperk29 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 11:26PM
That isnt neccessarily(sp?) a given. I have seen a empty net penalty shot be missed before. it was a technicality that the player didn't keep the puck moving forward the whole time. He actually lost it going across the blue line and had to go back for it, hence ending his attempt. but that was a PeeWee Game...
___________________________
"That damn bell at Clarkson." -Ken Dryden in reference to his hatred for the Clarkson Bell.
"That damn bell at Clarkson." -Ken Dryden in reference to his hatred for the Clarkson Bell.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: April 18, 2005 11:27PM
[Q]Rich S Wrote:
that "photo" is old news. What's the point here?[/q]
The point is that it's still hilarious
that "photo" is old news. What's the point here?[/q]
The point is that it's still hilarious
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 18, 2005 11:41PM
Only among Yanks fans is "not cheating" a sign of accepting defeat
Let me put it this way. I don't want my team going to the next level if for the rest of time it will be remembered as the time they cheated to get there.
If a Cornell forward in forechecking in OT, pushes a guy to the ice, gets the puck a scores, and the ref didn't see it, and every single college hockey fan for the rest of time refers to it as the game Cornell stole, is that really worth it? I would rather my team not get there than get there through dishonest means.
What about the 5th down game? The crowd around here at the moment sounds to me like it would have been appropriate, in fact preferable, to refuse to admit that mistake and to try to win it. Ridiculous. Believe it or not, there *is* something more important than winning. Or is that no longer true after about the $150 million mark?
Would Mantle or Gehrig or Ted Williams have tried to slap the ball out of someone's glove? Would Gretzsky or Lemieux try to mug a guy behind the refs back? Would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan try to cheat to win a title? There's something more to being a great player than wins and losses, it's playing the game right. Hockey has the Lady Byng trophy for a reason, and the Hobey Baker reflects those values as well. But apparently, in order to believe in a sense of fair play and sportsmanship, you have to have be looking at things from Red Sox biased perspective.
My tribute to Rich S
Let me put it this way. I don't want my team going to the next level if for the rest of time it will be remembered as the time they cheated to get there.
If a Cornell forward in forechecking in OT, pushes a guy to the ice, gets the puck a scores, and the ref didn't see it, and every single college hockey fan for the rest of time refers to it as the game Cornell stole, is that really worth it? I would rather my team not get there than get there through dishonest means.
What about the 5th down game? The crowd around here at the moment sounds to me like it would have been appropriate, in fact preferable, to refuse to admit that mistake and to try to win it. Ridiculous. Believe it or not, there *is* something more important than winning. Or is that no longer true after about the $150 million mark?
Would Mantle or Gehrig or Ted Williams have tried to slap the ball out of someone's glove? Would Gretzsky or Lemieux try to mug a guy behind the refs back? Would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan try to cheat to win a title? There's something more to being a great player than wins and losses, it's playing the game right. Hockey has the Lady Byng trophy for a reason, and the Hobey Baker reflects those values as well. But apparently, in order to believe in a sense of fair play and sportsmanship, you have to have be looking at things from Red Sox biased perspective.
My tribute to Rich S
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2005 11:55PM by DeltaOne81.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Will (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 19, 2005 12:26AM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
I would rather my team not get there than get there through dishonest means.[/q]
The attitude of a loser. Just kidding. I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I also think it's naive to believe that in this day and age (perhaps in any age), a team can achieve a national/world championship while still doing every single thing completely fairly and honorably 100% of the time, partially since what is considered fair and honorable changes from person to person. Some, perhaps most, of these abuses will be unnoticed, overlooked, or just ignored. The question is how much a team believes they can get away with, whether it's slapping a ball out of someone's hand or tackling a player on a breakaway or using steroids or having the visitors use a small, uncomfortable locker room. That being said, with regard to what the rules say, the team has no right to complain if they get caught and penalized for the offense in question. Is all of this what competitive sports should be about? Probably not, but I believe it to be the reality of the times, likely reflective of my already dim view of humanity at large. Argue against me if you want--it's not like I have substantial proof to back up my claims. I'll still believe the worst humanity has to offer will reign for some time to come, including within the sports world.
I would rather my team not get there than get there through dishonest means.[/q]
The attitude of a loser.
Just kidding. I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I also think it's naive to believe that in this day and age (perhaps in any age), a team can achieve a national/world championship while still doing every single thing completely fairly and honorably 100% of the time, partially since what is considered fair and honorable changes from person to person. Some, perhaps most, of these abuses will be unnoticed, overlooked, or just ignored. The question is how much a team believes they can get away with, whether it's slapping a ball out of someone's hand or tackling a player on a breakaway or using steroids or having the visitors use a small, uncomfortable locker room. That being said, with regard to what the rules say, the team has no right to complain if they get caught and penalized for the offense in question. Is all of this what competitive sports should be about? Probably not, but I believe it to be the reality of the times, likely reflective of my already dim view of humanity at large. Argue against me if you want--it's not like I have substantial proof to back up my claims. I'll still believe the worst humanity has to offer will reign for some time to come, including within the sports world.___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.carlsl01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:17AM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
Only among Yanks fans is "not cheating" a sign of accepting defeat
[/q]
Nothing like the time-honored activity of generalization...
[q]
Believe it or not, there *is* something more important than winning. Or is that no longer true after about the $150 million mark?
[/q]
I guess I'd consider this a "cheap shot" if I found it offensive in some way. In reality, it's merely throwing something in that has nothing to do with the argument- all for the sake of...well...God knows (attempted cleverness?).
[q]
Would Mantle or Gehrig or Ted Williams have tried to slap the ball out of someone's glove? Would Gretzsky or Lemieux try to mug a guy behind the refs back? Would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan try to cheat to win a title? [/q]
These are all speculation, obviously (I can tell by the "Would"s and the "?"s), but I hope they wouldn't. Despite the fact that you felt the need to throw in a lot of gratuitous "potshots" or what have you, I think the point you make is relevant. Time will likely favor athletes without marks like that which A-Rod gave himself last fall. You can also throw me in the camp that believes the "slap" in question is not analogous to any (well...most) of those penalized NHL plays. MLB is quite different from hockey, football, and basketball where penalties/fouls are a regular occurance (even to the point where intentional incursion of them becomes an aspect of strategy). Minor infractions in baseball are a rarity, and that means their acceptance will always be hazardous at best. A-Rod undoubtedly knows this, and that is why what he did was worse than someone taking down a skater on a breakaway.
And on a parting shot, I always thought that the automatic goal resulting from the thrown stick/empty net situation was, indeed, automatic (no actual idiotic performance of an empty net penalty shot needed), despite what Dpperk29 witnessed at a peewee game. Hopefully someone who can navigate the rulebook quicker than I will clear this up.
Only among Yanks fans is "not cheating" a sign of accepting defeat
[/q]
Nothing like the time-honored activity of generalization...
[q]
Believe it or not, there *is* something more important than winning. Or is that no longer true after about the $150 million mark?
[/q]
I guess I'd consider this a "cheap shot" if I found it offensive in some way. In reality, it's merely throwing something in that has nothing to do with the argument- all for the sake of...well...God knows (attempted cleverness?).
[q]
Would Mantle or Gehrig or Ted Williams have tried to slap the ball out of someone's glove? Would Gretzsky or Lemieux try to mug a guy behind the refs back? Would Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan try to cheat to win a title? [/q]
These are all speculation, obviously (I can tell by the "Would"s and the "?"s), but I hope they wouldn't. Despite the fact that you felt the need to throw in a lot of gratuitous "potshots" or what have you, I think the point you make is relevant. Time will likely favor athletes without marks like that which A-Rod gave himself last fall. You can also throw me in the camp that believes the "slap" in question is not analogous to any (well...most) of those penalized NHL plays. MLB is quite different from hockey, football, and basketball where penalties/fouls are a regular occurance (even to the point where intentional incursion of them becomes an aspect of strategy). Minor infractions in baseball are a rarity, and that means their acceptance will always be hazardous at best. A-Rod undoubtedly knows this, and that is why what he did was worse than someone taking down a skater on a breakaway.
And on a parting shot, I always thought that the automatic goal resulting from the thrown stick/empty net situation was, indeed, automatic (no actual idiotic performance of an empty net penalty shot needed), despite what Dpperk29 witnessed at a peewee game. Hopefully someone who can navigate the rulebook quicker than I will clear this up.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2005 12:33AM by Jacob 03.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: April 19, 2005 06:38AM
[Q]Jacob 03 Wrote:
I always thought that the automatic goal resulting from the thrown stick/empty net situation was, indeed, automatic (no actual idiotic performance of an empty net penalty shot needed), despite what Dpperk29 witnessed at a peewee game. Hopefully someone who can navigate the rulebook quicker than I will clear this up. [/q]
I believe the rule in college used to be that the goalie got to come back for the penalty shot if the net had been empty, but they changed it recently to make it an automatic goal. I'd prefer that the team actually take the penalty shot on the empty net, but I don't think it was ever the college rule.
I always thought that the automatic goal resulting from the thrown stick/empty net situation was, indeed, automatic (no actual idiotic performance of an empty net penalty shot needed), despite what Dpperk29 witnessed at a peewee game. Hopefully someone who can navigate the rulebook quicker than I will clear this up. [/q]
I believe the rule in college used to be that the goalie got to come back for the penalty shot if the net had been empty, but they changed it recently to make it an automatic goal. I'd prefer that the team actually take the penalty shot on the empty net, but I don't think it was ever the college rule.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: peterg (---.bgdmlaw.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 09:19AM
[Q]BCrespi Wrote:
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
No, the right move at that point would have been to stop and make Arroyo come to him, assuring that the runner advance to second base. By interfering with the play, he was out anyway AND Jeter had to return to first base. Sorry, Rodriguez has a lot of positives, but THAT was not a good baseball play.
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
No, the right move at that point would have been to stop and make Arroyo come to him, assuring that the runner advance to second base. By interfering with the play, he was out anyway AND Jeter had to return to first base. Sorry, Rodriguez has a lot of positives, but THAT was not a good baseball play.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: kaelistus (---.mak.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 10:23AM
MJH89 - Oh oh.. I can play that game.. Let me pick a random year that fits my ideal insult:
2001 - Yankees 0.
I have to say, saying 26-6 makes the same point pretty well (Although its kinda a lame insult IMHO), why do so many yankee fans choose to bullshit the stats to make the discrepancy sound worse? It makes you look stupid.
In any case, I totally disagree with your AROD comment. A cheater is a cheater and it should not be tolerated or expected as "the right thing to do". If those are your moral values then I really have nothing else to say.
2001 - Yankees 0.
I have to say, saying 26-6 makes the same point pretty well (Although its kinda a lame insult IMHO), why do so many yankee fans choose to bullshit the stats to make the discrepancy sound worse? It makes you look stupid.
In any case, I totally disagree with your AROD comment. A cheater is a cheater and it should not be tolerated or expected as "the right thing to do". If those are your moral values then I really have nothing else to say.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: April 19, 2005 10:29AM
Yankees: 26
Red Sox: 6
Is that better? Really?
Red Sox: 6
Is that better? Really?
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: April 19, 2005 10:34AM
When my team does it, it's "competing." When your team does it, it's "cheating."
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 11:15AM
No, the *right* move (as in, legal and gving your team the best chance to win) would have been to steamroll Arroyo and hope that he dropped the ball.
I find it a stretch to say that what he did do was "cheating". It was interference and it got called. No difference from a hockey player hooking his man blatantly in front of the ref. We certainly don't call that cheating, just a penalty. What A-Rod did in the heat of the moment might have been dumb, but it wasn't cheating.
As for Fred's question about "Would Ted or Mickey have done that?" How about we pick another all-time great. What would Ty Cobb have done? He probably wouldn't have swatted at the glove in that situation. The old Peach probably would've run Arroyo over and then "happened" to stomp on his left hand as he continued on his way to first. Maybe stopping briefly to kick the fallen pitcher in the head. (No, I don't think this would constitute good sportsmanship or a good example. But the image of this in my head is too perfect to not post it. )
I find it a stretch to say that what he did do was "cheating". It was interference and it got called. No difference from a hockey player hooking his man blatantly in front of the ref. We certainly don't call that cheating, just a penalty. What A-Rod did in the heat of the moment might have been dumb, but it wasn't cheating.
As for Fred's question about "Would Ted or Mickey have done that?" How about we pick another all-time great. What would Ty Cobb have done? He probably wouldn't have swatted at the glove in that situation. The old Peach probably would've run Arroyo over and then "happened" to stomp on his left hand as he continued on his way to first. Maybe stopping briefly to kick the fallen pitcher in the head. (No, I don't think this would constitute good sportsmanship or a good example. But the image of this in my head is too perfect to not post it.
)
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: kaelistus (---.mak.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 11:20AM
CowbellGuy, That was my point in paragraph 3. Why lie your way around a stat when the real values convey the same message?
And Trotsky. I couldn't disagree more. I want my team to play a clean game. When my team cheats, I'd like to believe that I'd be criticizing it too.
And Trotsky. I couldn't disagree more. I want my team to play a clean game. When my team cheats, I'd like to believe that I'd be criticizing it too.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 11:39AM
[q]What about the 5th down game? The crowd around here at the moment sounds to me like it would have been appropriate, in fact preferable, to refuse to admit that mistake and to try to win it. Ridiculous. Believe it or not, there *is* something more important than winning. Or is that no longer true after about the $150 million mark?[/q]I don't think it would have been inappropriate for Cornell to have accepted the results of the 5th down game. It's not like Cornell was intentionally trying to confuse the referees so that they didn't know what down it was. (Or at least not in the story I've heard.) Things happened on the field and it wouldn't have been wrong to accept the results as they happened.
Now, in this particular instance the 5th down occurred at the end of the game and quite clearly influenced the outcome of the game. But what if the same thing had happened in the middle of the second quarter? Cornell scores on the next series and wins by less than a touchdown. Should we then offer to forfeit the game on that basis? Or ask for a do-over?
Lot's of incorrect calls are made in sports. Often the people involved know that the call is wrong. Have you ever seen a second baseman tell the umpire "No, he was safe. Missed the tag." Or a runner call himself out for leaving early on a sacrifice fly? No. The umpire makes the call - it's part of the game.
Cheating means: "To deceive by trickery; swindle" and " To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" (dictionary.com). Accepting a bad call is doing neither (though I leave it up to you to decide whether it is "To act dishonestly; practice fraud". Neither is committing a penalty in hockey or trying to knock the ball out of a fielder's glove in the heat of the moment.
Now, in this particular instance the 5th down occurred at the end of the game and quite clearly influenced the outcome of the game. But what if the same thing had happened in the middle of the second quarter? Cornell scores on the next series and wins by less than a touchdown. Should we then offer to forfeit the game on that basis? Or ask for a do-over?
Lot's of incorrect calls are made in sports. Often the people involved know that the call is wrong. Have you ever seen a second baseman tell the umpire "No, he was safe. Missed the tag." Or a runner call himself out for leaving early on a sacrifice fly? No. The umpire makes the call - it's part of the game.
Cheating means: "To deceive by trickery; swindle" and " To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" (dictionary.com). Accepting a bad call is doing neither (though I leave it up to you to decide whether it is "To act dishonestly; practice fraud"
. Neither is committing a penalty in hockey or trying to knock the ball out of a fielder's glove in the heat of the moment.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Drew (199.43.32.---)
Date: April 19, 2005 11:41AM
[Q]BCrespi Wrote:
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
No questions asked, he should have gone through Arroyo like shit through a goose....He should have pasted that toothpick....I was embarrassed for A-Rod....That could have been a defining moment for him as a Yank, whether he was out or safe.
Alright, that's it. I've had enough of this crap. A-Rod's slap was the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks differently, is just like one of those moronic Red Sox trying to take pot-shots at him (for reasons I don't know. What has he ever done to anyone? Seriously, besides make a great deal of money and, outside of a year and a week be the best player in the game.). Game is on the line, what are you gonna do? Just let yourself get tagged out? End your team's season? I mean, sure, it looked bad, especially because it was kind of a girl-like slapping motion, but that surely shouldn't be the point here. Here, to put it in this board's perspective, if our belived Red were down 2-1 with 50 sec to go in the ECACHL championship and we had McKee pulled and Cavanagh was racing in alone with only Downs chasing him, would you not expect him to do everything in his power, including tackling, punching, maiming, even slapping to keep his team alive? Of course we would. Get out behind your red(sox) tinted glasses and look at it from a serious baseball (sports?) perspective. It was the right play, and would only have been better had he lowered his shoulder and put Bronson (I have the strangest hair in the league) Arroyo into right field, but to his credit, Arroyo stayed out of the baseline. What would you really want him to do in that situation?[/q]
No questions asked, he should have gone through Arroyo like shit through a goose....He should have pasted that toothpick....I was embarrassed for A-Rod....That could have been a defining moment for him as a Yank, whether he was out or safe.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 01:44PM
I didn't realize I would spark such a debate with my E-Rod comments. My main point wasn't to show whether or not he cheated, but to show that he did it in such a childish, effeminant manner. I agree with some of the other posts that if someone is going to tag you out you either lower your shoulder and level the guy in the hopes that the ball will get knocked loose, or as in the case in the ALCS, get yourself into a pickle so the other runner(s) can advance while the fielders waste time trying to tag you out. I think the lack of support for A-Rod by his teammates in the media may support that he is not thought of as a true, hard-nosed Yankee like Jeter, Bernie, or Tito. Even we die-hard Sox fans have the utmost respect for these guys.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.host.starwoodhotels.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:11PM
[Q]cth95 Wrote:
hard-nosed Yankee like Jeter, Bernie, or Tito. [/q]
Puente or Jackson?
hard-nosed Yankee like Jeter, Bernie, or Tito. [/q]
Puente or Jackson?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:13PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Now, in this particular instance the 5th down occurred at the end of the game and quite clearly influenced the outcome of the game. But what if the same thing had happened in the middle of the second quarter? Cornell scores on the next series and wins by less than a touchdown. Should we then offer to forfeit the game on that basis? Or ask for a do-over?[/q]
What if we spiked the ball on 3rd (really 4th) down and scored a touchdown on the next play? And then went on to win the national championship?
Now, in this particular instance the 5th down occurred at the end of the game and quite clearly influenced the outcome of the game. But what if the same thing had happened in the middle of the second quarter? Cornell scores on the next series and wins by less than a touchdown. Should we then offer to forfeit the game on that basis? Or ask for a do-over?[/q]
What if we spiked the ball on 3rd (really 4th) down and scored a touchdown on the next play? And then went on to win the national championship?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:18PM
I was just thinking of current Yankees. Before anyone jumps on me, I meant Tino, not Tito.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:23PM
Of course you meant Tino. But you still wrote Tito.
The difference, of course, is that Jeter, Williams and Martinez all have a longer history with the team and have four rings. Rodriguez does not.
BTW - you can't get into a pickle when running to first base.
The difference, of course, is that Jeter, Williams and Martinez all have a longer history with the team and have four rings. Rodriguez does not.
BTW - you can't get into a pickle when running to first base.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:25PM
Yeah, Jacob, I threw in some potshots because I can't help it with the Yanks . I shouldn't, but I was just appalled that someone would defend it.
Let me explain what I think is one crucial difference here. There are two kinds of 'breaking the rules', whether we like it or not. There's breaking the rules in a way that is "typical" for the sport and for the flow of the game and then there's "bush league."
Hooking a guy on a breakaway or to the empty net, pulling down a guy of freezing the puck by falling on it, 'accidently' knocking off the net if you're pressured. Those are unfortunately (or often not even unfortunately) parts of the game of hockey. It's done, it's accepted. You do it, people do it, and they accept the results, you take your chances.
For baseball, similar things would be sliding too hard at a 2B/SS trying to turn the double play (or sliding at him even if not on the bag), not moving out of the way (or even moving into the way) of an inside pitch, diving somewhat out of the baseline to avoid a tag, occassional beanballs (sadly), maybe a few more.
Those are things that happen, and if you tune into watch a game and none of them happen, it's a surprisingly clean game.
Then there's bush league, which is exactly what ARod did. Slapping the ball out of the glove, using a corked bat or juiced ball, sandpaper, etc. I'd love to add steroids to this, but it'd unfortunately debatable where that falls today. It's things that you don't see, you shouldn't see, and are just downright bush league.
A hockey equivalent? How about a guy defending a 2 on 1 break, even against an empty net maybe, who dives at the puck carriers feet, grabs the puck and tosses it into the crowd? Hey, he was just doing whatever he had to do to win the game! No, bull. That's on the same level as the slap, because it is unsportsmanlike, inappropriate, and bush league.
It'd be one thing to try to get the puck away with your stick and another to grab it with your hand and chuck it away. You could argue that they're almost the same thing, but everyone who knows the sports knows that you just crossed a major line of behavior. Same thing with the difference between charging a defensive player in the baseline vs. slapping the ball away. It's dirty, ugly, cheap, and wrong.
As far as the 5th down game, let me clarify. I didn't mean that it would be wrong to not say a thing, I understand that. But, what I meant when I said "refuse to admit", was that when the other team and ref argue back, you deny it, say it's not true, even though you know you're wrong. Doing something that you *know* is wrong and not part of the game, just to try to win.
. I shouldn't, but I was just appalled that someone would defend it.
Let me explain what I think is one crucial difference here. There are two kinds of 'breaking the rules', whether we like it or not. There's breaking the rules in a way that is "typical" for the sport and for the flow of the game and then there's "bush league."
Hooking a guy on a breakaway or to the empty net, pulling down a guy of freezing the puck by falling on it, 'accidently' knocking off the net if you're pressured. Those are unfortunately (or often not even unfortunately) parts of the game of hockey. It's done, it's accepted. You do it, people do it, and they accept the results, you take your chances.
For baseball, similar things would be sliding too hard at a 2B/SS trying to turn the double play (or sliding at him even if not on the bag), not moving out of the way (or even moving into the way) of an inside pitch, diving somewhat out of the baseline to avoid a tag, occassional beanballs (sadly), maybe a few more.
Those are things that happen, and if you tune into watch a game and none of them happen, it's a surprisingly clean game.
Then there's bush league, which is exactly what ARod did. Slapping the ball out of the glove, using a corked bat or juiced ball, sandpaper, etc. I'd love to add steroids to this, but it'd unfortunately debatable where that falls today. It's things that you don't see, you shouldn't see, and are just downright bush league.
A hockey equivalent? How about a guy defending a 2 on 1 break, even against an empty net maybe, who dives at the puck carriers feet, grabs the puck and tosses it into the crowd? Hey, he was just doing whatever he had to do to win the game! No, bull. That's on the same level as the slap, because it is unsportsmanlike, inappropriate, and bush league.
It'd be one thing to try to get the puck away with your stick and another to grab it with your hand and chuck it away. You could argue that they're almost the same thing, but everyone who knows the sports knows that you just crossed a major line of behavior. Same thing with the difference between charging a defensive player in the baseline vs. slapping the ball away. It's dirty, ugly, cheap, and wrong.
As far as the 5th down game, let me clarify. I didn't mean that it would be wrong to not say a thing, I understand that. But, what I meant when I said "refuse to admit", was that when the other team and ref argue back, you deny it, say it's not true, even though you know you're wrong. Doing something that you *know* is wrong and not part of the game, just to try to win.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2005 02:30PM by DeltaOne81.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jerseygirl (---.knighttrading.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:34PM
who's "Tito?"
___________________________
[img src="[url]http://elf.elynah.com/file.php?0,file=56"[/url];]
[img src="[url]http://elf.elynah.com/file.php?0,file=56"[/url];]
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jerseygirl (---.knighttrading.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 02:34PM
Oh wow, there were a lot of posts while I was at my meeting...
___________________________
[img src="[url]http://elf.elynah.com/file.php?0,file=56"[/url];]
[img src="[url]http://elf.elynah.com/file.php?0,file=56"[/url];]
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 03:29PM
That's true in the case of 1st base since there is a force, but A-Rod could have made Bronson come after him or eventually throw to 1st and bought Jeter time.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Dpperk29 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 03:58PM
what if the ball blew up half way to a reciever? let's be reasonable
___________________________
"That damn bell at Clarkson." -Ken Dryden in reference to his hatred for the Clarkson Bell.
"That damn bell at Clarkson." -Ken Dryden in reference to his hatred for the Clarkson Bell.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 04:03PM
OK, and don't get too nuts here buddy, we're having a good-natured conversation about sports. I understand people get touchy with the Yankees, but that's just the way it goes.
OK, so here's a hypothetical. If a guy is attempting to stretch a single into a double and the shortstop receives the ball from the right fiedler slightly away from the bag, as he's diving to get back and make the tag his glove is exposed, and if the runner adjusts slightly he can slide hard into the glove, with a good chance at knocking the ball loose. Judging by your previous statement, i think you'd call this play fair, not "cheating" or "bush league" and I would indeed agree with you. This is a natural part of the game. This being said, I don't consider what A-Rod did to be incredibly different save the fact that he looked like a little bitch doing it (I think that's clear to everybody). The ump definitely made the right call, but I don't think he should be lambasted the way he has been.
I guess we all have our own opinoin of it and of course this can't be solved, but here's to a new baseball season. Either way, that can't be bad. And you know what, in most years I would never say this, but let's go Mets, too (at least until late October). I like their young players and am glad we have Pedro in the NY media market. Nothing but entertaining, that guy.
OK, so here's a hypothetical. If a guy is attempting to stretch a single into a double and the shortstop receives the ball from the right fiedler slightly away from the bag, as he's diving to get back and make the tag his glove is exposed, and if the runner adjusts slightly he can slide hard into the glove, with a good chance at knocking the ball loose. Judging by your previous statement, i think you'd call this play fair, not "cheating" or "bush league" and I would indeed agree with you. This is a natural part of the game. This being said, I don't consider what A-Rod did to be incredibly different save the fact that he looked like a little bitch doing it (I think that's clear to everybody). The ump definitely made the right call, but I don't think he should be lambasted the way he has been.
I guess we all have our own opinoin of it and of course this can't be solved, but here's to a new baseball season. Either way, that can't be bad. And you know what, in most years I would never say this, but let's go Mets, too (at least until late October). I like their young players and am glad we have Pedro in the NY media market. Nothing but entertaining, that guy.
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 04:38PM
[q]I don't consider what A-Rod did to be incredibly different save the fact that he looked like a little bitch doing it (I think that's clear to everybody). The ump definitely made the right call, but I don't think he should be lambasted the way he has been. [/q]It's not a big deal. If this play had happened in a June game between the Yanks and Red Sox it would've been talked about for a day or so and then forgotten. If it had happened in a June game between the Texas Rangers and Kansas City Royals it would've merited a five second clip halfway through SportsCenter. We're only talking about it because it happened late in a big game in October. Actually, I suspect we're only still talking about it because the Red Sox beat the Cardinals the following week.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 05:11PM
[Q]mjh89 Wrote:
World Series since 1918:
Yankees: 26
Sox: 1
Go Yanks.[/q]
World Series Titles since 2000:
Defending Champion Red Sox: 1
Yankees: 0
World Series since 1918:
Yankees: 26
Sox: 1
Go Yanks.[/q]
World Series Titles since 2000:
Defending Champion Red Sox: 1
Yankees: 0
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: ugarte (---.cisco.com)
Date: April 19, 2005 05:20PM
Delta: I do not want my teams to go gently into that offseason. Let's not treat a simple breach of the rules like the first step on the way to Gomorrah. (That said, my team has typically gently gone by the end of April.)
[q]Keith K wrote: If this play had happened in a June game between the Yanks and Red Sox it would've been talked about for a day or so and then forgotten.[/q]
Amen. I can't believe that the play gets this much attention. It was against the rules; the ump made the right call. End of story. (peterg is the only person who figured out a better solution for Rodriguez, but I'm not sure that momentum would have allowed A-Rod to make that choice.) The slap was no more or less illegal than the inexplicably accepted blocking the plate that catchers do all the time before the ball arrives or the serial rubbing out of the lines of the batters box.
If Arroyo were in the baseline, A-Rod would have nailed him; he wasn't, so A-Rod slapped at the glove. I'm not sure what was so fey about it. First, Arroyo dropped the ball, so if A-Rod was acting wimpy, Arroyo is the guy who really got punked. Second, he was running forward and had to bring his hand down on the glove. I don't know what else he could have done.
[q]Keith K wrote: If this play had happened in a June game between the Yanks and Red Sox it would've been talked about for a day or so and then forgotten.[/q]
Amen. I can't believe that the play gets this much attention. It was against the rules; the ump made the right call. End of story. (peterg is the only person who figured out a better solution for Rodriguez, but I'm not sure that momentum would have allowed A-Rod to make that choice.) The slap was no more or less illegal than the inexplicably accepted blocking the plate that catchers do all the time before the ball arrives or the serial rubbing out of the lines of the batters box.
If Arroyo were in the baseline, A-Rod would have nailed him; he wasn't, so A-Rod slapped at the glove. I'm not sure what was so fey about it. First, Arroyo dropped the ball, so if A-Rod was acting wimpy, Arroyo is the guy who really got punked. Second, he was running forward and had to bring his hand down on the glove. I don't know what else he could have done.
___________________________
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
quality tweets | bluesky (twitter 2) | ALAB Series podcast | Other podcasts and writing
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.no.no.cox.net)
Date: April 19, 2005 10:02PM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
For baseball, similar things would be sliding too hard at a 2B/SS trying to turn the double play (or sliding at him even if not on the bag), not moving out of the way (or even moving into the way) of an inside pitch, diving somewhat out of the baseline to avoid a tag, occassional beanballs (sadly), maybe a few more.
Those are things that happen, and if you tune into watch a game and none of them happen, it's a surprisingly clean game.
Then there's bush league, which is exactly what ARod did. Slapping the ball out of the glove, using a corked bat or juiced ball, sandpaper, etc. I'd love to add steroids to this, but it'd unfortunately debatable where that falls today. It's things that you don't see, you shouldn't see, and are just downright bush league.[/q]
How about freezing halfway between first and second when you're the lead out on a would-be inning-ending double play. then sticking your ass in front of the throw to first so the ball hits it and your teammate scores from third? And does it change anything if the shortstop dropped a line drive on purpose to make the double play? And is everyone else too young to remember what I'm talking about?
For baseball, similar things would be sliding too hard at a 2B/SS trying to turn the double play (or sliding at him even if not on the bag), not moving out of the way (or even moving into the way) of an inside pitch, diving somewhat out of the baseline to avoid a tag, occassional beanballs (sadly), maybe a few more.
Those are things that happen, and if you tune into watch a game and none of them happen, it's a surprisingly clean game.
Then there's bush league, which is exactly what ARod did. Slapping the ball out of the glove, using a corked bat or juiced ball, sandpaper, etc. I'd love to add steroids to this, but it'd unfortunately debatable where that falls today. It's things that you don't see, you shouldn't see, and are just downright bush league.[/q]
How about freezing halfway between first and second when you're the lead out on a would-be inning-ending double play. then sticking your ass in front of the throw to first so the ball hits it and your teammate scores from third? And does it change anything if the shortstop dropped a line drive on purpose to make the double play? And is everyone else too young to remember what I'm talking about?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.carlsl01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: April 19, 2005 10:19PM
You know, John, not being born at the time doesn't preclude one from hearing the story later on. Plus, Reggie Jackson stories are rather prevalent.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: BCrespi (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:25AM
You can consider those tickets for next year's playoffs as good as gone buddy.
(Not woofing, just being not funny, Gods)
(Not woofing, just being not funny, Gods)
___________________________
Brian Crespi '06
Brian Crespi '06
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 11:12AM
I guess it's a good thing you didn't know I was a Red Sox fan a month and a half ago.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: mjh89 (---.public.cornell.edu)
Date: April 20, 2005 11:32AM
Nothing more than a hic-up in a history of failure, my friend.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 12:07PM
Personally I think Jackson's actions were brilliant. Wasn't it more his hip than his ass though?
Dropping a line drive on purpose to set up a double play isn't even remotely cheating or unfair. It's part of the game. You take your chances that you can get both guys and not have the ball skitter away or make a bad throw. Somewhat risky (giving up the sure out) which is why you don't see it more often.
There's a similar play that I'd like to see try in the big leagues which I've gotten to work several times in my softball league. Playing third with runners on first and second and less than two outs ai intentionally let the ball drop after the umpire has called the infield fly rule. Often enough the guy at second thinks he has to run and you get an easy double play. Of course, I've also had the ball skip away (don't do it with a lefty - too much spin on a pop to the lleft side) giving the runners a free base. So you takes your chances...
Dropping a line drive on purpose to set up a double play isn't even remotely cheating or unfair. It's part of the game. You take your chances that you can get both guys and not have the ball skitter away or make a bad throw. Somewhat risky (giving up the sure out) which is why you don't see it more often.
There's a similar play that I'd like to see try in the big leagues which I've gotten to work several times in my softball league. Playing third with runners on first and second and less than two outs ai intentionally let the ball drop after the umpire has called the infield fly rule. Often enough the guy at second thinks he has to run and you get an easy double play. Of course, I've also had the ball skip away (don't do it with a lefty - too much spin on a pop to the lleft side) giving the runners a free base. So you takes your chances...
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 12:58PM
Live in 20th century history all you want. All that matters now is that I've celebrated a World Series title more recently than you. 
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:01PM
The correct application of the infield fly rule is to declare the batter out and the play effectively dead. If any runners go, the ump should simply instruct them to return to their bases.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:15PM
That's very much not how I learned the rule years ago and not how I've seen it applied and discussed through years. Looking at the official rule book (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/game_preliminaries_3.jsp) seems to verify your application though (6.05 l). Then again, I can't seem to even find the section where "Infield Fly" is defined; rule 6.05 makes two references to "Infield Fly" but doesn't define it.
It's entirely possible that either 1) the rule was changed at some point or 2) the way I learned it was wrong. Either way, this example points to an important lesson of Internet posting - before snapping back at someone for a post that you think is wrong (and I was pretty sure that Steve was wrong on this) check available online sources to be sure.
It's entirely possible that either 1) the rule was changed at some point or 2) the way I learned it was wrong. Either way, this example points to an important lesson of Internet posting - before snapping back at someone for a post that you think is wrong (and I was pretty sure that Steve was wrong on this) check available online sources to be sure.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:19PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Dropping a line drive on purpose to set up a double play isn't even remotely cheating or unfair. It's part of the game. You take your chances that you can get both guys and not have the ball skitter away or make a bad throw. Somewhat risky (giving up the sure out) which is why you don't see it more often.[/q]
It's not cheating but if the umpire judges it to be intentional, he has the option of ruling the batter out and the ball dead. Which is probably what should have happened on the Lopes/Jackson play. Of course, I was a Yankee fan at the time, so I was pretty happy with the end result.
Dropping a line drive on purpose to set up a double play isn't even remotely cheating or unfair. It's part of the game. You take your chances that you can get both guys and not have the ball skitter away or make a bad throw. Somewhat risky (giving up the sure out) which is why you don't see it more often.[/q]
It's not cheating but if the umpire judges it to be intentional, he has the option of ruling the batter out and the ball dead. Which is probably what should have happened on the Lopes/Jackson play. Of course, I was a Yankee fan at the time, so I was pretty happy with the end result.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Will (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:25PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Then again, I can't seem to even find the section where "Infield Fly" is defined; rule 6.05 makes two references to "Infield Fly" but doesn't define it.[/q]
"Infield fly" is defined under (duh) Section 2.00: Definition of Terms:
[q] An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule. When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare "Infield Fly" for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare "Infield Fly, if Fair." The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul. If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly. On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately. When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05 (L). The infield fly rule takes precedence.[/q]
[www.mlb.com]
Then again, I can't seem to even find the section where "Infield Fly" is defined; rule 6.05 makes two references to "Infield Fly" but doesn't define it.[/q]
"Infield fly" is defined under (duh) Section 2.00: Definition of Terms:
[q] An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule. When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare "Infield Fly" for the benefit of the runners. If the ball is near the baselines, the umpire shall declare "Infield Fly, if Fair." The ball is alive and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as on any fly ball. If the hit becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul. If a declared Infield Fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball. If a declared Infield Fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline, and bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an Infield Fly. On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire's judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire's judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately. When an infield fly rule is called, runners may advance at their own risk. If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05 (L). The infield fly rule takes precedence.[/q]
[www.mlb.com]
___________________________
Is next year here yet?
Is next year here yet?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:34PM
Duh. Thanks Will.
Will's snippet on the IF defn. seems to indicate that my original interpretation is right. Despite the provisions of 6.05L a dropped infield fly is in play and the runners advance at their own risk. I think this makes sense. The only reason the ball should be rules dead when a fielder intentionally drops the ball is to prevent easy double plays where the helpless runner is forced out. This isn't the case on an Infield Fly because the moment the umpire calls Infield Fly the runners (should) know to return to their bases because they cannot be forced out.
Will's snippet on the IF defn. seems to indicate that my original interpretation is right. Despite the provisions of 6.05L a dropped infield fly is in play and the runners advance at their own risk. I think this makes sense. The only reason the ball should be rules dead when a fielder intentionally drops the ball is to prevent easy double plays where the helpless runner is forced out. This isn't the case on an Infield Fly because the moment the umpire calls Infield Fly the runners (should) know to return to their bases because they cannot be forced out.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:35PM
If the umpires ruled that Jackson's hip was intentional it should've been a dead ball. But they didn't, prehaps influenced by the 55000+ screaming Yankee fans around them
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 01:36PM
I stand corrected. Thanks for looking up the rule.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Rich S (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: April 20, 2005 03:49PM
You won't be getting used to it as Yankee fans are.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 08:05PM
It all comes down to management being smart enough to get good pitching and team players. After years of egotistical supersluggers with no team chemistry and mediocre pitching we finally have owners and management who know it takes some pitching and defense as well- not to mention having a bunch of decent players who together keep themselves focused yet light-hearted to make a great team on the whole (and the mindset to come back from 3-0 which I don't think any other team could have done and none has). I think if you look at the Sox and Yankees last year you can take the idea of having a true “team†and not just a collection of All-Stars and simply flip-flop the teams and thus the results up until the last couple years. Neither Boston nor NY will win the ALCS every year, but with the focus of the current management, Boston should be right there in the running for a long time. By the way, I would be willing to bet that Yankees fans are not so used to it right now.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 08:30PM
Red Sox management has decided it needed to pursue pitching and defense a number of through the years. It's just very easy to get distracted when you play in a ballpark that just about screams "load up on free-swinging right handed power hitters" at you. Also the Boston ownership had a clear fixation on star personalities through the years when Yawkey was in charge. You certainly *can* win with a superstar loaded team that has no chemistry - look at the late 70's Yankees. On some level winning automatically equals chemistry. But it's probably easier with a more balanced team.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.carlsl01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: April 20, 2005 08:37PM
[Q]cth95 Wrote:
It all comes down to management being smart enough to get good pitching and team players. [/q]
I can't wait for the day when someone codifies sports fallacies to sit aside the logic ones. Then we'll be able to put most of our modern notions of "team chemistry" and "team players" there, alongside other gems like "offense wins games; defense wins championships." And then maybe we'll start re-evaluating our assumptions about how talent translates into winning or our very definition of "talent," instead of making up inane axioms and even more indefinable variables to describe how little we understand a system.
It all comes down to management being smart enough to get good pitching and team players. [/q]
I can't wait for the day when someone codifies sports fallacies to sit aside the logic ones. Then we'll be able to put most of our modern notions of "team chemistry" and "team players" there, alongside other gems like "offense wins games; defense wins championships."
And then maybe we'll start re-evaluating our assumptions about how talent translates into winning or our very definition of "talent," instead of making up inane axioms and even more indefinable variables to describe how little we understand a system.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 08:56PM
[q]And then maybe we'll start re-evaluating our assumptions about how talent translates into winning or our very definition of "talent," instead of making up inane axioms and even more indefinable variables to describe how little we understand a system.[/q]Damn, I hope not. If we figured everything out, understood all of the variables that really went into winning and got rid of all the superfluous information so we could predict with good accuracy how everything was going to turn out would it really be as much fun to watch pro sports? I love stats as much as the next sports fan (OK, much more), but I really do hope we don't actually figure it all out.
Side note that is related. These days it's well established in baseball that plate discipline and strikeout to walk ratios are extremely important for hitters. Yes, taking a lot of walks does correlate well with scoring a lot of runs. But does anyone think that the game is better from a fan's perspective because of this? It's more fun to see a guy swing the bat.
Side note that is related. These days it's well established in baseball that plate discipline and strikeout to walk ratios are extremely important for hitters. Yes, taking a lot of walks does correlate well with scoring a lot of runs. But does anyone think that the game is better from a fan's perspective because of this? It's more fun to see a guy swing the bat.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 09:03PM
Talent is definitely key and the Sox have plenty, but you can't tell me that the loose atmosphere created by guys like Millar and Ortiz wasn't crucial for the Sox to stay relaxed and thus comeback in the ALCS. Just look at the results of many big name players in their first few games with big media teams like Boston and New York. Most of them put too much pressure on themselves to be immediate successes and instead struggle until they are more at ease. I have watched the Sox since I was a kid in the late 70's and I never felt like they would come through in tough situations until 2003 when these guys were brought in and the atmosphere completely changed. 2003 was the first season in which the team truly gave me faith that they would come through in tough times instead of choking and they did over and over again. Grady Little blew Game 7 by bending for one of the big egos just like on previous Boston teams. Granted Boston managers often had no choice but to leave the starter in, but the bullpen in the 2003 playoffs had been fantastic. If any one has spent much time playing sports you know that you can only be as successful as your confidence will let you. Just compare your focus and mindset on the days of your biggest successes compared to on average days or days you did not perform so well.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.carlsl01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: April 20, 2005 09:11PM
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that everyone following sports should turn into the ultimate stat-head, nor that we should take all the passion out of it. And maybe a feel-good story overemphasizing something ridiculous (oh look! the 2B and 3B are BEST FRIENDS!) or the historical/social relevance of the sport is nice once in a while. But it's still possible to have fun and play guessing games and even (gasp!) write a good sports column while paying attention to things that actually impact a game's outcome instead of perpetuating a myth because it makes a good story or because the fan is too ____ (lazy? ignorant? hopefully something more forgivable) to at least question an accepted idea.
I don't think we're ever in danger of players shying away from swinging the bat that much (how many times have you sat through a three hour baseball game and wondered, "if only so-and-so swung and missed on a couple more pitches...THEN I would've had a good time!". And I've seen enough people on this board write about how they really enjoy defensive-minded games. Some of it's probably rationalization, but I like to think it is possible to enjoy aspects of a game that often go overlooked.
I don't think we're ever in danger of players shying away from swinging the bat that much (how many times have you sat through a three hour baseball game and wondered, "if only so-and-so swung and missed on a couple more pitches...THEN I would've had a good time!"
. And I've seen enough people on this board write about how they really enjoy defensive-minded games. Some of it's probably rationalization, but I like to think it is possible to enjoy aspects of a game that often go overlooked.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2005 11:58PM by Jacob 03.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jacob 03 (---.carlsl01.pa.comcast.net)
Date: April 20, 2005 09:36PM
[Q]cth95 Wrote:
Talent is definitely key and the Sox have plenty, but you can't tell me that the loose atmosphere created by guys like Millar and Ortiz wasn't crucial for the Sox to stay relaxed and thus comeback in the ALCS. [/q]
But if the Red Sox had one player who could hit four digits on his SATs or if Luis Sojo lit a couple more cleats on fire in the Yankees clubhouse, then the Yanks would've gone on to beat the Cardinals, right? There's no way I (or anyone, really) can know how much any single factor had to do with the Red Sox winning that series. If relaxation was as crucial to the comeback as you assume, I'd bet a lot of money their ability to relax had more to do with being professional athletes and less to do with various eccentricities.
I don't question the fact that over-hyped "intangibles" play a role in these games. I am skeptical of the notion that the few intangibles on which the incestuous sports media decide to focus over a stretch of a few days/weeks/months are necessarily the "crucial" ones. And I'm completely mystified by the fact that such a devoted fanbase will spend so much more time focusing on these aspects than they'll spend on how good their players actually are and how well they performed at the most important times.
And this neither proves my belief nor disproves yours, but the "Bronx Zoo" had no problem winning a couple of championships in the late 70s without meeting our public definition of "team chemistry." If a sportswriter wrote that a crucial component of those wins was the fact that the players and management overcame such adversity or some other bullshit line like that, it'd be no less founded than the idea that a team won because it's crazy/stupid/relaxed.
A team might be able to win without "egotistical supersluggers" or "high-priced free agents" or whomever else everyone's vilifying this week, but it's probably not because they don't have any.
Talent is definitely key and the Sox have plenty, but you can't tell me that the loose atmosphere created by guys like Millar and Ortiz wasn't crucial for the Sox to stay relaxed and thus comeback in the ALCS. [/q]
But if the Red Sox had one player who could hit four digits on his SATs or if Luis Sojo lit a couple more cleats on fire in the Yankees clubhouse, then the Yanks would've gone on to beat the Cardinals, right?
There's no way I (or anyone, really) can know how much any single factor had to do with the Red Sox winning that series. If relaxation was as crucial to the comeback as you assume, I'd bet a lot of money their ability to relax had more to do with being professional athletes and less to do with various eccentricities.
I don't question the fact that over-hyped "intangibles" play a role in these games. I am skeptical of the notion that the few intangibles on which the incestuous sports media decide to focus over a stretch of a few days/weeks/months are necessarily the "crucial" ones. And I'm completely mystified by the fact that such a devoted fanbase will spend so much more time focusing on these aspects than they'll spend on how good their players actually are and how well they performed at the most important times.
And this neither proves my belief nor disproves yours, but the "Bronx Zoo" had no problem winning a couple of championships in the late 70s without meeting our public definition of "team chemistry." If a sportswriter wrote that a crucial component of those wins was the fact that the players and management overcame such adversity or some other bullshit line like that, it'd be no less founded than the idea that a team won because it's crazy/stupid/relaxed.
A team might be able to win without "egotistical supersluggers" or "high-priced free agents" or whomever else everyone's vilifying this week, but it's probably not because they don't have any.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2005 12:31AM by Jacob 03.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 20, 2005 10:22PM
Certainly talent is almost always the number one key to success, with the exception of one-time deals such as when a more talented team takes an underdog too lightly. I think team "chemistry" is just one of many factors that leads to winning. I am not saying that it is the only ingredient (although it is probably a key in extreme cases like last year's ALCS), just that a positive attitude and good vibe among teamates can help push a highly talented team through some low points in a season or game and possibly be the difference between getting deep into the playoffs and winning it all. It could also simpy help win a tight, critical game at any point in the season when one clutch play can make a difference. Bullshit luck is another factor and often is also the difference between a championship and a close loss. No one can argue that Tony Clark's hit into right field taking a freak bounce into the stands for a ground rule double and saving the game for the Sox can be attributed to anything else. Luck can come at key moments, but will probably not factor consistently throughout an entire season, however.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2005 10:27PM by cth95.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: April 21, 2005 02:15AM
[q]I don't think we're ever in danger of players shying away from swinging the bat that much (how many times have you sat through a three hour baseball game and wondered, "if only so-and-so swung and missed on a couple more pitches...THEN I would've had a good time!". And I've seen enough people on this board write about how they really enjoy defensive-minded games. Some of it's probably rationalization, but I like to think it is possible to enjoy aspects of a game that often go overlooked.[/q]You missed my point. I do enjoy the little things in baseball as much as anyone I've ever met and absolutely love baseball (56 professional ballparks and counting). My point was not that it would be better if players swung and missed more. That wouldn't be exciting. It would be a good thing if players swung the bat and put the ball in play a little more. Not only fewer walks but putting the ball in play earlier in the count. This would improve the pace of the game. As much as I can appreciate a batter with a good eye working the count and drawing either a walk or getting a favorable count, on the whole it's a more enjoyable game to watch if batters are swinging the bat.
. And I've seen enough people on this board write about how they really enjoy defensive-minded games. Some of it's probably rationalization, but I like to think it is possible to enjoy aspects of a game that often go overlooked.[/q]You missed my point. I do enjoy the little things in baseball as much as anyone I've ever met and absolutely love baseball (56 professional ballparks and counting). My point was not that it would be better if players swung and missed more. That wouldn't be exciting. It would be a good thing if players swung the bat and put the ball in play a little more. Not only fewer walks but putting the ball in play earlier in the count. This would improve the pace of the game. As much as I can appreciate a batter with a good eye working the count and drawing either a walk or getting a favorable count, on the whole it's a more enjoyable game to watch if batters are swinging the bat.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: April 21, 2005 06:31AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
It would be a good thing if players swung the bat and put the ball in play a little more. Not only fewer walks but putting the ball in play earlier in the count. This would improve the pace of the game. As much as I can appreciate a batter with a good eye working the count and drawing either a walk or getting a favorable count, on the whole it's a more enjoyable game to watch if batters are swinging the bat.
[/q]
It may be more enjoyable, but it doesn't work. Exhibit A, the Mets. We haven't had a patient hitter since John Olerud. All those guys being aggressive at the plate has meant opposing starters go deep in the game with low pitch counts, letting them set up optimal matchups for opposing relievers. And that has been a complete disaster.
It would be a good thing if players swung the bat and put the ball in play a little more. Not only fewer walks but putting the ball in play earlier in the count. This would improve the pace of the game. As much as I can appreciate a batter with a good eye working the count and drawing either a walk or getting a favorable count, on the whole it's a more enjoyable game to watch if batters are swinging the bat.
[/q]
It may be more enjoyable, but it doesn't work. Exhibit A, the Mets. We haven't had a patient hitter since John Olerud. All those guys being aggressive at the plate has meant opposing starters go deep in the game with low pitch counts, letting them set up optimal matchups for opposing relievers. And that has been a complete disaster.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: cth95 (---.a-315.westelcom.com)
Date: April 21, 2005 07:12AM
Agreed. Look at the success the Sox and Yanks have against almost everyone. This was also the Yanks' method of dealing with Pedro and getting to the bullpen even on days when Pedro was pitching very well.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: April 21, 2005 09:29AM
I don't know if swinging away is more exciting, not if you're watching baseball for the right things. A good pitcher/hitter battle is very enjoyable. That's kinda what baseball is, a serious of well-defined small battles, whether it's hitters at the plate or runners taking leads. Swinging away is like an all-out charge in a battle, it may be exciting momentarily, but it's not likely a good strategy to leave you in a better position for the next time around
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: April 21, 2005 09:41AM
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
It may be more enjoyable, but it doesn't work. Exhibit A, the Mets. We haven't had a patient hitter since John Olerud. All those guys being aggressive at the plate has meant opposing starters go deep in the game with low pitch counts, letting them set up optimal matchups for opposing relievers. And that has been a complete disaster.[/q]
We've certainly had patient hitters since then. Alfonzo, Zeile, Ventura, Piazza (say what you want about his recent struggles -- but I haven't seen much change in his generally patient approach at the plate) are a few...Ok, so maybe they're the only ones. Not many, if any, in the last 2 years or so. But honestly, the issue has been more about the talent sucking than being over-aggressive. For example, it's hard to go to battle with outfields riddled with the Shinjos and Tyners and Cedenos of the world.
What we certainly haven't had since the turn-of-the-millenium "glory days" is a patient lineup. Although the top of that late-90's lineup seems to be more the exception than the rule these days -- Henderson, Fonzi, Olerud, Piazza is as patient a top of the order as they come.
It may be more enjoyable, but it doesn't work. Exhibit A, the Mets. We haven't had a patient hitter since John Olerud. All those guys being aggressive at the plate has meant opposing starters go deep in the game with low pitch counts, letting them set up optimal matchups for opposing relievers. And that has been a complete disaster.[/q]
We've certainly had patient hitters since then. Alfonzo, Zeile, Ventura, Piazza (say what you want about his recent struggles -- but I haven't seen much change in his generally patient approach at the plate) are a few...Ok, so maybe they're the only ones. Not many, if any, in the last 2 years or so. But honestly, the issue has been more about the talent sucking than being over-aggressive. For example, it's hard to go to battle with outfields riddled with the Shinjos and Tyners and Cedenos of the world.
What we certainly haven't had since the turn-of-the-millenium "glory days" is a patient lineup. Although the top of that late-90's lineup seems to be more the exception than the rule these days -- Henderson, Fonzi, Olerud, Piazza is as patient a top of the order as they come.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2005 09:43AM by Jordan 04.
Most exciting play in baseball?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (---.loyno.edu)
Date: April 21, 2005 09:42AM
This seems to be tangentially related to the annoyance a lot of us feel at people going to baseball games just to see home runs. So let me throw out this question: what's the most exciting play to watch? My vote goes to the squeeze play. Although the suicide squeeze is more dramatic, the result is basically a foregone conclusion based on whether the batter makes contact or not, so how about a safety squeeze with an ensuing play at the plate?
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Jordan 04 (12.42.45.---)
Date: April 21, 2005 09:47AM
I don't know if it's at the top of the list, but triples are great.
Speaking of triples, I'd hazard a guess that this week was the first time in baseball history 2 pitchers named Zambrano tripled on consecutive nights. (Victor, Wednesday; Carlos, last night).
Speaking of triples, I'd hazard a guess that this week was the first time in baseball history 2 pitchers named Zambrano tripled on consecutive nights. (Victor, Wednesday; Carlos, last night).
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: April 21, 2005 11:57AM
A well-executed hit and run is a thing of beauty. I was at an A ball game in Maryland last weekend and the visiting team won with an unrelenting combination of smart, smallball tactics: establishing advantageous counts, taking walks, sacrificing (which a lot of sabermetricians actually think is a net loss of production), steals, hit and runs -- first-and-thirding us to death all day long. They barely had an extra base hit but still put 7 runs on the board an won easily.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 21, 2005 11:58AM
OK, everyone is missing my point. Obviously a case of me not explaining well enough on an internet site. I'd probably have an easier time explaining this in person...
I am not saying that a particular team should start "swinging away". Yes, the evidence is quite clear that patience = more successful offense. Drawing walks, getting favorable counts and getting to the bullpen sooner all improve your odds of scoring runs and thus winning games. This is the way the game works and it's not going to change.
I am just bemoaning in a general sense that as knowledge of this fact becomes pervasive in baseball patience has become more and more emphasized at the plate. This has meant more walks, deeper counts and slower games. This is not a in an overall sense positive for baseball. It plays into the argument that baseball is slow and boring (which it most certainly is not if you know what you're seeing). A particular pitcher/batter battle can be extrememly exciting and enjoyable but in the aggregate average I think it might be a better spectator sport if batters put the ball in play one pitch earlier.
Just a case where what works best isn't ideal from an aesthetic sense. I ask, what's more fun to watch as a neutral observer (that is, you don't care which team wins): a team scores one run in an inning off of a single followed by a a two out double or one run off of four walks?
Enough.
I am not saying that a particular team should start "swinging away". Yes, the evidence is quite clear that patience = more successful offense. Drawing walks, getting favorable counts and getting to the bullpen sooner all improve your odds of scoring runs and thus winning games. This is the way the game works and it's not going to change.
I am just bemoaning in a general sense that as knowledge of this fact becomes pervasive in baseball patience has become more and more emphasized at the plate. This has meant more walks, deeper counts and slower games. This is not a in an overall sense positive for baseball. It plays into the argument that baseball is slow and boring (which it most certainly is not if you know what you're seeing). A particular pitcher/batter battle can be extrememly exciting and enjoyable but in the aggregate average I think it might be a better spectator sport if batters put the ball in play one pitch earlier.
Just a case where what works best isn't ideal from an aesthetic sense. I ask, what's more fun to watch as a neutral observer (that is, you don't care which team wins): a team scores one run in an inning off of a single followed by a a two out double or one run off of four walks?
Enough.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: Trotsky (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: April 21, 2005 12:06PM
I don't think we're missing the point. We're pointing out (repeatedly) that being aggressive at the plate is less successful than being patient, currently.
Now, as hitters become more patient, pitchers will adjust by becoming more aggressive -- taking control of the strike zone and punishing guys who take by piling up 0-2 counts. This will in turn force hitters to become more aggressive, which will lead to pitchers nibbling... and so on...
It's all about the yin-and-yang.
Now, as hitters become more patient, pitchers will adjust by becoming more aggressive -- taking control of the strike zone and punishing guys who take by piling up 0-2 counts. This will in turn force hitters to become more aggressive, which will lead to pitchers nibbling... and so on...
It's all about the yin-and-yang.
Re: Most exciting play in baseball?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 21, 2005 12:08PM
Hands down the most exciting play (to me) is an inside the park home run with a play at the plate. It combines fast action, baserunning, tension and as an added bonus lasts a long time in baseball terms.
A straight steal of home is right up there too.
Among things that actually happen with some frequency these days I'd put triples high on the list. A squeeze with a play at the plate is a real good choice too.
Personally I find (over the wall) home runs one of the less exciting plays in the game. Watching a guy trot is much less interesting than watching a guy run and try to beat a throw. If I were running a baseball team I'd prefer to have a ballpark with cavernous power alleys that encourage extra base hits rather than a bandbox that encourages homers. (Of course, I'd probably lose my shirt trying to sell my old-time purist's version of the game to casual fans these days...)
A straight steal of home is right up there too.
Among things that actually happen with some frequency these days I'd put triples high on the list. A squeeze with a play at the plate is a real good choice too.
Personally I find (over the wall) home runs one of the less exciting plays in the game. Watching a guy trot is much less interesting than watching a guy run and try to beat a throw. If I were running a baseball team I'd prefer to have a ballpark with cavernous power alleys that encourage extra base hits rather than a bandbox that encourages homers. (Of course, I'd probably lose my shirt trying to sell my old-time purist's version of the game to casual fans these days...)
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: April 21, 2005 12:13PM
I don't really see a good chance of it yang-ing back. But it's hard to predict the future so maybe it will. Hope so.
Re: OT: The Yankees
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: April 21, 2005 01:05PM
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
A well-executed hit and run is a thing of beauty. I was at an A ball game in Maryland last weekend and the visiting team won with an unrelenting combination of smart, smallball tactics: establishing advantageous counts, taking walks, sacrificing (which a lot of sabermetricians actually think is a net loss of production), steals, hit and runs -- first-and-thirding us to death all day long. They barely had an extra base hit but still put 7 runs on the board an won easily.[/q]
Frederick Keys?
A well-executed hit and run is a thing of beauty. I was at an A ball game in Maryland last weekend and the visiting team won with an unrelenting combination of smart, smallball tactics: establishing advantageous counts, taking walks, sacrificing (which a lot of sabermetricians actually think is a net loss of production), steals, hit and runs -- first-and-thirding us to death all day long. They barely had an extra base hit but still put 7 runs on the board an won easily.[/q]
Frederick Keys?
Re: Most exciting play in baseball?
Posted by: Tom Lento (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: April 21, 2005 01:41PM
Runners at the corners with the tying run on third late in the game.
The actual play could be anything - the interesting thing to me is watching the fielders deal with it. Do you go double play depth with your groundball pitcher? Do you bring the infield in to make a play at the plate? Do you play a hybrid (that was all the rage for awhile, but I haven't seen this situation in a game recently)? Where do you play your OF?
As long as the batter doesn't pop up or hit a really long fly ball (including homers) it'll be an exciting play.
I'll second the hit and run as an exciting play, too. If it's botched, especially with 2 strikes on the hitter (although I've never really agreed with putting the batter in a "must swing" situation with 2 strikes), you get a nice fielding play. If it's executed properly, you get to see an active, interesting offensive play. If Piazza or Posada is the guy behind the plate, and it's a swing and a miss, then things get *really* interesting.
The actual play could be anything - the interesting thing to me is watching the fielders deal with it. Do you go double play depth with your groundball pitcher? Do you bring the infield in to make a play at the plate? Do you play a hybrid (that was all the rage for awhile, but I haven't seen this situation in a game recently)? Where do you play your OF?
As long as the batter doesn't pop up or hit a really long fly ball (including homers) it'll be an exciting play.
I'll second the hit and run as an exciting play, too. If it's botched, especially with 2 strikes on the hitter (although I've never really agreed with putting the batter in a "must swing" situation with 2 strikes), you get a nice fielding play. If it's executed properly, you get to see an active, interesting offensive play. If Piazza or Posada is the guy behind the plate, and it's a swing and a miss, then things get *really* interesting.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.