nice goal by Joe to bring the devils within 1. i had to share :-) ::nut::
It was indeed nice....and now it's tied!!:-D
Nice job by Joe, but not enough for NJ. Life was easier when he was with Calgary (liked) and Dallas (tolerated). Now, with Jersey (detested), every good thing for Joe has that 1% annoyance factor. Oh well, I still want him to get his name on the Cup again, even if that means the Swamp Things have to as well.
Now you know how the rest of us felt, having to be happy when Dallas won. ::help::
BTW, how many players have had their names on the Cup for 3+ different teams?
QuoteGreg wrote:
BTW, how many players have had their names on the Cup for 3+ different teams?
The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Mike Keane with Montreal, Colorado, and Dallas. Claude Lemieux could have done it with the Stars this year. Did anyone on that '94 Ranger$ team (other than Zubov) do it again after the team started to break up?
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
Did anyone on that '94 Ranger$ team (other than Zubov) do it again after the team started to break up?
Haven't checked to be sure, but Nemchinov was probably with the Devs for at least 1.
I think Claude Lemieux was trying for four with Dallas. I believe he's won it with Montreal, New Jersey and Colorado.
That's right. I also think he was the first and only player to win the Cup two years in a row for two different teams.
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
Did anyone on that '94 Ranger$ team (other than Zubov) do it again after the team started to break up?
Oh and here's another random one. Doug Lidster played 34 games for the Rangers in '94-95 and 17 games for Dallas in '98-99. Don't know if he got his name on the cup for the latter though. Pretty sure he did for the Rangers.
QuoteCowbell Guy wrote:
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
Did anyone on that '94 Ranger$ team (other than Zubov) do it again after the team started to break up?
Oh and here's another random one. Doug Lidster played 34 games for the Rangers in '94-95 and 17 games for Dallas in '98-99. Don't know if he got his name on the cup for the latter though. Pretty sure he did for the Rangers.
Wow - that's a good one, although I don't remember Lidster playing in the playoffs for Dallas that year. I keep thinking that other guys from that team might have also played on former cup winners (other than Messier, of course) - did Larmer or Tikkanen or any of those old bastards win any Cups
before '94?
Adam Graves with the Oilers in '90
Tikkanen with the Oilers in '87, '88, '90
Glenn Anderson with the Oilers in '84, '85, '87, '88, '90
Craig MacTavish with the Oilers in '85, '87, '88, '90
Kevin Lowe with the Oilers in '84, '85, '87, '88, '90
Jeff Beukeboom with the Oilers (I sense a pattern) in '87, '88, '90
Greg Gilbert with the Islanders in '82, '83
Lidster did play 9 playoff games for the Rangers in '94 and 2 for Dallas in '99.
Post Edited (05-12-03 17:10)
Now why would you refer to them as old "bastards"? Don't like the Rangers, eh?
Dougie played a key role in the playoffs in '94 and is most definitely on the Cup. He then went to St. Louis as part of the Keenan fiasco and later returned to Broadway for a few more seasons.
From http://www.lcshockey.com/archive/stanleycup/players.asp:
Foyston, Frank Toronto 14; Seattle 17; Victoria 25
Hillman, Larry Detroit 55; Toronto 64,67; Montreal 69
Holmes, Harry Toronto 14,18; Seattle 17; Vinoria 25
Lemieux, Claude Montreal 86; New Jersey 95; Colorado 96
Marshall, Jack Winnipeg Vics 01; Mtl Maroons 02; Mtl Wanderers 07,10; Toronto 14
Peninger, Gordon NY Rangers 33; Detroit 36,37; Boston 39
Walker, Jack Toronto 14; Seattle 17; Victoria 25
Gordon Peninger is definitely a cool footnote in NHL history. 4 Cups over 7 seasons with 3 different teams, and I dunno 'bout you, but I'd never heard of him until today.
Weirdly, three of those guys won Cups with the same three teams: Toronto 14, Seattle 17, and Victoria 25.
Post Edited (05-13-03 17:42)
QuoteGreg wrote:
Weirdly, three of those guys won Cups with the same three teams: Toronto 14, Seattle 17, and Victoria 25.
Post Edited (05-13-03 17:42)
And--unless expansion knows no bounds--they'll be the only three.
Although the Seattle franchise may have moved on to become an NHL franchise. The Portland Rosebuds, the first US team to challenge for the Cup, a few years before Seattle became the first US franchise to win it, moved to Chicago and became the Black Hawks.
QuoteRich Stamboulian wrote:
Now why would you refer to them as old "bastards"? Don't like the Rangers, eh?
Does anyone? :-P
Post Edited (05-15-03 08:34)
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
Does anyone? :-P
Eat me
Actually, yes....and a whole lot more folks than like the devils.
Let me know when the latter sell out a playoff game...or any game at the Meadowlands, not involving the Rangers...:-)
Don't get me wrong - I hate the Devils. Even more than the Rangers at this point, actually, just because I'm so sick of them being sucessful with their boring-ass, "score few goals but allow very few" style. Hell, at least the Wild have some speedy forwards and exciting playmakers who, until recently, could score a little bit when needed.
So lest anyone think I'm a Devils fan, I'm not. I'm a Bruins fan. Insert joke here.
[q]I'm a Bruins fan. Insert joke here.[/q]
You already have. (I don't hate the Bruins, but that was too wicked easy... ;-) )
[Q]...their boring-ass, "score few goals but allow very few" style.[/Q]
The Devils were 14th in the league in scoring this season, i.e. in the top half. And they are third in goals scored per game in the playoffs thus far.
And some may say that describes Cornell's style under Schafer.
Oops. Further research shows that others have accomplished the feat.
Al Arbour (1961 Chicago, 1962 Toronto)
Ted Litzenberger (1961 Chicago, 1962 Toronto)
Ab McDonald (1960 Montreal, 1961 Chicago)
Eddie Gerard (1922 Toronto, 1923 Ottawa)
Lionel Conacher (1934 Chicago, 1935 Montreal)
Eddie Gerard (1921 Ottawa, 1922 Toronto)
Harry Holmes (1917 Seattle, 1918 Toronto)
Bruce Stuart (1908 Montreal, 1909 Ottawa)
Art Ross (1907 Kenora, 1908 Montreal)
Jack Marshall (1901 Winnipeg, 1902 Montreal)
That's kind of an odd comment. I find the Devils and Cornell to have incredibly similar styles of play. Oddly, the Devils' goalie gets most of the credit, it's obvious how fantastic he is, while the Cornell goalie usually has his stats clouded by the accolades of the fantastic defense in front of him. How could you say you are sick of the Devils' style of play, when hundreds of fans from those "higher scoring" conferences constantly say the same thing about Cornell, whether valid or not? I find NJ's style of play to be most respectable, because it's easy to win when you can score 5 goals a game with a halfway-decent NHL defense. But it makes for an even better team who can pull out the close-scoring games on the strength of a great D and goalie. Anyway, it's not really a reason to hate a team, sounds more like envy to me....they beat your precious B's. Oh please, Ottawa's some real competition. ;)
Post Edited (05-15-03 16:26)
I just hate the Devils, well, because they're the Devils, if that makes you feel any better.
It is not as if NJ is eschewing the "easy" road to victory. If they could score 5 GPG, they would. Anybody would. Given the current constraints on scoring in the NHL, I doubt the 1986 426 GF Edmonton team would even get to 326 (53 more than this year's league leader) now.
The Cornell analogy is apt: if you like the team then they play a tight, solid, two way game. If you don't like them then they're a godawful boring blight on the hockey landcape. I'm glad Joe has a shot at a third Cup -- I'd root for whatever team he was on.
Post Edited (05-15-03 17:16)
whatever the stats are...they are boring...boring....boring...and thats one reason their attendance is so poor. Boring...and incredibly efficient.
Brodeur is excellent but he normally is called on to make very few tough saves.
I'd love it if Cornell could play a wide open style and win, but I accept the low scoring approach because I know that's what it takes for them to win. I feel the same way about how Hitch had the Flyers playing. They're my team, and I'd rather see them win that shoot the lights out and lose.
I hate it when New Jersey (or Ottawa) play that same style, because I hate their guts. I was so rooting for Vancouver to make it to the finals if only to see some goals scored.
And I've said it before, but I'll say it again: "The Stanley Cup does not belong in New Jersey."
JH
QuoteJeff Hopkins '82 wrote:
And I've said it before, but I'll say it again: "The Stanley Cup does not belong in New Jersey."
Did it belong in Texas? What if it's a choice between New Jersey and California? Do you really want to see the Cup on display at Disneyland?
[Q]"The Stanley Cup does not belong in New Jersey."[/Q]
Well, it has "belonged" there as many times as it has "belonged" in Philly...
QuoteCUlater '89 wrote:
[Q]"The Stanley Cup does not belong in New Jersey."[/Q]
Well, it has "belonged" there as many times as it has "belonged" in Philly...
Even though the Cup predates the NHL, there are only 6 cities in which the Cup "belongs." Everything else is just a road show.
I guess you didn't see last night's game, which was a sellout. Not to mention that Brodeur makes the highlight reel EVERY TIME he plays, so it's not fair to say he is not called upon to make very many tough saves. Granted, he doesn't make 50 like Giguere does a game, but the Ducks' defense doesn't do much to help him.
Anyway, I would say that a much bigger reason the Devils don't sell out like the Rangers do is because of the fan base. Those tickets are pricey, and it's not beyond comprehension to believe that the fans of the Devils aren't quite as well off as those of the Rangers. Not to mention, how many of the Rangers' tickets go to corporations? Their corporate fan base is huge. The Yankees hardly ever sell out games, and I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that they have one of the biggest fan bases in the country.
Post Edited (05-16-03 10:52)
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
So lest anyone think I'm a Devils fan, I'm not. I'm a Bruins fan. Insert joke here.
If memory serves, you are also a Red Sox fan, eh?
Well, I might as well just address everything at once - serves me right for neglecting The For*m and doing work: :-}
QuoteCUlater '89 wrote:
[Q]...their boring-ass, "score few goals but allow very few" style.[/Q]
The Devils were 14th in the league in scoring this season, i.e. in the top half. And they are third in goals scored per game in the playoffs thus far.
I didn't realize that they were that high in scoring, but scoring always slows down in the playoffs, and my more specific point (that I didn't really specify...) is that they don't really have any game-breaking offensive players and, thus, don't seem to generate a whole lot of exciting scoring chances. It seems like they tend to bury the chances they have, but their games are rarely exciting. ::snore::
QuoteJason N '95 wrote:
And some may say that describes Cornell's style under Schafer.
A valid point, but Cornell, especially this year, still has some exciting playmakers, and can hold their own in the offensive zone and pile up the goals. Not like Colorado College or Minnesota, for example, but, given the conference the play in, the games are still fun to watch and not taking place entirely in the neutral zone.
QuoteJason wrote:
... it's not really a reason to hate a team, sounds more like envy to me....they beat your precious B's. Oh please, Ottawa's some real competition. ;)
Yeah, I suppose my viewpoint is a little skewed by the fact that I don't like the Devils and I do cheer for Cornell, but it's not that I'm purely looking at this thing through Black and Gold colored glasses. There's plenty of people out there who don't cheer for the Bruins or Rangers who loathe the Devils.
Personally, I always like to cheer for the underdog, and I
hate repeat champions (how good was it to see the Lakers lose last night? :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D ), as long as it's not my team going for the repeat, which hasn't happened since the Pats missed the playoffs last year.
QuoteJohn E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
So lest anyone think I'm a Devils fan, I'm not. I'm a Bruins fan. Insert joke here.
If memory serves, you are also a Red Sox fan, eh?
Yup, I pull for every team out here that dosn't play college hockey... :-D
So now when everyone sees the guy with the Cornell jersey and Red Sox hat at games, they'll know it's me, and can make Bruins jokes aplenty after they whiff in the draft, trade Samsonov for a minor league goalie and a washed up defenseman, and go into the season yet again without a starting goalie or a decent second line. ::yark::
QuoteGreg wrote:
[q]I'm a Bruins fan. Insert joke here.[/q]
You already have. (I don't hate the Bruins, but that was too wicked easy... ;-) )
(Thinking of comeback...) ::help::
Did it belong in Texas? Not really, but it was better than Jersey winning it.
Would it be better if I said "The Stanley Cup does not belong in New Jersey or south of the 38th parallel"? That would exclude: Dallas, LA, The Florida teams, Carolina, Phoenix, Anaheim, San Jose, Nashville, and Atlanta in addition to the Devils.
However, I would see it in Jersey before I'd let Disney and their sanctimonious bunch of puritans anywhere near it.
But at this point, I'm pulling for Ottawa (I've written off Minnesota - they're out of comebacks).
JH
QuoteJeff Hopkins '82 wrote:
But at this point, I'm pulling for Ottawa (I've written off Minnesota - they're out of comebacks).
JH
Seems bizarre to me that, unless one has a long-standing allegiance to another NHL team, anyone here would root against Joe getting his name on the Cup again.
Al, if it were any other team but the Devils or the Rangers, I'd be pulling hard for Niewy. Would a Red Sox fan ever root for the Yankees? Of course not. That's how Flyers fans feel about the Devils and Rangers.
I was so pissed when he signed with Jersey. With that move, he became the enemy.
JH
QuoteJeff Hopkins '82 wrote:
I was so pissed when he signed with Jersey. With that move, he became the enemy.
JH
He didn't sign there, he was traded with Langenbrunner for Arnott and someone else who I can't remember.
It was Nieuwy and Langenbrunner for Arnott, Randy McKay, and a first round draft pick...
[q]Would a Red Sox fan ever root for the Yankees?[/q]
Sure. Just like a Cornell fan will root for Harvard in the NCAA's. Personally, as an Islander fanatic I have no problem at all with the Rangers. Being a fan of X doesn't necessarily mean you hate X's arch-rival passionately. The whole "we must hate THEM" is almost always artificially-generated hype to flog more tickets, and it's usually pretty dumb.
Post Edited (05-16-03 16:29)
Gotta disagree with you on that one Greg...
I root for Harvard because it benefits Cornell, not because I like Harvard... Other ECAC teams having success leads to more recognition and respect for the entire conference, which helps Cornell in the long run...
On the other hand, the Islanders, Devils, or Flyers having success in NO WAY benefits the NY Rangers.... I hate those teams because they directly compete with the Rangers, and I see no correlation between the success of those teams and the amount of respect that the Rangers receive...
QuoteMike wrote:
...I see no correlation between the success of those teams and the amount of respect that the Rangers receive...
...which is deservedly little these days.
That stuff just doesn't yank my chain, I guess. The closest it comes is the Braves, but I hate them a lot more for being Team Trailer Trash than for a decade of making the Mets their beatch.
Post Edited (05-16-03 16:55)
QuoteGreg wrote:
[q]Would a Red Sox fan ever root for the Yankees?[/q]
Sure. Just like a Cornell fan will root for Harvard in the NCAA's. Personally, as an Islander fanatic I have no problem at all with the Rangers. Being a fan of X doesn't necessarily mean you hate X's arch-rival passionately. The whole "we must hate THEM" is almost always artificially-generated hype to flog more tickets, and it's usually pretty dumb.
This Red Sox fan would never root for the Yankees. ::yark:: In fact, I had the very same discussion with a friend of mine who's a Cornell and Yankees fan, about who we would cheer for first, Harvard or Boston/New York, and we both agreed that we'd sooner see Harvard beat Cornell in, say, the ECAC title game than see our own baseball team bow to the other's in the ALCS. There are plenty of reasons, but I just think you chose a bad example - Red Sox and Yankee fans HATE the rival team (no matter what Yankee fans will try to tell you about them not caring or about there not really being a rivalry...). I'll have to get into the reasons later, but it was a pretty simple decision...
Not at all bizarre that Ranger fans root against the devils...not matter who plays. This is easy for me,especially with Todd White being with Ottawa!
That is..."no matter who plays for the devils".
Growing up as a Yankee fan in the Hudson Valley, I was taught by my Dad to respect the Red Sox in the playoffs as "noble adversaries", and root for them in the playoffs as carrying the banner of the AL East. I feel the same way about Clarkson. (It took me longer to deal with rooting for Harvard out of conference.)
I am a Yankees fan, and I really in fact could care not care less about the Red Sox, nor the Mets for that matter. The problem I have with the Red Sox is its fans, not the players. I enjoy watching the team play, in fact. My team beats the Red Sox every year, so why should I dislike them any more than anyone else?
At least they give the Yankees a challenge
As a Flyer fan you must have really enjoyed watching Ottawa beat them...especially with Todd White who Clarkie dissed playing so well aginst his former team...:-D
And yeah, us Ranger fans feel the same way about the Flyers. :-}
Difference in styles, that's all.
There was definitely a time that I hated Harvard enough to root against them anytime, anywhere, even when it might theoretically adversely effect the ECAC and by extension Cornell. But that stuff tends to fade out, especially as teams rise and fall -- IMHO, naturally. I'm amazed people can bring themselves to hate the Isles at this point, for example -- that's like kicking an ungainly puppy, or developing a deep hatred of mauve -- and if the Rangers continue to suck for a couple more years it will be the same with them.
I can see hating certain groups of fans forever for their sheer moronic obnoxiousness. When I moved to Boston I liked both the Red Sox and Bruins, but years of putting up with the unparalleled parochialism and ignorance of BostonFan was enough to make me hate those teams by the time I left. It's not quite the same when somebody like the Mets in the 80's or the Yankees in the 90's collects a bunch of bandwagon jumpers, because you know those people are temporary parasites (they're probably the same people, drifting from winner to winner in search of fulfillment) and can separate them out from the real fans.
Mostly I hate teams for being from dumb places. California, Arizona, and the South shouldn't have a hockey team until every Canadian province does, including the new unpronouncable Eskimo one. The "may the older, unmoved franchise win" rule almost always works.
QuoteGreg wrote:
Mostly I hate teams for being from dumb places. California, Arizona, and the South shouldn't have a hockey team until every Canadian province does, including the new unpronouncable Eskimo one.
Nunavut, which is actually a territory. "Thou'rt slain, buddy."
QuoteGreg wrote:
including the new unpronouncable Eskimo one.
"None-of-it" - as in, "How much is habitable by humans?" "None-of-it" "Well, then, why don't we give it back to the Inuit since we can't use it."
::nut::
1) Whether he was traded or free-agent jumped is not relative. He's a Devil. He's no longer to be rooted for.
2) Mike's point that Cornell benefitting from Harvard's success is exactly how I think of it, too. If Harvard's success out of conference didn't help Cornell's reputation and recruiting, I would never root for them.
3) I chose my example of Red Sox / Yankees very specifically because I know how much the Sox fans hate the Yankees. BTW, it doesn't matter if the hatred is reciprocal. I've heard that Harvard doesn't make as much of the rivalry as we do. I doubt the Yankees fans hate the Sox as much as the reverse.
4) These hatreds usually arise from some kind of inferiority complex on the part of the hating team (as in the case of Flyers/Devils or Sox/yankees), or from an old incident, long forgotten.
5) If we want to root for tradition, Ottawa makes sense. They were a team long before the original 6, and they are in Canada. That should be worth something.
6) Rooting against the Islanders now IS like kicking a puppy. I never felt a real rivalry with the Islanders as I did against the other NYC teams. Don't know why. I suppose if the Devils' record became as bad as the Islanders' is now, I might not feel as strongly as I do now. However, I will always hate the Rangers. And I fully expect that Ranger fans will always hate the Flyers.
And that's the way it should be.
JH
Your "dumb places" argument is as bad as the parochialism you so despised. Besides, the players aren't from those "places", just most of the fans.
Or are you focused on rooting for or against fans as opposed to the teams themselves? ::rolleyes::
QuoteRich Stamboulian wrote:
Your "dumb places" argument is as bad as the parochialism you so despised. Besides, the players aren't from those "places", just most of the fans.
Or are you focused on rooting for or against fans as opposed to the teams themselves? ::rolleyes::
If the Devils were playing
your favorite NHL team it would be understandable to be rooting for
your team, but to root for some
other team to beat one of the Faithful's all-time favorites is, to me, simply bizarre.
Post Edited (05-16-03 18:07)
[Q]Jeff said:
These hatreds usually arise from some kind of inferiority complex on the part of the hating team (as in the case of Flyers/Devils or Sox/yankees)
and:
BTW, it doesn't matter if the hatred is reciprocal. I've heard that Harvard doesn't make as much of the rivalry as we do.[/Q]Which is why I could never feel so strongly about hating Harvard, and why the interminable "Harvard sucks" makes me wonder about the inferiority complex of some of those who always have to say it.:-)
So, now see what you've started.;-)
Back to the original thought of this thread. Did you all see the picture of "our blessed Joe" in the front section of this weeks SI? Quite a bit of intensity on his face. Inferiority complex aside, I'm rooting for the Devils.:-P
[Q]Red Sox and Yankee fans HATE the rival team (no matter what Yankee fans will try to tell you about them not caring or about there not really being a rivalry...).[/Q]
Any so-called Yankee fan that tries to tell you that we don't care about the BoSox or that there is no rivalry is full of it. Or a bandwagon jumper. Now I have been known to say that the Red Sox aren't worth hating... after all, they always finish second :-P
One of the great things about the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry was that the players felt it too. For many years, the players were taught to hate the guys on the other side of the rivarly, from the lowest level of the minors up to the big leagues. Unfortunately, free agency has pretty much eliminated this.
The funny thing about free agency is that players spend more time with a club today than they did in the years before free agency. Trades are all but extinct, and they generated far more player movement than free agency has.
This thread makes my head hurt. I can't even come close to forming a response that would cover everything I'd want to say. Time for a list of brain emissions as much as I can:
1) It's OK, and rather easy to root for a player and not a team. When Joe N. was on the LoneStars (or should it be whoreStars), I couldn't bear to even think about rooting for them. But at the end of the storm, when I woke up and saw that our guy was Conn Smythe winner, I felt OK to be really happy for him.
2) I'm normally a rational fan. But the Yanks-Sox rivalry sometimes stirs up such passion in this NYY fan that I sometimes feel silly when I look back at my actions. One thing I've learned that many Sox and Yanks fans need to do is to respect the rivalry. I've always wanted to write a book about fan psychology, and the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry would be at its core.
3) With the explosion of the Sports industry in the last 20 years, there is way too much Hate-motivation. To a certain degree, it's healthy. But I really can't explain why there is so much these days. I was told by another member of this forum that there was an espn.com poll last week about "what would you like to see most" over the past weekend. Most of the choices were positive things, like Palmeiro hitting his 500th HR. "Lakers losing" was the only negative choice, and was far and away the #1 vote-getter.
4) The NHL discussions here are really my least favorite part of this forum. This just in...there are NHL teams besides the Isles, Devils, and Rangers. The arguments that keep erupting over those three teams get tiresome to me. Boooooring. ;-) At least someone had enough sack in this go-round to bring in the Flyers and Bruins.
Well, with the Disney Advertising Team advancing tonight, that means my 3 least favorite teams have made the Stanley Cup Finals in 3 of the last 4 years (yeah...I'm a hypocrite with respect to my "hate-motivation" point above) I'll be rooting for the East team for sure now.
QuoteAt least someone had enough sack in this go-round to bring in the Flyers and Bruins.
The Red Wings are my team of choice, but it is hard to wave the flag after getting swept out.
I'm with you on the tedious nature of the NHL discussions here, RichH. Everyone takes the silliest, most gratuitous potshots at the Rangers/Devils/Isles so seriously -- even when it is crystal clear that the only reason the swipe was taken was to generate a reaction.
Hey, if anybody has shown sack (as well as lack of sense) the last ten years, it's Islander fans.
As far as the three-team go-round is concerned, that's my very point. As an Isles fan, my take on the Rangers is roughly even with the other O6 -- I'll root for them over an unobjectionable but more recent franchise like say Pittsburgh or Vancouver. My take on NJ is that with Joe on the team I'd rather they win than either of the other two teams still in consideration.
I'd have to say, Rich, that while I respect the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry, I don't care any more about those games than I do about any other ones. The best thing about them is that I get to see a Yankees game on TV up here in Boston. (I'm actually going to Monday's game) Sure, I want them to win them more because the Red Sox and Yankees are usually so close in the standings. I actually prefer Mets/Yankees games more because they for some reason always seem to be really close games and don't happen as much. My hatred of the Sox has been magnified because I can't stand the fans and their inane justifications for hating former players. Anyway, I'm certainly as avid a Yankees fan as anyone, as Rich can attest. Geez, when I was a little girl I used to attend Dave Winfield's baseball camp every year and lived down the street from Billy Martin. (He gave out lttle oreos on Halloween.) Ah, those were the days. I'm also an avid Devils' fan, but I'm from NJ, can you blame me?
[q] I'm also an avid Devils' fan, but I'm from NJ, can you blame me?
[/q]
For which? ;-)
There was more player movement before free agency than there is now? That's certainly counter-intuitive (or at least, my intuition) but you could be right. Certainly, money issues do make player movement difficult now.
The point still holds though. Pre-free agency the core players on a team didn't move very much and I thikn this served to establish the "culture" of hating the Red Sox on the Yanks, or vice versa. These core players were somewhat likely to have been "raised" in the organization as well (at least for the Yanks, who always a great farm system through the mid 60's).
QuoteKeith K '93 wrote:
...(at least for the Yanks, who always a great farm system through the mid 60's).
Wasn't that farm system called the Kansas City A's?
[q]There was more player movement before free agency than there is now? That's certainly counter-intuitive (or at least, my intuition) but you could be right. Certainly, money issues do make player movement difficult now.
[/q]
Yep. Bill James goes on about this in several of his books, and demonstrates it very well. It has held steady since about the 8th year of free agency, after the counter-weight of a measure of fiscal reality contrained everybody except George and the occasional quickie (c.f., Marlins) from playing checkers with their roster. Even George has learned, at that -- he started The Dynasty when he stabilized his core.
The "free agency has ended the days of long careers with one team" is one of those myths that hangs on despite constant refutation, like "face shields cut down on injuries," "bond-funded stadiums are good for the local economy," and neconservatism. :-D
Post Edited (05-17-03 16:51)
QuoteGreg wrote:
[q]There was more player movement before free agency than there is now? That's certainly counter-intuitive (or at least, my intuition) but you could be right. Certainly, money issues do make player movement difficult now.
[/q]
Yep. Bill James goes on about this in several of his books, and demonstrates it very well. It has held steady since about the 8th year of free agency. . .
The big difference, of course, is not the quantity of movement but the reason why players switch teams. Prior to free agency there was player movement because MLB was just a rotisserie league run by millionaires. Now players have a say in where they will go.
Post Edited (05-17-03 18:33)
Returning to topic, Joe won 18 of 25 faceoffs in today's (Saturday's) big Devil win.
Well, what are some examples of star players who have spent their entire careers with one team since free agency....say like Mantle and Yaz did, among many others?
Not Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Winfield, Glavine, Maddox, Carter, etal.
Off the top of my head, I can think of Mattingly and Puckett.
QuoteRich Stamboulian wrote:
Well, what are some examples of star players who have spent their entire careers with one team since free agency....say like Mantle and Yaz did, among many others?
Ripken? Gwynn?
QuoteRich Stamboulian wrote:
Well, what are some examples of star players who have spent their entire careers with one team since free agency....say like Mantle and Yaz did, among many others?
Not Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Winfield, Glavine, Maddox, Carter, etal.
Off the top of my head, I can think of Mattingly and Puckett.
Ripken and Gwynn.
off the top of my head -- and perhaps they spent a year with somebody else at the end of their careers: Yount, Molitor, Brett.
Guys whose careers spanned a good portion of time on both sides of the changeover: Stargell, Schmidt.
Guys who spent all but maybe a token couple seasons with one club include Edgar Martinez, Sosa, Smoltz.
There's also an independent factor that the star system before free agency was centered on the big money clubs. At least half the good examples of star players who spent their careers with one team before FA comes from the 3 NY clubs out of 20 ML clubs. It was hardly the "good old days" unless you happened to live in NY.
QuoteGreg wrote:
off the top of my head -- and perhaps they spent a year with somebody else at the end of their careers: Yount, Molitor, Brett.
Guys who spent all but maybe a token couple seasons with one club include Edgar Martinez, Sosa, Smoltz.
Molitor spent 3 seasons with Toronto, and 3 seasons with Minnesota. Sosa has played with Texas, the White Sox, and the Cubs. Edgar Martinez has spent all 17 years of his career with Seattle.
Current players with 10+ years of experience all with one team that I can think of: Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin, Bernie Williams, John Smoltz, Carlos Delgado, Frank Thomas, Tim Salmon.
So it's not like Ripken was the last of the one-team career players as so many people like to rant about. Spending an entire career with one team wasn't even that common in the days before Free Agency, as Greg and Big Red Apple implied. Just ask Curt Flood.
Post Edited (05-19-03 04:08)
Didnt Smoltz start with the Tigers?
It seems like spending an entire career with one team was more common before free agency but if James showed that it wasn't, i'd love to read his book where he demonstrates that.
[q]So it's not like Ripken was the last of the one-team career players as so many people like to rant about. Spending an entire career with one team wasn't even that common in the days before Free Agency,[/q]
This was James' main point in several of his excellent articles from the unfortunately discontinued BJSA's of the late 80's and early 90's. If you've never read these, they are at the top of intelligent sports analysis. From time to time he got silly with numbers wihin numbers, but for the most part he used the annual teams reviews to highlight an aspect of the game, review the evidence (generally going back many years), and draw conclusions. He demolished many myths that are still mindlessly repeated by "common sense" types like Joe Morgan and Harold Reynolds on ESPN.
QuoteRich Stamboulian wrote:
Didnt Smoltz start with the Tigers?
That is what I thought at first also, since he was acquired for Doyle Alexander from the Tigers way back when. But upon further review, it appears that Smolz was a AAA pitcher in the Tigers organization that the Braves stuck right onto the major league roster after they got him.
See: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=4232&context=pitching
QuoteJason wrote:
I am a Yankees fan, and I really in fact could care not care less about the Red Sox, nor the Mets for that matter. The problem I have with the Red Sox is its fans, not the players. I enjoy watching the team play, in fact. My team beats the Red Sox every year, so why should I dislike them any more than anyone else?
At least they give the Yankees a challenge
Most Sox fans aren't that bad - there are some idiots who continue to try to start "Yankees suck!" chants at Texas and Tampa Bay games who, sadly, get the majority of the attention (most of them are kids from BC and BU). Trust me, though, there are enough who understand the game and aren't complete morons, and who could carry on sophisticated conversations like we usually have here. The Yankees are cheered on by a similar proportion of nitwits, in my estimation.
There's probably not the same venom from Yankee fans towards the Red Sox than vice versa, but nobody can tell me that they just don't care about the Red Sox, because it's not true. They love seeing the Yanks stick it to the Sox, in season or in trade/free agency situations like this winter, and they pack the park when the Sox are in town, which is more than they can say for every other opponent from outside the city.
As for JTW's take on respecting the rivalry, I respect the Yankees and the rivalry (although it took me a little while to develop it genuinely), but there is just so much to hate about the team as well, as there is with Harvard. I just think there's more to hate about the Yanks than just about any other team out there (most of which is Steinbrenner's doing), in any sport, and it's hard to look past that, especially when you've grown up hearing and thinking that the Yankees are evil personified (which, of course, they are). :-P
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
Most Sox fans aren't that bad - there are some idiots who continue to try to start "Yankees suck!" chants at Texas and Tampa Bay games who, sadly, get the majority of the attention
...and at Patriots parades, and at New Years Eve, and on the T... ::rolleyes::
[Q](most of them are kids from BC and BU). Trust me, though, there are enough who understand the game and aren't complete morons, and who could carry on sophisticated conversations like we usually have here. The Yankees are cheered on by a similar proportion of nitwits, in my estimation.[/Q]
Agree. I've lived at both sides of the country (and experienced some midwest baseball), and the "good" Yankee and Red Sox fans are by far the most knowlegable fans you'll ever meet. They are what makes The Rivalry so compelling. Problem is that the "bad" Yankee and Red Sox fans are by far the most annoying and thuggery-driven fans you'll ever wish you didn't see. They are what makes The Rivalry so aggrivating.
Just like any college hockey fan base, there are enough good and bad fans to make it stupid to generalize one way or another.
[q]Most Sox fans aren't that bad - there are some idiots who continue to try to start "Yankees suck!" chants at Texas and Tampa Bay games who, sadly, get the majority of the attention (most of them are kids from BC and BU). Trust me, though, there are enough who understand the game and aren't complete morons, and who could carry on sophisticated conversations like we usually have here. The Yankees are cheered on by a similar proportion of nitwits, in my estimation.
[/q]
I'm always tempted to go with "everybody's the same wherever you go," but there really is something about BostonFan that is singularly nitwitted. It may just be the sheer insanity of the anger, envy, and separation from reality of BostonResident -- screeching that a city roughly the same as Philadelphia or Dallas be ranked remotely near great cities like New York, San Francisco... heck even Chicago. The Red Sox and Bruins fans who live outside of Rt. 128 are absolutely just the same as everybody else, but the genuine article in the city itself is just another loudmouthed, drunken, bus-rattling, Southie racist. Naturally, mileage may vary, but going into living there I was predisposed to like them, and coming out my best advice for Boston is a mid-range neutron bomb: save the buildings, start over with the stock.
Smaller market fans tend to be a lot more socially competent, and far more knowledgable. The are more Cardinals fans at an average weekday game who understand baseball than live along the entire eastern corridor put together.
All IMHO, naturally. B-]
It might be that you view the Yankees as "evil" for two primary reasons. Steinbrenner, and the fact that the Sox have played second fiddle for so long to the Yankees and have so often had the Yankees beat them like a drum. I can understand how those factors can make you "hate" them.
But the "obsessive" behavior of Sox fans, as noted in this article really makes me laugh. Oh, and don't forget the cadre of Sox fans who routinely act like morons at Yankee Stadium when the Sox are here...it's no wonder why they are fights at those games so often. If you think the Yankees draw huge crowds only when Boston is in town, you're mistaken. You should check the attendance figures for the past few years to note that the park has been packed for several visiting teams. They didn't pass the # million fans total by drawing 50, 000 + for only the Bosox.
On the other hand, while life long Yankee fans definitely "care" about the Red Sox...it is the best, most passionate rivalry in MLB...we mostly just laugh at the Red Sox after June.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/19/sports/baseball/19boston.html
That "cheer" when the object of the derision isn't the opponent is similar to the practice at Lynah, eh?
That's "3 million"...sorry.
Wasn't James also the one who showed that trying to go from second to third on a ground ball to the left side of the infield (with less than two outs and first base empty) was actually a good gamble? The argument was that the payoff if they didn't throw you out was a lot bigger than the risk.
That was more of a Sabermetric-generic argument -- I don't think it was James in particular -- and it was contingent on the BA of the trailing hitter. In what in retrospect is obvious logic but at the time was considered heresy, the geeks demonstrated that you should try to advance when a contact hitter was at the plate next, but not when a power hitter was. Power hitter outcomes (extra base hits and walks) are much better suited for a man on second, and contact hitter outcomes are much better for man on third. The "experts" at the time hooted that power hitters could hit SF's at will. It turns out that with few exceptions, power hitters are typically lousy at SF's -- when they get it out to the OF, it is generally over the wall, whereas they strike out way too much. Who would you rather have up with a man on third and less than two outs -- Preston Wilson or Craig Counsell?
Post Edited (05-20-03 15:43)
QuoteGreg wrote:
The "experts" at the time hooted that power hitters could hit SF's at will. It turns out that with few exceptions, power hitters are typically lousy at SF's -- when they get it out to the OF, it is generally over the wall, . . .
As if there is any evidence that there is such a thing as an intentional SF. People just try to mash the ball; nobody goes up swinging for a can-o-corn.
Doesn't the calculation also depend on whether there's no outs or one out? I mean, in case the shortstop decides to go to first anyway and leave you on third with two outs? This would seem to be the exception to the "never make the first or last out of the inning at third base" rule, since in this case you're potentially trading your out for the batter's.
QuoteRich Stamboulian wrote:
Oh, and don't forget the cadre of Sox fans who routinely act like morons at Yankee Stadium when the Sox are here...it's no wonder why they are fights at those games so often.
Um, that goes both ways, chief. I was at the Sox-Yanks game at Fenway last night, and there were plenty of loud-mouthed Yankee fans there just asking to get smacked (some of them did, of course). I think Rich's point is well taken - there are obviously nitwits on both sides, but that shouldn't take away from the good fans, even if they are few and far between in some areas.
BTW, I've seen a few Sox games in Yankee Stadium as well, sitting in the right field bleachers with my Red Sox gear on, and I've managed not to act like a moron, and actually met some pretty nice people out there and had some pretty good baseball conversations (most of them probably felt sorry for me, but that's beside the point ::nut:: ). But you'll find your share of idiots out there, too (like the guy who chanted "Beat your kids, Everett, beat your kids!" at Crazy Carl, and the guy who stared me down for two full minutes from ten rows away and then just started screaming at me to "come down and face him," or something). It goes both ways.
I'll make all you Yankee fans a deal - you retire the "nine-TEEN-eight-TEEN!" chant and we'll retire the "Yan-kees suck!" chant. The 1918 is just annoying, but I only go back to 1977, so it doesn't mean that much to me. If you really want to piss off most Red Sox fans, chant "1999" or something.
QuoteRich Hovorka '96 wrote:
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
Most Sox fans aren't that bad - there are some idiots who continue to try to start "Yankees suck!" chants at Texas and Tampa Bay games who, sadly, get the majority of the attention
...and at Patriots parades, and at New Years Eve, and on the T... ::rolleyes::
Um, yeah, the chant at the Super Bowl parade was embarrassing, to say the least. I know Larry Izzo started it, but it probably would have happened anyway. I've also heard it at Patriots pre-season games and at the MLS Cup finals last year. Just sad.
QuoteSully '00 wrote:
I'll make all you Yankee fans a deal - you retire the "nine-TEEN-eight-TEEN!" chant and we'll retire the "Yan-kees suck!" chant. The 1918 is just annoying, but I only go back to 1977, so it doesn't mean that much to me. If you really want to piss off most Red Sox fans, chant "1999" or something.
How about "Bucky Dent"? :-D
Not entirely true. Sometimes you do see a guy go up trying to lift the ball for a sac fly. But it's generally a contact hitter who makes a living hitting the ball into the ground. The power hitters do pretty much just try to mash the ball.
I do agree with those who think a sac fly should be a time at bat. It's really no different from scoring a guy on a ground out and there's no reason to reward the guy who tries to mash the ball and ends up flying out, which he might have done anyway. A sac bunt is different, 'cuz you're actually sacrificing an at bat, with very minimal chance of reaching.
For the heck of it, a quick glance at sac fly stats in the AL last year shows a bunch of power hitters in the top 10 (e.g. Frank Thomas, Troy Glaus) but also a few contact hitters like Omar Vizquel. 2001 has Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi and Jaun Gonzalez, but also Alex Gonzalez and Adam Kennedy.
I still think going to third on a ball to the left side is a dumb idea. The odds of making it on a routine grounder are pretty small, unless you're a speedster. That would be an interesting study/analysis to read, but I think it would be hard to judge properly because determining the probability of success, which is needed to do the cost-benefit analysis.
QuoteKeith K '93 wrote:
I still think going to third on a ball to the left side is a dumb idea. The odds of making it on a routine grounder are pretty small, unless you're a speedster. That would be an interesting study/analysis to read, but I think it would be hard to judge properly because determining the probability of success, which is needed to do the cost-benefit analysis.
The other problem is that the simplest analysis assumes the batter will be thrown out if you don't go. I would think the chance of the shortstop or first baseman blowing the 6-3 play is at least comparible to the shortstop or third baseman blowing the 6-5 FC. (Longer throw vs head start and tag play.)
By definition the guys who try to "cross against the rule" now are disproportionately inexperienced baserunners (pitchers do it all the time without thinking). Another factor is if guys did it more often it would also screw with fielders' heads, thus costing them time on the simple throw to first. A fast runner on second might be able to turn the simple out to a dilemma for the fielder whether to risk losing everybody. Just think of how often the fielder turns down a decent percentage of nailing the lead runner on a sac bunt because of the slight chance of blowing all the outs.
The 80's Cardinals used to torture opponents by running in untraditional situations. They probably netted a dozen runs during a season by tagging both runners up on fairly long flies with runners on first and second -- a lot of things can go wrong on a 7-6-4 relay to pick up the runner from first, and any slip up means the guy from second rounds third and scores. Now, not everybody has four bona fide speedsters to mess with your head, but they did demonstrate that fielding is dangerous enough that the opposing manager shouldn't give up too much without a fight.
Post Edited (05-21-03 19:47)
Nieuwy: from great news to terrible news in twenty minutes.
Joe scores the game tying goal tonight to force game 6 to overtime. Then, after Ottawa wins it in o.t., the NJ trainer had to walk him off the bench, presumably he is injured.
Damn, damn, and damn again. :-(
ESPN.com has this article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2003/story?id=1557477
but doesn't detail the injury. It looks like we have to wait to find out what it is and how long he may be out!
According to today's New York Times, it's a leg injury. When asked if he'd be ready Friday, Joe was quoted as saying "absolutely." We shall see. Tough nut for the Devils Friday, I'd say.
I used to think that sac flies don't count as at-bats. However, I was listening to the Yankees/Red Sox game on Tuesday, and Nomar's first at bat was a sacrifice fly. Now, he was on a 20 game hitting streak and the commentator commented that, should he walk at the rest of his at-bats, his hitting streak would halt. However, if none of those at-bats counted, why would his hitting streak end? On a similar note, if the game were postponed in the middle due to inclement weather, do none of the statistics count towards career numbers? I assume so... ::screwy::
QuoteJason wrote:
. . . if none of those at-bats counted, why would his hitting streak end?
It is a GP without a hit (and a plate appearance to boot). If Nomar took the field in the first inning, took a Soriano bad-hop grounder in the plums, and was taken out of the game, the hitting streak would be over.
Hitting streaks refer to consecutive official games in which you make an appearance. Thus if you Pinch hit, the game counts in your streak.. So in the example you cited, the sacrifice fly was a plate appearance, putting the streak in jeopardy if he did not get to bat again for any reason, ( let'ssay an injury which takes you out of the game) or got up to bat and did not get any hits. Also, if you are hitless in nine innings, but get a hit in the extra inning of a tie game, the hit counts for your streak. If the game gets rained out after it is official, the stats count, and if you got a hit, fine, your streak is still on, but if you got up twice, hit a sac fly and walked.. tough , your streak is through. It's pretty logical when you think it through Joe D's streak is, he appeared in 56 consecutive games in which he got at least one base hit..
It is consistent with the consecutive GP streak (aside: one of the stupidest stats in sports, sorry Ripken). If Ripken is on the lineup card that his manager turns in, then is scratched and never takes the field, his streak continues.
Are you sure about that?
I recall a game against the Yanks years ago when he was having back trouble. The announcers said he was in the original lineup and had a discussion about this very thing. They said, after some "research" that if he had not make an appearance, the streak would ghave ended.
The screwy situation would be a game that gets rained out after 5 innings with the score tied. The game is official, so the stats count. But the Score is tied, so the game doesn't. Probably this would interrupt a hitting streak, even though the game would never go in the team's record. Then again, there used to be tie games from time to time in the old days, which must've been handled the same way.
My favorite hitting streak story involves Don Mattingly. Back in '83 when he was a rookie, Mattingly had two hitting streaks of around 20 games apiece, separated by one one hitless game. That game happened to be the pine tar game, which he had entered in the 8th inning as a defensive replacement for Steve Balboni. When they ended up replaying the ninth inning of that game, Mattingly got a plate appearance in the bottom of the ninth. Since this was the continuation of a game from a month before, the stats would have been attributed to the original date. Had he gotten a hit (he didn't) he would have retroactively had a 40 or so game hitting streak, which would have set the record for the longest hitting streak by a rookie.
The (practically) verbatim wording of the consecutive games played rule is ... the player must have at least one plate appearance, or play at least one half inning in the field.
Anybody here play the "beat the streak" game on MLB.com? It's fun; check it out.
[q]the player must have at least one plate appearance, or play at least one half inning in the field.[/q]
That doesn't make sense. What of the situation where a PH is lifted for another PH without ever actually facing a pitch (which happens a few times a season due to a L/R pitching switch)? This cannot be a plate appearance, right? Yet it is counted as a GP, right?
So, is the "consecutive GP" rule distinct from the "ordinary" GP rule?
Post Edited (05-22-03 18:14)
Once the hitter is announced, it counts as a plate appearance. Whether he actually sees a pitch is not relevant.
I'm interested to know if the rule that Adam described applies for a DH. In other words, until he actually gets announced as the hitter, has the DH "appeared" in the game? Based on Adam's wording, the answer seems to be "no" but you can make the argument that since the DH is the designated hitter for the pitcher's spot, once the pitcher appears on the field, the DH is considered to have "appeared" in the game.
The double pinch-hit situation can't be a plate appearance in the sense of on-base-percentage calculations, since I'm pretty sure that's defined in terms of results. It just makes no sense that being pinch hit for should lower your OBP. But it must be a different rule for purposes of games played.
Can you pinch hit for a batter in the middle of an at bat if the opposing team changes pitchers?
I don't think the DH counts as having appeared until he gets a plate appearance. I think it is true that a player is not considered in the game until he is announced. Although going to the plate umpire and telling him probably counts.
QuoteKeith K '93 wrote:
Can you pinch hit for a batter in the middle of an at bat if the opposing team changes pitchers?
Yes, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. A pitcher has to face a single batter or pitch 1/3 of an inning (i.e., if a runner is caught stealing on the first pitch, the pitcher can be replaced).
Keep in mind plate appearence != (that's 'doesn't equal' for you non-geeks) at-bar. Only at-bats (not walks, etc) are used as the denominator for batting average.
QuoteDeltaOne81 '03 wrote:
Keep in mind plate appearence != (that's 'doesn't equal' for you non-geeks) at-bar. Only at-bats (not walks, etc) are used as the denominator for batting average.
KeithK said "OBP." OBP != BA -- and is measured by PA, not AB. I suspect the answer to Keith's question is that it is possible to have a GP without a PA.
Post Edited (05-22-03 18:15)
I have heard broadcasters faithfully repeat that a pitcher must face at least one hitter to conclusion before being pulled, short of injury. I've also heard broadcasters repeat complete nonsense, but there seems to be unanimity on this.
Post Edited (05-22-03 18:33)
Actually, the DH announced in the lineup is required to bat at least once, unless he gets injured. This rule was allegedly adopted to counter Earl Weaver's practice of listing the previous day's starting pitcher as the DH and then pinch-hitting for him in his first at-bat, thus concealing the identity of he DH.
Would Weaver's strategy be all that more effective than a visiting team announcing the previous SP in a platoon position in the first three slots in the lineup, to be pinch hit for by the preferred player when that slot was reached?
I think I'd rather have the SP available for emergency PR (or even OF) duty in case of an extra inning game,
QuoteGreg wrote:
I have heard broadcasters faithfully repeat that a pitcher must face at least one hitter to conclusion before being pulled, short of injury. I've also heard broadcasters repeat complete nonsense, but there seems to be unanimity on this.
Well, it ain't exactly true. If a pitcher comes in with 2 outs and picks off a runner, he doesn't have to start the next inning. But here is the rule:
8.06 A professional league shall adopt the following rule pertaining to the visit of the manager or coach to the pitcher: (a) This rule limits the number of trips a manager or coach may make to any one pitcher in any one inning; (b) A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic removal; (c) The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the same batter is at bat, but (d) if a pinch hitter is substituted for this batter, the manager or coach may make a second visit to the mound, but must remove the pitcher. . . . In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game. . . .So I was wrong also - there doesn't appear to be an exception for a CS for the 1st or 2d out (and it isn't in the ellipses), so the pitcher would have to face a full batter - unless the other team sends up a pinch hitter (so now I don't know who was right).
I'm not so sure that that's 100% conclusive... it only says the manager may not make two trips... he is free however to remove the pitcher on his first trip (right???). Having read the whole of rule 8 ("The pitcher") on MLB's site, I see nothing mentioning anything about having to pitch to a batter. Of course, I can't seem to find a section of the rulebook about player substitutions in general, which may have the answer.
Edit: Now it's conclusive :-)
3.05
(a) The pitcher named in the batting order handed the umpire in chief, as provided in Rules 4.01 (a) and 4.01 (b), shall pitch to the first batter or any substitute batter until such batter is put out or reaches first base, unless the pitcher sustains injury or illness which, in the judgment of the umpire in chief, incapacitates him from pitching. (b) If the pitcher is replaced, the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute batter, until such batter is put out or reaches first base, or until the offensive team is put out, unless the substitute pitcher sustains injury or illness which, in the umpire in chief's judgment, incapacitates him for further play as a pitcher. (c) If an improper substitution is made for the pitcher, the umpire shall direct the proper pitcher to return to the game until the provisions of this rule are fulfilled. If the improper pitcher is permitted to pitch, any play that results is legal. The improper pitcher becomes the proper pitcher as soon as he makes his first pitch to the batter, or as soon as any runner is put out. If a manager attempts to remove a pitcher in violation of Rule 3.05 (c) the umpire shall notify the manager of the offending club that it cannot be done. If, by chance, the umpire in chief has, through oversight, announced the incoming improper pitcher, he should still correct the situation before the improper pitcher pitches. Once the improper pitcher delivers a pitch he becomes the proper pitcher.
Post Edited (05-22-03 23:20)
Regarding the rule for keeping a streak alive ... Whether anyone believes it makes sense or not, it's the rule. But, if you insist, don't take my word for it:
GUIDELINES FOR CUMULATIVE PERFORMANCE RECORDS
10.24
http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/baseball_basics/mlb_basics_official_scorer.jsp
It's the last item of the entire rule book (except, I suppose, the index).
It may not make sense semantically -- the pinch hitter being pinch hit for being credited with a game played, but not extending the games played streak -- but it does make sense logically.
Rule books are a wonderful thing.
BRA ... you were correct. A pitcher must pitch to a full batter, or retire the side (caught stealing, pickoff, etc...)
Anyone care to take a crack at the scoring rules for who gets credited with strikeout/walk when a batter/pitcher is replaced in mid at-bat? Consider it a quiz.
If a batter or pitcher is replaced in the middle of the at bat, the replacement gets credited for a walk if the change occurred prior to the second ball. Otherwise, the original batter or pitcher gets credited with the walk. If the change occurred before the second strike, then the replacement gets credited for the strikeout. Otherwise, the departing batter or pitcher gets credited with the strikeout.
Quotebig red apple wrote:
Well, it ain't exactly true. If a pitcher comes in with 2 outs and picks off a runner, he doesn't have to start the next inning.
This actually happened a few weeks ago - a Baltimore pitcher (I forget who, but I think it was BJ Ryan) came in in a late inning with two outs and a man on first, and picked the guy off without throwing a pitch. The Orioles then took the lead for good in the bottom of the inning before he was replaced in the following inning, so he actually was credited with a win without throwing a single pitch.
Now back to the eHoy Forum... :-P
BTW I wasn't challenging your rule above, I was accepting it and then opining that MLB is being inconsistent. You, OTOH, are being thorough -- a Good thing.
[q]Anyone care to take a crack at the scoring rules for who gets credited with strikeout/walk when a batter/pitcher is replaced in mid at-bat? Consider it a quiz.[/q]
I'll take a crack at it based on about 1500 Met games listened to. Consider it the "Ralph Kiner and for that who really knows?" guess. ;-)
If pitcher 1 has thrown at least one ball to the batter, then pitcher 1 gets credit if the batter walks. Else, pitcher 2 gets credit for the result.
If batter 1 has had at least 1 strike against him, then batter 1 gets credit if batter 2 strikes out. Else batter 2 gets credit for the result.
Urban (er, diamond) legend, but a guess.
[q]he actually was credited with a win without throwing a single pitch[/q]
I wonder if we can do even better. Let's say bottom of the ninth, Visitor leads 3-2, Home has bases loaded with one out. Home hits sac fly to CF scoring the tying run, then scores the winning run when the throw gets away from the catcher.
However, Visitor maintains that the runner on third tagged too soon. Just to be remembered forever, Visitor's manager replaces his pitcher. New Pitcher throws to 3b where the runner is called out, ending the game.
Does New Pitcher get credit for an appearance and a save? ;-)
QuoteGreg wrote:
[q]he actually was credited with a win without throwing a single pitch[/q]
Does New Pitcher get credit for an appearance and a save? ;-)
Depends on whether the change of pitchers, like throwing a pitch, waives the appeal.
Greg is half right on the answer. For some reason, what he says is correct for batters ... but for pitchers, it's determined by whether it's a "hitter's count" or "pitcher's count" at the time of entry.
For example, a 2-1 count to the batter - the new batter takes over and strikes out. Strike out goes to the first batter. 2-1, 1-1, 3-1, 2-2, 1-2, 3-2 -- doesn't matter. So long as there's already one strike to the batter, the new batter can't be charged with a strikeout.
But the reverse is not true. If a pitcher enters with the count 1-2, and walks the batter ... the original pitcher is not charged with the walk just because one ball has been issued. It goes to the new pitcher because the count was in his favor when he entered.
Nieuwy update: wity 3 mins to go in regulation and game 7 tied 2-2, Joe is still out. He started tonight but left after 2 mins with back spasms and is not expected back.
Friesen scores with 2:14 remaining, 3-2 NJ.
Adam, this part of rule 10.17 seems to argue against your interpretation:
[Q](b) When the batter leaves the game with two strikes against him, and the substitute batter completes a strikeout, charge the strikeout and the time at bat to the first batter. If the substitute batter completes the turn at bat in any other manner, including a base on balls, score the action as having been that of the substitute batter. [/Q]
I interpret this to mean that the first batter only is given the strikeout (rather than the pinch hitter) if he leaves after two strikes.
Keith, I think you're right. Just 2 strikes - not 1 or 2. Still strange that the batters are handled in a different manner than the pitchers - but that's the rule.
his return doubtfull for tonights game
Details...
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMzMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTYzODQwNDQmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2
As of June 4, what is the extent of Joe's injury? Has he been scratched from the whole final, is he a long shot, is hye day-to-day, are the Devils not talking at all?
Post Edited (06-04-03 16:25)
QuoteGreg wrote:
As of June 4, what is the extent of Joe's injury? Has he been scratched from the whole final, is he a long shot, is hye day-to-day, are the Devils not talking at all?
Post Edited (06-04-03 16:25)
In today's NY Times it was said Joe might practice today (Wednesday) and play tomorrow night. Pat Burns was quoted saying Joe was the Devils' best player in the Ottawa series. He sure would help with faceoffs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/sports/hockey/04devils.html
Thanks, Al.
Here's the Record's report:
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMzMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTYzODcwNTEmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2
That's the most optimistic comment since he went down. He skated yesterday....Tuesday. Not surprisingly for the Finals, the Devils perhaps concealed the nature of his injury....groin rather than hip.
Not lookin' so good yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/sports/hockey/05devils.html?tntemail1
http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy2003/serieso/devils_side060403.shtml
and the Record's version:
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTYzODc1MDImeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2
I listened briefly to the Devils' radio broadcast last night. He doesn't seem too likely for game 6 either.
JH
Jeff,
I feel for you. Hennessey and Velischek, in particular, are unlistenable!!!
QuoteJeff Hopkins '82 wrote:
I listened briefly to the Devils' radio broadcast last night. He doesn't seem too likely for game 6 either.
JH
I'd be surprised if the Devils fly him to the west coast and back on the slim chance he could play tomorrow night. Ten hours on an airplane--even in a first class seat--isn't gonna help whatever his problem is.
Pandolfo's goal last night looked like a distant replay of the J.D. Forrest goal in Providence. Overturned though it was, at least the ref made a call last night.
Actually, I found them tolerable.
You want intolerable? I'm a Flyers fan, and I can't stand their TV line-up. The play-by-play guy is OK (I forget his name), but the color is done by Garry Dornhoefer and Steve Coates. They can't go 30 seconds without bitching about a call and all they want are to see fights. I'd turn down the sound and put the radio crew on, but they're just boring.
JH
He did make the trip west. Burns said that if he CAN play, he WILL play.
Sure he made the trip west...you don't think he'd miss the Stanley Cup celebration if they win Game 6 do you? I know I sure as hell wouldn't.
True but Burns clearly said that he made the trip with the intention/hope of playing. :-D
Sherry Skalko, ice-level commentator in Providence and ESPN hockey writer, says Joe will dress for warm-ups and possible post-game celebration but will not play tonight.
Nice link on top playoff goalies for Ken Dryden fans:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2003/story?id=1557327&contentType=MLBPlayoffs2000Story
Joe apparently has made it known that he would love to finish his career as a Toronto Maple Leaf. (Along with most other veteran Canadians.) He's a free agent this summer. Unfortunately, there are a number of mentions around the web of Joe wanting to go to Toronto but no hint that Toronto is at all interested. Even though I'm a Bruins fan, it would be tons easier to cheer for Nieuwendyk if he were a Leaf. Anything but Jersey.
Hmm - I know Dryden doesn't keep in touch with Cornell hockey all that much (at all?), but just maybe the Big Red connection would give Joe a glimmer of hope? Who knows...
QuoteRobb Newman wrote:
Hmm - I know Dryden doesn't keep in touch with Cornell hockey all that much (at all?)...
Dryden did attend the July 2000 summer golf outing and hockey alumni reunion that honored Ned and the 1967 and 1970 championship teams.
When was the last time that either Dryden or Nieuwendyk attended a game at Lynah?
The father of friend from my floor this year is a Cornell faculty member and really into Cornell sports (follow that?) - he goes to hockey, lacrosse, football, baseball, wrestling, and I'm sure more... As such, I believe he has gathered some kind of informal ties with the athletic department, and has become an acquaintance with Ken Dryden, who he also happened to sit with at a Cornell hockey game this season... and implied that Dryden should have a talk with Lenny about staying in school :-).
( mmmmmm, run on )
So unless she and her father are compulsive liars, Dryden isn't a stranger to our friendly confines. Nieuwy I cannot speak for though.
Nieuwy is often around for the alumni game, but making it up during the hockey season is probably pretty hard, especially when he was in Dallas.
Nieuwendyk went to the game at Princeton this year and I believe an article about the game mentioned that it was the first Cornell hockey game he had been to since he left school, for the obvious reason that the two seasons overlap and until the trade last season, he had been based far from Cornell's stomping grounds.
Also he lives part of the offseason at his place on Cayuga Lake. The year Ithaca hosted the Empire State Games, he dropped the puck at center ice in the opening game, IIRC.
If I had to guess, I would think NHL rules would prohibit Dryden, as president of the Leafs, from talking to LeNeveu about professional-related matters.
My local ESPN radio affiliate is reporting that Joe will be a scratch for game 7.
From the website:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2003/story?id=1565656
Local coverage.
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMzMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTYzODkxNTImeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2
Now that they can't fool anybody, the Devils reveal it's a torn oblique muscle. Thats pretty serious for a hockey player. He gave it his best shot!
I think it's time for Oates to get a ring!