10-07-2006, 06:15 PM
If you told me before the season that the Tigers would beat the Yankees in 4 games in the divisional series I would have straight up lauged in your face. **** the Yankees.
This is ******* awesome.
This is ******* awesome.
10-07-2006, 06:15 PM
10-07-2006, 06:24 PM
I am very happy now, no possible Mets/Yankees WS
10-07-2006, 06:29 PM
i don't hate the yankees, but it's great to laugh at them.
here's a question though; what is team baseball? i never thought baseball was much of a team sport, but i heard that term a lot in this series. I mean, the yankees can turn a double play and go 1st to third on a single. What are the tigers doing as a team?
here's a question though; what is team baseball? i never thought baseball was much of a team sport, but i heard that term a lot in this series. I mean, the yankees can turn a double play and go 1st to third on a single. What are the tigers doing as a team?
10-07-2006, 07:37 PM
Quote:What are the tigers doing as a team?
beating the yankees in four.
10-07-2006, 07:43 PM
Tulsaman Wrote:Quote:What are the tigers doing as a team?
beating the yankees in four.
i think you know what i mean.
10-07-2006, 07:46 PM
I assume it probably comes from the fact that the Tigers dont really have any true superstars on their team. They dont rely on big time sluggers like the Yankees do, every game it is someone different coming through for them.
10-07-2006, 08:45 PM
Terpy Wrote:I assume it probably comes from the fact that the Tigers dont really have any true superstars on their team. They dont rely on big time sluggers like the Yankees do, every game it is someone different coming through for them.
but isn't it the same when the yankees win? during the season they had a lot of different heroes. I mean, the yankees rely on a-rod, jeter, giambi, damon, cano, sheffield, matsui, posada, cabrera, etc. The only difference between that and the tigers relying on monroe, pudge, granderson, polanco, casey, ordonez, etc. is that the guys the yankees have, are better. How does that make the tigers more of a team?
10-07-2006, 08:51 PM
NY Yankees $194,663,079
DET Tigers $82,612,866
DET Tigers $82,612,866
10-07-2006, 08:59 PM
Terpy Wrote:NY Yankees $194,663,079
DET Tigers $82,612,866
i'm not sure what that means. It still seems to me that the whole "team-baseball" philosophy is a fallacy.
10-07-2006, 09:24 PM
The Yankees are built like a fantasy baseball team, maybe baseball is based on individual performance more than other team sports but you still need role players, guys that are willing to do the little things it takes to win a baseball game.
10-07-2006, 09:36 PM
Terpy Wrote:The Yankees are built like a fantasy baseball team, maybe baseball is based on individual performance more than other team sports but you still need role players, guys that are willing to do the little things it takes to win a baseball game.
valid point. but what are these little things that detroit does, which the yankees don't.
10-08-2006, 11:03 AM
Baseball's all about team chemistry, and the difference between the Yankee dynasty of 1996-2000 is that that team had it and these Yankees don't. Talent-wise, it's not even close. This current Yankee team wins easily. But it's not a good mix of personalities.
The 1998 Yankees, the greatest team of this generation, really had no superstars. Derek Jeter was becoming a great player, but was still young and hadn't really peaked. The closest thing they had to a superstar at the time was Bernie Williams. But they had guys like Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch, Jeter and Williams who were all good character guys and gamers. They always wanted the bat in their hands in October. Same thing with their pitching staff. El Duque, Boomer Wells and Andy Pettitte may not have been bona-fide aces, but they always elevated their game in October.
The 1996-2000 Yankees also played the game the right way. They could work a pitcher like no team I've ever seen. They were opportunistic, always took advantage of a mistake, and could play little-ball with anybody. Not so with the current team.
That's the difference as I see it.
The 1998 Yankees, the greatest team of this generation, really had no superstars. Derek Jeter was becoming a great player, but was still young and hadn't really peaked. The closest thing they had to a superstar at the time was Bernie Williams. But they had guys like Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch, Jeter and Williams who were all good character guys and gamers. They always wanted the bat in their hands in October. Same thing with their pitching staff. El Duque, Boomer Wells and Andy Pettitte may not have been bona-fide aces, but they always elevated their game in October.
The 1996-2000 Yankees also played the game the right way. They could work a pitcher like no team I've ever seen. They were opportunistic, always took advantage of a mistake, and could play little-ball with anybody. Not so with the current team.
That's the difference as I see it.
10-08-2006, 11:33 AM
i don't buy that. you said that team could work a pitcher like no other, but don't you know that this yankee team was perhaps the most patient in the baseball? their OBP was .363.
What character issues does this team have? Sure a-rod choked it up, but he doesn't have a bad attitude. I think David Wells had the worst attitude of everyone on those teams and this team combined.
I'm sorry you really haven't convinced that the 96-2000 yankees played "team baseball." Could the reason they won 4 championships and the present teams can't win any, be because the old teams had great pitching and this team has no semblance of a starting rotation?
What character issues does this team have? Sure a-rod choked it up, but he doesn't have a bad attitude. I think David Wells had the worst attitude of everyone on those teams and this team combined.
I'm sorry you really haven't convinced that the 96-2000 yankees played "team baseball." Could the reason they won 4 championships and the present teams can't win any, be because the old teams had great pitching and this team has no semblance of a starting rotation?
10-08-2006, 11:51 AM
Quote: i don't buy that. you said that team could work a pitcher like no other, but don't you know that this yankee team was perhaps the most patient in the baseball? their OBP was .363.But what was this Yankee teams batting average compared to the 1996-2000 Yankees? I'd bet it was higher. So their OBP is naturally going to be higher if their batting average is higher, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're as good at working a pitcher, especially in the postseason when good hitting is more likely to be shut down.
Quote: What character issues does this team have? Sure a-rod choked it up, but he doesn't have a bad attitude. I think David Wells had the worst attitude of everyone on those teams and this team combined.It's not that they have malcontents on the team. It's just that they're not a tight-knit team. They're a lot of superstars who are off doing their own thing. And say what you want about Wells, but he was beloved in that Yankee clubhouse. He said some things after he left that ruffled some feathers, but everyone loved Boomer while he was there.
Quote: Could the reason they won 4 championships and the present teams can't win any, be because the old teams had great pitching and this team has no semblance of a starting rotation?Um, yeah, I think I already said that. The 1996-2000 Yankees had a staff built to win in October.
10-08-2006, 11:56 AM
i still claim that this yankees team was the most patient in baseball.
nobody can prove that one clubhouse was more tightly knit. and if it was, what does that have to do with anything that happens on the field? Kent and Bonds hated eachother but when they got on the field they played hard and more importantly they were gamers. Now that you mention it, chalk up another tally to things i don't buy; the idea that team chemistry affects the team.
http://Um, yeah, I think I already said that.
Yeah, my bad. I took it to mean something different. IMO that's the only thing that makes the past better than the present.
nobody can prove that one clubhouse was more tightly knit. and if it was, what does that have to do with anything that happens on the field? Kent and Bonds hated eachother but when they got on the field they played hard and more importantly they were gamers. Now that you mention it, chalk up another tally to things i don't buy; the idea that team chemistry affects the team.
http://Um, yeah, I think I already said that.
Yeah, my bad. I took it to mean something different. IMO that's the only thing that makes the past better than the present.
10-08-2006, 12:03 PM
BTW, here's the BA and OBP from a couple of those teams:
year BA OBP
1996 .288 .360
1997 .287 .362
2006 .285 .363
Another big difference is the middle relief. Stanton, nelson, lloyd, boehringer, mendoza. Those guys are a lot better than Proctor, farnsworth, bruney, etc.
year BA OBP
1996 .288 .360
1997 .287 .362
2006 .285 .363
Another big difference is the middle relief. Stanton, nelson, lloyd, boehringer, mendoza. Those guys are a lot better than Proctor, farnsworth, bruney, etc.
10-08-2006, 01:52 PM
flyingswoosh Wrote:Another big difference is the middle relief. Stanton, nelson, lloyd, boehringer, mendoza. Those guys are a lot better than Proctor, farnsworth, bruney, etc.That's a very good point. Those Yankee teams always did a great job getting the ball to Rivera and Wetteland.
10-08-2006, 01:52 PM
Ask Donnovan McNabb and the Eagles if team chemistry and cohesiveness means anything.
Also IIRC those Kent/Bonds Giants teams never did much in the post season.
Also IIRC those Kent/Bonds Giants teams never did much in the post season.
10-08-2006, 02:17 PM
Terpy Wrote:Ask Donnovan McNabb and the Eagles if team chemistry and cohesiveness means anything.
Also IIRC those Kent/Bonds Giants teams never did much in the post season.
umm, the eagles made it to the SB with those 2 together.
Kent and Bonds went to the playoffs 3 times and the WS once.
Why don't you ask reggie jackson and thurman munson if chemistry means anything. They hated eachother. Or maybe you should reseacrh the A's of the 70's who won 3 championships, yet had a clubhouse like a zoo.
don't waste your time feeding me that tripe.
10-08-2006, 02:25 PM
i forgot to mention that team chemistry means a lot more in football, because unlike baseball, it is definitely a team sport. The QB relies on his WR's, the linebackers rely on the DL's, and so on. you should know that.
10-08-2006, 08:04 PM
Maybe I read your post wrong, but it seemed like you were claiming that was a fact for all sports.
As for the Eagles, McNabb and TO had great chemistry when they went to the superbowl, I was talking about last season when TO single handedly destroyed their team. ******
As for the Eagles, McNabb and TO had great chemistry when they went to the superbowl, I was talking about last season when TO single handedly destroyed their team. ******
10-08-2006, 08:13 PM
Terpy Wrote:Maybe I read your post wrong, but it seemed like you were claiming that was a fact for all sports.
As for the Eagles, McNabb and TO had great chemistry when they went to the superbowl, I was talking about last season when TO single handedly destroyed their team. ****
my bad, i didn't mean my post to infer that i was talking about all sports. i just meant baseball.
I thought they were on tenterhooks for TO's whole tenure in philly, but that doesn't really matter in this discussion.