ANGELS win the World Series!!!

Originally posted by Joel:
I can't believe you guys are actually blaming Dusty Baker for the ENTIRE world series loss. You're pointing the finger on ONE man. No wonder the Giants don't have a sense of team unity.

Yup. As Joel rightly points out, a single incident by any particular individual doesn't determine the entire outcome of the series, because you can just as easily point to dozens of other incidents that could have reversed the outcome, too.

Think of it this way. The Giants lost four games. Yes, if things had gone differently in any particular area, maybe one of those losses would have become a win... but they still lost three other games! If they had not lost any of those three other games, they wouldn't have lost the series, either. The fact is, the series ended in seven games. If the Giants were substantially better than the Angels, they would never have lost four games or even three games; they would have won the Series in four or five games, even with a bad decision or a bad break here or there. But they didn't.

It's over, and the Giants lost. Oh well, Giants fans can still be happy about how well they did in... 1954.
biggrin.gif


Quiz Question: How many different teams have won the World Series since 1954?

Answer: 19 teams (17 franchises, with the Dodgers and Braves winning in each of two different cities).
1. New York Yankees '56, '58, '61, '62, '77, '78, '96, '98, '99, '00
2. Los Angeles Dodgers '59, '63, '65, '81, '88
3. Oakland Athletics '72, '73, '74, '89
4. St. Louis Cardinals '64, '67, '82
5. Pittsburgh Pirates '60, '71, '79
6. Cincinnati Reds '75, '76, '90
7. Baltimore Orioles '66, '70, '83
8. Detroit Tigers '68, '84
9. Minnesota Twins '87, '91
10. New York Mets '69, '86
11. Toronto Blue Jays '92, '93
12. Anaheim Angels '02
13. Arizona Diamondbacks '01
14. Atlanta Braves '95
15. Brooklyn Dodgers '55
16. Florida Marlins '97
17. Milwaukee Braves '57
18. Philadelphia Phillies '80
19. Kansas City Royals '85
 
Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Yup. As Joel rightly points out, a single incident by any particular individual doesn't determine the entire outcome of the series, because you can just as easily point to dozens of other incidents that could have reversed the outcome, too.

Think of it this way. The Giants lost four games. Yes, if things had gone differently in any particular area, maybe one of those losses would have become a win... but they still lost three other games! If they had not lost any of those three other games, they wouldn't have lost the series, either. The fact is, the series ended in seven games. If the Giants were substantially better than the Angels, they would never have lost four games or even three games; they would have won the Series in four or five games, even with a bad decision or a bad break here or there. But they didn't.

As an avid Angels fan I have to agree here and point something out.

Two bad bounces cost the Angels game 4. One from the colossol (sacrasm intended) hit that took a weird bounce and rolled away from Lackey preventing a throw out at first and the second the "bunt heard round the world" that just wouldn't stay fair. Both of these crazy hits cost the Angels two runs in that game and eventually the game.

Baseball is a game of inches. Sometimes the rolls go your way, sometimes they don't. Moreover, you can't really blame any one person for a loss any more than you can thank any one person for the win. Its a team sport (or at least is supposed to be
smile.gif


The truth is that Dusty did a great job with that team. The fact that a wild card team was in the world series (let alone two) was amazing. Couple that with the way they man handled Arizona and St. Louis and you've got a great team. Throw on top of that pile the fact that the huge egos and personality mix didn't cause more turmoil than it did and you ahve to really give respect to Dusty.

Of course, that's all just my opinion.

Let's Go Angels!!!!
 
Originally posted by nsxtasy:
...However, I haven't been to any of the new-generation parks with old-fashioned charm, like those in Baltimore, Cleveland, or Dallas (but would like to do so)...

Ken

Seeing as you are obviously a baseball fan and only live a little ways away in Chicago, you should try Comerica Park in Detroit. Lousy city, HORRIBLE baseball team, but one very nice stadium (feels kind of like a minor league park - in the good "old time baseball" vein).

------------------
'91 Black/Black
 
I am not blaming the loss on one person. I am blaming it on the one responsible. I have noted this all season (although few but my friends know this) that Baker keeps pitchers in too long when they're not doing well. Let's look at this: I think the argument that it's a team game is, in this case, invalid. We are talking one game. All he had to do was recognize that LH didn't have his "stuff" and replace him in the second inning. This isn't rocket science. He had 8 other pitchers; they couldn't each pitch a little? What, he's afraid they won't be ready for spring training?
Nothing against the Angels; I applaud their efforts and if the Giants didn't win, then I'm glad they did; great team! But I would rather they beat us than we beat ourselves due to poor managing.
 
Originally posted by Da Hapa:
The truth is that Dusty did a great job with that team. The fact that a wild card team was in the world series (let alone two) was amazing. Couple that with the way they man handled Arizona and St. Louis and you've got a great team. Throw on top of that pile the fact that the huge egos and personality mix didn't cause more turmoil than it did and you ahve to really give respect to Dusty.

Of course, that's all just my opinion.

You also have to give him credit for winning enough games to get into the playoffs in the first place.
 
Originally posted by Michigan NSX:
you should try Comerica Park in Detroit.

I know. I'm still sorry I didn't get to see a game at the old Tigers Stadium before they moved (even though I've heard it was rather dumpy).

I ought to try the new Milwaukee stadium, too, since it's so close and all.
 
Tiger Stadium was kind of dumpy, but not too bad. It was a neat old baseball park with a 440 foot centerfield and a flagpole on the warning track. I saw many games (and even played a high school game) there, and it was cool knowing that Ty Cobb played on that very same field.

------------------
'91 Black/Black

[This message has been edited by Michigan NSX (edited 31 October 2002).]
 
Point taken - But I played on Tiger Stadium's field. Believe me, when you walk out of the clubhouse through the dugout and on to the field it is a WORLD of difference than just buying a seat (even if it was only a high school game).

I have not been to Wrigley, but to me it looks like a TON of fun to attend a game there. Everyone in the stands (at least the fans they show on the TV crowd shots) seem to really be enjoying themselves.

Day baseball in the middle of the week on a natural turf old time ballpark in the early summer - it just doesn't get much better than that (although live professional road racing come close
biggrin.gif
)!

------------------
'91 Black/Black

[This message has been edited by Michigan NSX (edited 31 October 2002).]
 
Hey MichiganNSX,

Two years ago I flew into O'Hare on business. I was seeing a dealer of mine in Wisconsin. I went to the luggage claim and my bags took a while.

I met this very unassuming fellow and we started a conversation and had a real nice chat. I could not help but notice how folks were staring at him and I on this bench.

Finally someone came up and asked him for his autograph. It was Ernie Banks!! I had no idea.

It ends up that the person I was going to visit was very into "Mr. Cubs" history, so I gave him the autographed photo I got from Ernie.

It made my day.

LarryB
 
Gotcha Ken!

Ernie actually played more games at 1st base in his carreer than at shortstop. This is a very good "bar trivia" question, as most people say shortstop. Feel free to "look it up" as they say!
smile.gif


------------------
'91 Black/Black
 
Originally posted by Michigan NSX:
Ernie actually played more games at 1st base in his carreer than at shortstop. This is a very good "bar trivia" question, as most people say shortstop. Feel free to "look it up" as they say!
smile.gif

I knew that he played first base later in his career, when he had lost a step. I didn't know that he had actually played more games there than at short. In addition to his 1259 games at first base and his 1125 games at shortstop, he played 69 games at third base and 23 in the outfield.

Ernie still holds the National League record for most home runs by a shortstop, 277 of his 512 career homers. Cal Ripken holds the American League record with 345.

He also holds the National League record for most home runs by a shortstop in a season, 47 in 1958. A-Rod holds the AL record with 53 in 2002.

Since we're doing bar trivia, Ernie played 1125 games at shortstop, most of them alongside Ron Santo at third base. Who played most of those games in the rest of the Cubs infield?

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 01 November 2002).]
 
Originally posted by nsxtasy:
...Since we're doing bar trivia, Ernie played 1125 games at shortstop, most of them alongside Ron Santo at third base. Who played most of those games in the rest of the Cubs infield?
Actually, Banks only played 1 full season - 1961 - with Santo as the third baseman. Santo joined the team in 1960 and played only 95 games. In 1962 Banks moved to First Base full time.

When Banks was playing Shortstop his regular teammates were: Dee Fondy 1B, Gene Baker 2B, and Randy Jackson 3B

------------------
'91 Black/Black
 
Back
Top