EVIL~! alkeiper

Bonds is not in the game because he did not sign on with the MLBPA's licensing agreement, choosing to go his own course. John Dowd is amusing because it is the name of the investigator of the Pete Rose affair, in the late 80s. I picked up Rafael Soriano myself, in exchange for Roberto Hernandez. I think a big problem with computer trade engines is that they don't recognize franchise player appeal, and more importantly future potential.

That's only if you take an arbitrary look with your numbers. 1965-1975 was arguably worse, because they didn't even have a league championship. EDIT: And yes, a league championship isn't winning it all, but for a while it meant alot. Just look at the Giants in '51. I don't know when the change happened. I suspect expanding the playoffs had something to do with it, but people don't remember league champions anymore.

I won't say the 80s weren't a disappointment for the Yankees. There is just this misinformation that the Yankees were pathetic in the 80s. This is untrue. They were competitive for most of the decade. 89-92 was the only truly bad period for the Yankees.

As I said in the greatest teams thread, the 1936-39 squad is the greatest team ever, from any franchise. They led the league in runs scored and least runs allowed EVERY YEAR. There's never been another franchise that's come remotely close to accomplishing that.

As I have stated before, the Yankees had the BEST overall record of any franchise in the 1980s. The 1985 squad is one of the best teams to fall short of a division title. If there is a bad Yankee season to celebrate, its 1990. Don Mattingly completely fell off a cliff, posting a 643 OPS.

I'm shocked Borowski wasn't in before. Why wait to use your best reliever until you can most afford to give up a run? Why use inferior pitchers when one run will cost the game?

Casey Daigle had an extremely poor debut for the Diamondbacks, giving up FIVE home runs to the Cardinals in just 2 2/3 IP. His 0 walks are encouraging, but I doubt he gets another start.

Catfish Hunter wears a generic cap.

Texas Rangers

Those statistical overlays get distracting. Is it really necessary to divert my attention in the 14th inning to list season RBI leaders after 3 games? For that matter, has anyone ever been intrigued by a list of RBI leaders?

Personally, I think they should just not assign teams to HOF candidates. I can just imagine the fun when Roberto Alomar gets elected.

Obviously the Cleveland Spiders trump any other team. Those were bad times for baseball. Duel ownership of teams meant owners would ship good players from one club to another (in this case St. Louis), creating a system where clubs were essentially playing in the same league as their farm club.

I've got my eye on the Phillies/Marlins game. Tied at three in the seventh.

Speed is overrated. The most important thing is getting guys with high OBPs, and working from there.

His granddaughter? That's unbiased, fair testimony right there. Lets hand him a HOF cap right now. Enough of this silly scandal. The fact is, I've never seen a credible source say he never received money. Maybe he didn't want it, but the fact is he got it. Its not worse. Jackson's decision nearly brought down the integrity of the game, and threatened its very survival. Ruth always played to win. His off the field shenanigans are secondary.

As per the 88-90 A's dynasty. I think the '88 team was the best. In '89 Canseco missed 2/3 of the season, so their offense was suspect, even with Henderson. 1988 was the only year they nearly led the AL in both runs scored and runs allowed. On a side note, I find it interesting that despite their big hitting reputation, the '88 club had only three players top a .450 slugging mark.

So based on a decidedly pro-Jackson film and movie, Joe Jackson is exonerated? The burden of proof is on Jackson's side, and I see no reason not to discount the testimony. Furthermore, Jackson's admission to receiving $5,000 was told before a Grand Jury, not just a signed confession. Jackson most certainly DID receive money for throwing the series. So lets assume Jackson played honest ball during the Series....... 1. He received money for the PURPOSE of throwing the World Series. 2. He was complicit in the fixing of the World Series. Yes, its hard to rat out your teammates. But that doesn't make it right. Is he a sympathetic character? Perhaps. But the fact is he committed baseball's ultimate sin.

Because its unwieldly and intimidating. Moreover, its difficult to find where you last checked the posts. I think "This Week In Baseball" threads are a wonderful idea. We have experienced good results from This Week In Wrestling threads over at SNKT.

There's no reason to trade for an established "name" when Zambrano is just as good. An obsession with trading for big names is called the Bill Bavasi Syndrome.

First off, the 1919 White Sox. Shoeless Joe Jackson should never be reinstated into baseball. He accepted money for the purpose of throwing the World Series. He admitted this under oath. The discussion ends there. Furthermore, he knew about the fix, and did not notify his manager or superiors about the crooked players. In doing so, he was doing more to lose the World Series than to win it. As for Jackson's pperformance in the Series itself. Much has been made of his .375 batting average. But lets separate the wins from the losses. In the five losses, Jackson hit .286/.286/.571. If we take away game eight, which most conclude the Sox were trying to win, Jackson's hitting numbers in the first four numbers are an abysmal .250/.250/.375. Jackson failed to drive in a single run in the Sox' first four losses, and never drew a walk in the entire series. As for the team itself, about 34 teams have led the league in both runs scored AND runs allowed. The Sox did not. They won their division by 3.5 games. A good team, sure. But certainly not a historically dominant team. The 1975 Reds were better than the '76 club, because their pitching was much better. My pick for the best club: 1939 Yankees. They led the league in runs scored. They led the league in runs allowed, by a margin of nearly 150 runs. They won 106 games, and the World Series in four straight. Moreover, they famously lost Lou Gehrig, and were forced to play Babe Dahlgren for the rest of the season. If Gehrig had been healthy, they would have won 112-114 games. Not only that, but that team led the league in runs scored, runs allowed, and won the World Series EVERY YEAR from 1936-1939. There has never been a team that has come close to that level of sustained dominance.

That's another thing I like about this game. The Polo Grounds, Forbes Field, Shibe Park and other stadiums are unlockable. No Ebbets Field, unfortunately.

But Kevin Brown is 2-0. Nice trade for both clubs so far.

? Aren't all three teams at or near first in their division? Yes, and if your Yankees had the same record you wouldn't be pulling this shit. So give both teams credit for coming out nicely The point is they play in different leagues!

?

Nonsense. Teams do not set ticket prices to match their payroll. They set ticket prices to attain the maximum income possible, and THEN they figure out expenses. You would pay no less for a baseball ticket if players were paid the minimum wage. Here's why athletes are paid so much. There are literally thousands of people who have the skills necessary to govern our nation. I'm talking basic educational requirements. There are far less people capable of playing shortstop and hitting 50+ home runs a year. One, by my count. More than any other factor, scarcity determines value and salary. When the Yankees did suck, they drew less than two million fans. link Hell, the Mets do not draw well, and they play in New York. More than any factor, wins determine a team's attendance.