CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 My misconception: Martin Brodeur was the cause of the New Jersey Devils' success, and not the other way around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve J. Rogers 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Nolan Ryan is one of the greatest pitchers of all-time. I was a caller to a Fairfield University radio sports-talk show in 1999 and the host asked me, "Ryan greatest RH of alltime?" and my answer was "Ummmm, no. Probably not even top 20" and I proceeded to run off a list of great RH in the Hall like Seaver, Johnson, Gibson, Pete Alexander, Mathewson, even threw Jim Palmer in the mix That shut the guy up Steve Not even top 20? I don't know about that. I was thinking quickly, yeah Ryan might crack top ten if I really thought it through, I was trying to "show off" though Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeJordan23 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Pitchers clearly better Cy Young Walter Johnson Randy Johnson Roger Clemens Sandy Kaufax Bob Gibson Pedro Martinez Greg Maddux Steve Carlton Lefty Grove Tom Seaver Christy Mathewson Warren Spahn Jim Palmer Gaylord Perry And I'm sure I'm missing a good 10-15... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve J. Rogers 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Pitchers clearly better Cy Young Walter Johnson Randy Johnson Roger Clemens Sandy Kaufax Bob Gibson Pedro Martinez Greg Maddux Steve Carlton Lefty Grove Tom Seaver Christy Mathewson Warren Spahn Jim Palmer Gaylord Perry And I'm sure I'm missing a good 10-15... I think we were just talking righties but yeah... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Whether or not Nolan Ryan is or isn't one of the best five pitchers, isn't a misconception, it's an opinion. I think alot of people think Ruth and Gehrig where teammates longer than they where. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the max 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Misconception 1: We saw the very best that Peter Forsberg could have given us. Had he not been so injury-prone and unlucky (seriously, a friggin spleen?), we could be talking him up as one of the top 10 greatest players ever. One of the best skilled power forwards of his generation and certainly one of the top ten players of this 90's and on generation, but I can't help but feel robbed. Misconception 2: Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak will be broken. There is only one player that I can think of who MIGHT be able to pull it off, and that's Ichiro, just because he can beat out infield hits and has gap power. Pete Rose and Paul Molitor came close...Rose was at 44 in 1978 and Molitor got to 39. Those are two of the better hitters of recent memory and THEY couldn't do it. With homeruns flying out of the park left and right now, Dimaggio's record now has an aura of invincibility to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Again hate to nitpick, thinking someone will or won't break Dimaggio's record is a matter of opinion. Alot of people think that Ted Williams won the MVP in 1941. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 If Brett Hull's 1999 Stanley Cup goal got disallowed and Buffalo won the game, they would have won the Stanley Cup. Fact: Buffalo would tie the series up at three games a piece and would have to play game 7 in Dallas. Montreal never lost in the 93 NHL Playoffs in Overtime. Fact: Montreal lost their first OT game against Quebec in Game 2 of the Quarter Finals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Some people think Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge Gorgeous 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Some people think Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame. I think he belongs in the HoF. Therefore, it is a conception. Not a misconception. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mosaicv2 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Many people think Pete Rose is overrated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Here is a misconception that annoys the hell out of me: People thinking the Washington Redskins' homefield is in Washington State, not Washington DC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 ESPN had a good article on why he shouldn't be in, but damn if I can't find it right now, so... fuck Also, let's not forget Sutton pitched for most of his years in the pitchers haven known as Dodger Stadium... if you're going to get on Jim Rice for playing his career at Fenway, then I would do the same for this case. Certainly Sutton benefitted from Dodger Stadium, but it is not the sole cause of Sutton's HOF worthiness. Check out Sutton's career splits. Unfortunately these do not include Sutton's first three seasons, but I think having 90% of them demonstrates the point. Home: 333 starts, 2446.3 IP, 213 HR, 578 BB, 1674 Ks, 2.83 ERA, 149-101. Away: 327 starts, 2170 IP, 216 HR, 597 BB, 1360 Ks, 3.77 ERA, 141-113. Slight changes in the peripherals stats and a gap in ERA, as we might expect from having a good home park. However, the Win/Loss record is almost exactly the same. Sutton gave up more runs on the road, and his team scored more runs on the road. Here, the park factor creates a different environment, but it does not make Sutton any less effective a pitcher. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 My misconception: Martin Brodeur was the cause of the New Jersey Devils' success, and not the other way around. Wait ... I'm confused by your post. Are you saying that you feel that Brodeur is the cause of their success and that this belief is actually a misconception? Personally, I think that Brodeur is a great goalie who's life was made much, much easier by having a team play such tight and boring D in front of him. It's easy to only allow 1 or 2 goals when you only face 13 a game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 My misconception: Martin Brodeur was the cause of the New Jersey Devils' success, and not the other way around. Wait ... I'm confused by your post. Are you saying that you feel that Brodeur is the cause of their success and that this belief is actually a misconception? Personally, I think that Brodeur is a great goalie who's life was made much, much easier by having a team play such tight and boring D in front of him. It's easy to only allow 1 or 2 goals when you only face 13 a game. The second one. I think he's a very good goalie. But the Devils don't win three Cups without that defence or the system, and they could very conceivably have won one or two with a good-but-not-great goaltender, a Mike Vernon or similar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 The Shot by Jordan on Ehlo was only a 1st Round clincher in 1989, not the Eastern Conference Finals in 1992. Plus, Larry Nance was supposed to help Ehlo on Jordan but he must have been the smartest one in the building as he wanted no part of that highlight. I am going off memory here, but Jordans first Clevland killer came in 89 against Gerald Wilkins, and then he hit the other in 92....I think...I might have those backwards. People seem to think that the Suns sucked before Charles Barkley got there when it was Charles who was coming to a great team from a shitty team. The Suns won 53 games the year before barkley was there and 55 games the year before that. Charles made a damn good team better, not a shitty team a contender. Horace Grant didn't play that big a part in the Bulls first three championships. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 The Shot by Jordan on Ehlo was only a 1st Round clincher in 1989, not the Eastern Conference Finals in 1992. Plus, Larry Nance was supposed to help Ehlo on Jordan but he must have been the smartest one in the building as he wanted no part of that highlight. I am going off memory here, but Jordans first Clevland killer came in 89 against Gerald Wilkins, and then he hit the other in 92....I think...I might have those backwards. The 89 one was against Ehlo as Wilkins was still a Knick. In 1992, the Bulls beat Cleveland in 6 w/o any last second Jordan drama. In 1993, Jordan shot over Wilkins to sweep Cleveland out of the 2nd round . . . once again in Cleveland. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LatinAssasin 0 Report post Posted May 9, 2005 Here is a misconception that annoys the hell out of me: People thinking the Washington Redskins' homefield is in Washington State, not Washington DC. Heh, this was me until a few years ago. It's hard to imagine Native Americans in DC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianGuitarist 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2005 People think Gene Snitsky killed Kane's baby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted May 10, 2005 Lebron James is the next Michael Jordan, although not necessarily for what most people think.. (as in not how well he plays..) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted May 10, 2005 People think the L.A. Clippers have always and forever sucked. However, they have made the playoffs three times in the last 13 years: In '92 they took the Malone/Stockton-led Jazz the distance in a best-of-5 series. In '93 they did the same to the Olajuwon-led Rockets. And in 1997 the Clips were swept out of the 1st round by Utah. I think that a lot of people think Magic Johnson saved a crappy Lakers team. Truth is, they had made the playoffs in each of the three seasons before Magic's rookie year, including one Western Conference Finals run. I would bet those same people might think Larry Bird just walked into a great Celtics team, given their tradition and all. Actually, Boston posted a winning percentage in the 30s in the two seasons before Bird got there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2005 Lebron James is the next Michael Jordan, although not necessarily for what most people think.. (as in not how well he plays..) Why does anyone have to be the next MJ? Why can't they just be whoever they are? I never get that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted May 10, 2005 I was referring to him being ridiculously over-hyped and over-marketed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted May 10, 2005 I think there's a misconception that certain college football teams are always good, like Miami and Oklahoma. (and Notre Dame once upon a time, but not anymore). I was watching the "Beyond the Glory" on Donovan McNabb and it said he led Syracuse to a 66-13 win over Miami, so obviously Miami has had a bad year or two recently. And didn't Oklahoma suck for a few years before Stoops got there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge Gorgeous 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2005 I think there's a misconception that certain college football teams are always good, like Miami and Oklahoma. (and Notre Dame once upon a time, but not anymore). I was watching the "Beyond the Glory" on Donovan McNabb and it said he led Syracuse to a 66-13 win over Miami, so obviously Miami has had a bad year or two recently. And didn't Oklahoma suck for a few years before Stoops got there? Dama will be able to get into the details better than I can, but yeah - they had a few bad seasons in the early 90's... I think after The Boz and before Stoops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted May 10, 2005 Misconception: Lenny Wilkens is one of the greatest NBA coaches of all-time. While he has the most wins of any NBA coach ever, I think he also has the most losses. Lenny has only won about 150-200 more games than he's lost, and his playoff record is 80-96. And I'm pretty sure he only won 1 championship, with Seattle in 1979. Baseball fans, isn't there a misconception that the Yankess have always been good? Didn't they not do anything for, like, most of the 1980s? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2005 The Yankees sorta disappeared for most of the 80s, I think, and the Mets were good then. In fact, they may have even gone below .500 ( !!!) once or twice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge Gorgeous 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2005 The Yankees sorta disappeared for most of the 80s, I think, and the Mets were good then. In fact, they may have even gone below .500 ( !!!) once or twice. NY Yankees Losing Seasons Broken Up By Era 1992 76-86 1991 71-91 1990 67-95 1989 74-87 1982 79-83 1973 80-82 1969 80-81 1967 72-90 1966 70-89 1965 77-85 1925 69-85 1918 60-63 1917 71-82 1915 69-83 1914 70-84 1913 57-94 1909 74-77 1908 51-103 (Worst Yankees Season Ever) 1907 70-78 1905 71-78 1902 50-88 21 losing seasons over the last 103 years. Not bad at all. The 1980s were bad for the Yanks. It was the first decade they didn't grab a WS in since they started winning 'em back in the 20s. Its also the meat of the longest Yankee AL Championship drought. 1982-1996. Or as I like to call them, The Mattingly years. Poor Don Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nogoodnick 0 Report post Posted May 10, 2005 Sports Misconception #1: Boston is the center of the world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted May 10, 2005 Nah, that's just here on TSM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites