Guest NYankees Posted October 28, 2006 Report Posted October 28, 2006 Isn't it weird that the Tigers actually had won the World Series more recently than the Cardinals until tonight (1984 for Detroit, 82 for STL)? It's strange since the Tigers basically fell of the face of the earth for nearly 2 decades and the Cardinals have for the most part stayed in the mix. The only bad era during that time for the Cardinals was the Joe Torre era. The team never finished above second place during his tenure of 6 years. Yes, clearly his fault. Nothing to do with the fact that their pitching was mediocre at best the entire time. Whitey Herzog finished below second in six of his ten years, too, you know, including the three right before Torre was hired. I love how teams are defined by who's managing them, as if that has any impact at all. I never said it was his fault. My point was that the team never finished above second place and never made the playoffs. Torre was right in between Herzog and LaRussa. Who both won World Series in St Louis. Why are people bashing Jim Leyland for pinch running in the top of the ninth? Saying that the run was meaningless.
Bored Posted October 28, 2006 Report Posted October 28, 2006 The Decline of Western Civilization IV: The Eckstein Years
Guest Felonies! Posted October 28, 2006 Report Posted October 28, 2006 David Eckstein is a scrappy hard worker who passes out in a pool of his own vomit the right way.
Guest Paul Posted October 28, 2006 Report Posted October 28, 2006 And who do the Cardinals get to raise the banner against on Opening Day next season? The Mets. Of course. Perfect!
The Niggardly King Posted October 28, 2006 Report Posted October 28, 2006 As an Angels fan, it hurts to see Eckstein get another ring... but not with the right team. Happy for the Cardinals, as I was one of the many who made fun of there recent playoff runs, and LaRussa. This is a good win for them, and I hope the Tigers will bounce back.
MFer Posted October 28, 2006 Report Posted October 28, 2006 Really we shouldn't be surprised at this result. Every series in these playoffs have gone the opposite of what was expected. Everyone was drinking the NL West's Kool-Aid cause of the way they finished the regular season, but the Padres and Dodgers couldn't get the job done. Minny was hot and they had Santanna. Some ppl even had them in the W.S. Obviously no one thought Detroit could beat the Yankees. Eveyone had the Mets over the Cards. Most ppl had the A's over the Tigers b/c of their experience and pitching. By time we got to the W.S. everyone jumped on the Tiger bandwagon and buried the Cards. The long layoff was supposed to help the Tigers but it seemed to work to their disadvantage. Detroit would have much rather played the underdog. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. The Tigers on paper were the better team and they didn't show up. The week layoff really did them harm. I'm not sugarcoating it or making excuses, I just had a funny feeling before the series started considering how the playoffs had played out up to that point. I had the Tigers winning this, but considering that Cards had a lot of their main parts from the past 4-5 years, it's not shocking that they won. St. Louis is a more veteran team and it showed, especially on the defensive side(save for Duncan). It's just disappointing to see 3 Detroit teams completely shit the bed in the playoffs in the same year. Just goes to show ya that the regular season doesn't mean jack squat.
Guest Paul Posted October 28, 2006 Report Posted October 28, 2006 Nobody had a funny feeling. Everyone thought the Tigers would win in 4,5 or at most, 6. YOU CAN'T SCRIPT OCTOBER!!!!
strummer Posted October 29, 2006 Report Posted October 29, 2006 FJM is ruling it with the Eckstein article collection.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted October 29, 2006 Report Posted October 29, 2006 Nobody had a funny feeling. Everyone thought the Tigers would win in 4,5 or at most, 6. YOU CAN'T SCRIPT OCTOBER!!!! *sighs* read back through the thread. Certainly people, myself included, predicted Cards would win.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted October 29, 2006 Report Posted October 29, 2006 Worst. World Series. Ever. This one's pretty close, but the 1989 World Series has to take the cake. A one-sided series interrupted for ten days in the middle.
Guest Princess Leena Posted October 29, 2006 Report Posted October 29, 2006 At least the A's were a strong team. I never had that feeling for either team this year. Two teams that backed into the playoffs, and things went their way for a dozen games.
Star Ocean 3 Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Plaschke says the World Series should move to a neutral site and call it Baseball Town USA.
Kahran Ramsus Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Worst. World Series. Ever. This one's pretty close, but the 1989 World Series has to take the cake. A one-sided series interrupted for ten days in the middle. What about '44? The Browns were only there because the other teams in the AL lost several star players to the war effort.
Bored Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Worst. World Series. Ever. This one's pretty close, but the 1989 World Series has to take the cake. A one-sided series interrupted for ten days in the middle. OH NO YOU DIDN'T! Greatest...series...evah!
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Worst. World Series. Ever. This one's pretty close, but the 1989 World Series has to take the cake. A one-sided series interrupted for ten days in the middle. What about '44? The Browns were only there because the other teams in the AL lost several star players to the war effort. The Browns lost some players too. Besides, that World Series was actually pretty good from most accounts.
Kahran Ramsus Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Ok, then. How about 1919? Sure it went 8 Games, but considering it wasn't exactly a legitimate competition it surely ranks up there amongst the worst ever.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Ok, then. How about 1919? Sure it went 8 Games, but considering it wasn't exactly a legitimate competition it surely ranks up there amongst the worst ever. Oh absolutely. And even if it were legitimate, all but the 6th game were uncompetitive.
the max Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Plaschke says the World Series should move to a neutral site and call it Baseball Town USA. Only if they move Plaschke to a neutral site and call it "Drop Bomb Here".
Guest Princess Leena Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 As much as we're hating on Plaschke, he may well be on to something here. Considering how successful it is for the NFL. And there's going to come a year where it will be hell trying to play baseball games in the Northern half of he US during the last week of October.
The Man in Blak Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 But, if they move the World Series to a neutral site, then nobody would have home field advantage. The All-Star Game would have no meaning.
Guest Princess Leena Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 The league winner of the All-Star game could wear their home jerseys in the World Series!
Guest Felonies! Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 But the Super Bowl is one game, not a series that can last four to seven games. As for weather, I'm sure this is neither the first nor the last year that the end of October has had shitty weather. Baseball has survived cold games before. Why shouldn't they in the future? What if you had a Series between the Dodgers and the A's? What's being averted there? I don't understand what the problem is that necessitates taking the World Series away from the home parks. Did I miss something where Cardinals fans didn't show up to Busch Stadium?
Cheech Tremendous Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Baseball, for all its popularity, is still a regionally based sport. A city like Miami can't even get people to come out and see the Marlins play. Why is there any indication that they (or some other warm weather city) are going to support the Cardinals and Tigers for 7 games over 10 or so days at the end of October. It's asinine to think that the World Series could have the same sort of success at a neutral site.
Guest Felonies! Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 May I please read Plaschke's justification for a World Series in Dallas or wherever-the-fuck? I still don't understand.
Guest Posted October 30, 2006 Report Posted October 30, 2006 Slow down, let's see the Rangers get there first.
sfaJack Posted November 1, 2006 Report Posted November 1, 2006 Most of us aren't gonna live that long though.
TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe Posted November 1, 2006 Report Posted November 1, 2006 Well, they did just fire Buck Showalter....
Star Ocean 3 Posted November 2, 2006 Report Posted November 2, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plasch...1&cset=true A neutral site works for three of the top four championships, why not in baseball? Award the game to a warm-weather or domed-stadium city. Play seven consecutive games there. Turn it into an annual celebration of our national pastime, Baseball Town USA. If the Super Bowl can party in one spot for one week, why can't baseball? This will end the travel-day drudgery that busts momentum. This will end the weather postponements that ruin interest. This will ensure that the most important games are played under ideal conditions. Worried about alienating home fans? Have you ever heard an NFL die-hard complain that the Super Bowl is not played at their home field? Divide up the tickets, give more to the team whose league has home-field advantage, and every game will be a sold-out blast.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now