Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2013 MLB Season Thread
- Thread starter quagmire
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Happ sucks. He has no business pitching inside to these lefties. I can't remember a year when so many of our guys have gotten hit and actually have gotten hurt.
Dempster sucks because it took like 8 pitches to hit the big, tall guy standing in front of him.
Happ sucks. He has no business pitching inside to these lefties. I can't remember a year when so many of our guys have gotten hit and actually have gotten hurt.
Dempster sucks because it took like 8 pitches to hit the big, tall guy standing in front of him.
Well, actually it was 4 pitches.
Hyperbole to make a point?
Well, actually it was 4 pitches.
Hyperbole to make a point?
Yes.
It reminded me of when Shawn Estes failed miserably on his first attempt to hit Roger Clemens. That was kinda sad.
----------
I honestly think he'll try to field a winning team but doesn't want to go for broke without a real chance to be competitive. They have a beautiful stadium and a fan base that will give amazing support (a bit fairweather, though). Their main competition, though, is the Texans. They dominate even during the long, dull offseason. If it's apparent he isn't making a real attempt, he's going to lose the fans.
Well, actually it was 4 pitches.
Hyperbole to make a point?
2 pitches really... he tried to hit him with the first but missed. 2nd and 3rd didn't look like he was trying to hit him, just pitch inside.. but once it was a 3-0 count, he probably figured "screw it, i'm going to walk him anyways, might as well hit him"
That's how it looked to me anyways.
It's too bad for the Giants this year. There were so many great expectations for the team coming into 2013 and if people would consider them a true dynasty. Even getting to World Series in 2013 would help that title.
There's no doubt that Atlanta was a dynasty, even if only a pitching one, in the 1990s and they only won one World Series. All the other years they did well cemented that title. If the Giants never do better in next decade with any of the players that helped win the 2010 and 2012 World Series, then it could be seen as a spurt over a short period of time that ended well with two rings, but not an Atlanta or New York 1990s style dominant dynasty. I would think that a dynasty has to have a ten year period where it seems very likely that a team can go to the World Series.
The Rockies season has been over for a long time too. Kudos to the Dodgers, they are having an amazing season.
spoiler alert: hate rant against the braves to follow...
you've, and many a contemporary sports writer, have redefined dynasty.
the yankees of the 20's, 30's, 40', 50's, and 60's that is what dynasty used to mean. you used to have to win championships, entire league championships, to get that moniker.
in the NFL a team like the 70's steelers or the late 80's/early 90's 49ers fell under that category.
most of the "dynasties" we've seen since are at best "mini- dynasties".
no worries though.
i wouldn't even have bothered to mention but for the fact that i live in the south and people here are ape **** over the braves. completely forgetting all the horrible years of mediocrity, and even years of being less than mediocre. ted turner called them "americas team". they are not. he didn't coin that phrase and when he used it stole it from the yankees (who i hate). sports illustrated called the dallas cowboys that as well. true enough.
in MLB, if i had to pick i'd guess that the yankees, dodgers, and or cubs, come much closer to being americas team.
END RANT.
this 2013 season can't end soon enough for me. God bless my poor little s.f. giants.
I agree. The Braves may have thought they were the team of the 90's, but they were no more the team of the 90's than the Bills were in the NFL. You just can't lose more World Series than you win if you want to consider yourself a dynasty. I know it's a great achievement just to get there, but you have to finish. And as good as their pitchers were, they just couldn't get it done when it counted.
The Braves were only Americas team because all of their games were aired nationally on TBS. That is the only thing I can think of. They never came close to being a dynasty. Not sure what we call a dynasty anymore but I think you have to win at least 5 in a row.
I think at least they could say they were the NL dynasty of the 1990s. The only problem with being considered the best were the NYY with their 96/98/99/00 WS wins and AL pennants in 01/03, but only division titles in 04/05 but overall ten year span was productive in a dynasty sense. That NYY team, love them or hate them, were amazing.
The Yankees dynasty went from 96-01. That is when they had the great core of players.
Winning 1 world series and losing 2 doesn't make them a dynasty. I know they were great regular season team, but you can't be a dynasty if you can't win the ones that count. And it's not like they took both World Series' they lost to game 7. They were 2-8 in those games.
I agreed. I don't see how you wouldn't. Winning 2 world series > winning 1 world series.