Considering that he was almost fired in July I think it is more than a moral victory if he wins.
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
I said stretched as one if a person really wants to look for one. Compared to the powerhouses that is the Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cardinals, the Tigers are certainly the smallest.
It's just further evidence that the manager doesn't have nearly the influence on the game as people think. The Dodgers started winning because the players stopped playing like the Durham Bulls.
But given your choices in the ALCS/NLCS, I can understand going for whatever Yankee connection there is.
Exactly.
Yes, injuries which may make Detroit falter but they are the team with the big time stars with the most press devoted to them. Even when somebody like a Verlander loses, everyone still gushes about how he is the ace of aces and what a great pitcher he is! Only Cliff Lee can still emerge a hero that much after a loss and bank on his name and perceived fear from batters.
I hope Boston's low key teamwork beats the high gloss that is the Detroit Tigers the same way a low key Boston beat the NYY stars in the ALCS in '04. It was the pure definition of underdogs working as a team to beat a glossy, Madison Avenue ridden bunch of rich, spoiled sports stars. I didn't even know the Boston players but I became an instant fan as I saw them all peak against an overconfident NYY full of future HoF players.
Yes, really.
Just as there is no scenario where it is ok for a Jets fan to root for the Patriots. Maybe we just take our rivalries more serious than you west coasters, but it's one of my favorite things about sports.
That said, I certainly respect Red Sox fans and will be happy for the Queen if they win, but I'm definitely rooting against them. And hopefully she knows no offense is meant by that. I'm all for her happiness, but there has to be a better way!!
----------
Sometimes I'm not sure what sport you're watching.
That Red Sox team had Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Curt Schilling, Derek Lowe, and Johnny Damon among others. Low Key? LOLZI really think baseball is an east coast sport with the deep rivalries. Don't forget that baseball west of St. Louis is only 50 years old. I don't think they have the deep history going back generations that we have.Yes, really.
Just as there is no scenario where it is ok for a Jets fan to root for the Patriots. Maybe we just take our rivalries more serious than you west coasters, but it's one of my favorite things about sports.
That said, I certainly respect Red Sox fans and will be happy for the Queen if they win, but I'm definitely rooting against them. And hopefully she knows no offense is meant by that. I'm all for her happiness, but there has to be a better way!!
Yes, really.
Just as there is no scenario where it is ok for a Jets fan to root for the Patriots. Maybe we just take our rivalries more serious than you west coasters, but it's one of my favorite things about sports.
That said, I certainly respect Red Sox fans and will be happy for the Queen if they win, but I'm definitely rooting against them. And hopefully she knows no offense is meant by that. I'm all for her happiness, but there has to be a better way!!
What is interesting is that there are some who think the most intense rivalry in baseball history is the NY/SF Giants against the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers. If anything they have a long history of knocking each other out of the playoffs.
That being said I just don't hate LA. If the Giants get knocked out of contention because of the Dodgers then it wasn't meant to be. The whole thing revolves around winning a 7 game World Series and the focus for me, as it was in 2010 and 2012, was to root against Texas and Detroit, respectively and there was no thought of the Dodgers were doing.
Amazing that we have not fought about sports in a while. See we can coexist.
Well, you've been behaving yourself. Also, as you know, I respect true fans regardless of the team they root for. When it's returned, it makes it easy.
It's hard to call any team with a 150+ million payroll underdogs, but the Red Sox fit that bill better than the Tigers imo if you're going for that stretch. Everyone predicted the Rays would win the division. The Red Sox came in last place last year with the Valentine circus, posting a grotesque 91 losses. This after the epic collapse of 2011. I'm sure Yankees fans loved that, but it had been a really rough 2 seasons.
The offseason was spent acquiring low key, non-superstars who would change the clubhouse vibe and worry only about winning. This was supposed to be a bridge year as many of the kids in the farm system are close to contributing. Both of our closer candidates go down for the season very early on, and 38-year-old Koji Uehara turns in one of the greatest seasons for a reliever not named Mariano Rivera.
It just feels very special and considering my low expectations for the year, it's been pure joy. I love playoff baseball regardless, so I'm sure we're in for some good games.
----------
Yes, really.
Just as there is no scenario where it is ok for a Jets fan to root for the Patriots. Maybe we just take our rivalries more serious than you west coasters, but it's one of my favorite things about sports.
That said, I certainly respect Red Sox fans and will be happy for the Queen if they win, but I'm definitely rooting against them. And hopefully she knows no offense is meant by that. I'm all for her happiness, but there has to be a better way!!
You know I get it. I am completely fine with you rooting against the Red Sox, because you know damn well I'd be doing the same if the scenarios were reversed (AND THEY HAVE BEEN THE LAST 2 YEARS!!).Moyank24 said:Sometimes I'm not sure what sport you're watching.
Ahhhhh 2004. Let's talk about that glorious year some more.
But yes, we had our own little bomb squad. Although there's no doubt we were underdogs, it was more about the 86 year drought/recent success of the Yankees than talent level.Sometimes I'm not sure what sport you're watching.
I will go even further and not say just low key, but "rag tag". I didn't make that up and it was a term Johnny Damon coined even once saying being as a rag tag team of "idiots".
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...10-craziest-players-in-boston-red-sox-history
Take into context who the Yankees had, and their reputation. They had taken four WS in five years and the approaching Red Sox, like many Red Sox teams before them, had great players but not the stars that had made NY just come off another dynasty. The Red Sox of 2004 were the very definition of underdog coming into the 2004 ALCS. That is what made the win so great.
Now if the Red Sox had come in with a crew with four rings on taking on the Yankees, and beat them in 7, that would be great but not as earth shaking.
In all of sports if there ever was an underdog of unknowns (nationally and especially on west coast) go against the ultimate American sports institution of the NYY, this was it. You are a Boston fan so you followed them, but the rest of the country saw Boston as a "rag tag" team as the press called them everywhere and the ultimate underdogs.
Just like when my Giants won in 2010 and 2012, I knew who the players were and they were stars to me, but largely unknown to the rest of the country. Many were stunned when the Giants went all the way in those two years. Who the heck were those young, inexperienced guys like Bumgarner and Posey? What was the expectation of young guys like that with no long term stats to make them perform so well? Yes, they were stars that the bay area papers raved about but I think their play came as a major surprise to the rest of the nation. If you are a catcher and you get a ring, your name is something like Molina whom everyone knows. Not since the Yankees has a catcher received two rings in the first two full years of MLB play (Posey sat out much of 2011 for some injuries) If you are a WS winning pitcher in two different years, you usually have a name like Randy Johnson or Mariano Rivera, not Madison Bumgarner. The Giants were underdogs in 2010 and 2012 to rest of nation, and I say in the same way the 2004 Red Sox were.
If you think 2004 ALCS was some equal matchup between already known baseball legends and Hall of Famers, then you didn't see what the rest of the country followed. It was the underdog story of American sports for the ages! It was so big it even eclipses the 1980 US hockey team in my book and at no time was I (nor I suspect many others) so excited about a come from behind victory. I didn't see this as two teams of equals but as a spirited team of underdogs clicking at the right time to beat one of the best squads baseball history has ever seen.
Last edited:
It was pretty glorious. I can still remember exactly where I was, what I was wearing, who I was with, the sounds....everything. They way they won, the team they beat...I won't forget it for the rest of my life. That's what you call sports nirvana.
As Queen said, it was more of the entire story - all the years of futility...going against their biggest rivals...winning the way they won....
Boston was an underdog because they were the Red Sox. And they were playing the Yankees (who were 4 years removed from their last championship and had just come off of a WS loss). Even when they were favorites, they seemed to be the underdog because they found ways to lose (2003 ALCS / 1986 WS..).
But to say that the Red Sox didn't have stars is just not true. Curt Schilling, Manny Ramirez, and Pedro Martinez were stars. Curt Schilling already had a ring (won against the Yankees), and Manny was a humongous free agent signing. So was Johnny Damon. Did they have 4 rings? No. But neither did most of the Yankees. I completely understand that it was a huge deal and that the Sox went on to win the world series, but let's not make them out to the Bad News Bears beating the big, bad Yankees.
There were just as many stars in the Sox dugout as there were in the Yankees. Our guys were just groomed nicer.
It was pretty glorious. I can still remember exactly where I was, what I was wearing, who I was with, the sounds....everything. They way they won, the team they beat...I won't forget it for the rest of my life. That's what you call sports nirvana.
I am glad you remember. No team I follow here out on west coast has such a rags to riches type of story or Cinderella story. You go eight decades with near misses and all out bad years sometimes, then you lose three only to take next four and win ALCS? It's so implausible that it couldn't be written into a happy movie script yet had to be later on!
When Damon said "idiots" I know he didn't mean it in a bad way. These dirty looking, unshaven, and seemingly undisciplined Red Sox took out the Yankees, it was a shout out to America, circa Revolutionary War. We had an underfunded, undertrained group of volunteer minutemen and farmers beat the biggest empire the world had ever seen.
The Yankees, circa 2004, were like the British empire of the late 18th century and the Red Sox seemed to be like the underdog minutemen in my eyes. It was like some lopsided war that somehow the underdogs were able to achieve the upper hand.
When the Red Sox won in 2004, I thought that maybe they could also go four for five and that the new perennial baseball dynasty would be them. So 2005 was not to be for the Red Sox but that only made 2004 that much more special. 2006 didn't produce a winner either but 2007 showed everybody that the 2004 Red Sox were not a one time fluke. I think with Ortiz in 2013 winning with Red Sox this year would be special, and equal to me like seeing Rivera and Jeter get late career rings like in 2009.
Something tells me that this year, while amazing for Red Sox, isn't going to be a ring year. St. Louis and LA are crazy good and on NL side, and Detroit, well, they are Detroit and have a few potential huge producers who could probably carry team to a WS run.
Boston has to somehow contain Detroit coming up and in 2013, maybe nobody will ever be able to stop them and the Tigers could be coming into this as a team motivated in a way for a team that was really supposed to easily win it all in 2012. Game 1 of 2012 WS was between a washed out Barry Zito versus the best pitcher or 2012 in Justin Verlander. Just like Verlander will come into this as a predicted easy winner, Boston will have to knock a couple out of the park. At the same time, keep Cabrera and company at bay with those bats. All I can say is that I am not glad to be facing Detroit in postseason. If my team by the bay had to face Detroit the way they are playing, we would be swept 4-0.
Not only do you have Detroit, which is a giant task, but then if you win you will have to face either StL or LA and those teams are specialists at series' play, or have been this year which is what counts. Odds makers put LA and Boston at 2/1 to take it all but I think Boston has the bigger challenge for ring this year. It's LA's to lose imho.
Detroit is the odds underdog against Red Sox but I see Detroit as the potentially stronger team.
If Red Sox goes against StL, then I give it even money but LA will be harder to beat than LA beating Boston.
Anyway, this will be a great, evenly matched postseason and I can't remember any year in recent memory when all eight teams coming in seemed to have an equal chance. Had any of them gone all the way, then in 2014 I wouldn't have counted myself surprised.
Early in this season, LA seemed to have terrible problems and I didn't expect them to be here right now. California residents will know what I am talking about. There was even a nasty rumor that they should get up and leave Los Angeles altogether! It was a hard time not unlike when the SF Giants had some player and management problems and there was talk of moving the Giants out of San Francisco. Many had given up on the former championship winning NY Giants baseball team ever getting a championship in San Francisco. It was as if there was a curse that would bar SF from ever winning a World Series. So when Magic Johnson put his name to the LA Dodgers, to some it was a form of salvation but to others it was basically a fat, out of shape, pathetic former LA star buying an out of shape, pathetic former LA all-star team. There were really nasty jokes about LA and no ring since the 1980s.
LA versus Detroit could be fun just for the fact that those two have not won the big one in a long, long time. Boston has two relatively recent rings and StL won it all just two years ago.
Last edited:
With my baseball eyes, I saw an injured and underperforming Detroit lineup. Austin Jackson and Fielder, among others, haven't been hitting. Cabrera, outside of his homerun last night, has been mostly hitting singles. And he looks obviously hobbled. I see a defense that doesn't scare anyone. And I see a very average bullpen. That said, they have Verlander and Scherzer, therefore, they will be tough to beat regardless of everything else. Especially if their offense comes around.
But no, I don't think they're monumentally better than the Red Sox. Lefthanded starters have been the best way to beat Boston this season, and we took care of Tampa Bay, the only team left with any. Ellsbury and Victorino will put pressure on their defense. The Sox have showed they can mash and also play small ball. They steal bases incredibly well. The bullpen has been nails. Our #4 starter is Jake Peavy, who pitched very well in game 4. Lester/Lackey/Buchholz might not have the glitz and glamor of Verlander, but they've been really good all year. I guess it's because we stunk so hard the last couple of seasons, but it's odd people aren't worried about facing Boston. I suppose it's good in a way.
I feel like talking about the Dodgers/Cardinals is getting ahead of myself, but neither of those teams are like scary good. The crap hitting Braves scored off Kershaw. I just don't see any impossible tasks. It'll be close all around.
Nothing is as impossible as winning four in row after losing three in 2004 ALCS, but watch out for LA if you get there.
Kershaw was hurt for some time, quite long if I remember. He still kept his ERA under 2.
His lack of using legs and hips fully like rest of pitchers, and basically chucking the ball mostly with his arm really hard has given him health issues in 2012 and some this year, too. He has been compared to Tim Lincecum who also had unusual ergonomics that could easily backfire. Lincecum played well somewhat into 2011 but his impossible approach to pitching finally hurt him and slowed down his fastball into something others could hit. 2012 and 2013 were not banner years for him. Now the two time Cy Young and two time WS winner has an unsure future with the Giants. The same thing will happen with Kershaw unless he starts using the rest of his body more. You can't just chuck a baseball with mostly the arm in pro baseball and expect others not to hit off of you eventually when you rip your arm apart.
Kershaw will be rested more, I hope, and he will (still) be quite scary to face.
For Boston, I think both series will be uphill. And like you say, if Detroit starts hitting, then it's very hard if not over. Hope they don't bounce back physically right at this moment in time. For LA, Kershaw is young and bounces back quickly and can do that risky arm throwing thing through this postseason all the way to a WS ring. After that, as compared to shortened career thing like Sandy Koufax, Kershaw could be out of it forever. LA's closer Brian Wilson is hot but he has come off of two TJ surgeries and can be rendered ineffective come WS time if LA gets there. Like any sport, injuries can play in as the biggest factor for winning a championship. If Detroit is as hobbled as some think they are, you will probably win the ALCS.
Thats crazy talk!!!
The 2003 Red Sox took the Yankees to extra innings in game 7 of the ALCS (**** you aaron boone). They came back with an even better team the last year. The Yankees were no doubt favored to win that series, but the teams were much closer than you think. The Red Sox finished 98-64 that year (only 3 games behind the Yankees, better than their record this year, and better than their record when they won in 2007).
The Miracle on Ice? That was a team of amateur college kids who had only played together a couple of months beating a team that was essentially professionals, many of whom had been playing together for 10+ years. This was a USSR hockey team that for the entire decade of the 70s was the best team in the world. They had won 4 straight Olympic gold medals and won World Championship golds in 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78, and 79. They played against NHL teams in the Super Series and won the majority of the games. The Soviets had completely dominated international hockey for over a decade. They came into that Olympics with a 27-1 record in the previous 4 olympics.
In the year leading up to the 1980 Olympics, the Soviets played an NHL All-star team in the 1979 Challenge Cup and won the series 2 games to 1. (Game1: 4-2 NHL, Game2: 5-4 USSR, Game3: 6-0 USSR). And they did a tour around the US playing a series of games against some of the top teams in the NHL and finished that tour with a 5-3-1 record. This USSR team had Vladislav Tretiak, the consensus best goalie in the world at that time, and him along with two other players on that USSR team are now in the HHOF. They even played team USA in an exhibition at MSG a week before the Olympics started.. and crushed them 10-3.
No other upset in sports has ever even come close. Team USA, with a bunch of college amateur players, who had only been playing together for a few months, beat the best team in the world in that game. The greatest upset in sports history.
Herb Brooks said it himself.. "If we played them 10 times, they might win 9. But not this game. Not tonight."
I'm not really a baseball fan, I'll watch it occasionally, but I was born and raised here and the Red Sox have been my team my entire life.. but 2004 doesn't even come close to 1980. 2004 might have been the best comeback in a series in baseball history, but it doesn't even come close to the Miracle on Ice when it comes to greatest upsets.
Sorry to take the thread off topic but I had to.
Are you kidding? Sorry, but I really couldn't disagree more. Are you sure you're familiar enough with AL squads?
I'm not really a baseball fan, I'll watch it occasionally, but I was born and raised here and the Red Sox have been my team my entire life.. but 2004 doesn't even come close to 1980. 2004 might have been the best comeback in a series in baseball history, but it doesn't even come close to the Miracle on Ice when it comes to greatest upsets.
Sorry to take the thread off topic but I had to.
2004 to me is the greatest thing I have ever seen in any sport.
Think of who was on the Yankees in 2004, the Red Sox eight decade curse which was real at least in people's heads, and the nearly one in four years WS winning percentage the Yankees had.
Yes, Boston came close but until 2004 that was their MO.
To see Boston win and kill the curse was my favorite time in sports and in that one year more amazing to watch for me than the 80s Celtics or the 00s Patriots. With Celtics and Patriots, people either expected or came to expect wins. But with 2004 Red Sox, it was really a breath of fresh air to see such a spirited win. Yes, it was only one WS win for them in '04 but it felt like several to me. All that previous futility was vanished.
I can only relate to it directly, again, with SF Giants. How did Giants get past San Diego late in 2010 to take the division in last game? How did Giants get past Atlanta and get lucky to see them self-destruct? How did SF get past Philly and their pitching squad? And how did SF beat Texas and do so in only five games? Even more implausible was SF to be down 2-0 from Reds and then go three straight in NLDS, also be down 3-1 against 2011 WS champ Cardinals and then win three in a row from them in NLCS. And how did SF beat Detroit who had some of the big names they have right now? All the futility of 50+ years of failed SF play was vanished with 2010 season and reaffirmed in 2012 season.
----------
If I had to beat you, or any MLB team, give me Verlander and Scherzer, and a hitting squad of let's say Cabrera and Fielder, and Detroit is the team to beat. The not to prime time hitting of those two right now could be what saves you. It's uphill for Boston, and maybe for StL, too.
That being said, a win from any one of the four teams remaining won't surprise me too much. If Detroit gains health and hitting, then it's them that are the ones to beat but otherwise LA is the team to beat. I do expect LA to Detroit to be the last two standing, even if barely getting there. There will be no sweeps here for anybody.
Last edited:
The Red Sox beat Scherzer this year. They also just beat two of the best pitchers in baseball in Price and Moore, and Cobb was also on fire. Yes, Verlander pitched brilliantly in game 5, but he's been hittable as of late - he also can't pitch every game. Anibal Sanchez tends not to go very deep in ballgames, meaning you're into their bullpen early.
I think you're disregarding the fact that baseball games aren't played in a vacuum - fielding, baserunning, bullpen, and defense will play a big part in this series. Which the Red Sox are stronger in. Cabrera and Fielder can't run. Ellsbury and Victorino can, right in front of Pedroia and Ortiz.
This is not to say I think the Red Sox will definitely win or that they even have a marked advantage, but the assumption Detroit is much better is crazy. The Red Sox had the best record in the league for a reason, and they didn't have Chicago and Minnesota to pound on.
Only a healthy Detroit is much better, and then probably than all three teams, imho. They also have the huge task of erasing being swept in 2012 WS. If I were Detroit I would be pissed off and more motivated than another team right now.
But what is the truth? Detroit is not healthy and it's too small a time to heal from that. It can still be a close 6 or 7 game series and not surprise me that much. Whatever happens I just don't see the Red Sox rolling over Detroit. It will be close, injuries or not but since there are injuries with Detroit, it will go 6 or 7 easily. I don't have a dog in this fight but I feel for Detroit's loss last year even if at the hands of my team. When everybody says you are supposed to win and then get swept?? Ouch.
lol.
agreed on the first line. i think 63dot meant that it is as close as we come to a dynasty lately though...
You are right. There's nothing quite like the dynasties of old.
One team that won 3 in a decade that I would gladly affix dynasty to is the Boston Celtics. While the Lakers ruled that decade, Boston was always a threat. It was a two dynasty decade for the NBA and perhaps the best sports rivalry in my lifetime. I can't think of any other two dynasty decades in recent memory.
NY Islanders (Cup wins in 80, 81, 82, 83, Lost in Finals in 84) & Edmonton Oilers (Cup wins in 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, and a Finals loss in 83) in the 1980s.
NY Islanders (Cup wins in 80, 81, 82, 83, Lost in Finals in 84) & Edmonton Oilers (Cup wins in 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, and a Finals loss in 83) in the 1980s.
I don't follow hockey but that's a good example.
I would like to see someone other than NYY get four in ten years in baseball. Maybe, long term, the Cardinals could step up to the plate and spend the next 20 years being a perennial postseason threat. The Yankees are always a threat and it gets old, thus the perfect moniker of "damn Yankees". If not them, then maybe somebody like Atlanta or Cincinnati. While I love SF and found the Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates' runs inspiring, I don't think they can be a long term threat and win a lot of division titles and postseason games.
It would be nice to see hopefully long term NL powerhouses like Atlanta, Cincinnati, and St. Louis knock out the Yankees at least 50% percent of the time they get to the world series. Why do the Yankees need 30 rings? That being said I would like to see the Indians pick up a couple, too and have them, Detroit, Devil Rays, Red Sox routinely knock out NYY from ALCS. Most teams would be glad to have one ring per decade but it can't happen with so many going to NYY (27 rings in 40 WS visits).