PDA

View Full Version : It's a national Holiday!!!


jerryskid
April 2nd, 2007, 04:58 AM
Heading to Cincy for the game this morning.....haven't been to an opening day in about 6 years.....I'm excited!!!!















Ladies and Gentlemen.....It's baseball season!!!!!:Thumbsup: :Thumbsup:

Jackpine
April 2nd, 2007, 05:22 AM
Uh... go Cubs?

jerryskid
April 2nd, 2007, 05:47 AM
Hey I'm scared of the Cubs this year...they spent some money..went out and got themselves a REAL manager....they're gonna give us a run for the money in the central this year.....


















Baseball been berry berry good to me......

Tim Halligan
April 2nd, 2007, 05:51 AM
I'm sure Aardy will stop by soon...



...just to remove any rep points you may have accumulated since he took them off you last time...


:lol:


Cheers,
Tim



PS. Enjoy the game.

lebouche
April 2nd, 2007, 12:47 PM
Have a great time Jerry!!! Drive safe :)

Fulcrum
April 2nd, 2007, 01:04 PM
Carpenter had his ass handed to him last night by the Mets. So you guys are a half a game ahead right out of the gate.

New Car Scott
April 2nd, 2007, 01:33 PM
I envy you. 65,000 americans in one spot can make a real ruckus.

There is something so old and deep about these games we watch. It goes way back..Not any different than when Ben hur (Chuck) was wheeling around on his chariot in front of 500,000 in the stands...eating cashews and drinking beer or wine.

I salute you.

PRobb
April 2nd, 2007, 03:27 PM
Carpenter had his ass handed to him last night by the Mets. So you guys are a half a game ahead right out of the gate.
YEA! At this pace the Mets will go 162-0!:icon_eek: :lol:

Let the games begin.

Fulcrum
April 2nd, 2007, 06:43 PM
And the first inning isn't even over in the Bronx yet and already the Yankees are handing the Rays their asses.

'Course, A-Rod struck out with two on and none home, but at least he went down swinging.

PRobb
April 2nd, 2007, 11:19 PM
And the first inning isn't even over in the Bronx yet and already the Yankees are handing the Rays their asses.

'Course, A-Rod struck out with two on and none home, but at least he went down swinging.
You took your opener and A-Rod went deep. Although, to be fair, the D-Ray's entire payroll doesn't buy the left side of your infield.:Roll eyes:

And it just kills me to see Kazmir in that uniform.

Aardvark
April 2nd, 2007, 11:46 PM
Jays win, DeadSox choke on Curt's limp member and A-Rod goes 2-5 HR, 2 RBI. He will hit 40+ and knock in 120 or so...and he is a better shortstop than the guy on his left.

He can play for Canada any time he likes.

Oh...I can't wait to see Barry break the record and watch Bud's face when he does.




Cheers,
MackJonesVark

:Wink:

Fulcrum
April 3rd, 2007, 12:33 AM
Jays win, DeadSox choke on Curt's limp member

Who was expecting anything different?

and A-Rod goes 2-5 HR, 2 RBI. He will hit 40+ and knock in 120 or so...and he is a better shortstop than the guy on his left.

I'm gonna agree with that. After this season I think we will see him actually get to prove that again, when A-Rod opts out and takes the World Series ring he is bound to win in October elsewhere.

For all the class Jeter has been displayed over the years, his failure to embrace A-Rod or at least call a truce after the Esquire article is particularly grating and classless.

Oh...I can't wait to see Barry break the record and watch Bud's face when he does.

Let him "break" the record. In a few years A-Rod will be first to hit 800 anyway!

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 01:27 AM
With different circumstances, Ruth would have been at least in the mid 800s. For the first 4 years he was a full time pitcher, the next two he split time between pitcher, first base and outfield. It wasn't until his seventh big league season that he became a full time outfielder (and hitter). And before he could become the greatest home run hitter ever, he had to invent the home run hitter. And he played in an era when 450' to the power alley was not uncommon. If he had come up in 1921 instead of 1914, and as an outfielder, it's pretty easy to think he would have had another 100-150. If he had played in today's ballparks, another 150-200 is pretty likely.

Just a historic sidenote. But throw in his .342 lifetime average and you have the best hitter ever.

Aardvark
April 3rd, 2007, 01:41 AM
Ruth never faced fresh armed bullpen Aces called 'closers' back then. Having Gerhig hitting behind him sure didn't hurt either.


I agree that Alex can get to 800...I had hopes Jr. would get there but his string of injury plagued seasons has made that a distant maybe.



Cheers,
CocoLaboyVArk

Aardvark
April 3rd, 2007, 01:55 AM
...Just a historic sidenote. But throw in his .342 lifetime average and you have the best hitter ever.

No. That would be Ted Williams.


:Wink:


Cheers,
Aardvark

Tim Armstrong
April 3rd, 2007, 02:16 AM
Yeah, but the Babe also began his career in during the dead-ball era, when Frank "Home Run" Baker got his nickname by hitting 11 HR in 1911, 10 HR in 1912, 12 HR in 1913, and 9 HR in 1914.

From Wikipedia: Before 1920, it was very common for a baseball to be in play for over 100 pitches, as in cricket. A ball would be used until it started to unravel. The early baseball leagues were very cost-conscious, so fans would have to throw back balls that had been hit in the stands. The longer the ball was in use the softer it would become, and hitting a heavily-used, softer ball for distance is much more difficult than hitting a new, harder one. There is also the argument that the ball itself was softer to begin with making home runs less likely.

Babe came up to the Red Sox in 1914 (from the minor league Baltimore Orioles), and as noted began his career as a successful starting pitcher. He compiled a 89-46 win-loss record during his time with the Red Sox and set a number of World Series pitching records. In 1916, he went 23-12, with a 1.75 ERA and 9 shutouts, and 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA and 6 shutouts in 1917.

In 1918, Ruth started to play in the outfield and at first base so he could help the team on a day-to-day basis as a hitter. In 1919, he appeared in 111 games as an outfielder. He also hit 29 home runs to break Ned Williamson's record for most home runs in a single season.

Babe Ruth:

Best

Baseball

Player

Ever

Cheers, Tim

Aardvark
April 3rd, 2007, 02:43 AM
Babe Ruth:

Best

Baseball

Player

Ever

Cheers, Tim

A reasonable but sentimental thought.



I'll take Johnny Bench.

He revolutionised the most critical position on the diamond. He had the glove, the arm, he hit for power and average...until his knees went he could steal a few bases as well.

Bench was also a great baseball mind and understood the game like few others.

I'll take number 5 as my first pick for any field of dreams game.



Cheers,
GuesswhoownsadeckerVark

:lol:

Fulcrum
April 3rd, 2007, 03:25 AM
No. That would be Ted Williams.

Erm...Ty Cobb has to be in that discussion someplace? Or maybe Josh Gibson, who hit for average as well as power?

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 03:38 AM
No. That would be Ted Williams.


:Wink:


Cheers,
Aardvark
Ruth's career- .342 batting .474 on base .690 slugging
Williams- .344 .482 .634

Before Ruth, it was not at all unusual to lead a league in homers with a single digit number. And in 1920, Ruth's first big home run year by modern (meaning post-Ruth) standards, only one other major league TEAM hit more than his 54 homers. Great as the Splendid Splinter was, I gotta go with the Babe. And remember, I'm a Mets fan!

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 03:45 AM
A few posts while I was getting the stats:Roll eyes:

Cobb played mostly before Ruth revolutionized the game, so his numbers are a bit hard to compare. And his .433 on base is well below Ruth and Williams. Plus he was a major league asshole!

Gibson- we have no way of knowing. And that really, really sucks.

Bench was one of the all time greats. But take Ruth's absolute dominance of his era and throw in that he was an absolute ace pitcher before he became the greatest hitter (he held a record for consecutive scoreless innings in the WS that stood until the 50s) , and I gotta stick with the Babe for best ever.

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 03:50 AM
What really sucks is that Bonds and Griffey should be in this discussion. We should be thinking that we had the privilege of watching two of the best of all time.


And this argument that spans ninety years is what makes baseball the greatest game!:Thumbsup: :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup:

Aardvark
April 3rd, 2007, 03:59 AM
Ruth's career- .342 batting .474 on base .690 slugging
Williams- .344 .482 .634

Before Ruth, it was not at all unusual to lead a league in homers with a single digit number. And in 1920, Ruth's first big home run year by modern (meaning post-Ruth) standards, only one other major league TEAM hit more than his 54 homers. Great as the Splendid Splinter was, I gotta go with the Babe. And remember, I'm a Mets fan!

In the Babe's day batting averages were higher than in Ted's.

Then '27 Yankees had a team average of .307...Ruth was .356 that year.

Twenty-six years later, the '53 Red Sox averaged .256 which was skewered by Williams .407.

Extrapolate and voila!! Ted would have even better stats for BA, OB and slugging.

Needless to add that had Williams not given up five good years to two different war efforts his home run total could easily of been 750 plus.



Cheers,
Aardvark

Tim Armstrong
April 3rd, 2007, 04:00 AM
Johnny Bench as greatest catcher of all time, sure. If I couldn't have him, Carlton Fisk would be a great backup.

But Babe Ruth hit home runs by the bucketload, when no one was hitting them, he also hit for average (.342 career!, only two points below Ted Williams) and was a 20+ game winner twice with a career ERA of 2.28 (six years as a starting pitcher, and the Yanks used him as an emergency pitcher five times, for five wins).

When he hit 54 homers in 1920, only one other TEAM hit more (the Phillies, with a very small home ballpark, hit 64), and the closest other player to him was George Sisler of the St. Louis Browns, who hit 19.

By any possible measure, Babe Ruth was the most dangerous hitter of all time (all time record for slugging percentage, all time record for OPS on-base plus slugging, 2nd all time for OPB on base percentage, held single-season home run record for 34 years, held career home run record from 1921-1974, and was tied for 19th all time in home runs by a pitcher), an absolutely top lefthanded pitcher, and all this without anything resembling performance-enhancing chemicals (unless there was something in ballpark hotdogs other than animal parts)...

You can believe what you want, but if you really look at what the man did, it's difficult to think he's anything less than...

The

Best

Baseball

Player

Ever

!

:Coolio:

Cheers, Tim

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 04:02 AM
Needless to add that had Williams not given up five good years to two different war efforts his home run total could easily of been 750 plus.



Cheers,
Aardvark
And Ruth gave five years as a pitcher. But that's why I went with career averages, not totals. It's damn close, but I'll take Ruth.

Tim Armstrong
April 3rd, 2007, 04:03 AM
Needless to add that had Williams not given up five good years to two different war efforts his home run total could easily of been 750 plus.

Yep, and if Ruth hadn't wasted six years pitching....

:very happy:

Cheers, Tim

E. Shaun
April 3rd, 2007, 04:06 AM
...And if we're all lucky, some day Ted Williams' head will get defrosted and sewn on to some young jock's body, and break all his own records all over again. :lol:

Aardvark
April 3rd, 2007, 04:12 AM
Yep, and if Ruth hadn't wasted six years pitching....


But he was getting at bats and actually playing the game, Williams was not. He came back from two extended breaks from the game...pretty remarkable in itself.


Cheers,
Aardvark

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 04:17 AM
But he was getting at bats and actually playing the game, Williams was not. He came back from two extended breaks from the game...pretty remarkable in itself.


Cheers,
Aardvark
Indeed. Like I said, it's an awfully close call.

In, I think, 1999 when Williams came to the all star game, he asked McGwire if when he fouled one straight back he ever smelled wood smoke. McGwire said yes.:lol:

Tim Armstrong
April 3rd, 2007, 04:43 AM
But he was getting at bats and actually playing the game, Williams was not.

Hey, absolutely no argument from me that Ted Williams was one hell of a player, and if the Marines hadn't taken him right out of the game for crucial years in his prime, he would've done amazing things. Like maybe becoming a decent outfielder! :Twisted:

But while Ted missed all the games those years, Ruth missed over a hundred games in 1915, 1916 and 1917, while he was a starting pitcher. I'm thinking if you added back 300 or so games to his career as a hitter, at the prime of HIS life as an athlete, well....

I think Ted himself would probably say that Ted was a great hitter (okay, the greatest), and Babe was a great baseball player (yep, the greatest)...

Cheers, Tim

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 05:02 AM
I was poking around a stat page (yeah, I'm kinda bored:Roll eyes: ) and here's a weird one. Ruth had 117 career stolen bases and 136 triples!

Tim Armstrong
April 3rd, 2007, 05:09 AM
Betcha they were all before, oh, 1926 or so....

I just checked the Washington Post's website to see how the Nationals did today...

Ouch!!!

Gonna be a long season in DC...

:Roll eyes:

Tim

Aardvark
April 3rd, 2007, 03:13 PM
What really sucks is that Bonds and Griffey should be in this discussion. We should be thinking that we had the privilege of watching two of the best of all time.

Complete agreement.

I actually like Bonds sometimes...he is a nutter for sure but the way he would tell reporters what he was thinking (even if it was retarded) always cracked me up.

As I said earlier...to bad about Junior and his injuries. If he had of been playing for the Mets, Yanks, Bosox or even the Braves he would have been the biggest star of the day.

Now back to Barry.

It seems to me he is a drug cheat or at least has been at one point. Meanwhile...ML ballplayers for DECADES!!!!!...repeat....DECADES!!!!...gobbled down uppers like there was no tomorrow. Clubhouses had reds and greenies openly available for one and all. By the Seventies, cocaine was becoming popular and by the eighties guys were doing it during the freakin' game! (Ask Tim Raines)
Even HOF niceguy Paul Molitor was using for a while. (Not during the game I am told)


The next old-timer who takes a swipe at Bonds better swear he never popped pills before expecting me to take him seriously. Not making excuses for Bonds but hypocrisy is rampant when it comes to the sanctimonious condemnation of selected members of the steroid era players.

Giambi seems to get a pass, Sheffield too...and Sheffield is a real ass to boot...only he is not breaking any sacred records. Oh...and my fave is Gaylord who cheated every time he took the mound. I seem to recall he is in the HOF.


Okay...rant off.


Cheers,
Aardvark


P.S. Hockey is the greatest sport. A tubby drunk like Ruth would never be able to play a game where you actually sweat and have to be in superb condition.:lol::Razz::Wink:

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 03:30 PM
Totally agree about the drugs. Another major factor is that baseball was still recovering from the strike and if the homers were bringing fans back, they were willing to close their eyes to the inflated freaks who were hitting them. There's an interesting parallel to the 20s. Ruth started hitting homers in the shadow of the Black Sox scandal. In any other era if someone came along and distorted stats so radically, the game would have tried to control it by raising the mound or expanding the strike zone or something. But they let it happen because it was putting fannies in seats.

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/opinion/02bradbury.html?em&ex=1175659200&en=ff4efaa9120207c6&ei=5087%0A) is an interesting column from yesterday's Times. He suggests the home run explosion was a result of talent dilution from expansion more than steroids. That totals are being inflated by good hitters teeing off on pitchers who don't belong in the majors. Here's a tidbit.

But talent dilution, not drugs, lies behind another curious and corresponding batting statistic: the rise in hit batters. From the beginning of the 20th century until 1993, nine batters were hit by a pitch at least 25 times in a season. Since that pivotal year (expansion) it has happened 13 times. How would steroids cause more hit batters? It could be “roid rage,” but it’s more likely inferior pitchers, missing the strike zone way inside.

Fulcrum
April 3rd, 2007, 04:54 PM
The next old-timer who takes a swipe at Bonds better swear he never popped pills before expecting me to take him seriously. Not making excuses for Bonds but hypocrisy is rampant when it comes to the sanctimonious condemnation of selected members of the steroid era players.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. By and large these are the same people who sit on the Veterans Committee of the National Baseball Hall Of Fame, who are charged with a peer review of their former teammates and rivals... and somehow can never seem to find anyone to elect into the Hall. So their taste is strictly in their mouths.

Bonds is pretty much a product of his times, albeit a more asocial product. There are a lot of people who, in their mind's eye, are going to see that little asterisk next to his record-breaking career home run total, whether it is there or not, thanks to his alleged use of the clear.

But you can lay the blame for that right at the doorstep of Major League Baseball, who didn't give a damn about players juicing up or ingesting HGH until they absolutely had to. To turn around and retroactively rewrite the rule book and claim that it is now and has always been cheating is disingenuous.

Giambi seems to get a pass,

I'll grant that he may have waffled a bit about what it was he was apologizing for at that press conference, but it wasn't even as though he needed to say it. He did come clean before a grand jury beforehand, so that may be part of why he gets a pass. (He was also the only Yankee other than Joe Torre to man up and attach his name to his quotes in that Tom Verducci hatchet job on his teammate, A-Rod.)

Sheffield too...and Sheffield is a real ass to boot...only he is not breaking any sacred records.

He's only still in it to reach 500 HR career. If anyone thinks he honestly gives a damn about helping the Tigers reach the postseason again, or about pretty much anything other than payday for Gary Sheffield, they're delusional.

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 05:11 PM
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. By and large these are the same people who sit on the Veterans Committee of the National Baseball Hall Of Fame, who are charged with a peer review of their former teammates and rivals... and somehow can never seem to find anyone to elect into the Hall. So their taste is strictly in their mouths.


It might be time to disband it. I think the reason they don't name new members is that if a guy goes 15 years without being elected it's because he's not HOF material. For me, the HOF has become too inclusive. It should be only for the real greats. the Veterans committee should meet every 5 or 10 years to correct any oversights. But if nobody qualifies, then nobody gets in.

Aardvark
April 3rd, 2007, 05:23 PM
...And remember, I'm a Mets fan!

Please explain to me how it is that Keith Freakin' Hernandez is NOT in the HOF?



Cheers,
Aardvark

PRobb
April 3rd, 2007, 05:56 PM
Please explain to me how it is that Keith Freakin' Hernandez is NOT in the HOF?



Cheers,
Aardvark
Because defense is hard to quantify and so gets undervalued. And first base is not a traditional defense oriented position, although he sure made it one. Also, his raw stats don't really show his value. At the end of the year he might have only had 80-90 rbi, but 50 or 60 of them turned games. That Game Winning RBI stat only existed for a few years, but he won it every year.

Keith is one of my favorite players ever. When I play softball, I wear #17. To me, he was the best first baseman in the National League for about 10 years and that probably makes him a Hall of Famer, but he's a borderline case and I'm probably biased.

If anyone wants a real insider's look, he has a book called Pure Baseball, Pitch by Pitch for the Advanced Fan. It's an in depth analysis of two games. Basically what one of the smartest guys in baseball sees when he watches a game.

PRobb
April 4th, 2007, 04:09 AM
This thread put me in a stats mood. Here are two freakish ones.

1. Joe Dimaggio did not strike out. In 1941, he had 541 ABs, 30HRs and struck out 13 times. That means over the course of a season he struck out about twice a month while hitting with power. He never struck out 40 times in a season. Career he hit 361HRs and struck out 369 times.

2. Sandy Koufax pitching for a team that did not score much. Over a two year stretch, when the Dodgers scored 3 runs, Koufax was 9-0. When they scored two, he was 6-3. When they scored 1 he was 3-1! Think about that. He started four games where his team scored only one run, and he won three of them. With 1, 2 or 3 runs to work with Sandy Koufax was 18-4.

jerryskid
April 4th, 2007, 10:55 AM
Man what a beautiful day for baseball on Monday....not a cloud in the sky and Harang had his stuff......2 home runs by Adam Dunn...and cold beer....couldn't ask for nothing better.....I'm so glad it's baseball season!!!!

PRobb
April 4th, 2007, 03:08 PM
Man what a beautiful day for baseball on Monday....not a cloud in the sky and Harang had his stuff......2 home runs by Adam Dunn...and cold beer....couldn't ask for nothing better.....I'm so glad it's baseball season!!!!
It gets me every year. The first trip to the ballpark, the first time coming out of the gate and seeing the sweep of the stands, the green grass, AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, BASEBALL:very happy: :very happy: :very happy:

PRobb
April 6th, 2007, 07:20 PM
Check this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/sports/baseball/06pitcher.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin) out. A switch pitcher!

Scroll down for a video.

PRobb
April 7th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Just trying to keep the baseball thread alive, but I saw something amazing. The Mets swept the Cards to open the season and the Braves swept the Phillies. And when the Mets and Braves met tonight it was the first time since 1894 that two NL teams that were 3-0 played each other.

P.S.- the Mets have now won their first four games by a combined score of 31-3! One happy Mets fan here:D :lol: :D :lol:

jerryskid
April 7th, 2007, 04:37 AM
cool....The Reds are 3-1 with Jeff Conine...(former Met, right?) hitting a 2 run homer.....in 29 degree weather........:grin:

Fulcrum
April 7th, 2007, 10:39 PM
OK.. my Yankees have not gotten off to the most auspicious start. Their defence to this point has been atrocious and the bats have more often than not been in a state of somnambulance.

But just a little while ago the Orioles were a strike away from taking the first two games of their series... when Chris Ray threw the ballgame away again. Base hit for Robinson Cano, walk to Derek Jeter, Bobby Abreu gets hit.

Still, they only needed one more out, and A-Rod was at the plate.

So here they were in the ninth, two men out and three men on... and two strikes.. and Ray served up a tasty meatball that A-Rod promptly sends to the black seats in dead center. Walk off grand slam. I'd say he needed that one more than the team did.

Ballgame over.... Yankees win... the... Yankees win.

Y'all can get used to that, too.

jerryskid
April 8th, 2007, 12:05 AM
Good day...Dunn hits a wind-blown homer.....Reds come back...TWICE......7-5 is the final......







"and this one belongs to the Reds !!!"