It was downright surreal when Verlander threw the ball wild of third in Game 5 ... after Zumaya had done the same thing in Game 3, and after Rodney had thrown wild on a throw to first.
About the first thing that came to mind was Jack Buck's call on the Gibson home run in the '88 World Series:
"I don't believe what I just saw!"
I dunno, the series could have been a lot better. It was almost as much the Tigers losing the series as the Cardinals winning it. Eight errors is no way to distinguish yourself. It was depressing to watch. Certain Tigers will have many nites of fitful sleep this winter. You know a player or two is going to make a spectacular & crucial boot but eight Es is unbelievable.
Nevertheless congrats to Cards & their fans. Great way to break in the new stadium.
Pogotheostrich wrote:The shoddy defense by the Tigers brought this WS down a notch IMO but otherwise it is just what I want out of a post-season series, great pitching and timely hitting.
I dispute that there was any "great pitching" aside from Carpenter...and I'll throw Wainright in there.
Nothing I saw from Weaver or Suppan falls into the category of great. In fact, I used the term "puss" last night while watching Weaver. It baffles me how he gets major league hitters out with that mediocre fastball and lazy slider. I think, if anything, that the "great pitching" was really "crappy hitting".
CheeseBeger wrote:I thought the Tigers pitchers defense was sickening.
But on the topic of 7 WS winners, I think its great. I have alot of friends who are Pirates fans, and they seem genuinly excited about the next few years, and this is partly because of Detroits turnaround.
Maybe if the Pirates had re-hired Leyland...oh well.
Say hi to my little brother if you see him on campus at Pitt. He plays in the drumline.
Pogotheostrich wrote:The shoddy defense by the Tigers brought this WS down a notch IMO but otherwise it is just what I want out of a post-season series, great pitching and timely hitting.
I dispute that there was any "great pitching" aside from Carpenter...and I'll throw Wainright in there.
Nothing I saw from Weaver or Suppan falls into the category of great. In fact, I used the term "puss" last night while watching Weaver. It baffles me how he gets major league hitters out with that mediocre fastball and lazy slider. I think, if anything, that the "great pitching" was really "crappy hitting".
Just because he doesn't have great stuff doesn't mean it wasn't great pitching. Attacking a hitters weaknesses and pitching smart is great pitching.
Pogotheostrich wrote:The shoddy defense by the Tigers brought this WS down a notch IMO but otherwise it is just what I want out of a post-season series, great pitching and timely hitting.
I dispute that there was any "great pitching" aside from Carpenter...and I'll throw Wainright in there.
Nothing I saw from Weaver or Suppan falls into the category of great. In fact, I used the term "puss" last night while watching Weaver. It baffles me how he gets major league hitters out with that mediocre fastball and lazy slider. I think, if anything, that the "great pitching" was really "crappy hitting".
Just because he doesn't have great stuff doesn't mean it wasn't great pitching. Attacking a hitters weaknesses and pitching smart is great pitching.
Believe me, I fully understand that. I believe that I appreciate great pitching more than most people (I pitched all the way through college). I'd much rather watch Maddux work a hitter than watch Randy Johnson strike guys out.
That said, Jeff Weaver was nowhere near "great" last night. It was a great result, to be sure, but he was average at best.
So I guess I want to ask the question of the cafe; would you rather watch a franchise dominate the sport for several years (doesn't have to be the Yankees folks ), or rather have what's going on now, which is 7 different champs in the last 7 years??
Different champs is definitely better. It keeps fans everywhere involved. If you see the title passing around including to teams that have not won in many people's lifetimes, you do think "why not us?", which helps teams draw fans/viewers/listeners and for those teams to hopefully reinvest in themselves. While I'd prefer teams spend it on player development rather than FAs, either way improves their team if done right, makes it more competitive and improves the quality on the field, at least generally. Very theoretical, I know, but I think different champs helps more than one team dominating and more other teams breaking spring training thinking they have no shot. That's going to happen regardless, but I think it will happen less with more champs.
It's not necessarily that baseball hates seeing the underdog win, they just don't like them winning so quickly. Everyone wants to see the Indians beat the Yankees in a Major League type scenario, but if it happens in the division series and only "underdogs" are left to get to the WS, that's not as looked forwards to as the dominant team gliding into the WS then getting beaten by the underdog.
Anyways, personally, I prefer seeing different champs than a dynasty. I also thought it was important for an NL team to win the WS, especially after the NL's been getting slapped around left and right by the AL for a few years now.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by AdvRider » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:16 pm 
/burns.gif){kind=small}
