raiders_umpire wrote:The dream season finally comes to an end. Superb season for the Rays. Over 100 wins after never breaking 70 wins before, I will take it. Congrats to the Rays front office, Maddon, and the players. I will never forget this great run in 2008.
I hope you don't because you could be looking towards another abysmal 10 year stretch.
10 years like the first 10 years? Not a chance for at least 5 or 6 more years anyways. After 10 years of being crapped on, I will just leave you with this.
I'd post all the the Yankee's pennants, but I think it would overload the server.
Little later, but I can't believe it. As much as the delay killed me, it worked out SO sweet for my team and for myself, as I had to travel for business early this morning, so pumped I had such a hard time sleeping, I wanted to digest all of the minutae. Pretty sweet, and I'm glad Philly played as well as they did. Good times. Nice to see a team with a nucleus in its prime/as young as it is. Should be really fun next year.
short being what? The longest series in sports that isn't cricket is basically seven. So the little bromide of "anything can happen in a short series" sometimes rings hollow. Of course it was short, seeing as the Phillies made it short. Last time I checked, regular season series don't go 7. I think it's a hollow excuse really. It seems to me like people were certain the Rays had it because of league superiority. Then when it looked grim, people said the WS wasn't representative of the "best" -- see King Kaufman, various posts. Well maybe so. But the fact of the matter is, the Phillies played better than the AL representative, over 5 games, and in an extenuating circumstance, without homefield. Yea, maybe the Rays were better and didn't play like it. That is a fine conclusion. But an equally fine one is that the Phillies were/are really good, and people didn't square their attitudes with that reality. Fact of the matter is Rollins, Utley and Howard weren't consistently good at all during the postseason.
Granted, Utley wasn't bad, and he was awesome with the leather. But Rollins and Howard were not good, save a few games. I think its awfully telling that those two were not that good, and the Phils had massive RISP without fruition, and still won.
Everyone said Myers, Blanton and Moyer were a detriment, and maybe its a 9 out of 10 situation where they got lucky, but I don't think its "luck" that the Rays heart of the order got shut down, I think our pitchers exploited flaws. And yea, CBP park is short, and the NL is weaker, but I think the Phils bats were severely underestimated here, and I think it showed. The Phils had probably the best three bats (well two point five) I'd personally take rollins, utley, howard over tampa's big three, with crawford being a push, but I'm biased. They had the best pitcher and best reliever as well. So I have to say, I think it's awesome what the Rays did, but call me bitter, but I think people get used to a storyline and run with it.
Anyway, for how the media is pumping this WS as a dud, I think it's pretty awesome all things considered. ESPN force feeds us the Sox, Yanks all over the place, but the reality is, good things are starting to happen all over baseball. We have a massive rivalry starting with the Mets and Phils, we have the Rays who put it together, Brewers fans got a nice taste, the Dodgers should still be there, I just think its really cool. Philly is the 4th biggest market in the US, and its about time the Phils step up and play like it. Maybe they will pay like it ... And then yea, the Rays have like no fans, and I made fun of them (still will, my best friend moved to tampa and was suddenly a fan), but on the other hand, you need to offer something to captivate the locals, and hopefully this will usher in some Florida fans. Tampa was definitely a fun team to watch and if it was anyone other than the Phils or Cubs, I would have rooted for them.
PS, if anyone needs another player for their leagues next year, I'd be interested, one of my key leagues seems to be dying down.
it doesnt matter who may be considered better. To be a champion in sports you have to show up on gameday and proform and the Phillies did that. Its about who can truley deal with pressure and come through when it matters most and at the end of the day that team was the Phillies. Which team can pick it up when the "stars" under proform. Which team picks up the player behind them. The Rays are a great team yes but the phillies did what was needed to become a Champion. Your not going to get a 20 game series so i dont understand what else you can ask for to determine which team is better. In my mind the Philles showed they were more complete by having hitters come off the bench and do what was needed and pitchers get outs when they were needed, and many other aspects of the game. This is just what I think...
mweir145 wrote:Short meaning 4-7 games compared to an entire season of games.
Well, that's great. But you can be contrary all you want, but the teams played head to head. A whole season of games with different opponents? Sold. You do know some teams get better as time goes on, and some get worse. Sorry, I find that argument weak. Yea, the AL is better than the NL, but that doesn't mean the best of the AL is better than the best of the NL. The whole league can be better in general, but that doesn't mean that the top teams are that much different. Witness the Pats Super Bowls. Everyone thought they would rout the rams, panthers, eagles, and the spreads reflected that. All three were awfully close games. The Cards beat the battle tested Tigers, The Phillies just beat the Rays. I realize the importance of stats, comparison, the difference of the leagues, and all that. But at the same, the Rays were supposed to be head and shoulders above, and they weren't. Their stars looked bad against moyer and blanton, and lost in five games to the NL representative. I find it disturbing that some poo poo a head to head matchup, which is the only absolutely objective stat we have, and ignore that. Interleague is important, sure, but those games are not as important as division games. And if we are going to use the small sample size argument, you could also argue that any individual teams interleague games are not some high percentage of the total games to really glean some massive inference, especially considering those games aren't as important as your league, and division games. I realize its not football, but still.
I find it telling that the only blowout was handed out by the Phils, and the big boys of the Rays were handled by Phillies pitching. Factor in the RISP left on base, and this could have been a rout game to game.
But whatever, I think it was a fantastic World Series -- maybe not in the annals of baseball history, but I think it was two deserving teams, and its not their fault that the MSM is so focused on the name teams to a degree that people didn't get to know the teams that were actually in it. If you think about it, its a shame that players such as crawford, price, shields, kazmir, longoria, rollins, utley, howard, hamels, weren't enough to sell a series. Yea, they all got pub once it got the point of them having to get pub, but the reality is, I think the forcefeeding of the "name" teams ends up having a bad effect. Compare to football where it seems like any matchup gets sold like no one's business in football.