rumpleforeskiin said:
You are correct & only the hated Yankees could choke like they did, meaning i doubt Cleveland will do likewise.
The Joe.T Memorial Yankees Suck Thread for 2007
- Thread starter rumpleforeskiin
- Start date
You are correct & only the hated Yankees could choke like they did, meaning i doubt Cleveland will do likewise.
A game of inches, so they say. Sox hit line drive after line drive off Byrd, always right at an outfielder. Wakefield, a fine fielding pitcher, deflected a double play ball that would have ended the fifth with only one run across. A lesser fielder would not have touched the ball.
Cleveland is a good club and deserves to be where they are. For the Sox, it's too bad for them that Cleveland beat the Yankees, who suck and would have been a lay down for the hose.
Cleveland is a good club and deserves to be where they are. For the Sox, it's too bad for them that Cleveland beat the Yankees, who suck and would have been a lay down for the hose.
Remember.......................
B-I-L-L B-U-C-K-N-E-R and a Little League groundball.
M-I-C-K-E-Y O-W-E-N-S in 1941.
Remember when you say a team or a player choked you are admitting that the other team could not win on merit and thereby denying them their hard earned victory.
rumpleforeskiin said:
B-I-L-L B-U-C-K-N-E-R and a Little League groundball.
M-I-C-K-E-Y O-W-E-N-S in 1941.
Remember when you say a team or a player choked you are admitting that the other team could not win on merit and thereby denying them their hard earned victory.
Bill Buckner was a seriously hobbled player who should not even have been on the field. Also this was an isolated incident. The Yankees choke was a four game event.eastender said:
Also an isolated event. You left out Ralph Branca.eastender said:
Bah! It was a lazy pop-up in 99.99% of all ballparks. Only in the Polo Grounds...eastender said:Branca was beat man to man, straight - up, his best effort against Bobby Thomson's best, alot of honour in such a match-up.
rumpleforeskiin said:
True, it wasn't the whole team that choked on that one play. I watched that game again a few days ago & to me, it appeared that it was a bad hop & it just happened to be Buckner that was playing 1st base on the play.
To me, an even bigger choke occurred a few years ago when the Cubs had pretty much their series locked up & on their way to the WS when they let a 'fan interference' play (by Cubs fan Steve Bartman) bother them so much & they wound up blowing the game afterwards. Bartman didn't lose the game for the Cubs, they did....
Last edited:
Buckner shouldn't have been out there. John "Deathhouse" McNamara wanted him to be on the field for the pigpile at the end. Otherwise, he'd have been replaced by Dave Stapleton for defensive purposes. At lot of other things went wrong that inning, not the least of which was a passed ball by Rich Gedman, which was incorrectly ruled a wild pitch by Bob Stanley.Doc Holliday said:
rumpleforeskiin said:
Plus the fact they still could have won their next game...people forget that the Mets didn't win the WS on that single play alone. They played another game afterwards.
Hello Eastender,eastender said:Branca was beat man to man, straight - up, his best effort against Bobby Thomson's best, alot of honour in such a match-up.
Or, what seems to be a verified case of signal stealing. Did you see the film of the guy in the scoreboard at the Polo Grounds with a telescope???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Thomson
"Rumors that the 1951 Giants stole signs en route to the pennant were confirmed in 2001, when several players told the Wall Street Journal that beginning on July 20, 1951, the team used a telescope and buzzer wire to steal the finger signals of opposing catchers careless enough to not protect their signs."
"straight up"...probably not. According to Giant's catcher Sal Yvars it was batter and catcher against the pitcher on that "home run".
Talk about tainted,
Korbel
Last edited:
Still Man on Man
The batter still has to hit the pitch. No one else can do it for him.
Memo to Rumples - the distances stayed the same for both teams. Some do, some don't.
1962 WS Willie McCovey smoking line drive out to Bobby Richardson end series with winning runs on base. Ralph Terry kept McCovey in the park.McCovey smoked it. Richardson made the play. Matter of positioning and execution. No one choked.
Korbel said:
The batter still has to hit the pitch. No one else can do it for him.
Memo to Rumples - the distances stayed the same for both teams. Some do, some don't.
1962 WS Willie McCovey smoking line drive out to Bobby Richardson end series with winning runs on base. Ralph Terry kept McCovey in the park.McCovey smoked it. Richardson made the play. Matter of positioning and execution. No one choked.
So what? A pop-up is still a pop-up is still a pop-up except in the Polo Grounds when it can be a home run. Mel Ott of the Giants hit 511 home runs, 323 in the Polo Grounds, 188 on the road.eastender said:
Maury Wills hit 20 home runs in 14 years. I was in attendance at the Polo Grounds on Memorial Day in 1962 when he hit two in one day. One was a pop-up, the other a line drive that rolled to the wall in left center. (And, to the best of my knowledge, no one was giving him signs from the catcher.)
I just love your meaningless shit. What the christ is this supposed to mean? Some eat poutine between innings, some don't? Some get a blow job from a Baseball Annie between games of doubleheaders, some don't?eastender said:
eastender said:
Hello Eastender,
Are you implying that a home run is just as legitimate when you cheat by stealing signals? So the logic is you still have to hit the ball even if the bat is corked...a pitcher still has to get the ball by the batter even if he uses a spitter...you still have to hit no matter how many steroids you use. Cheating is still cheating. For one who enjoys such close examination of the finer points I am very surprised this comes from you. Thomson, and the Giants, cheated. His feat in the "Shot Heard Round the World" is a total lie.
That's the truth of it,
Korbel
rumpleforeskiin said:
Dal Maxvill and Maury Wills hit grand slams to left field into the wind at Jarry Park.Maxvill's to left center. Not exactly pop-ups.
Willie McCovey couldn't of hit the ball harder than he did to end the 1962 WS.
Some do, some don't. Some balls hit that hard do drop in. Some balls hit that hard don't they get caught. Some dribblers do sneak thru the infield some do not. No one chokes. Rather obvious to anyone who has played.
The Result Stays the Same
At best you have hearsay evidence fifty years down the road without any semblance of due process - a concept that is not dear to you.
All of the other scenarios you outline are either against specific rules or simply illegal.Sign stealing is not illegal and is not against the rules.Signs get stolen because a team or player gets sloppy/lazy, a point clearly made in the hearsay evidence submitted.
Korbel said:
At best you have hearsay evidence fifty years down the road without any semblance of due process - a concept that is not dear to you.
All of the other scenarios you outline are either against specific rules or simply illegal.Sign stealing is not illegal and is not against the rules.Signs get stolen because a team or player gets sloppy/lazy, a point clearly made in the hearsay evidence submitted.
Hello Eastender,eastender said:
That's better. The Artful Dodger strikes again...lol. But when the evidence/testimony comes from a participant it isn't hearsay. The catcher relayed the stolen signal. So his testimony is firsthand.
Cool,
Korbel
Last edited:
Hearsay
Definition of hearsay follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hearsay
So were the statements made in court or during judicial procedures? Were they made under oath? Was he cross-examined?Geez looks like I used the word properly.
Korbel's definitions or the RED SOX dictionary don't count for much.
Korbel said:
Definition of hearsay follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hearsay
So were the statements made in court or during judicial procedures? Were they made under oath? Was he cross-examined?Geez looks like I used the word properly.
Korbel's definitions or the RED SOX dictionary don't count for much.
With a sample size of one at bat, anything can happen. When a player, a .300 hitter with power, consistently, year after year, his .180 over 40 at bats in the playoffs, clearly he is cracking under the pressure. We speak here of Alex Rodriguez, charter member of the choker's HOF.eastender said:
Ted Williams
Ted Williams numbers compare. 5 SINGLES in 25 at bats, .200 BA in his ONLY World Series.Plus his failures in season ending series against the Yankees that meant the difference between going home and going to the World Series are documented. Also head to head against Joe Di Maggio and Mickey Mantle he is far from dominating.
How well did Ted Williams do in the 1948 Play-off against Cleveland?
rumpleforeskiin said:
Ted Williams numbers compare. 5 SINGLES in 25 at bats, .200 BA in his ONLY World Series.Plus his failures in season ending series against the Yankees that meant the difference between going home and going to the World Series are documented. Also head to head against Joe Di Maggio and Mickey Mantle he is far from dominating.
How well did Ted Williams do in the 1948 Play-off against Cleveland?
Last edited:
rumpleforeskiin said:
Hello Rumples,
You have to do better than that if you want to prove your point. You are up against EE who exists in a state of perfection and gets his facts directly from the hand of God...lol.
No kidding,
Korbel
Similar threads
