So I can look forward to next year with Terry Francona at the helm of the Indians?
quote:biggerpapi asked....3-0Wow! Who knew!?!?
Nobody on this board or anyone I know knew this was going to happen. All of my Giants buddies hedged when they told me the Giants would win in 7.
This has to go down as one of the biggest upsets & chokes (beyond 2004 Yankees!) if the Giants sweep tonight. Unbelieveable. THey won two HUGE playoff games with Barry Zito. Yes, that Barry Zito. Simply unbelieveable. God, I'm sounding like Tim McCarver.
quote:Originally posted by fenwaysouth:quote:biggerpapi asked....3-0Wow! Who knew!?!?
Nobody on this board or anyone I know knew this was going to happen. All of my Giants buddies hedged when they told me the Giants would win in 7.
This has to go down as one of the biggest upsets & chokes (beyond 2004 Yankees!) if the Giants sweep tonight. Unbelieveable. THey won two HUGE playoff games with Barry Zito. Yes, that Barry Zito. Simply unbelieveable. God, I'm sounding like Tim McCarver.
I know I'm not one of your buddies, but there was no hedging when I said the Giants in 6. So I might be one or two games off.
Uh oh, it's 1-0 Giants in the second inning. Is it over already?
Cabrera just answered that question.
Finally a game! Nice to see some offense!
For some reason I get a real rush out of seeing a 5'10" 185 lb 36 year old 2 Baseman with 10 years experience in the show, come up with a huge hit!
Congratulations to the SF Giants! Posey called a great 9th inning for Romo especially that last pitch!
quote:For some reason I get a real rush out of seeing a 5'10" 185 lb 36 year old 2 Baseman with 10 years experience in the show, come up with a huge hit!
and a single
Yup. . .
Baseball! It's really all about performance at the right place at the right time. . .and when a team of people do that, you get what the Giants did.
Baseball! It's really all about performance at the right place at the right time. . .and when a team of people do that, you get what the Giants did.
Does anyone else think Austin Jackson should have tried to make a diving catch on Scutaro's 10th inning single last night?
There's two outs so the runner is going to score no matter what.
I thought he pulled up on a couple of other balls earlier in the series, balls that were higher fly balls that wouldn't have gone far on the ground if he didn't catch them.
There's two outs so the runner is going to score no matter what.
I thought he pulled up on a couple of other balls earlier in the series, balls that were higher fly balls that wouldn't have gone far on the ground if he didn't catch them.
That is a good point! I thought he pulled up on it too. If he had dove he had a chance to catch the ball and save the game.
I see that a lot, and I do not understand why players that do not dive for balls are playing MLB. It really does bother me when you see players at various levels get serious looks by scouts as they watch balls go up the middle on the ground. They make a faint attempt in show, but will never dive for a ball, yet they are drafted...
This really blows my mind, especially when they are not drafted for their bat, but their glove. What good is a glove if you do not dive for a ball when necessary.
Of course my son dives all over the place and is filthy by the time he leaves a field, so I guess I am biased.
It seems like a totally different mentality at play, and I am mystified why the player that refuses to get dirty gets an opportunity and so many that have the same glove skills, but are also willing to sacrifice their body get overlooked.
If I were a scout, I would weigh heavilly against a player that was willing to let a ball go through the gap when runners are on. To me it is inexcuseable. But it happens all the time.
I see that a lot, and I do not understand why players that do not dive for balls are playing MLB. It really does bother me when you see players at various levels get serious looks by scouts as they watch balls go up the middle on the ground. They make a faint attempt in show, but will never dive for a ball, yet they are drafted...
This really blows my mind, especially when they are not drafted for their bat, but their glove. What good is a glove if you do not dive for a ball when necessary.
Of course my son dives all over the place and is filthy by the time he leaves a field, so I guess I am biased.
It seems like a totally different mentality at play, and I am mystified why the player that refuses to get dirty gets an opportunity and so many that have the same glove skills, but are also willing to sacrifice their body get overlooked.
If I were a scout, I would weigh heavilly against a player that was willing to let a ball go through the gap when runners are on. To me it is inexcuseable. But it happens all the time.
quote:Originally posted by biggerpapi:
Does anyone else think Austin Jackson should have tried to make a diving catch on Scutaro's 10th inning single last night?
There's two outs so the runner is going to score no matter what.
I thought he pulled up on a couple of other balls earlier in the series, balls that were higher fly balls that wouldn't have gone far on the ground if he didn't catch them.
When I saw it live I thought that as well. Watching the replay I really don't think he had any chance.
But in general, it seemed to me that the Tigers overall played too tentatively. I am no Giants fan, but I really think the Giants play looser than any other team and that is what separated them from the rest.
quote:But in general, it seemed to me that the Tigers overall played too tentatively. I am no Giants fan, but I really think the Giants play looser than any other team and that is what separated them from the rest.
I agree and I thought the same thing when the CF didnt dive.My son said he was too far away.
My husband was saying that Detroits manager generally likes the long ball hitters in his line up,and several times during the series I felt they wouldnt execute the bunt or small ball when obviously the big hitters were being shut down.
I felt bad for the Detorit Manager,and he had tears in his eyes when he was being interviewed.I liked his interview and thought he was classy.
In the end he said "we were just beat by a better team".ASnd the series showed that.JMMO) New for just my mom opinion
Hats off to the Giants. They were the better team in the end.
Still a huge choke job by our best players. Lot's of guys getting paid huge bucks that didn't show up. Been like that all year....
Now.... I wonder if they will show any of the ugliness Detroit gets bashed for all the time that's going on in San Fran??
http://www.detroitnews.com/art...ans-in-San-Francisco
Still a huge choke job by our best players. Lot's of guys getting paid huge bucks that didn't show up. Been like that all year....
Now.... I wonder if they will show any of the ugliness Detroit gets bashed for all the time that's going on in San Fran??
http://www.detroitnews.com/art...ans-in-San-Francisco
I too saw those photos in today's paper. They had captions like "A Giants Fan starts a fire" and "A baseball fan fights with a cop."
Sorry, these aren't baseball fans. These are criminals just looking for an excuse to act up.
Sorry, these aren't baseball fans. These are criminals just looking for an excuse to act up.
Never thought that Giants, the s****** heavily underdog, could sweep the Tigers. All the Giants players contributed as a team, just amazing to see, Posey, Cain, Timmy, Scutaro, Ryan, Romo, Alfelt, Zito, Pablo, etc.. I thought the Tigers played well yesterday, with a monster oppose field HR for the lead and then followed by another HR for the tie. The slight difference was Alfelt's curve ball and Romo's slider were at their best yesterday and the Tigers' bullpen could not match them. Parade on Wednesday, way to go.
Not sure why the word s-c-r-a-p-p-y is not allowed here 
quote:Originally posted by biggerpapi:
Does anyone else think Austin Jackson should have tried to make a diving catch on Scutaro's 10th inning single last night?
There's two outs so the runner is going to score no matter what.
I thought he pulled up on a couple of other balls earlier in the series, balls that were higher fly balls that wouldn't have gone far on the ground if he didn't catch them.
I couldn't tell if he had a good jump with the ball off the bat or not but from what I could see he did the right thing since he was simply too far to make a diving catch. While I did see him pull up some, I think he needed another half step to be able to make the diving catch. The only thing I thought was wrong with that play was the throw should not have been made towards home and keep Scutaro off of 2nd. But, as it turned out, it didn't matter.
quote:Originally posted by floridafan:
That is a good point! I thought he pulled up on it too. If he had dove he had a chance to catch the ball and save the game.
I see that a lot, and I do not understand why players that do not dive for balls are playing MLB. It really does bother me when you see players at various levels get serious looks by scouts as they watch balls go up the middle on the ground. They make a faint attempt in show, but will never dive for a ball, yet they are drafted...
This really blows my mind, especially when they are not drafted for their bat, but their glove. What good is a glove if you do not dive for a ball when necessary.
Of course my son dives all over the place and is filthy by the time he leaves a field, so I guess I am biased.
It seems like a totally different mentality at play, and I am mystified why the player that refuses to get dirty gets an opportunity and so many that have the same glove skills, but are also willing to sacrifice their body get overlooked.
If I were a scout, I would weigh heavilly against a player that was willing to let a ball go through the gap when runners are on. To me it is inexcuseable. But it happens all the time.
Do you think it might have something to do with putting yourself at risk for injury???
I know my son dives all over the place too and doesn't feel good about his game unless he's dirty. And he has come up injured from some of the diving, though nothing serious, and sometimes the injury is enough to get in the way of 100% performance in the next game or two. So. . .???
Buried in scr@ppy is cr@ppy. The automatic editor looks at letter strings, not words.quote:Originally posted by bball123:
Not sure why the word s-c-r-a-p-p-y is not allowed here
OK Giants fans. What do you think of this? There are two players on the last year of their contracts. How about trading Lincecum for Ellsbury? The Giants won without Lincecum having a good year. Ellsbury would be very likely to resign with the Giants since he's a west coast guy. This was a suggestion in The Boston Herald.
The other side of the question is how do Red Sox fans feel about this? The article also discussed Lincecum's unique delivery, the mileage on his arm and his down season may be a forebearing of things to come.
The other side of the question is how do Red Sox fans feel about this? The article also discussed Lincecum's unique delivery, the mileage on his arm and his down season may be a forebearing of things to come.
quote:Originally posted by RJM:
OK Giants fans. What do you think of this? There are two players on the last year of their contracts. How about trading Lincecum for Ellsbury? The Giants won without Lincecum having a good year. Ellsbury would be very likely to resign with the Giants since he's a west coast guy. This was a suggestion in The Boston Herald.
The other side of the question is how do Red Sox fans feel about this? The article also discussed Lincecum's unique delivery, the mileage on his arm and his down season may be a forebearing of things to come.
Though the Giants won without Lincecum having a good year, Lincecum still managed to be a key element. . . particularly as a reliever and the kind of guy that was more than willing to switch his roll from starter to reliever and help his team win the world championship. I don't see the Giants doing that to Lincecum at this stage. I think Lincecum will be kept for another year at least. There're probably other options was they look at their budget for the pitching staff. (just MHO as a Giants fan)
I found the series to be interesting in that it really showed the differences between how they approach the game. The Tigers offense was built for the long ball for sure. Those big boppers don't bunt.
I give the Tigers pitchers credit, it is very difficult to hold things up game after game when your team's bats go silent.
FWIW, my congrats to Ryan Theriot, some feel he is a useless player, but he is one of those clubhouse guys you need to have to keep things loose. This will be his second world series championship in two seasons.
I felt badly for Jim Leyland, he is one of the good guys.
I give the Tigers pitchers credit, it is very difficult to hold things up game after game when your team's bats go silent.
FWIW, my congrats to Ryan Theriot, some feel he is a useless player, but he is one of those clubhouse guys you need to have to keep things loose. This will be his second world series championship in two seasons.
I felt badly for Jim Leyland, he is one of the good guys.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
I found the series to be interesting in that it really showed the differences between how they approach the game. The Tigers offense was built for the long ball for sure. Those big boppers don't bunt.
Look at how many teams went after "big boppers" to help them get to the WS and how far did they get. Doesn't that say that there other aspects of the game that are just as important as "big boppers?"
One overlooked play was the chopper that Cabrera couldn't make a play on and then Posey hit a two run HR. That doesn't show up in fielding percentage but most ML third basemen would have made the play and that again points out what is wrong with the old way of looking at performance variables. That play or lack of a play was not scored an error but it helped lose the game when any good ML third baseman and all the excellent ones make that play easily. That's also why some of the new defensive metrics aren't kind to Austin Jackson when to the normal eye he looks like a great center fielder. Fielding percentage says he's fine. But he has issues on getting to balls sometimes just like the one that he let drop without trying for it. That stuff is measured in the new parameters. I taught my sons who were both center fielders that you go for that ball in that situation and you block the ball with your body if you don't get it. My son listened because on that same type of play this year in Regionals saved Delta's season with a diving catch in the eighth inning of a tie game with the bases loaded where every bit of his speed and athleticism was needed to make the play. Jackson is at least as good an athlete I would think, so why with his season on the line did he play it so safe and still make a crummy throw. Sometimes that's the difference between ML players and college guys. College guys have to go for it to make the next level, there's no $300,000 losers share waiting and they don't weigh 265 LBs and try to play third base either. The Tigers got a long way on those bats but when the bats were silent, they had no weapons to win close games.
quote:Originally posted by Truman:
re: Austin Jackson's Center Field Effort:
Do you think it might have something to do with putting yourself at risk for injury???
A Major Leaguer on one of the most important play of what could be the only World Series he ever plays in?
Ask Aaron Rowand what he thinks of that theory. Ask Derek Jeter. Ask Carlos Beltran and Mike Cameron. Ask Pete Rose. And there are many more.
quote:Austin Jackson's Center Field Effort:
It was a Giant letdown.
quote:Originally posted by Truman:quote:Originally posted by TPM:
I found the series to be interesting in that it really showed the differences between how they approach the game. The Tigers offense was built for the long ball for sure. Those big boppers don't bunt.
Look at how many teams went after "big boppers" to help them get to the WS and how far did they get. Doesn't that say that there other aspects of the game that are just as important as "big boppers?"
Did I say that there isn't other aspects of the game. I was just replying that you are not going to see guys bunt that are being paid millions to hit the long ball. When was the last time you saw Albert bunt, Matt Holiday, or Texiera?
That's not the intention when they put together that line up.
When you look at the Tigers defense 1.yes the thrird baseman (who should be playing first IMO) has absolutely little range,it hurt them more than once.Yes he is one of the best hitters in the MLB but he hurt them at third in my opinion.I guess this was his first year at third?? As they obtained Fielder.
The ss who I discussed earlier,the manager said that he preferred a ss with less range that can hit a three run homerun when needed.
Compare him to Crawford who was a human vacuum cleaner and stole a few hits from guys.Crawford is a singles hitter,yet he has great range,and he came up with crucial hits.
I think the Tigers defensive players who didnt hit hurt the outcome.
Its just teams with different philosophies.I think the Giants did it all,small ball, some timely HR,good(excellent defense) and great dominating pitching.
I also agree season on the line,world series,your down three games,dive.If you get hurt you got the offseason to rehab.I would of liked to see it even if he missed it,and the other OF there to back him up.It sure would of looked better.
The ss who I discussed earlier,the manager said that he preferred a ss with less range that can hit a three run homerun when needed.
Compare him to Crawford who was a human vacuum cleaner and stole a few hits from guys.Crawford is a singles hitter,yet he has great range,and he came up with crucial hits.
I think the Tigers defensive players who didnt hit hurt the outcome.
Its just teams with different philosophies.I think the Giants did it all,small ball, some timely HR,good(excellent defense) and great dominating pitching.
I also agree season on the line,world series,your down three games,dive.If you get hurt you got the offseason to rehab
.I would of liked to see it even if he missed it,and the other OF there to back him up.It sure would of looked better.
Jim Leyland was probably thinking," A Trout... a Trout..., my kingdom for a Trout!" 
quote:Originally posted by TPM:quote:Originally posted by Truman:quote:Originally posted by TPM:
I found the series to be interesting in that it really showed the differences between how they approach the game. The Tigers offense was built for the long ball for sure. Those big boppers don't bunt.
Look at how many teams went after "big boppers" to help them get to the WS and how far did they get. Doesn't that say that there other aspects of the game that are just as important as "big boppers?"
Did I say that there isn't other aspects of the game. I was just replying that you are not going to see guys bunt that are being paid millions to hit the long ball. When was the last time you saw Albert bunt, Matt Holiday, or Texiera?
That's not the intention when they put together that line up.
I'm not saying you were saying there isn't other aspects. . .only pointing that out, and I agree with you and understand players have certain offensive rolls. The Tigers had a lot of those kinds guys and it's a big part of what got them to the WS. But IMHO I think the team was a little too heavy that way making them, for a lack of a better way to put it, too one dimensional. AND, I think the down time waiting to play in WS was a detriment to those guys rhythm for their hitting. You gotta hand it to the Giants pitching for coming out of their pitching slump just when they needed to, otherwise, it would have been a VERY different story.
Well, there's a LOT of dynamics other than these issues that was going on and this WS is going to be talked about for a long time.
quote:OK Giants fans. What do you think of this? There are two players on the last year of their contracts. How about trading Lincecum for Ellsbury? The Giants won without Lincecum having a good year. Ellsbury would be very likely to resign with the Giants since he's a west coast guy. This was a suggestion in The Boston Herald.
No. Lincesum contributed a lot in the post season. He was something like 1 ER per 10 innings as a long reliever, helped to save the game after Bumgarner in WS. If they traded Zito away few years ago, they would not have won the WS. I believe Timmy will bounce back.
quote:The Tigers had a lot of those kinds guys and it's a big part of what got them to the WS. But IMHO I think the team was a little too heavy that way making them, for a lack of a better way to put it, too one dimensional. AND, I think the down time waiting to play in WS was a detriment to those guys rhythm for their hitting. You gotta hand it to the Giants pitching for coming out of their pitching slump just when they needed to, otherwise, it would have been a VERY different story.
Yes, Tigers was and is a good team. I could not think of any mlb team that would not like to have Cabrera, Fielder, and Delmont on their lineup. It's just that Giants could do no wrong this time. Zito's bunt hit rbi, Vegalsong's rbi, McCain's rbi, Pence's hitting the ball three times, Pablo's three HR against a dominating pitcher, Lincecum finding his strike zone, Romo's impossible slider, and on and on. I have seen them pitching and hitting and haven't seen the best until last week. What I used to see was Pablo grounded to a double play many many times, pitchers' blow safe, etc.. That's why it's amazing to see all of them came together and peaked at the right time. After the last game, Zito in an interview summed it up something like that - everyone think the Giants could not do it, throw away the stats, we play for each other.
Just a thought process - if Leyland were to manage the Giants and Bochy were to manage the Tigers, who would have won the WS? My guess would be Bochy.
Seriously? So with that logic, if Jim Leyland coached the Yankees, they would have won the ALCS?
No manager alive could win a World Series when their team hit .159 over four games and throws up a 4.11 ERA vs. 1.46 for the Giants.
You can be a homer but it's a stretch to claim that Leyland isn't a good coach.
No manager alive could win a World Series when their team hit .159 over four games and throws up a 4.11 ERA vs. 1.46 for the Giants.
You can be a homer but it's a stretch to claim that Leyland isn't a good coach.
Well, just a thought process. Not that Leyland is not a good manager. But more on the line that Bochy out managed Leyland in the WS. Tigers probably had a much better lineup on paper than the Giants at the start of this WS.
That's fine, I'll pull out the "let's agree to disagree" quip.
I believe the players had much more to do with this series than the managers.
I believe the players had much more to do with this series than the managers.
A lot of it had to do with the fact that the Tigers live and die by the longball and when that stopped or there was no one on when they did hit one they had no other offensive tools. National League teams are better equipped to play the small ball that can come into play in series that feature great pitching and low scoring games because they are used to bunting, pitchers batting, the double switch, and having rosters that are built for that kind of baseball. Sometimes the AL teams can't even use one of their best offensive players due to the DH not being used at times.
Believe me, there are not a ton of teams that want Delmon Young on their roster and just having him in the lineup shows that the Tigers have a weakness that can be exploited. He is a horrendous offensive and defensive player.
Believe me, there are not a ton of teams that want Delmon Young on their roster and just having him in the lineup shows that the Tigers have a weakness that can be exploited. He is a horrendous offensive and defensive player.
Was Detroit a team whose hitters loved to be challenged by the fastball? Did they face a lot of teams with hard throwing pitchers over their season?
Just wondering...
Barry Zito topped out at 83-84 on his start and it seemed that all San Francisco's pitchers were soft throwers with a lot of junk. Nothing straight! Other than that fastball that Cabrera took down te middle to end the game.
Just wondering...
Barry Zito topped out at 83-84 on his start and it seemed that all San Francisco's pitchers were soft throwers with a lot of junk. Nothing straight! Other than that fastball that Cabrera took down te middle to end the game.