 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Hey Yankees Fans
Duff77
THUMP THUMP...THUMP THUMP THUMP
Okay, so I still like the Yankees in this series, but they're going to have to play a lot better than THAT if they want to beat anybody.
And by the way, nice throw Alfonso. I could've done that.
Hey Yankees Fans
October 01, 2003 at 03:49AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
LETS GO TWIN-KIES!!!!
THUMP THUMP...THUMP THUMP THUMP
Okay, so I still like the Yankees in this series, but they're going to have to play a lot better than THAT if they want to beat anybody.
And by the way, nice throw Alfonso. I could've done that.
farfetched
October 01, 2003 at 04:40AM View BBCode
You could've done the duffed up throw or could've made an errorless play? :P
Duff77
Go twinkies go!
October 01, 2003 at 04:48AM View BBCode
Either. Admittedly, my relay throw would've bounced three times before it got there, but it would've gotten there. And yes, I definately could've chucked it into the stands if I'd felt like it. I certainly have experience at that :)Go twinkies go!
ME
ballgame over, Yankees Win! THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA YANKEES WIN!
i expect that to be heard a lot until the world seris.
October 01, 2003 at 03:25PM View BBCode
I actually want to Yankees to win, cause i drafted 6 yankees onto my postseason fantasy team, including all 4 of my pitchers, (along with 3 giants and 1 cub).ballgame over, Yankees Win! THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA YANKEES WIN!
i expect that to be heard a lot until the world seris.
happy
October 01, 2003 at 06:55PM View BBCode
hey ME, the yankees losing will help you in this series (unless it is 1 of your pitchers) because then your hitters will get in more games, and i dont think the twins got much of a chance
Duff77
Go twinkies go! :)
October 01, 2003 at 08:37PM View BBCode
You know, Happy, I'd usually agree with you, but the Twins had no chance last year against Oakland, either, and the Yanks REALLY should've knocked off the Angels. Between last year and the first game this year, the Yankees seem to have a habit of blinking in the playoffs. As I said, I still like the Yanks in this series (look at them--how can you not?), but the Twins are a sneaky bunch. I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it, but the Twinkies could pull this off.Go twinkies go! :)
happy
October 01, 2003 at 09:01PM View BBCode
i dont think the twins got much of a chance, the problem with a central team is that their last however many games are against horrible teams (teams from their division) so they arent used to GOOD teams like NY. I said at the beginning of the year "whats up with the yankees, they put a lot of money into them, but i just dont see any real great guys who can carry their team, i dont see them even GOING to the WS this year" but my dad said "yeah, but who will beat them" the thing is that it seems like ALL baseball teams are weak this year, almost like the entire Major Leagues had an off year. pitchers didnt pitch GREAT hitters didnt hit GREAT, and most players who played dominant for even part of the year also got injured.
ME
no team really dominated this year, i wouldn't be surprised if the A's, Red Sox, or Yankees win the AL. Red Sox have the best hitting but its a mess in the pitching department after Pedro Martinez (who can't pitch lots of innings) and Lowe, who is OK. I probably would have picked the A's to win if Mulder was playing.
October 01, 2003 at 09:32PM View BBCode
i do actually like the yankees losing game 1 cause i got pettitte, clemens, and wells so wells will get a 1st round start, along with nick johnson and matsui.no team really dominated this year, i wouldn't be surprised if the A's, Red Sox, or Yankees win the AL. Red Sox have the best hitting but its a mess in the pitching department after Pedro Martinez (who can't pitch lots of innings) and Lowe, who is OK. I probably would have picked the A's to win if Mulder was playing.
skierdude44
October 02, 2003 at 01:31AM View BBCode
yea the yanks played horrible defense in that game and well the twins played great d. anyone see stewarts catch? that wuz sick. how bout those giants though i mean they played just as bad defensively today as the yanks did yesterday. the yankees tied the braves for the best record in the bigs this year despite all those injuries. ppl say that this is the best boston team in years but really they couldnt take advantage of a banged up yankee team when they were healthy for pretty much the whole year. i think that if jeter johnson contreras willams wells and rivera were all healthy they would have pulled away from the deadsox a long time ago. but of course injuries r part of the game but my point is that bad luck for the yanks made the race this close and not great play by the sox.
happy
October 02, 2003 at 05:13PM View BBCode
3 steals the first day, one by loftan (expected) the others by SOSA and BONDS!
skierdude44
October 02, 2003 at 07:20PM View BBCode
happy ur surprised that bonds stole a base? the man is the only member of the 500-500 club. he still got the wheels he just doesnt need to use them unless he is forced to.
happy
October 02, 2003 at 07:34PM View BBCode
i know, just it was still funny seeing the 2 biggest power hitters gettin some steals. hey andrew, me and skier arent fighting in this topic
skierdude44
October 02, 2003 at 10:05PM View BBCode
how bout them deadsox. down 5-1 to the A's. looks like they really r overrated.
Duff77
October 02, 2003 at 10:38PM View BBCode
Yeah, but everybody looks overrated against Barry Zito. The A's just have too much pitching.
skierdude44
October 02, 2003 at 11:05PM View BBCode
zito wuz 14-12 this year which is not that great. and wut about last nite? its not over though, the A's have blown 2-0 series leads to the yankees b4 but i think this time they have learned how to close it out.
Duff77
October 03, 2003 at 12:15AM View BBCode
Well, okay--but when Zito's tossing a curveball like that, you're in trouble no matter who you are. But the Sox did look pretty dead. Of course it was 5-1 by the time I woke up and turned it on, so they were pretty much out of it. But they didn't look like they had a clue against Zito.
skierdude44
October 03, 2003 at 02:52AM View BBCode
4-1 yanks in the 7th with giambi on first and 1 out. lookin good.
Duff77
Yanks Get Even
October 03, 2003 at 03:53AM View BBCode
Well, don't count the Twins out yet, but that was the win the Yankees needed. I think Game 3 will decide this series. If the Yanks play well in the dome, I think the twinkes or done. But I'll tell ya, you never know. I wouldn't have picked the Twins over Oakland last year.
HollywoodOz
Bonds goes from 70 HR pace last year to drop to 45 this year. Sosa squeaks to 40 after being found with cork in his bat.
Who's voting for coincidence?
Who's voting for the obvious connections?
October 03, 2003 at 07:36AM View BBCode
Off-topic question - No player hits 50 home runs this year, the first in many seasons, and strangely enough it's the same year that steroid testing kicks in.Bonds goes from 70 HR pace last year to drop to 45 this year. Sosa squeaks to 40 after being found with cork in his bat.
Who's voting for coincidence?
Who's voting for the obvious connections?
Duff77
One year is a fluke
Two years is a "hmm"
Three is a "good chance"
If home run production is still down in 2006, we'll talk. For now I'd say Sosa had a bad year and Bonds didn't see any strikes. He had 45 HRs and 90 RBIs. Talk about being neutered. 90 RBIs? With 45 HRs? That's pathetic. But then I guess it's not so bad for a guy who only played in 130 games and only had 390 offical at-bats.
Oh, and by the way, Bonds has only hit 50 HRs once--it was the year he hit 73. His career high prior to that was 49. If you look at the raw totals from year to year, his pace the last two years (46 and 45) is slightly above his career average. Of course it's worth noting that when he hit 46 in 1993, he did it in 539 at bats, as opposed to the 403 at bats he had in 2002, when he also hit 46.
October 03, 2003 at 07:47AM View BBCode
One man's opinion, Oz:One year is a fluke
Two years is a "hmm"
Three is a "good chance"
If home run production is still down in 2006, we'll talk. For now I'd say Sosa had a bad year and Bonds didn't see any strikes. He had 45 HRs and 90 RBIs. Talk about being neutered. 90 RBIs? With 45 HRs? That's pathetic. But then I guess it's not so bad for a guy who only played in 130 games and only had 390 offical at-bats.
Oh, and by the way, Bonds has only hit 50 HRs once--it was the year he hit 73. His career high prior to that was 49. If you look at the raw totals from year to year, his pace the last two years (46 and 45) is slightly above his career average. Of course it's worth noting that when he hit 46 in 1993, he did it in 539 at bats, as opposed to the 403 at bats he had in 2002, when he also hit 46.
skierdude44
October 03, 2003 at 07:55PM View BBCode
it could b a coincidence after all the pressure sammy wuz under im sure affected his play and bonds never seeing any pitches i think he wuz on the dl for a stint and his father being in the hospital and then dying affected his total. i think that if everyone is healthy and focused next year and the same result occurs than u may b on to something but for now ill give the players the benefit of the doubt.
Duff77
October 03, 2003 at 09:09PM View BBCode
Not to mention that if the players are on anything, it's probably one of the drugs baseball considers to be legal. In that case, testing wouldn't make much difference.
HollywoodOz
But maybe...
October 04, 2003 at 12:41AM View BBCode
Well, we know they're all on the 'legal' drugs, but I honestly didn't think the weak-ass testing policies that MLB has would scare anyone off the 'roids at all.But maybe...
Duff77
October 04, 2003 at 12:57AM View BBCode
Please. Baseball isn't stupid. They want as many Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez's as they can get. The long ball is popular. They're not interested in seeing pitcher's duels.