 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Astros finally make it to the WS
kujayhawks15
Astros finally make it to the WS
October 20, 2005 at 01:45PM View BBCode
For the first time in history, a team from Texas is going to the World Series. The two longest streaks before last night were Houston Astros (founded in 1961) and the Texas Rangers (founded in 1962). I'm glad for Biggio and Bagwell, especially if that rumor about Bagwell retiring is true. They outpitched the Cardinals, just like the White Sox outpitched the Angels, just to prove once again that pitching wins championships and good pitching beats good hitting.
youngallstar
Im very happy the Astros avenged last years crushing defeat to the Cards. I couldnt think of a more deserving team to represent the NL
Like ive said from the start, Astros in 6 :spin:
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by youngallstar]
October 20, 2005 at 02:21PM View BBCode
Actually I think the Rangers were 61 and the Stros were 62, could be wrong on that thoughIm very happy the Astros avenged last years crushing defeat to the Cards. I couldnt think of a more deserving team to represent the NL
Like ive said from the start, Astros in 6 :spin:
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by youngallstar]
FuriousGiorge
Sort of like the Astros were done after game 5 because of all the momentum that the Cardinals had. Or how only teams that play small ball can win the World Series. Or how chemistry is the most important factor in determining who wins.
If pitching wins championships, how come the 1990's Braves only managed one?
October 20, 2005 at 02:42PM View BBCode
And the Rangers were the Senators for a decade before moving to Texas.Originally posted by kujayhawks15
They outpitched the Cardinals, just like the White Sox outpitched the Angels, just to prove once again that pitching wins championships and good pitching beats good hitting.
Sort of like the Astros were done after game 5 because of all the momentum that the Cardinals had. Or how only teams that play small ball can win the World Series. Or how chemistry is the most important factor in determining who wins.
If pitching wins championships, how come the 1990's Braves only managed one?
drunkengoat
Explain 1927, 1961, and instances where pitchers gave up a World Series winning homerun. How about 2001, eh? A hitter Odyssey? A bloop single by a noted basher neutralized quite possibly the most effective reliever of this generation.
I'm just saying you forgot to finish the quote, which reads, "and vice versa."
October 20, 2005 at 03:21PM View BBCode
Originally posted by kujayhawks15
good pitching beats good hitting.
Explain 1927, 1961, and instances where pitchers gave up a World Series winning homerun. How about 2001, eh? A hitter Odyssey? A bloop single by a noted basher neutralized quite possibly the most effective reliever of this generation.
I'm just saying you forgot to finish the quote, which reads, "and vice versa."
DougB
October 20, 2005 at 04:06PM View BBCode
Cubs and White Sox loosing streaks are longer than the Senators/Rangers.
FuriousGiorge
Don't stop,
Believin'
Hold on to that feeeeeeeli-in'
October 20, 2005 at 05:16PM View BBCode
I just have 8 simple words for the White Sox.Don't stop,
Believin'
Hold on to that feeeeeeeli-in'
barterer2002
October 20, 2005 at 07:26PM View BBCode
I think the Senators/Rangers and the Colt 45/Astros were the leaders for never having appeared in any World Series. Clearly there are longer active streaks without winning it as Doug has pointed out. There are also longer streaks since appearing in their last one (the White Sox would be a notable example as they are appearing in their first since 1959-three years before the Colt 45 were formed plus there are the Cubbies who haven't been since 1945)
FuriousGiorge
October 20, 2005 at 07:47PM View BBCode
The Cubs and White Sox are the only teams whose last pennant predates the first expansion (in 1961) and the Indians and Giants haven't won a World Series since before then (the Indians last in 1948, the Giants in 1954). All of the other of the pre-expansion 16 have won the World Series since then, some in new homes and under new names. The remaining expansion teams without pennant wins are now the Rangers (1961), Nationals (1969), Mariners (1977), Rockies (1993) and Devil Rays (1998). In addition, the Brewers (1969), Padres (1969) and of course Astros (1962) have never won the World Series. I think that's everyone.
folifan19
Journey! Yeah Baby! Steve Perry rules!
October 20, 2005 at 08:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
I just have 8 simple words for the White Sox.
Don't stop,
Believin'
Hold on to that feeeeeeeli-in'
Journey! Yeah Baby! Steve Perry rules!
yankeekid
October 21, 2005 at 01:27PM View BBCode
Astros in 7. I thought they would win this series against the cards ever since the beginning of the playoffs. They are just a better team even if they did win I think 11 less games than the Cards. At least in the playoffs because they have 3 phenomenal starters and only need 4 starters.
folifan19
I'm actually wishing Houston wins though, as this may be the last shot for Biggio and Bags to get er done, and I've always liked The Rocket. If Houston wins WS, Bags and Biggio could retire, happy men.
October 21, 2005 at 01:46PM View BBCode
White Sox win in 6. 4 complete game wins, and the pen blows the 2 losses due to what, almost two weeks of inactivity. Crede and Konerko will hit like mad, as they have been doing and help carry ChiSox to the WS title.I'm actually wishing Houston wins though, as this may be the last shot for Biggio and Bags to get er done, and I've always liked The Rocket. If Houston wins WS, Bags and Biggio could retire, happy men.
jetpac
October 23, 2005 at 12:47AM View BBCode
Somehow I doubt we're getting another 4 complete games from the ChiSox.
Duff77
Why didn't the Braves win more World Series? Because their offense sucked (not to mention their bullpen). But that doesn't mean pitching isn't still the foundation of any championship team.
October 23, 2005 at 04:03AM View BBCode
You people who deal in absolutes disgust me. Good pitching usually beats good hitting, which is why you can't win a World Series without good pitching. You can't generally win without some hitting, either, but if you pitch well, play good defense, and do the little things right offensively, you can still win even with a bad offense. If you don't pitch, you don't even get the chance.Why didn't the Braves win more World Series? Because their offense sucked (not to mention their bullpen). But that doesn't mean pitching isn't still the foundation of any championship team.
FuriousGiorge
I will absolutely kick 100% of your ass.
What is a "little thing" offensively? I guess this is the standard tripe about bunting and hitting behind the runner and all that crap. "Just as long as your hitters know how to bunt, you're bound to win."
Or maybe I have it all wrong, and by "little things" you mean things like being patient at the plate and, you know, making good contact when you lay wood on the ball. In which case, I owe you an apology and maybe a big sloppy kiss.
October 23, 2005 at 05:31AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
You people who deal in absolutes disgust me.
I will absolutely kick 100% of your ass.
Originally posted by Duff77
You can't generally win without some hitting, either, but if you pitch well, play good defense, and do the little things right offensively, you can still win even with a bad offense. If you don't pitch, you don't even get the chance.
What is a "little thing" offensively? I guess this is the standard tripe about bunting and hitting behind the runner and all that crap. "Just as long as your hitters know how to bunt, you're bound to win."
Or maybe I have it all wrong, and by "little things" you mean things like being patient at the plate and, you know, making good contact when you lay wood on the ball. In which case, I owe you an apology and maybe a big sloppy kiss.
whiskybear
The Braves tanked in the playoffs too often because they relied on finesse guys like Maddux and Glavine who don't fare as well in the postseason, when you don't quite get the same calls on the outside edge of the plate. Smoltz was always their best playoff pitcher because he was a power guy.
October 23, 2005 at 05:46AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
Why didn't the Braves win more World Series? Because their offense sucked (not to mention their bullpen). But that doesn't mean pitching isn't still the foundation of any championship team.
The Braves tanked in the playoffs too often because they relied on finesse guys like Maddux and Glavine who don't fare as well in the postseason, when you don't quite get the same calls on the outside edge of the plate. Smoltz was always their best playoff pitcher because he was a power guy.
Duff77
So we've learned that if you're first in ERA, first in run scoring, and first in defense, you're a really good team. Thanks for clarifying that.
However, since no team can be the best at everything, we must ask ourselves: To be a World Champion, what side shall we lean towards? And you're absolutely 100% a moron if you're going to lean to offense over pitching and defense.
Sure, every now and then a team that doesn't pitch particuarly well and can't field worth dick is going to overpower with its offense and win it all. See: 2004 Boston Red Sox, noting of course that said Red Sox had an excellent bullpen and great starting pitching when they needed it.
You can't bunt your way to the title, but you can make up for some offensive deficencies by playing smart, assuming you pitch well. It's much harder to make up for poor pitching, no matter how explosive your offense is.
Hell, it played out for me in SimD. I had an offensive juggernaut in the BoHol that make the playoffs for seven straight years. The first two years we lost in the World Series, but for the next five we were bounced in the first round (usually with ease). In three of those seasons we beat the Wild Card team by at least nine games in the standings. And every time we lost it was because my fantastic offense was shut down by superior pitching.
October 23, 2005 at 11:42PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
"Just as long as your hitters know how to bunt, you're bound to win."
So we've learned that if you're first in ERA, first in run scoring, and first in defense, you're a really good team. Thanks for clarifying that.
However, since no team can be the best at everything, we must ask ourselves: To be a World Champion, what side shall we lean towards? And you're absolutely 100% a moron if you're going to lean to offense over pitching and defense.
Sure, every now and then a team that doesn't pitch particuarly well and can't field worth dick is going to overpower with its offense and win it all. See: 2004 Boston Red Sox, noting of course that said Red Sox had an excellent bullpen and great starting pitching when they needed it.
You can't bunt your way to the title, but you can make up for some offensive deficencies by playing smart, assuming you pitch well. It's much harder to make up for poor pitching, no matter how explosive your offense is.
Hell, it played out for me in SimD. I had an offensive juggernaut in the BoHol that make the playoffs for seven straight years. The first two years we lost in the World Series, but for the next five we were bounced in the first round (usually with ease). In three of those seasons we beat the Wild Card team by at least nine games in the standings. And every time we lost it was because my fantastic offense was shut down by superior pitching.
youngallstar
October 24, 2005 at 03:16AM View BBCode
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
youngallstar
October 24, 2005 at 03:27AM View BBCode
Ugh, Lidge blows another game. Just 3 seconds after the announcer said he had forgoten about the Pujols homerun
youngallstar
October 24, 2005 at 03:29AM View BBCode
Time for the Stros to take care of business at home
Cubsfan13
October 24, 2005 at 03:35AM View BBCode
It will probably go back to Chicago 3-2, White Sox. Oswalt will win game 3, Garcia wins game 4 for the Sox, and Clemens pitches in game 5 and wins. I'd assume Chicago would win a game after that, but you never know. Or I could be completely wrong, which is the most likely scenario.
Duff77
But frankly, the first two games were both kind of wild, so all this analysis may come to the sum total of nothing.
October 24, 2005 at 03:53AM View BBCode
Well, the Astros are a team that can win the World Series *if* Clemens, Oswalt, and Pettitte can shut down the White Sox offense. But Clemens is hurt, Pettitte has looked very hittable twice now, and the Astros bullpen has apparently forgotten how great it is. That all better change in a hurry, because of the 'Stros pitching is only average, they have no prayer in this thing.But frankly, the first two games were both kind of wild, so all this analysis may come to the sum total of nothing.
Pages: 1 2