|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 11:31:00 GMT -5
Well, it does because you said that the Yanks were better than them too, despite losing to them.
Out fo the two World Series we've seen them lose in recently, you said the Yanks were a better team in both of them, giving bad excuses for each.
What, the Marlins quietly went home after their win? Mckeon sent everyone home to get extra sleep? LOL!!
Partying to hard made Jeff Weaver give up a HR to Alex Gonzalez? Partying too hard made David Wells quit in game 5? Your argument is silly. Stop and concentrate on this years playoffs.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 2, 2006 11:35:24 GMT -5
Balls, shut up. You're an idiot.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 11:36:31 GMT -5
The 2001 Yankees were better than the 2001 DBacks. But the reasons they lost were completely different.
David Wells' injury was a big reason they lost in Game 5, and Joe Torre was a fool to keep Weaver in for more than one inning.
The 2003 WS was anti-climactic. To not acknowledge that is silly. I'm saying they didn't care, and I'm not saying it was meaningless.
And I am concentrating on this year's playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 11:41:25 GMT -5
Yeah, everyone said it was going to be anti-climactic because they thought we would roll, just like they said the 01 series would be anti-climactic because they thought we would roll, and it turned out to be one fo the best ever.
BTW: Were the 96 Braves better than the 96 Yanks despite losing in the World Series? LOL!!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 11:46:47 GMT -5
Actually the 1996 Braves were probably the better team. That's a good example of a case where the better team doesn't always win.
But you know this, it's been shown, and I'm not going to re-argue that one.
The 1976 Yankees also won the pennant in dramatic fashion, partied like madmen, and got their asses handed to them. Not saying they were better than the Reds. But they shot their load with Chambliss, partied, and came out flat.
The 2003 Yankees played that WS flat.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 11:56:34 GMT -5
They 76 Yanks came out flat? You sure it didn't have anything to do with the 76 Reds being one of the best teams ever assembled?
The 86 Red Sox had a dramatic ending, and the jumped out to a 2-0 lead. Why were they not flat?
How did the Yanks play 03 flat? They took a 2-1 lead and beat thier best starter! How are you flat after that? You trying to tell me that Pavano was albe to go toe to toe with Clemens ONLY because the Yanks were playing flat?
Well, if you are playing flat, that means you're not playing well, or not good enough to rise to the ocasion, whcih means you are not as good as the team that did rise to the ocasion, which is usually the better team, who always wins. Funny how the Yankee legends in monument park were able to fill their fingers with rings whils still being hung over/still drunk on the field the next day, and the 03 Yanks lost beccause they had too much fun. LOL!!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 2, 2006 12:07:35 GMT -5
hopefully jeter went home last night and watched what it was like to lose with Posada, and they are fired up. Every year when they look like shit in the playoffs, it's always the same thing.... Let's hope his attitude is contagious.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 12:48:51 GMT -5
Don't overrate the 76 Reds. You can hear interviews from the 76 Yanks. Those Reds were a great team, and would have won anyway, but the Yanks were flat.
You can't compare the 86 ALCS to the 03 ALCS. And even so, just because one team doesn't come out flat has nothing to do with the 03 Yanks, who did.
Why don't you bring up the 1964 New York Rangers? It has about as much relevance as anything in 1986 to 2003.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 2, 2006 12:54:16 GMT -5
Just reading through this thread and....well, Grover, exactly what did you mean when you said "Well, The Mets backed in" ... How does a team with the best record in the league "back in?" The destroyed the entire National League all season, and put it in cruise control at the end after everything was locked up. I don't think anyone "backed in" this year. None of 8 teams participating this post-season were handed a gift of a playoff birth by other teams. If there's a case of backing in at all, Minnesota backed into a division championship, but even so, they'd have gotten the wild card anyway.
|
|
|
Post by whalerfan on Oct 2, 2006 12:55:03 GMT -5
"And because both LCS' were so great, the WS was anti-climactic."
I was just as pissed after game 6 of the World Series against the Marlins as I was after the 2004 ALCS. You don't have a chance to win the World Series everyday and the Yankes gagged it away. You truly don't know baseball to say any WS was "anti-climactic."
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 13:00:13 GMT -5
And you are truly not remembering a thing if you think it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 2, 2006 13:05:38 GMT -5
This was a thread over on Section39.com as well. I agree that the 2003 WS loss was anti-climactic in regards to the ALCS that had just taken place. But my point on the other board was that it was still the World Series. So, in my opinion the 2003 World Series loss stung more than the 2004 ALCS loss. In 2004, there was still more baseball left to play after the Yankees went home. The Yankees didn't walk away losers on the last day of 2004 Major League Baseball. If I could go back and change one of those series, as a Yankee fan, I'd much rather have won the 2003 World Series, than have won the 2004 ALCS with an unknown result against the Cards in the 2004 World Series.
My point is, regardless of who your opponent is, a World Series loss is always more devastating than a playoff series loss.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 13:19:22 GMT -5
Just reading through this thread and....well, Grover, exactly what did you mean when you said "Well, The Mets backed in" ... How does a team with the best record in the league "back in?" The destroyed the entire National League all season, and put it in cruise control at the end after everything was locked up. I don't think anyone "backed in" this year. None of 8 teams participating this post-season were handed a gift of a playoff birth by other teams. If there's a case of backing in at all, Minnesota backed into a division championship, but even so, they'd have gotten the wild card anyway. Well, they did play good the last 4 games, but the Month of September was gross. Same goes for the tigers. They were in first alost the whole year, and lost out in the end by backing in. They will now get stung, bad, byt he Yankees. If they went in flying high, then they would have a good shot. Then again, all it takes is one key play to get some momentum, and turn a series around. Balls, don't overrate the 76 Reds? Don't you mean don't Oveerate the 76 Yankees? LOL!!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 13:38:33 GMT -5
Of course, but that still doesn't make the 03 WS less anti-climactic.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 13:41:20 GMT -5
Uh, no, the 04 Red Sox loss is thee worst loss in Yankee history, hands down. It's the biggest disaster in the teams history. It's not even debatable.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 13:44:26 GMT -5
I was more sickened in 2001. We were 2 outs away.
|
|
|
Post by BigAl115 on Oct 2, 2006 13:46:44 GMT -5
Yankees history ...It was the worst collapse in baseball history....for me it was the most painfull yankee loss(s) since I was a fan.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 13:49:16 GMT -5
I've never felt like that in my life.
01 hurt but it hit me that inning we would lose. In 04 it was a few days of torture, and you just knew no matter what they would beat us, and then go on to win the World Series. That prolonged torture is worse to me, and the fact it was our most heated rivals doing it made it worse. Sure 01 stung, but the Yanks have lost World Series before, and the Diamonbacks are far from a rival. This meant something. We handed the Red Sox a title. That's a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 2, 2006 14:08:52 GMT -5
2001 or 1981 was the worst for me. 2004 ALCS doesn't even compare, in my opinion.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 14:10:41 GMT -5
You're entitled to that feeling, it's just that for me, I live for championships. To be that close and lose stunk.
In 1981 I was too young to truly feel anything other than annoyance.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 2, 2006 14:13:02 GMT -5
and it was so dramatic they were probably partying for the rest of the night.
LOL!
Says who, you? Like you are the authority on all reasons to and to not party.
LOL! Teams lose series' for reasons other than being weary for partying too much, you idiot.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 14:25:57 GMT -5
Yeah, really. Mantle, Martin, ford and Co. were raging drunks, and look how many times they won. That's a lame excuse, and even if it's debatable it doesn't apply to the 03 Yanks.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 2, 2006 14:26:59 GMT -5
I'm agreeing with that statement Balls. To be THAT close and lose, stinks. That's why 2004 doesn't compare to any World Series loss in my opinion.
I was young in 1981 as well, but I cried over that. It was the Dodgers...the hated Dodgers. I used to wish for Fernando Valenzuela's death back then. Losing to the Dodgers in the World Series is about the worst thing I can think of in terms of losses as a Yankees fan. The only thing worse would be losing to the Red Sox in the World Series, which of course is impossible. Losing to the Mets in the World Series is a distant 2nd to losing to LA, considering the Yankees/Dodgers history. I no longer hate the Dodgers - I actually respect them and mildly root for them to make it to the playoffs and hopefully the World Series every year...just hoping for a repeat of what the baseball Gods had in mind when they invented the World Series - Dodgers vs. Yankees. Losing to the Dodgers in a World Series is every bit as bad as The Celtics losing to the Lakers, or vice versa in the NBA Finals. Dodgers vs. Yankees is like Frazier vs. Ali. Yankees vs. Red Sox is more like Ali vs. Holmes – it’s still a big fight but doesn’t carry the importance of other, simply due to logistics. There are no big World Series moments between the Red Sox and Yankees. There is no long-standing historical rivalry with a World Championship on the line between the Yankees and Red Sox. And if you really think about it, the Red Sox, Yankees rivalry is very cyclical. It only matters when both teams are good and there have been far greater periods of extreme inequality between the two than there have been moments when both are strong contenders for not only the division, but the World Series. With the Dodgers, however, there’s always the specter of that historical match-up looming out there….again, all my humble opinion only.
Mark my words...if there is a Dodgers/Yankees World Series, the girlfriend and I will SOME HOW, SOME WAY make it out to the Bronx!
|
|
|
Post by BigAl115 on Oct 2, 2006 14:33:37 GMT -5
in 81 I wa 9 so it wasn't to tramatic for me..I think I cried ..But I was 9 ...it 2001....Its one of those things where i will always remember where I was when the ball flew over Jeters head... ..truely painfull..I was looking for a penalty flag I couldn't believe it happened....But to be actually watch a collapse like that against The Boston Red Sox ...It hurt ..real bad ...Def more painful for me ..
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 14:34:27 GMT -5
I don't see how losing in 01 and 81 are worse than laying down for your most hated rivals and letting them win for the first time in 86 years, embarasing yourselves in the process by having the biggest choke job in sports history.
Sure losing to the Dodgers was bad, but it wasn't the Brooklyn Dodgers so it's not the same rival. Losing when you're so close hurts, but knwoing you're going to lose to the team you hate the mose over the period of a few days in the wors tpossible fashion, then going on to watch that rival win their first World Series in 86 years, erasing heart ache and misery of an entire city, is like watching your mother die.
81 and 01 are like getting shot in the head. 04 was like being a POW in 'Nam and tortured everyday unitl you finally roll over and die.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 14:34:30 GMT -5
Mantle, Ford, and Martin were not on the 2003 Yankees, so they are not relevant. If you really think it was business as usual after that game, you're on crack.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 2, 2006 14:38:07 GMT -5
Well, obviously it was since they bounced back from that loss to win the next two, beat their best starter, and rallied to tie game 4. Wow so sluggish. LOL!!
Stop making excuses. The Yanks were not as good as the Marlins, and that's why the Marlins beat them. That's how it's always worked, with the exception of 1919.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Oct 2, 2006 14:42:10 GMT -5
Losing to the Mets would be MUCH worse than losing to the Dodgers. I know you're out West, Cho, but we all have to deal with Mets fans every day.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 2, 2006 14:45:10 GMT -5
The 2003 Yankees were better than the Marlins. I know this is a hard concept for some, but sometimes the best team doesn't always win.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 2, 2006 14:47:03 GMT -5
Sorry, but the 2003 Yankees LOST to the 2003 Marlins. So, no matter what you think, it gives THEM nor YOU any right to say the Yankees were better.
Last I checked, the Marlins went home with the rings.
You know what, Balls? Its Yankee fans like you that make losing easier.
|
|