Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: So Long, Yankee Stadium. It's Been Wonderful.

This is topic So Long, Yankee Stadium. It's Been Wonderful. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005584

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-21-2008, 11:24 PM:

Just finished watching the New York Yankees finish their last ever game in Yankee Stadium. They beat the Baltimore Orioles. The game was broadcast on ESPN-HD.

It seems almost unthinkable that Yankee Stadium is going to be demolished in just a few months. So much sports history has been made in that stadium, arguably more than any other venue in the world by a very wide margin. Not only did the Yankees play 100 World Series games there, the NY Giants played one of the best football games in history there, some big boxing matches were held there and also some major concerts. The venue is 85 years old, at least some of it (a major re-model took place in the 1970s). Hopefully at least some parts of the stadium will be carried across the street to the New Yankee Stadium.

Speaking of the new stadium it looks like it will be an awesome new home for the Yankees. It should be. The final cost is over $1 billion. Thankfully the new stadium will be called "Yankee Stadium" instead of some bullshit corporate named nonsense like "Chase Stadium" or "Nathan's Hotdogs Stadium" or "Tampax Tampons Stadium." Hopefully that could start some trend to get rid of the corporate crap with so many other largely taxpayer funded stadiums.

Anyway, it's kind of sad to see the old place close. I watched a few Yankees games there when I lived in New York so there are some personally sentimental feelings about the stadium closing for good. I really feel sorry for the blue-collar guy who has to make that first swing of the wrecking ball. They're probably going to have to import some guy from Boston to do the job, because any New Yorker is just going to be breaking his own heart to do the deed.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-21-2008, 11:36 PM:

quote: Robert
They're probably going to have to import some guy from Boston to do the job

Hell, they can have me do it. I rarely give two shits about friggin' baseball. It really would have been best if the new place was called "Tampax Field".

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-21-2008, 11:45 PM:

Baseball may not seem quite as exciting as pro football or pro basketball, but the cool thing about baseball is you don't have to depend on your genetics to be good at the sport. To get anywhere with football you need the genes to be giant monolith. Basketball requires players to be abnormally tall. Baseball simply requires good eye-hand coordination and quick wits -both of which anyone can develop if he works hard enough at it. Baseball is the one truly democratic sport. Soccer (or "football") is about the only other thing that comes close although you need a marathoner's cardio genes to do well in that sport.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-21-2008, 11:49 PM:

cough Barry Bonds Jason Giambi cough cough [Razz]

Baseball is the worst sport to watch, but was rather fun to play when I was a kid. Don't really care for the Yankees though. glad the Diamondbacks beat them in 2001. Good times...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-21-2008, 11:52 PM:

quote: Bobby
Baseball may not seem quite as exciting as pro football or pro basketball

Or competitive lawn mowing.

quote: Bobby
but the cool thing about baseball is you don't have to depend on your genetics to be good at the sport.

True, that's why they use steroids. The likes of Mark McGuire and Roger Clemens taught us that.

quote: Bobby
Baseball simply requires good eye-hand coordination and quick wits

Not to mention lots and LOTS of saliva. They are always chewing like their lives depended on it. Their jaws get more action than the most rented hooker on East Colfax. Baseball looks great when broadcast in HD since things rarely move... or happen at all. Therefore no compression artifacts!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-22-2008, 12:21 AM:

I'm still seeing no credible arguments of why football, basketball, soccer, hockey or even freaking bull riding are better sports.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-22-2008, 12:42 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Baseball is the one truly democratic sport.

What about bowling? Anybody can do that. Even wheelchair-bound people can bowl. Not saying they're going to win any games, but "winning isn't everything," right? [Wink]

Was never much of a baseball fan myself either, but it is sad to see such a history-laden place hit the dirt. I still bet eventuall the new stadium will be called "Dr. Pepper Yankee Stadium" or similar.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-22-2008, 12:47 AM:

OK, BEFORE THIS THREAD GOES ON A CRAZY OFF-SHOOT ON WHICH SPORT WE HATE THE MOST AND WHY....

Why did they build a new Yankee stadium anyway? It seemed like the old one was just fine, let alone all the history it had. If Wrigley Field is ever tore down and rebuilt 2 blocks away, I'm becoming a Cardinals fan in protest.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 09-22-2008, 01:22 AM:

I felt the same way when they closed down Tiger Stadium. I was at the last game, behind home plate first row. I'm not a huge baseball fan but going to games is a lot more fun then watching them on TV. At least we had Tiger Stadium around for a long time before they tore it down for good.

Not a yankees fan but sad to see yankee stadium get tore down, with all the history that is in the building.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-22-2008, 02:58 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
To get anywhere with football you need the genes to be giant monolith.

Or touch a Monolith? (2001 reference for those who are lost)

quote: Allison Parsons
Why did they build a new Yankee stadium anyway?

My thoughts exactly. The new one even looks smaller. It may have been some play on forced perspective from the camera angle in the clip I saw. But if it truly is smaller as it appears; You lose the history and sentimental value, for a smaller stadium? Maybe the new one has some new bells and whistles? Why not upgrade the old one with those bells and whistles?

quote: Mike Blakesley
What about bowling? Anybody can do that.

Bowling is more about who can afford the best/latest equipment, and best/most balls. All of the high rollers that come in to any of the centers I worked at all come in towing a train of ball carriers, wrist braces, rosin powder, shoe slide powder, expensive shoes with interchangeable slide and heel pieces, 5 different kinds of tape, 3 towels for their balls, 2 for them, alcohol, ball cleaner, laser guided optronic targeting resolution computer, low glare shades, spinning hubcaps for their ball carrier, sandpaper, and a microfusion powered beer cooler disguised as yet another ball carrier. I mean its rediculous. And they're the ones that gripe the most about the lane conditions if they're the least bit off due to high humidity or something. What a bunch of cry babies. My mother bowls with a hard rubber ball from the 60's, she doesn't complain. Though she does seem to hold high average in her league pretty consistantly. So I know it can be a spot of skill, but it usually just resorts to a competition of the deeper pockets (No pun intended). Sorry, I'll end rant here. Just someone mentioned bowling as a legitimate sport.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2008, 03:14 AM:

quote: Bobby
I'm still seeing no credible arguments of why football, basketball, soccer, hockey or even freaking bull riding are better sports.

Funny, the ONLY thing I see are arguments that are so credible that they should be made into law. Bull riding is better because it is over sooner. Baseball is too long. 9 innings? Should be five, max.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-22-2008, 03:40 AM:

quote: Charles Greenlee
Sorry, I'll end rant here. Just someone mentioned bowling as a legitimate sport

I've played in plenty of bowling leagues (almost made PBA tour in one year since I kept a 200 avg, but the complexity of the PBA sorta killed it for me..), but reading all the gripes, whines and rants about any sport above, I have one simple statement: Don't knock it until you actually try it.

Granted, it's boring to watch golf, baseball and a host of others, but when you get out there and actually swing a club, play 18 holes of 'pasture pool' and get great excersize of walking almost 3 miles in doing so, play in a city softball team and be the best team player in your position, go bowling for fun or as a sport as a member of a team and try to get in the money or points playoffs of the game, or even getting on a motorcycle and go cross country on it, yas better keep still about making remarks about it until you actually get your feet wet.

Back on topic: Heard that Yankee Stadium really has it's problems being of age, why the decision of building new. You have to realize that a stucture holding that many people for that many years, eventually will be getting tired.

-Monte

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-22-2008, 03:48 AM:

So its no longer practical to maintain/upgrade? It's just simply too old? Wish I could've seen it in person.

And, yes, I bowl. I know how much of a workout it can be, since I slug a 16 pounder. :-)

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-22-2008, 05:47 AM:

It's all about the Bells and the Whistles now, and think Sky Boxes.

I was there the Sunday before last. The place still holds the charm of the game. [thumbsup]

But beer is $9.50 [thumbsdown]

Watch next years prices to go UP! [beer]

The season ticket package plans are all changing. [Eek!]

Posted by Rachel Craven (Member # 1016) on 09-22-2008, 07:36 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
They're probably going to have to import some guy from Boston to do the job, because any New Yorker is just going to be breaking his own heart to do the deed.

'

I wish.. [evil]

As far as bickering about spots, everyone has their favorite (or just plain hates sports in general). Personally, I am a baseball fan but I couldn't care less about the Yankees.. Hmm, look where I'm from and guess why...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-22-2008, 08:31 AM:

They could tear down Major League Baseball and I wouldn't give a hoot. It isn't what it was even when I was a kid... Golf is much more the gentlemans sport and doesn't require any steroids. Golfers have to be winners to make the big bucks... they don't just sign a contract on the dotted line!

Mark

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-22-2008, 08:58 AM:

Shea Stadium is also going. I don't know who plays there, or what sport they play, but I know that it's being replaced by a new stadium. Wasn't it only built in fairly recent times, 1960s?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-22-2008, 09:07 AM:

Shea Stadium is where the NY Mets play, FYI.

quote: Allison Parsons
If Wrigley Field is ever tore down and rebuilt 2 blocks away, I'm becoming a Cardinals fan in protest.

So becoming a White Socks fan is out of the question? [Wink]

Having relatives who are Cubs fans I know the fans of the 2 teams are pretty much mutually exclusive.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-22-2008, 09:34 AM:

But *what* do they play, football? baseball? basketball? I have to admit that I have so little knowledge of sport that I could only just about tell the difference between any of these.

The only reason I know that it is going is that it has a station on the LIRR, and there were posters up at Penn Station for the 'final season' to be played there earlier this year.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2008, 10:01 AM:

After this season, the ten oldest MLB ballparks will be as follows:

1. Fenway Park, 1912, Boston, MA.
2. Wrigley Field, 1914, Chicago, IL.
3. Dodger Stadium, 1962, Los Angeles, CA.
4. Angel Stadium of Anaheim, 1966, Anaheim, CA.
5. McAfee Coliseum, 1966, Oakland, CA.
6. Kauffman Stadium, 1973, Kansas City, MO.
7. Metrodome, 1982, Minneapolis, MI.
8. Dolphin Stadium, 1987, Miami, FL.
9. Rogers Centre, 1989, Toronto, ON., Canada
10. Tropicana Field, 1990, Tampa Bay, FL.

It's sort of funny to think of Dodger Stadium (which is thoroughly modern in every respect, at least in a 1960s sort of way) as being the third oldest MLB ballpark.

As I understand it, the issue with Yankee Stadium is that it has not been well maintained for the last decade or so and there are (were) questions about its structural integrity. Also, the owners wanted more "premium" seats and private boxes, which is where teams seem to make much of their money now. The new Stadium will actually have a smaller total seating capacity than the old one.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-22-2008, 10:32 AM:

The new Yankee Stadium is indeed smaller and holds less people, but it has all the modern amenities including many more skyboxs that make the owners lots of money. There is nothing structurally wrong with the existing stadium. In fact, it was substantially rebuilt for it's remodeling in the 1970's.

The old Yankee Stadium is not being demolished. It is being given to the city of New York. They are going to take down the top tier (3rd level), and use the remainder of the stadium for city sports.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-22-2008, 10:57 AM:

quote: Chris Slycord
So becoming a White Socks fan is out of the question?

haha, well in Peoria (which is smackdab in the middle of IL), you're either a STL or Cubs fan. Not to many White Socks fans. But now that Ken Griffey Jr is on the team, I would probably become a Socks fan. [Smile]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 09-22-2008, 11:08 AM:

Since Allison mentioned his name, I want to chime in.

Ken Griffey, Jr. was a major part of my favorite team, the Cincinnati Reds, for quite a number of years (as well as his father). Recently he left and went to the Chicago White Sox.

Now, I have been and always will be a fan of the team. However, MLB has changed so much over the years (since the '70s) that I am pretty diappointed with the way things are now.

I could care less about any of the Stadiums and which team is the best. As far as I am concerned, it's a bunch of overpaid whiners who need a good kick in the pants to make them realize how good they have it.

We all have our memories of our favorite team in our favorite stadium. That's all we have now, is the memories. We need to realize that it will never be as good as we remember it.

So long, Yankee Stadium, and thanks for the memories.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-22-2008, 11:14 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
But *what* do they play, football? baseball? basketball?

Shephen they play baseball.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-22-2008, 11:21 AM:

I thought the stadium was going to get demolished. That's usually what happens when a new stadium gets built next door.

The NYC city government will probably have to spend a fortune in altering Yankee stadium. Taking down the top tier of seating won't be cheap. What may be even more expensive is bringing the facility up to code with current federal laws. Any significant commercial building renovation typically requires the building to comply with the latest regulations for everything from access for disabled people to the latest NEC electrical wiring rules. This is a big reason why it's usually cheaper to completely tear down an old building and build brand new on the same spot. Here in Lawton, a historic school building is being renovated to become the new city hall. The regs from ADA, EPA, OSHA, NEC and more added about $4 million to the project.

It's kind of a shame that the new Yankee Stadium will have fewer seats and a greater emphasis on luxury sky boxes. I wonder what that will do the ticket prices.

Usually it costs quite a bit less to see a professional baseball game than a pro football game since a lot more games are played. It's been several years since I've gone to see a Dallas Cowboys game. The tickets are often difficult to get and you'll pay a lot even for shitty seats up in the nosebleed section. Rumor is Cowboys tickets in the new Texas Stadium in Arlington are going way the hell up in price. That's despite the stadium having a maximum capacity of over 100,000 people and the taxpayers of Arlington ponying up a huge amount of the stadium's $1 billion price tag.

quote: Joe Redifer
True, that's why they use steroids. The likes of Mark McGuire and Roger Clemens taught us that.

The scandal of steroid use has definitely hurt professional baseball. However, lots of other sports are badly affected by steroid use and other forms of "doping." Pro football has a good testing program in place, but that does nothing about widespread doping happening at the high school and college levels. Pro football is also pressuring linemen to get bigger (and fatter) than ever before -that way they can drop dead when they're 50.

quote: Mike Blakesley
What about bowling? Anybody can do that.

I was referring to contact sports. Baseball, golf and a long list of other sports don't require the player to be born with a certain body type in order to do well. But you can't blind-side your opponent with a full body check when he's fixing to swing a golf club or throw a bowling ball either.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
They could tear down Major League Baseball and I wouldn't give a hoot.

Then why did you waste your time posting that comment in this thread? The subject is about Yankee Stadium closing. The topic isn't "let's piss on baseball."

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-22-2008, 11:48 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
2. Wrigley Field, 1914, Chicago, IL.
3. Dodger Stadium, 1962, Los Angeles, CA.

That's a heck of a gap between numbers 2 and 3. Is that because the first two are old enough to be considered historic structures, and therefore worth preserving, while later stadia from, say the '50s were not?

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-22-2008, 12:03 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I wonder what that will do the ticket prices.

The season ticket plan my friend has for this last season was $60.00 a seat, a game. He's been a season ticket holder for 9 years now. I think he said it's going up around $20.00 a seat, a game for next season.

Go Yankees!!!! right to the bank!!

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-22-2008, 01:10 PM:

I know I'll go to baseball hell for saying this, but Yankee Stadium was a dump. The concourses were so narrow, and the seats were so cramped that watching a game in that place felt like a chore.

Wrigley Field needs to go too. People talk about all the history at that place. Yeah, well, when I go to bathroom and have to pee in that communal trough with all of the drunks, history drops pretty low on my list of priorities.

I love baseball passionately. I go to see 15 or 20 games every year. I've been pulling my hair out all day over this series the White Sox have coming up in Minnesota this week.

But the one thing that baseball needs to get over is its love of history. Let's move forward. Instant replay? Bring it on. Stadiums with working plumbing? Awesome. It's the 21st century, for cryin' out loud.

Good riddance, Yankee Stadium.

[ 09-22-2008, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Mike Schindler ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-22-2008, 05:11 PM:

quote: Allison Parsons
If Wrigley Field is ever tore down and rebuilt 2 blocks away, I'm becoming a Cardinals fan in protest.

I agree completely. Spent many a fine day there whilst growing up. Once Wrigley Field is gone there isn't a beautiful park left. I've never classified Fenway as a very beautiful BB Park. Once in there was enough for me. What goes on around Fenway during a game is more interesting than the park itself.

Fortunately for us the real estate around Wrigleyville is so expensive that'll probably never happen...

Mark

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-22-2008, 05:12 PM:

I know, what were they thinking? There was some talk about building the new stadium in NJ near The Meadowlands (home to the NY Giants), but that idea lasted about half a second.

It's weird seeing two Yankee Stadiums all crunched together side by side.. I drive between them on the way to one of my theatres... and there's still no place to park.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-22-2008, 05:54 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Yeah, well, when I go to bathroom and have to pee in that communal trough with all of the drunks

Ha, well at least you get to pee standing up! Whats the difference between peeing in a trough and a urinal anyway. I'm sure the female bathrooms are 10x worse.

I haven't been to Wrigley in like 8 years. Hopefully next year I'll get to swing on up there.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2008, 06:08 PM:

quote: Bobby
Pro football has a good testing program in place, but that does nothing about widespread doping happening at the high school and college levels.

Who cares about high school and college sports? Answer: NOBODY! They don't count as real people yet.

quote: Bobby
Pro football is also pressuring linemen to get bigger (and fatter) than ever before -that way they can drop dead when they're 50.

Good! Less old people to take care of.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-22-2008, 07:42 PM:

quote: Allison Parsons
Whats the difference between peeing in a trough and a urinal anyway.

With urinals, you don't have the risk of someone with impared hand/eye coordination trying to squeeze into the non-existent space between you and the next guy. Not fun.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-22-2008, 09:05 PM:

Just as a fan of baseball, I'm sad to see Yankee Stadium go. I was never there, so I can't comment on its condition, but was it in that dire of condition?

As for troughs at Wrigley, I've never had to wait to piss on the northside, but had to hold it in while I waited down at that "park" on the southside. Trough = efficiency.

Old Style goes in, Old Style goes out.

AJG

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-22-2008, 11:44 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
that "park" on the southside

By "park" do you mean "venue in which you do not have to lean around a support beam in order to see the game"? [Wink]

As standard and boring as The Cell may be, I appreciate all of the modern conveniences it has to offer.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-23-2008, 01:49 AM:

quote: Allison Parsons
haha, well in Peoria (which is smackdab in the middle of IL), you're either a STL or Cubs fan. Not to many White Socks fans. But now that Ken Griffey Jr is on the team, I would probably become a Socks fan.

I've got a couple cousins that are still nearby Peoria (they used to all be in Pekin but that was long ago).

And the fact that Griffey is on the team is, IMO, a reason to NOT be a Socks fan. I remember when he was at Seattle and went to the local news constantly about how he'd stay only if they replaced the Kingdome because of how crappy of a stadium he thought it was and constantly whined about it. Then the moment they got the plans in place to replace it, he asked to be traded.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-23-2008, 07:52 AM:

but was it in that dire of condition?

No, the stadium is actually in very good condition, just dirty and a bit old fashioned.

The Yankee's threatened to move to NJ (like the football Giants and Jets) if NY did not kick in a lot of money for the new stadium. Everyone knew it was just a negotiating ploy, but it worked.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-23-2008, 11:26 AM:

Arsenal Football Club, in North London, moved to a new stadium a couple of years ago. The old one opened in 1914, and certain parts added in the '30s are listed, and have been retained in the new development of the site for housing. The facade of the building looks like this:

web page

If you fancy living there a one-bedroom flat can be yours for a mere 345,000 pounds, about 650,000 Dollars.

web page

You'd better hurry if you're interested, it's almost all sold, even at those prices.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-24-2008, 03:13 PM:

Golf and bowling aren't sports. For my money, you have to be able to play defense. No defense = no sport. Athletic events, yes. Sports, no.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Baseball simply requires good eye-hand coordination and quick wits -both of which anyone can develop if he works hard enough at it.

While you are correct that great eyesight (average in MLB is 20/12, pitchers excluded - it was rumored Babe Ruth could read license plates from 3 blocks) is a must and quick decision-making is vital, hitting a baseball has been proven to be the hardest thing to do in all sports. The fast-twitch muscle fibers required to hit a round ball moving 90 mph with a round bat are ridiculous. This speed cannot be taught, it’s all genetics. It can be honed and refined, sure, but Big Mac made the head of his bat move approximately 130 mph. Most humans just cannot achieve that with that quick a response time. Minor league players spend their lives trying to hit a major league pitch and most of them never can. That’s why I’ve always loved baseball. You have to be born special to throw a baseball 95 and you have to be born equally special to catch up to that from 55 feet away and contact the proper part of the wood.

quote: Bobby Henderson
To get anywhere with football you need the genes to be giant monolith.

Steve Smith, stud receiver is 5' 9"; Darren Sproles and LaDanian Tomlinson, both good running backs, are 5’ 6” and 5’ 10” respectively. Adam Jones, as are many D-backs, is under 6’. I could go on and on. I won’t even get started on kickers. The NFL has the greatest variety in body size of any of the major sports.

quote: Chris Slycord
So becoming a White Socks fan is out of the question?

Definitely. As a fellow Cubs fan, White Sox play in the American League, which isn’t real baseball anyway, so as disgusting as the thought is, becoming a Cards fan would be preferable. Now I have to go wash my mouth with soap. Wrigley Field is synonymous with the Cubs. I can’t imagine a different park. Everyone should go there once.

Yankees stadium had lots of history and after 85 years it was probably time for a new facility. The house that Jeter built, I suppose. I’m glad I went once, although I hold that Yankees’ fans are the poorest fans in all baseball. I think it’s funny that the final season in that historic place was the first in 13 they missed the playoffs. I also find it VERY curious that during their closing ceremonies, neither Roger Clemens nor Joe Torre was honored in any way. In poor taste, in my opinion, but to be expected from the Steinbrenner family.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-24-2008, 03:45 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
American League, which isn’t real baseball anyway

LOL!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2008, 09:31 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
While you are correct that great eyesight (average in MLB is 20/12, pitchers excluded - it was rumored Babe Ruth could read license plates from 3 blocks) is a must and quick decision-making is vital, hitting a baseball has been proven to be the hardest thing to do in all sports.

A great fastball pitch in baseball isn't as fast as the serves in a lot of professional tennis matches. Let's not leave out Jai alai -often called "the fastest game on earth." The ball in that game can travel at speeds close to 200mph.

This is not to say that hitting a major league quality pitch is easy. When pitcher is in the groove and his stuff is hot that night even the most productive hitters are going to have a very hard time.

Pitchers aren't perfect either. Even the best pitchers will have bad nights where their control isn't great. And even when they're doing well it's still a precarious battle. Hang a curve ball out just a tiny bit too close to the center of the plate and even the most average hitters are going to blast it. Pitchers can endure only so many innings. After throwing the ball upwards of 120 times during a game even the best pitchers will begin to fade. Pitching selection is also critical. If the batter knows what you're going to throw at a certain count he'll make you pay for it.

I also don't agree that the ability to bat well is a genetic-based thing. I believe there's a lot more skill involved than anything. I'm not sure I would even go so far as to call it "talent," even though that's more of what it is. A person's mental "twitch factor" can be improved very well, especially when that person is young and his brain is still developing. The thing that matters is how hard that person will work to develop that skill. It's scary for anyone the first time they get into a batting cage and look at a 90mph pitch up close. But you can get used to it and learn how to hit something going that fast and do so quite well.

I believe it's the mental thing that makes hitting quality pitches difficult. It's a pitcher's job to screw with the batter's mind. If a pitcher doesn't have much more than just a great, chest-high 95mph fast ball he's not going to do much more than some relief pitching work. If he combines that same "burner" pitch with an off-speed change-up that looks nearly identical when thrown he'll fool a lot of hitters. Good curve ball and breaking ball pitches add more variety and make it even harder for the batter to anticipate what's coming next. And there's nothing like a Nolan Ryan inspired "brush back" pitch where the fast ball is shaving the lettering off your chest or going at your ear.

I love the games where you get a great hitter and pitcher going back and forth for a dozen or so pitches. The pitcher throws what he's sure will be the strike out pitch and the batter deliberately fowls it away looking for something better. Lot of drama in that, especially when you have a runner or two in scoring position.

quote: Chad Souder
Steve Smith, stud receiver is 5' 9"; Darren Sproles and LaDanian Tomlinson, both good running backs, are 5’ 6” and 5’ 10” respectively.

Check their body types. Their builds are far from average. LT's legs are like big tree trunks. The way he runs, his legs might be damned near as strong too.

quote: Chad Souder
I’m glad I went once, although I hold that Yankees’ fans are the poorest fans in all baseball.

I wouldn't go that far. Just don't show up at a Yankees' game wearing Mets gear.

The one thing I found annoying about Yankees fans is their sense of entitlement. They expect World Series titles. They're used it. And it's not all that big of a deal when the Yankees win one. Whoop dee doo! What will the next one be? The 27th championship? It kind of gets boring seeing the same team win again and again.

It was a very big deal in 1986 when the Mets won the World Series. I was able to attend Game 2 at Shea Stadium (Boston won that game). But I was still pissed about Houston losing in the NLCS that year; I badly wanted the Astros go all the way -especially with Nolan Ryan pitching for them at the time. The Mets hadn't been to a World Series since the late 1960s (when Nolan Ryan played for them). Lots of people were really excited about it.

For the same reason, I'm hoping the Cubs win the World Series this year. Odds say they're overdue for a title and their long suffering fans would appreciate it immensely -far more than the level of enthusiasm any Yankees fans could muster. To me it's looking like it will be a Rays-Cubs series. And that will be a very tough battle. Both teams are excellent.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-24-2008, 09:43 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
Golf and bowling aren't sports

I take it he's never been into any golf or league bowling tournaments where it's heavilly team related with one thing on the mind ... and that is to WIN as a team along with on an individual basis!

Just that these sports are not contact related sports. We use our brains instead of our brawns with these sports to actually create excellent defensive moves: to make the other team come up with plans on their own.

Now, if you want to talk using brains and creating both offensive and defense moves to the max, just play yahoo spades with other folks on the internet.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 09-25-2008, 01:04 AM:

So, golf and bowling are out due to the "no defense" rule? How about billiards? Defense is a very important part of playing pool...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-25-2008, 06:49 AM:

Okay...I'm a bowler...is it a sport? Perhaps, in that you can get quite winded by playing but it certainly isn't a competitive sport.

No matter how you cut it, bowling, like golf (also can get quite winded), are not sports in the sense that your opponent can not affect your outcome other than perhaps burning up the oil in the lane (anyone that bowls in leagues knows how the lanes change as the night progresses). You bowl, your competitor bowls...whom ever had a better game at that moment, wins.

In team bowling, depending on how its played...you can affect your odds at a higher score. In league bowling...if you tend to do better than YOUR established average, you will help your team with the converse being true...but again, neither your team nor your opponent can affect YOUR outcome. You could have everyone bowl on different nights, fill out the score sheet and not be able to tell any difference.

As to baseball being an average person's sport that requires nothing more than training to become good...boy are you all wrong! There are people that love the sport, live, breathe, play baseball and NEVER become very good. They may be better than the layperson that occasionally picks up a bat and ball but put them in a professional situation and they will get destroyed (hitting or fielding or pitching).

Talk to anyone that is in professional baseball and the journey they took. I've watched minor-league baseball for some time now (had my wedding reception in minor league park even), there are those that have it and those that don't and those that might. Listen to the player's story. Everyone on minor league ball was the STAR of their High School team. Their first year in Rookie league ball is a HUGE wake up call. They are on the field with all of the other HS stars and find out that maybe, on a national level (let alone world level) they are not necessarily all that good. And that is the beginning of their journey. I've noted that if you can make it to AA ball, you probably have enough skill to play in a major league park, at least in some capacity. However, by the time a player makes it to AA...many, if not most of the folks they met at the Rookie level hae washed out. All of those guys that washed out, thought they were going to the majors at one point...they all played VERY hard (ever seen a minor league game...they play their asses off in the HOPES of "going to the show").

Just because you can pick up a bat and ball does not mean you are any good at it...same with basketball, football...and the list goes on. There needs to be some inherent talent, mixed with hard work and dedication to make a top athlete.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-25-2008, 08:13 AM:

Chad,

I have to disagree. Golf is the sport that requires the most skill! Not only are you the lineback but you are also your own defense. It takes gobs of skill and determination to be good at it... and no, luck is not a factor in golf.

Steve... I didn't know you were tall enough to bowl...

Mark

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-25-2008, 10:28 AM:

For it to not be a sport, golf sure gets a lot of press in the sports sections of the media.

Golf requires a measure of endurance to play consistently. I know, I can hit reasonably straight, stay mostly on the fairway, and get them on the green... but my accuracy drops terribly after the first nine holes, and I'm totally out of whack by the 14th.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-25-2008, 10:30 AM:

Tackle golf? Now that is something I would watch...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2008, 11:47 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
As to baseball being an average person's sport that requires nothing more than training to become good...boy are you all wrong! There are people that love the sport, live, breathe, play baseball and NEVER become very good. They may be better than the layperson that occasionally picks up a bat and ball but put them in a professional situation and they will get destroyed (hitting or fielding or pitching).

It's true that only a very small percentage of baseball players can get good enough to compete at the elite, professional levels. It's that way in all sports. However, a baseball player's body type doesn't determine so much of that player's potential as it absolutely does in football and basketball.

By the time a kid gets into middle school/junior high it's already very clear whether the student has any long term potential in football or basketball just based on how his genetics determined his physical stature. If he has an average build, but lots of enthusiasm he can likely tough it out at the high school level. At best he's only going to have a chance to "walk on" for a good college team and that's going to be about it. If he's not big enough or tall enough his odds of getting a foot in the door will be very slim to none.

Averaged sized pro football players and averaged sized pro basketball players are exceedingly rare. You see a lot more average looking guys playing professional baseball. Their skills of hitting, fielding and pitching does much more to get them to "the show."

Female gymnasts and horse jockeys are the only other athletes I can think of at the moment whose body types do as much or even more to determine their professional potential than football or basketball players.

I think there are some parallels between golf and baseball in terms of sheer skill and mental strength under pressure being the main requirements above anything else for a player to be great.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-25-2008, 01:15 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Chad,

I have to disagree. Golf is the sport that requires the most skill! Not only are you the lineback but you are also your own defense. It takes gobs of skill and determination to be good at it... and no, luck is not a factor in golf.

In no way am I questioning the skill involved in golf (or bowling for that matter). Luck does have a role; I'm sure we've all shanked one off a tree only to get a perfect kick-out onto the green or fareway. I have played golf a lot and enjoy it. I just don't consider it a sport. Steve put it well...

quote: Steve Guttag
No matter how you cut it, bowling, like golf (also can get quite winded), are not sports in the sense that your opponent can not affect your outcome

I mean directly affecting or limiting your opponents options on his or her play. You can't do that in golf. I'm not talking about the mental pressure you can place on someone, forcing them to take a more aggressive shot because you're ahead 2 strokes. And yes, I do consider pool/billiards a sport based on this definition.

quote: Bobby Henderson
A great fastball pitch in baseball isn't as fast as the serves in a lot of professional tennis matches. Let's not leave out Jai alai -often called "the fastest game on earth." The ball in that game can travel at speeds close to 200mph.

I feel silly having to point this out, but in tennis you're standing much farther away from that 120 mph serve and the surface area of your racket is much, much larger than a baseball bat. In Jai alai (made famous during the intro to Miami Vice), again, you're much farther away and the scoops are also bigger. Of course in those sports you have to move more.

Look, this has been researched and hitting a baseball is indeed the hardest thing to do in sports. I remember driving a racecar was #2. I'd have to look it up again to find #3, as it was a few years ago I read the article in a Men's Health or SI or something.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-25-2008, 03:47 PM:

Cheerleading is not a sport. That's my two cents.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2008, 06:57 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
I feel silly having to point this out, but in tennis you're standing much farther away from that 120 mph serve and the surface area of your racket is much, much larger than a baseball bat.

The difference in distance is not as "much farther away" as you think.

The distance from the center of a pitcher's mound to home plate on a major league field is 60' 6". The distance from baseline to baseline on a tennis court is 78'. That's an 18' difference.

A 90mph pitch (132' per second) will pass over home plate after leaving the pitcher's hand in .45833 seconds.

A 120mph tennis serve (176' per second) will cross the court in .4431818 seconds.

As you can see, the difference on reaction time required to hit the ball or return the serve is nearly identical. And sure, the baseball bat has a much smaller hitting surface than a tennis racquet. However, a tennis player's return volley must get over the net and bounce in a specific quadrant of the tennis court, a target 21' deep and 13' 6" wide. That's not easy to do with those really bouncy tennis balls.

I did pretty well playing baseball all through my childhood years and on up into high school (and I wasn't getting clobbered like I did when playing football). I tried numerous times to play tennis and just couldn't get any good at it. Every other person's experience may be a bit different. The game was just frustrating as hell, kind of like golf. And you ran your ass off too.

I'll give you the Jai Alai point. Those courts (called a "cancha") are big - 176' in length, 50' in width and 40' in height. However, a ball traveling upwards of 200mph is covering 293 feet per second. That's a bit scary.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-25-2008, 10:04 PM:

OK, I don't really want to beat a dead horse, but...

Baseballs are NOT delivered from 60' 6". That is where the pitcher's rear foot sits. By the time he strides, the release point is approximately 55' from the plate. Rather than get into all the math, I'll just say the proof is in the puddin'. Baseball has the lowest standard of excellence of any "major" sport. A 40% (I'm going with OBP, which is a whole different argument) success rate wouldn't fly anywhere else. Can you imagine a pro only hitting 40% of the fare ways, getting 40% of the serves in, or completing 40% of the passes?

Another point: A tennis racquet goes about 12 oz and actually has 3 sweet spots. A baseball bat has only the one sweet spot and has more of a range in weight, but I haven't heard of any major leaguer using one much lighter than 30 oz. Andre Dawson used a log - something like 42 oz. To move that much weight that quickly and hit such a small target AFTER determining whether or not the ball is hittable takes an unbelievable amount of strength and speed. It cannot be trained or taught. It can be honed, but like Steve said, some guys have it, most don't. That's why even the best swing and miss so much. It's really, really hard. Now try and do that 4 or 5 times a day, sometimes 20 days in a row, with flights and bus rides in between, for 6 months.

This is where steroids come in. They don't make you stronger or faster by themselves. What they do is dramatically shorten the recovery time of your muscles. That's why someone like Clemens used. He never threw the ball any faster because of them, he just recovered quickly and had a longer career because of it. Same goes for a lot of guys who didn't hit for power and didn't get the media attention. Steroids don't help you hit a ball farther, but they help you hit the ball as far day after day instead of getting fatigued. I am not condoning steroid use, but they are commonly misconceived. They may not be as desirable in the NFL or NBA because those sports have so much more recovery time between games.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2008, 11:37 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
Baseballs are NOT delivered from 60' 6". That is where the pitcher's rear foot sits. By the time he strides, the release point is approximately 55' from the plate. Rather than get into all the math, I'll just say the proof is in the puddin'.

You're not going to get into the math because the math would not show a gigantic difference to support your argument that it's a lot harder to hit a baseball pitch than anything else in sports.

Just because some magazine puts together its own list of what's the most difficult thing to do in sports doesn't automatically make its judgment scientific. Countless numbers of "studies" have been thrown together and colored with subjective judgment. A list like the one you're quoting is already starting out with troubles simply by comparing one sport to another. That kind of thing can be dismissed outright as apples to oranges comparison.

That doesn't mean I think hitting a fierce "high heat" fastball is easy at all. But there's feats in lots of other sports that are extremely difficult as well.

To look at it in a different perspective -it's actually more difficult for someone to accurately hurl a 95mph fast ball than it is to hit a baseball going 95mph. Very few people can really manage doing that. There's a hell of a lot more mechanics going into delivering an elite-caliber pitch than simply swinging a bat at one.

The most difficult feat in baseball is pitching a perfect game.

quote: Chad Souder
Baseball has the lowest standard of excellence of any "major" sport. A 40% (I'm going with OBP, which is a whole different argument) success rate wouldn't fly anywhere else. Can you imagine a pro only hitting 40% of the fare ways, getting 40% of the serves in, or completing 40% of the passes?

That's quite an apples to oranges comparison there. By that rationale, soccer should rank really really low. Same for hockey. Those are among the lowest scoring games in organized/professional sports. The players make lots and lots of attempts at scoring and have a very low percentage of successful shots on goal. That doesn't mean those elite players suck. The context is different by the completely different situation of those sports.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-26-2008, 09:41 AM:

quote "Tackle golf? Now that is something I would watch... "
no I think I would rather watch bikini golf [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-26-2008, 09:45 AM:

It is even more dramatic than Chad put it...in baseball...a GREAT batter hits only 3 out of every 10 at bats. A crappy batter only his it twice out of every 10 at bats. That is all the difference it is between crappy and great. Imagine a tennis player only hitting 2 or 3 serves for every 10. There is no question...a well executed Ace shot is impossible to hit so I'm not taking away anything from tennis but when you look at the crux of the game...a batter has a harder time to be good.

As for physical build...yes baseball is not as demanding...there are positions where the build can help/hurt....ever seen a really tall catcher? If you have, they probably get stolen against a bit...it takes time to rise and get that ball to 2nd. height tends to help infielders stop balls that would otherwise go over their heads or sneak by an outstreatched arm.

In basketball (my sport in grade school)...height definately has its advantages...particularly how the game is played now (with dunking allowed....once upon a time...that was goal-tending...as it should be). Speed and the ability to jump high can offset some height. Shot accuracy too can help offset some height. My shot was my strongest suit...90% from the foul line and a high percentage from most anywhere inside of half-court. However...as I transitioned from JrHigh to HS...I transitioned from Forward to Guard and transitioned out entirey when I started showing movies...no height or speed requirements.

As for Golf (or bowling)...those are certainly skill games...but no matter how you cut it, not competitive sports. Golf is certainly harder than bowling. About all bowling has that affects you are the lane conditions. The rest is in the bowler's control (ball, lane shape/size...etc). Golf has not only the course conditions...which vary from hole to hole and even day-to-day...they have atmospheric conditions (both past and present) that affect the whole game. I've watched several 300-games played in bowling...I've never seen a perfect 18 in golf [Wink]

I guess it all comes down to what you consider a sport to be. I think bowling and golf are sports in the sense that they require some amount of physical stamina and they both require a degree of evolved skill to be more proficient. They are NOT competitive sports, where I, if no one else, define as a sport that your opponent can directly affect your outcome.

One thing is for sure...pro bowlers, pro golfers, pro tennis players, pro football, pro baseball.....etc...ALL make more than us theatre folks!

Steve

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-26-2008, 10:21 AM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
I think I would rather watch bikini golf

*harp glissando* Your wish is granted! [Wink]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-26-2008, 11:36 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
You're not going to get into the math because the math would not show a gigantic difference to support your argument that it's a lot harder to hit a baseball pitch than anything else in sports.

No, I'm not going to get into the match because I can't do the math, but way to use those undefined, comparitive terms again (gigantic, lot harder). There are too many things I don't know. Your figures earlier were way off. I already pointed out you were miscalculated the distance from the release point to home, but there are others.

I was probably too generous using 55' from the release point, considering the rear foot is well off the rubber when the ball is released. Its probably closer to an average of 52' or 53'. Then there are many other things you missed. I don't know how far over the baseline a players racquet strikes the tennis ball. 3' maybe? I know both his feet must remain behind the line. I also don't know how far behind the other baseline the receiving player waits. 5' perhaps? Those are just guesses.

I could go to the extreme and calculate that if 6' 10" Randy Johnson with his orangutan arms releases a 100 mph fastball (146.67 fps) from 51' away and the center of the batter's body is 2' behind the plate at the rear of the batter's box, for a total of 53', the ball would be there in .361 seconds. I could then do the same for tennis, but they also would be guesses and I won't do math based on guesses. Maybe you know some exact figures to answer some of those questions. Then, if you get all that, figure out how quickly a 2 oz, 2.5" ball with fuzzies all over it slows down traveling that distance compared to a smoother, 3" ball that weighs 5.25 oz travelling it's distance. Then, figure out how much more that tennis ball slows once it hits the ground (varying playing surfaces differ of course), obviously something a baseball doesn't do. I can't do that math because I don't know those answers. Then, add to all that the fact that Randy Johnson can mix in his 88 mph slider on any given pitch, completely disrupting timing, whereas in tennis everybody watching knows what's coming after the first serve misses.

I should clarify that I think boxing is the hardest sport to be great at, overall. Its combination of endurance, power, agility, etc. is unmatched. The hardest individual activity to do in any sport, however, is hit that baseball.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-26-2008, 11:54 AM:

Thanks Tim
what time do we Tee off with them [Big Grin]

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 09-26-2008, 01:02 PM:

I say Daaaaaaammmmmmmmmnnnnnnnn Tim

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-26-2008, 10:40 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
No, I'm not going to get into the match because I can't do the math, but way to use those undefined, comparitive terms again (gigantic, lot harder). There are too many things I don't know. Your figures earlier were way off.

So you say you can't do the math, but my figures are "way off." Great contradiction there to go along with all the apples to oranges comparisons. Baseball is a lot harder and all other sports are comparatively much easier. I'd need a paint brush tip the size of a door to paint strokes that broad.

I love baseball. It's a great sport. The folks who hate baseball can feel free to stay the hell away from baseball games, baseball game broadcasts and even steer clear of conversations between fans of baseball for that matter. But I'm not going to belittle all other organized sports based on a subjective judgment and formulated opinion regarding the difficulty of hitting a major league pitch.

You're characterizing hitting a big league pitch as if it is nearly impossible. If the difficulty level was that extreme batters would need double the number of strikes before being K'ed at the plate.

I brought this up before. I've seen countless numbers of professional baseball games and even quite a few minor league games where the batter deliberately fouls away pitches battling with the guy on the mound for the pitch he really wants. There is a lot of tactics in that. If the batter can make the pitcher throw 10 times or more just to get one strikeout the batter still scored a partial victory by using up a lot of that pitcher's energy. One other thing. Batters routinely pull hits to one field or another as part of a greater plan to advance runners already on base. That kind of thing would be impossible to do if the task of hitting a pitch is just so terribly daunting as you're characterizing it. I suppose the batter should just be overjoyed by making contact with the ball.

quote: Chad Souder
I should clarify that I think boxing is the hardest sport to be great at, overall. Its combination of endurance, power, agility, etc. is unmatched. The hardest individual activity to do in any sport, however, is hit that baseball.

I believe the act of striking out a big league hitter is more difficult. Even throwing a big-league quality pitch is really difficult. I can't throw a baseball 90mph or faster. There are few who can. Throwing a no-hitter is extremely difficult. Hole in one shots in professional golf are far more common than no-hitters in baseball. And throwing a perfect game is, by a very wide margin, the absolutely most difficult thing to do in baseball. Nothing else in baseball comes close to comparing to that. I might go so far to say that the feat of a perfect game is the most difficult thing to do out of all organized professional sports.

There's a lot more people with big league hitting talent than big league pitching talent. The talent pool of great pitchers is quite small. Randy Johnson is definitely one of the truly great pitchers of recent years. He also happens to be one of only 17 men who have pitched a perfect game in Major League Baseball. No pitcher has ever thrown more than one. I've been a big Nolan Ryan fan since I was a little kid and despite all the no-hitters he's thrown, he never threw a perfect game.

Different topic/sport.

Regarding boxing, I have mixed feelings about that sport. I think the governing bodies in boxing are totally corrupt. It's no wonder they're all based outside of the United States and U.S. legal jurisdiction. They and the boxing promoters cherry pick matches rather than going through any real process of having ranked contenders move up in order and challenge the champ. Boxing is largely bullshit anymore. And everyone knows it. This is a leading reason why Mixed Martial Arts has taken off big time in popularity.

MMA isn't perfect either. I think the UFC does a lot of its own cherry picking. But it doesn't let a media darling champion like Chuck Liddell go on for years getting only easy, arranged matches. Liddell has been beaten in his last 3 matches. As brutal as MMA seems, I believe it is actually a more humane sport. The matches don't go on for 10 or 15 rounds, allowing the fighter's brain to get pummeled into pudding. The fights can get bloody (but so can boxing), but they tend to get decided much faster.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-27-2008, 01:29 AM:

[sleep]

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 10-01-2008, 09:11 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
To me it's looking like it will be a Rays-Cubs series.

My first post. Yay!

A Rays-Cubs World Series? Perhaps...but keep in mind the Los Angeles Angels had the best record this season and will have home field advantage throughout the post-season. A Rays-Cubs matchup would seem to be a sentimental choice given the Cubs' decades of suffering, and the Rays being only about ten years old experiencing their first ever winning season.

Being from Southern California, I have to mention how exciting it is to have both the Dodgers and the Angels in the playoffs. One can only imagine a Dodgers-Angels World Series! I think this is only the second time ever that both teams have qualified for the playoffs in the same season.

World Series prediction: Cubs vs. Angels.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-01-2008, 09:47 AM:

The Angels did win 100 games, which is impressive. But Tampa is a very tough team. It seems likely those two will meet in the ALCS. I'm still guessing the Rays will win that battle, but who knows? Surprising things happen -like Boston digging their way out of certain elimination to beat the Yankees and go on to win their first World Series in many decades.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-01-2008, 03:15 PM:

quote: Julie Lucero
Being from Southern California, I have to mention how exciting it is to have both the Dodgers and the Angels in the playoffs. One can only imagine a Dodgers-Angels World Series! I think this is only the second time ever that both teams have qualified for the playoffs in the same season.

There are two Chicago teams in playoffs too. The last time that happened was 1906.

I was fortunate enough to attend last night's tiebreaker at The Cell. It was amazing. Maybe the best game I've ever been to (2005 ALCS Game 2 might have been better).

Go Sox!

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-01-2008, 04:33 PM:

Angels are the best team in the AL - have been all year. Cubs are the best in the NL. Cubs vs. White Sox would be amazing because of what Mike just said.

OK, Allison (and any other Cubs' fans) HERE WE GO! My new least favorite team (at least for the next few days) is the LA Dodgers and their horrible, horrible fans.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 10-01-2008, 07:45 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
10. Tropicana Field, 1990, Tampa Bay, FL

I think Tropicana Field is actually located in St. Petersburg.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-02-2008, 02:21 AM:

I'm hoping to see a rematch of the 1959 World Series between the White Sox and the Dodgers. Quite simply, the Dodgers seem like the easiest NL team to beat.

On the other hand, the White Sox' championship in 2005 was so incredibly awesome that the only way to top it may be for them to beat the Cubs.

One more interesting note: If the Cubs do win the World Series, Neal Cotts will become the only player in history to have won a championship with both the Cubs and Sox.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-02-2008, 02:10 PM:

I'd be amazed if there was even one living person that remembers the last Cubs world series win.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-02-2008, 02:19 PM:

Because of high fan demand for the Yankee Stadium tour. The Yankees will keep the stadium tours going till the end of the year. $$$$ [Eek!]

$$$$

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 10-02-2008, 02:22 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
I'd be amazed if there was even one living person that remembers the last Cubs world series win.

Actually, there was a man who was around 100years old that threw out the first pitch at a home game a few weeks ago.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-02-2008, 05:43 PM:

quote: Allison Parsons
Actually, there was a man who was around 100years old that threw out the first pitch at a home game a few weeks ago.

I don't remember that one. Threw out the first pitch, or his hip? He probably stood 10' away. Remember when Mr. Burns went bowling...

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 10-02-2008, 06:19 PM:

quote: Chad Souder was the last to post

I agree.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-02-2008, 06:26 PM:

Hmm. Let me get this straight. You don't like baseball. Yet you're going to read into a thread about a subject you don't like. That's, um, really kind of stupid.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 10-02-2008, 06:56 PM:

Chad,
Actually I was wrong, he was 104! [Eek!]

Here's the link to the story

Bobby,
Your too funny [thumbsup]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-04-2008, 10:32 AM:

I haven't kept up with baseball for a long time. Do the Cubs ever win? If not, how do they have fans?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-04-2008, 11:28 AM:

The Cubs have actually won quite a bit this year. But in general, they have fans for two reasons. First, they've been on WGN forever, so many of their games can be seen nationally.

Secondly, they have created an environment at Wrigley Field where baseball is almost secondary. Going to a Cubs game has become the thing to do for the hip twenty-something crowd. It really is kind of like a big outdoor bar. But instead of a live band, they've got a baseball team.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 10-10-2008, 03:16 PM:

Well, so much for the all-Los Angeles or all-Chicago World Series. I'm SHOCKED the Angels and Cubs both got knocked out in the first round! It reminds me of a few years back when Seattle won an insane number of games (well over 100) and failed to make it to the World Series. I guess having the best record during the regular season is meaningless if you go up against a weaker team that happens to be hot right at playoff time or gets a bunch of breaks or calls that go their way.

Do any of you that follow baseball like the current playoff structure? Sometimes I think the first round ought to be a best of seven as with the rest of the playoffs.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-11-2008, 03:49 PM:

Here's a copy of a somewhat ironic ad regarding the first round of the playoffs:

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-11-2008, 08:29 PM:

quote: Julie Lucero
I guess having the best record during the regular season is meaningless if you go up against a weaker team that happens to be hot right at playoff time or gets a bunch of breaks or calls that go their way.

Being hot is huge. The Dodgers and Phillies were the two hottest teams at the end of the regular season. In the case of the Cubs, they had an unlucky draw. The Dodgers featured power right-handed pitching and the Cubs featured power right-handed hitting. Good pitching beats good hitting and the Cubs were lacking that key left-handed bat to neutralize the right-handed pitching of the Dodgers. The Cubs would have matched up better against either the Brewers or the Phillies.

quote: Julie Lucero
Do any of you that follow baseball like the current playoff structure? Sometimes I think the first round ought to be a best of seven as with the rest of the playoffs.

I would prefer a 7 game series in the divisional series. A 5 game series almost ensures a 3 man rotation, negating the advantage a team with a fourth strong starter would have over a team without. The more frequent travel days also cater to keeping a bull pen fresh, which would help the team who wins early.

The bigger problem I have is with the rule that the team with the best regular season record cannot face the wild card if the wild card comes from their division. I think the team with the best record should either get their choice of opponent, or face the team with the worst record regardless, or face the wild card regardless.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-12-2008, 07:27 AM:

Or nix the wild-card all together. 162 or so games should be enough to determine whom has had the best record for the season. It isn't like Football where it is 16 games where calls/being hot/cold have such a huge affect on potential outcome.

But yes, a 7-game series would be more representative of how each team is performing.

Steve

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-12-2008, 12:58 PM:

The problem with expanding the first round to seven games is that that would probably extend the season into November. Most of the country gets pretty cold in November.

The purist in me would like them to do away with interleague play and divisions, and just have the two best teams from each league meet in the World Series. However, the wild card has sure made the regular season much more interesting for many more teams. And for that reason, I favor the current format.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-12-2008, 12:59 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Or nix the wild-card all together.

I don't hate that idea, but since they moved to a 3 division per league system, it almost requires a wild card. The end of the year runs generate way too much money right now since so many additional teams are in the running for playoffs, so I don't see the wild card going away anytime soon.

quote: Steve Guttag
It isn't like Football where it is 16 games where calls/being hot/cold have such a huge affect on potential outcome.

Mathmatically, it is easier for an NFL team to make the playoffs vs. a MLB team. Only 8 of 30 get in, vs. 12 of 32 in the NFL. I don't follow other major sports, but I think baseball is the most difficult mathmatically to make the playoffs.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-13-2008, 01:20 PM:

I should add that I do agree, Steve, that 1 football game equalling 10 baseball games does allow those things you mentioned to have a much greater affect on potential outcome, especially in the playoffs.

quote: Mike Schindler
The problem with expanding the first round to seven games is that that would probably extend the season into November.

This has actually been discussed by owners the past few years and the agreed remedy would be to reduce the season back to 154 games or some in-between to make up the difference.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-13-2008, 01:34 PM:

My cousin, who apperently has friends in high places, was given a private tour though the new Yankee Stadium a few weeks ago. He was rather impressed, which surprised me. The bad news is that because of the uproar in the community about losing open park land for the new stadium, the city now plans on completely demolishing the old stadium.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2008, 12:02 AM:

It didn't take long. Here's another funny (or somewhat cruel) baseball ad.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-20-2008, 12:21 PM:

For me, those ads aren't nearly as good as the first ones. For the Dodgers to go from a sub .500, second place team to making the NLCS is, in my opinion, not lame at all and for Boston to come back from being down 7 runs in the 7th inning of an elimination game to taking it to the wire was not blah, but quite exciting. It was a classic ALCS for sure.

This may be the lowest ratings the Series ever has, but it makes for some good baseball!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2008, 01:37 PM:

The ALCS was definitely a good, entertaining series. So many of the others were lopsided contests. The Red Sox tried very hard, but the Rays were just too tough a team to beat. I'm not certain, but I have a feeling the Rays will have an easier time beating the Philadelphia Phillies.