Dee-Nee Forums

 Hey folks, just joined today, love playing RBI Baseball (though my actually WINNING a game is another story, I'm a defensive liability and a boom-orbust guy at the plate, good ptcher, though.)

So the Mets are my team all the way, 150%, through thick, thin, and late season collapses.  >:(

And I'm a baseball historian of sorts, so one day made a ROM for the best World Series Winners, best team from each decade of the modern era (1903 on) with the exception of the '40s, because many teams and players lost a lot of time due to the war, and I needed to cut out one decade to make it fit ten decade for ten teams, so I cut out the '40s (sorry to any Indians fans.)

Halfway done, five out of ten teams are done.

Feel free to comment and tell me to change, but two notes: I don't make doubles of a franchise, otherwise the Yankees would have about 7 of the 10 teams, so fans of the Yanks will have to miss out on some great players and settle for Ruth and Gehrig in the 1927 team; also, five will be from the AL and five will be from the NL for balance, going to make a tourney of this, a mini pennant chase when the Roms done and the winner of each pennant will play a standard 7-game Series.  And you won't find doubles of players, two on two rosters, so sorry 1915 Red Sox- no dice, the Babe goes to the Yanks.

And the teams are:
1907 Cubs (Tinker to Evers to Chance)
1912 Red Sox (The beginning of dynasty that would end with the rise of-)
1927 Yankees (A popular choice for best team ever)
1934 Cardinals (AKA "The Gashouse Gang")
1954 Giants (The Giants and Willie in their finest hour, if you were looking for the Dodgers-)

Still to be completed:
1965 Dodgers (-look no farther, with the best pitching season ever and Sand and Drysdale a killer combo)
1974 Athletics (Reggie and Catfish, before they turned evil and went to the Bronx)
1986 Mets (YES!  My team, the Doc, Straw and Mookie a mixture of speed, hitting, GREAT pitching, and sadly, drugs)
1991 Twins (If you were expecting the '87 Twins, this team's good too- no Yankees teams, sorry.)
2005 White Sox (Would've loved the REd Sox here but no doubles, and no Phillies that would give the NL more)

A good start, I hope, at least.

Analysis of teams so far:
1907 CUBS

From reading the main page, a team those four founders would probably find infuriating- ten games, and this team's mustered two HRs!  It WAS 1907, the Deadball Era, but this team also gets the most singles and "beaten out" hits of any other team, and Three Finger Brown is a sharp pitcher usually good for 7 or so.  Which is good, because, as strange as it is to say this about a Cubs team, the name of the game here is small-ball.

1912 RED SOX

A very solid team, and, in my opinion, the second best team out of the five already made so far.  A stacked lineup featuring most the dynasty players from the 1910's Red Sox teams in their first WS winning year.  Slower than other teams on the bases, but plenty of pop in the bats; they can hit homers pretty consistently one in a groove, and
Tris Speaker is like the Willie Mays of his day.  The only flaws- a slow team and an average bullpen.

1927 YANKEES

Ruth, Gehrig, and the Murderer's Row- that's about all that needs to be said.  Honestly- every player except for the pitcher is a pretty good-God-like hitter, and if I've failed to see a game yet where Ruth and Gehrig don't knock in at least 6 or so runs by themselves.  This is also the team that, for some reason, makes the most of those diving catches (is there any reason for that?)  Pitching's solid; the players are slow and the D's a bit spotty sometimes, but it is a RARE occasion the offense and starting pitching can't make up for those tiny flaws.

1934 CARDINALS

The team that gives ME the most headaches trying to play as them.  They are insanely talented, but they just can't all seem to play great in the same game.  Pepper Martin, Frankie Frisch, Joe Medwick, Dizzy Dean- these guys can hit the longball, rap out singles, race around the bases, shut down an opponent, play great D- just not at the same time...........

1954 GIANTS

Very possibly the most offense-dependant team.  It's not that the pitchers aren't good, they're solid- but also rather average on the whole, and this is a league of great teams and heroes and Hall of Famers, so the G-Men often get rocked and they've needed an early pitching change the most of any team sor far.  But those first six hitters-
Alvin Dark, Don Mueller, Willie "The Say Hey Kid" Mays, Monte Irvin, Hank Thompson, and Whitey Lockman- are golden, almost a second Murderer's Row in this game, ESPECIALLY Willie Mays, who, as long as he does't strike out or fly out, will almost always get a base hit, and usually an extra base hit and an RBI at that.


So that's that so far, the 1965 Dodgers are next, fun being on the forums and....... anyone? lol

Shalom!   

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 01/06/09, 11:50:53 PM
Shalom!   

I like the cut of your jib

I think we've already hit our Jew quota. Ever think of converting to muslim? I don't think we have any of them. Should be fun with I hate retards and all

Welcome!

This sounds like an awesome rom. 

No 82 brewers though?  Just sayin...  Rollie Finger's 'stache would look tight in 8-bit.

No offense but the what the hell are the 2005 White Sox doing on this list?  I'm a White Sox fan and all, but they are probably the worst team to win the World Series in the last 2-3 decades.

Retard,

If the 91 Twins make the list, I will gladly throw down $5000 thousand dollars that the 2005 White Sox beat them.

You down?

Quote from: I'm a retard on 01/07/09, 11:03:16 PM
No offense but the what the hell are the 2005 White Sox doing on this list?  I'm a White Sox fan and all, but they are probably the worst team to win the World Series in the last 2-3 decades.

He said "(Would've loved the REd Sox here but no doubles, and no Phillies that would give the NL more)"  so staying AL only and not picking a team that is already represented leaves just the Sox and 2002 Angels.  I don't follow enough baseball to know who is "better" but that was his line of thinking.

And welcome to the forums, great first post! 

Quote from: Attezz on 01/07/09, 11:10:32 PM
Retard,

If the 91 Twins make the list, I will gladly throw down $5000 thousand dollars that the 2005 White Sox beat them.

You down?

I'll bet the Twins if they get home field

Did Shitpaw create another account?

Interesting reactions lol

First- who's Shitpaw, and whoever he is, I'm not him, and I don't think I want to be judging by the reaction.....

Second- it is 2002 Angels vs. 2005 White Sox; both were alright, not great teams by WS Winners standards, but still decent and better than others if I recall (I STILL think the 2006 Cardinals were one of the weakest winners in the last 25 years, execptof Pujos, that is; STILL can't quite believe the Mets lost like that, on a K with the bases loaded and two out in a one-run game, such a heartbreaker)

Anyway, I'll put it to you, haven't made them yet: 02 Angles or 05 White Sox (picked the Sox so that you could always have a Chicago-Chicago Series with the1907 Cubbies)?

Third- Sorry, but I don't think AT ALL the 1982 Brewers were better than the '86 Mets, that '86 team is one of the great ones, at least top 20 (top 10 if you only let maybe a couple Yankee teams on the list.)  Plus, I'm a Mets
die-hard, and though I grew up rooting for Piazza and Co., I want that great '86 team with Straw and Mookie and Gooden and Mex- speed, talent, drugs and all.  ;)

Fourth- I use Nightwulf's RBI Editor, so sorry- no 'staches.  :-\

And Fifth- the '90s was a bad decade for World Series teams: a season cancelled, 3 Series bought up by the Bankees- that leaves six, and the only memorable ones from that are the '91 Twins, having gone from worst to first again for the second time in four years,  and the '97 Marlins, just because they were a wildcard expansion team (and no NL here, it would upset the scale, plus: that team was a rental team, one year and then poof, half the players are gone by '98), so the '91 Twins are in basically because due to strikes, Yankees, and some crappy NL winners, they're the only salvageable team from the decade not based in New York, Atlanta, Chicago, or Miami.

The 1965 DODGERS are almost done, and here's how they look:

I thought that the Cubbies in 1907 would have the worst offense in the ROM- being in the deadball era, they have an excuse, and with their speed, defense, and tendancy to eek out more singles out of even the weakest grounders than any other tbullpen pieam, they have an offense that's at least functional, if not fabulous. But these Dodgers...... I know because of rule changes and great pitchers like Koufax, Gibson, and Seaver that the '60s was a low scoring decade, but these Dodgers literally sometimes have me wondering if they even NEED bats- they could just malk up to the plate and strikeout without them.  This is the WORST hitting team averagewise and contactwise, and are basically tied with the 1907 Cubs for least amount of power- in short, the '65 Dodgers have the weakest offense in the game- even the speed is somewhat lacking outside of Maury Wills and that Davis's, Tommy and Willie.  The saving grace of the team- the BEST pitching so far.  Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale are such great starters I haven't even made the two bullpen pitchers yet- and even THEY will be good, as the team had great pitchers all around. 

Basicallly, the 1965 Dodgers look to have a LOT of 2-0 or 2-1 or 3-2 games, with maybe single digit hits for both teams.  Koufax is so far the best pitcher in the game (he might stay that way, haven't thought about it much, but I don't think any of my other teams have a better pitcher.)

2005 white sox were better than the 2002 Angels (and I'm not even sure TBG or Rack would argue that, and neither are White Sox fans).

That said, 2002 Angels are the better RBI team (single pitching isn't as important).

And I've kinda skimmed this thread, but it's VERY important that the 91 Twins make this ROM, and not just so we can have a "Bachelor of the year" in Scotty Erickson.

'65 Dodgers are the only team to beat the Twins in Minnesota in a World Series.

You may want to upgrade their O a bit as an adjustment for the 60s-era offensive levels, but maybe a pitching-dependent team would be more fun.

Are you modifying the error levels in the ROM?  Who's good/bad so far?

if you have the 2002 angels, that's the only angels world series team in franchise history.  so there's that.  i can't say who was better.  vlady wasn't even on that team. lineup would be something like:

1 eckstein ss
2 erstad cf
3 anderson lf
4 salmon rf
5 glaus 3b
6 spiezio 1b
7 bmolina c
8 kennedy 2b

bench
b1 fullmer (dh)
b2 figgins
b3 wooten
b4 opalmiero
(benji gil?)


pitch
s1 rortiz
s2 jwashburn
r1 frodriguez
r2 percival

(other pitchers of note: start- kevin appier, john lackey, aaron sele (injured, not playoff); relief- brendan donnely, ben weber, scot schoeneweis)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?search=2002+angels

So it's been a while.

I had to take a bit of time off- first a So. California-wide playoffs for drama clubs (four plays won, one from each of the four counties, and my club/team won, and took home the title) and then auditions for the new play.

But I'm back, and almost done with the '65 Dodgers.

I also had a thought- it's 5 teams for each league (AL, NL), so that's the 1907 Cubs, 1912 Red Sox, 1927 Yankees, 1934 Cardinals, 1954 NY Giants, 1965 Dodgers, and 1986 Mets for sure.

That leaves the 70's, 90's, and 00's in flux.

I had a thought:

The 1974 A's as the 70's team would rock, and the 70's A's were a dynasty.

But we need a NL team for the 2000's, and The Big Red Machine rocked the '70s, too.

And so a change is in order:

-The 1975 Reds are in
-The 1974 A's are out
-The 2005 White Sox are out
-The 2008 Phillies are in (grrrrr hate that team- looking foward to the '86 Mets smashing them.)

Comments?

I guess I'm missing something.  How does your new lineup equate to 5 teams in each league?

AL: 1912 BoSox, 1927 Yanks, 1991 Twins

NL: 1907 Cubs, 1934 Cards, 1954 Giants, 1965 Dodgers, 1975 Reds, 1986 Mets, 2008 Phillies

You would need to go back to the A's and ChiSox instead of the Reds and Phillies, no?

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/05/09, 07:32:08 PM
I had to take a bit of time off- first a So. California-wide playoffs for drama clubs (four plays won, one from each of the four counties, and my club/team won, and took home the title) and then auditions for the new play.

What does this mean?

Quote from: GDavis on 02/06/09, 08:14:10 AM

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/05/09, 07:32:08 PM
I had to take a bit of time off- first a So. California-wide playoffs for drama clubs (four plays won, one from each of the four counties, and my club/team won, and took home the title) and then auditions for the new play.

What does this mean?

He had Drama playoffs, dolt.

I think the awesome-ness of those 90s blue jay championship teams is being overlooked.

Cant remember, but what the fuck happened to the jays in 94?  they were teh suck.

how do they do the seeding in a drama playoffs?

They save it for all the mothers.

OK, bad math on my part lol.

That DOES upset the balance  ???

I've tried to change things, but nothing's been satisfactory, the only option that comes close is just giving the '70s team to either the Reds or Pirates and just having the NL have one more than the AL, like in real life.

So the two options here, folks:

Set A:

1908 Cubs
1912 Red Sox
1927 Yankees
1934 Cardinals
1954 Giants
1965 Dodgers
1974 A's
1986 Mets
1991 Twins
2005 White Sox

OR

Set B:

1908 Cubs
1913 A's *new*
1927 Yankees
1934 Cardinals
1954 Giants
1965 Dodgers
1975 Reds/1979 Pirates *new*
1986 Mets
1991 Twins
2004 Red Sox *new*

So those are the two choices, tell me which you like best.

And three things:

1. I honestly don't think the Jays of the '90s were too much better than the '91 Twins, who played ugly but gritty, tough baseball, so the '91 Twins stay, sorry, couldn't work in an NL club here.........

2. Don't mix the sets, plese, just vote A or B

3. If you choose B, tell me whether you prefer the '75 Reds or '79 Pirates


Ah...... if only there were 12 teams instead of 10........

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/07/09, 03:46:25 PM
1. I honestly don't think the Jays of the '90s were too much better than the '91 Twins,

Wrong.

So wrong.

So many great players to choose from, depending on the year you pick.  Joe Carter, Alomar, Olerud, Devo, Winfield, Henderson, Molitor, Tony Fernandez

i reject the notion that devon white was ever a "great player"

i vote B and for the 75 reds.

also, you should add a poll at this point.

OK the poll is up and the question is out there: do the Reds, Pirates, Marlins, or Phillies replace the A's or
White Sox?

(If anyone is wondering why the Pirates get two teams up there, instead of, for instance, the 1975 and 1976 Reds, the '71 team, wtih Clemente and holdovers from the Pirate teams of the '60s, is different than the Stargell-led '79 team, whereas the '75 and '76 teams aren't nearly as different.)

Also, a second "informal" poll: A) 1991 Twins or B) 1993 Blue Jays?

I vote A; the '93 team, with Joe Carter's great walk-off HR was a good team, but I think Kirby Puckett and the
worst-to-first Twins are a bettere team and choice, and for all of Joe Carter's clutch, Kirby Puckett had a Fisk-like HR to win Game 6 and force a Game 7, I could go on, both teams are great- the 1991 Twins are my pick.

Yours?

And if anyone cares about how the 1965 Dodgers are playing (now that they're finished, waiting to see who to make for the '70s)......

They are STRANGE.

They are the STRANGEST team so far.

First, the pitching.  Sandy Koufax is great, as expected, but for some reason just CHOKES against "slap hitters" (guys who hit mostly singles and doubles over HRs.)  I'll play true rivalry game against the '54 Giants- and Sandy somehow gets Willie Mays to strikeout or ground weakly to the mound, but someone like Whitey Lockman, an average hitter, gives him headaches......... it's like the weaker the hitter, the more Sandy's likely to get rocked.  Drysdale's a great hard-thrower, but gives up a bit too many HRs.  Really haven't had to use Podres or Olsteen that much, Sandy and Drysale usually go the length or go at least 7.

But it's the HITTING that leaves me scratching my head.

This is a team with virtually no power- and yet they'll at least twice a game turn a slow grounder to the left into a double, a triple if it gets through the infield.  They just have a THING; it's not even the ball-moving-slow-on-the-ground glitch: the ball just always seems to go where the defense isn't.

And yet their offense is STILL anemic as predicted, scores maybe 2-3 runs, 4 on a "big" day.

So vote in the new NL team in the poll, and whether you'd rather Puckett's '91 Twins or Carter's '93 Blue Jays.

91 Twins any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Quote from: Attezz on 02/08/09, 06:42:36 PM
91 Twins any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

So 8 votes for the Twins.

lol, count it as 1  ;)

Someone actually voted for the Marlins?  Wow.........

My vote for the Marlins was really just a vote against the White Sox.

79 pirates

phillies

^

You vote in the poll for that.  ;)

So at 10:00 PT I'll take the results of the polls.

So far, you see the poll above. 

And so far it's 2 votes to 0 to keep the '91 Twins over the '93 Blue Jays.

BlueJays

2-1 Twins

And the NL race is getting tigheter.........

OK, so 10:00pm my time came and went, and we had a tie between the '75 Reds and the '79 Pirates.

So, 'til 5:00pm PT, we're having a runoff election.

So go ahead and cast your vote (those two are the ONLY choices left) and if you've already voted, go a head and vote ONCE more.

In other news, the '91 Twins beat out the '93 Blue Jays and will retain their spot and will be made.

So let's go.  ;)

Quote from: Shooty on 02/07/09, 07:08:26 PM

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/07/09, 03:46:25 PM
1. I honestly don't think the Jays of the '90s were too much better than the '91 Twins,

Wrong.

So wrong.

So many great players to choose from, depending on the year you pick.  Joe Carter, Alomar, Olerud, Devo, Winfield, Henderson, Molitor, Tony Fernandez

How was this post not counted as a vote for the Blue Jays??

I demand a recount.

Quote from: Shooty on 02/10/09, 07:31:44 AM

Quote from: Shooty on 02/07/09, 07:08:26 PM

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/07/09, 03:46:25 PM
1. I honestly don't think the Jays of the '90s were too much better than the '91 Twins,

Wrong.

So wrong.

So many great players to choose from, depending on the year you pick.  Joe Carter, Alomar, Olerud, Devo, Winfield, Henderson, Molitor, Tony Fernandez

How was this post not counted as a vote for the Blue Jays??

I demand a recount.

Because it wasn't during the voting- that post CAUSED me to open a Twins-Blue Jays vote, it was BEFORE the voting, should've voted........

(And anyway, there was pretty much lukewarm support for both, a 2-1 vote, so that's just not enough to change it for me; the other one, the main poll had good support.)

And the 1975 Reds win it by a 4-2 margin over the 1979 Pirates.

So the final lineup of Best WS Winners by Decade is:

1908 Cubs- done
1913 A's- done
1927 Yankees- done
1934 Cardinals- done
1954 Giants- done
1965 Dodgers- done
1975 Reds
1986 Mets
1991 Twins
2004 Red Sox

So tomorrow, I'm getting started on the 1975 Reds........ The Big Red Machine........

And now, how the 1913 A's play:

I'll go more into detail, but three words can sum up the 1913 A's: inconsistent and frustrating.

I said earlier that the 1934 Cardinals were extremely talented, but never could seem to get all their talents to work in a game.

The A's are worse- they're talented, but can't seem to get their talents to work well pitch by pitch.

EVERY at bat, you have no idea who's going to have it or not have it; Eddie Collins may have hit 3 weak grounders on the day, but then he'll hit a triple.  Eddie Plank will strike the side one inning, then give up three straight homers on three different styles of pitches to start the next inning.  Someone once even turned an unassisted double play on a diving catch and qucik throw- and the next inning let an infield fly hit him in the head.

To make matters worse, this isn't a team that can really afford to play like that.  The '34 Cardinals do, but have such great players (Pepper Martin, Dizzy Dean, Joe Medwick, etc.) that even when SOME don't play well, enough do so that they have a shot at winning (and they don't go hot and cold DURING the game on a regular basis.)

The A's, however, have great players, but just not "good enough" Hall of Famers.  This is the team that has
"The $100,000 Infield" featuring Hall of Famers Eddie Collins, Snuffy McInnis, and Home Run Baker (who has yet to hit a HR in a game, none of the A's have yet.)  I played three games- agaisnt the super-defense of the 1908 Cubs, the super-offense of the 1954 Giants, and the streaky-yet-still-strong 1934 Cardinals. 

The A's pitching couldn't take advantage of the Cubs' at the most average attack (power-wise, anyway.)
The A's hitting only managed about 3 hits and were picked off the bases against the Giants' mediocre pitching.
And in a battle of streaky teams, the A's committed 2 errors and gave up a 7 run inning to the streaky Cardinals.

What's annoying is that I can't call them the "weakest" team; on paper, they're not, not by a long shot.  The AL only has 4 teams, though; it's anyone's guess  how they'll do against the 1991 Twins or 2004 Red Sox, but for certain this is a team that can't master ONE facet of baseball, let alone three- the 1927 Yankees might skunk this team 10-0 in one inning.

Comments?  (And coming soon- The Bing Red Machine proudly presents the 1975 Model.  :))

57 braves.
c'mon, give milwaukee a chance.

Sorry- but the '50s belong to the Giants, because A) that '54 team was great and B) they didn't win after '54 and the '30s are taken by the Cardinals, so they need the '50s or they can't play.

And as great as Hank Aaron is, Willie Mays............ debate it anyway you want, but still- you need that Dodgers-Giants-Yankees-Mets four way rivaly going.

And guys- the poll's done, how do I close it?

Like I said before, the 1975 Reds won, and here's their scouting report:

The offense- incredible, truly a Machine.  There's really not a weak spot in the lineup, and the 1st 6 hitters (Rose, Perez, Morgan, Bench, Griffey, and Foster) are astounding, almost always good for at least 1-2 hits and usually at least a run per inning if you can get through that part of the lineup.

This IS the National League answer to the 1927 Yankee's "Murderer's Row" of Combs, Koenig, Ruth, Gehrig, Muesel, and Lazerri.

And the great thing about the Reds' offense is it's a fully 3-dimensional offense: not just an extra-base hit machine like the Giants or slap hitters like the Dodgers or speedsters like the Cardinals.  The Reds have all three, and probably the best offense in the NL, maybe second best only to the Yankees.

But the PITCHING AND DEFENSE IS ALMOST NIGHTMARISH.

Just as you'll be astounded how great the offense is, when you finally get your third out and it's time for you to pitch, the other team just starts teeing off.  And just like the offense is great for many reasons, the defense and pitching scare me to death when playing as the Reds.

First- Jack Billingham.

He's the only lefty in the rotation, and the "Ace."  On a good day, he's  decent pitcher who can be very effective and pile up the K's if he catches on fire, especially early.

But most of the time he's either at half-strength it seems, or just out of gas.  Pitches that have a sharp break or some extra speed look like softballs on a bad day for Billingham.

It's a 50-50 shot with him, so it doesn't happen ALL the time- but when it does, it is BAD.

The rest of the staff isn't bad, but you'll fidn that the whole pitching staff either gets a lot of grounders and K'a or a lot of doubles and HRs.

The defense is just ODD- they do the "usual" bad D things like occasionally drop balls, but you'll find they also have a knack for losing the bam-bam plays; this team has yet to turn a double play, and some easy fly balls have either bounced off their heads or just been misplayed and bounced over them.

All in all, the Reds are a good team; defensive woes aside, the offense is so great the usually the pitching will hold enough to give the Reds a win- often a somehwat ugly win, but a win.

The 1986 Mets are up; if I were to guess, they'll probably play like a flip version of these '75 Reds (great pitching and speed, streaky and not-always-reliable offense outside of Strawberry and maybe Carter and Hernandez.)

An early look at the NL, with all the NL teams almost done:

The Cubs, sadly, don't look to be a team that can break the The Billy Goat Curse; a decent staff and speed, but such anemic hitting that decent ptiching and good speed won't be enough.

The Cardinals are a good team, but don't show their full potetial often enough, and in this division, you NEED to have your A-game just about all the time to have any chance.

The Giants have a great offense at the plate, but are just too slow outside Willie Mays, and the pitching is probably the weakest in the division.

So it comes down to the Dodgers and Reds (will play with the original NLCS/ALCS format, so two teams in each division advance to the LCS) unless the Mets, whom I predict to finish about middle of the pack right alongside the Giants, catch fire suddenly or the Cardinals put it all together and stay consistent.

1986 Mets a-coming.

Thoughts?

The 2008 Phillies would make a great video game team. So, go fuck yourself

Quote from: BDawk on 02/12/09, 01:23:19 PM
The 2008 Phillies would make a great video game team. So, go fuck yourself

Hey, we had a vote- the 2008 Phillies didn't get enough votes, enough said.

Enjoy that NL East Title- while you can.

The Mets got overconfident, and we choked- your turn.

This WILL be the year (boo away Philly boo birds.)

1986 Mets (a TRULY GREAT TEAM EVEN WITH THE DRUGS) coming up........

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/12/09, 06:50:21 PM
The Mets got overconfident, and we choked- your turn.

What position do you play?

Quote from: Attezz on 02/14/09, 01:37:59 AM

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/12/09, 06:50:21 PM
The Mets got overconfident, and we choked- your turn.

What position do you play?

lol ok point taken, I'll rephrase:

The Mets got overconfident, THEY choked, I threw my pretzels and remote in anger- your turn.

:P

Speaking of the Mets, here's how the 1986 team plays:

Well, if you're familiar with the vanilla RBI Baseball Mets, you'll be familiar with these Mets- same team.  So to save time I won't waste time going into detail about how Gooden's great when he's on and frustrating when he's not and how Mookie and Backman are like twin slap hitters and Strawberry's one of the biggest guns in the game.

So we'll skip to- how do they measure up against the other NL teams?  I played one game against each, and here is what I found:

Against the 1908 Cubs: A near massacre- the Cubbies were in over their heads against Gooden, and Strawberry alone scored more than the whole Cubs team.

Against the 1934 Cardinals: An exciting game, featuring two teams that have great potential and yet don't always bring their A games.  The Cardinals brought their A game- the Mets didn't.  Gooden didn't have it, and even Strawberry couldn't save the Mets.  Close until about the 7th inning, and then a 4 run inning against Gooden killed the Mets' hopes.

Against the 1954 Giants: A near reapeat of the Cubs game, the Mets, pitching Gooden again, hammered the Giants while the Giants, outside of Wille Mays, couldn't seem to buy a hit.  In the 8th inning, however, Godden's fastball finally gave completely, and the Mets, after a late inning rally by the Giants just fell short, barely escaped with the win.

Against the 1965 Dodgers: Ojeda started this game (had to look at the whole staff, and Gooden had already pitched three straight games) and he and Sandy both pitched well early.  Sandy cracked a bit first, giving a couple runs, but so did Ojeda.  Sandy proceeded to throw beautiful pitch after beautiful pitch, as each curve and slider and fastball landed just perfectly.  But the Dodgers' one glaring weakness then showed its ugly head- lack of run support.  Ojeda in real life was a good pitcher- Sandy was 100x better, a top 5 ever pitcher.  The same goes in this game- Ojeda's a capable and occaisionally great #2 starter, Sandy's either the top pitcher in the game or at least in the top 3.  But when it comes to scoring runs, both in real life and in RBI, the '65 Dodgers pale in comparison to the '86 Mets.  So eventually, with no run support, Sandy was forced to pitch too much for really any pitcher with practially no offense, and gave up the lead and was yanked from the game in the 7th, looking like the losing pitcher.  And then the Dodgers revealed their biggest strength- the best pitching staff in the game, a staff that features besides Sandy Drysdale, Claude Osreen, and Johnny Podres: all good to great starters.  The Dodgers thus trotted out Drysdale to completely ice the Mets, and he even, true to form, got a base hit to start a late inning rally that capped a great comeback for the Dodgers and a great game overall for both teams.

Against the 1975 Reds: Ojeda started again, but this time against Jack Billingham, someone more on his level.  Neither pitcher pitched terribly, but neither pitcher is a great strikeout machine, both relying on grounders and soft flies to win.  Those soft flies became HRs and the grounders became singles and doubles, and a slugfest was underway.  The Mets put up a good number of runs and a good fight, but in a gaime in which both teams scored in double digits, the Reds ultimately had more firepower and won out.


The end conclusion: The Mets went 2-3, with the two wins easily won (for the most part) and the three losses just barely lost to teams who either had just a bit better luck, a bit deeper bullpen, or a bit more firepower.  Gooden started 3 games and pitched well in two of them; Ojeda started twice and pitched well but was anot enough of a shutdown-type pitcher to win either.  When the pen came into play, it was always Orosco, who finished off the Giants and was rocked by the Reds.  In the end, the starting pitching is good, top 3, runner up to the Dodgers when Gooden is on.  The offense is decent; however, if two out of the three of Keith Hernandez, Gary Carter, and Darryl Strawberry are shut down, the Mets offense doesn't die, but it really limps along and becomes totally dependent on Mookie and Backman scratching out singles and stealing bases to get into scoring postion- not a great postion to be in. 

This team, if it puts it all together, can contend.

So, now theat they're all done in the NL, predictions:

1. 1975 Reds: The pitching has shown it can do enough to support the Machine, the best offense in the NL
2. (Wild Card) 1965 Dodgers: The best pitching staff can shut down anyone, the only question's the offense.....
3. 1986 Mets: The darkhorse team of the division, if it all clicks, they could challenge for the Wild Card
4. 1934 Cardinals: When they click they're great, but still don't have the firepower to take on the Reds or Mets
5. 1954 Giants: A good offense and even Willie Mays can't save the worst pitching staff in the division
6. 1908 Cubs: A good defense, and Three-Finger Brown's great, but outside of that, this team has no firepower

Reactions?

1991 Twins coming soon. 

Reds.

OK, so the Twins are just about done and ready for a few test-games.

But Idid want to mention one thing about the team that's important.

RBI of course has no DH, a huge issue for both the 1991 Twins and 2004 Red Sox,
whose DH's obviosuly played a huge role in the teams' successes.

I'll adress the 2004 Sox when the time comes.

As for the 1991 Twins, there's Puckett, obviously, Shane Mack, Dan Gladden, and Chili Davis all
in position for the outfield spots.

Puckett's obvious, and Shane Mack had teams best offensive stats along with Pucket that year.

Now, granted Gladden usually played OF and Davis DH, but Davis' stats far surpass Gladden's.

So I am putting Chili Davis in the starting lineup as an outfielder, and having Gladden the top
person on the bench.

If you choose to switch that once I finish the MOD, by all means, it's really an open question,
just know that's the lineup for the games in my league and the tournament upcoming.

1991 Twins done, just one more team- the 2004 Red Sox- to go!  :)

So, about those '91 Twins:

First of all, I should tell everyone that each team has a unique newspaper nickname;
for instance, for the Mets, instead of the newspaper saying "NEW YORK" it says
"AMAZINS", as that was and is the nickname for the Miracle Mets and later Met teams
that seemed to have miracle seasons ('73, '86, etc.)

So why do I mention this now?  Because the Twins' nicknames a bit..... irregular.

I looked on the Internet for the "unofficial" Twins nickname of the period, and every search
turned up........... "Twinkies."   :o  (If there are any Twins fans out there, please explain.)

So without further ado, the report for the 1991 Twinkies- ahem, Twins.

This team is a sort of cross between the '54 Giants and the '86 Mets, with it's won unique issues
and bonuses and such.

Why Giants and Mets?  Because the Twins, offensively, have the same need for their 3-6 spots (Puckett,
Davis, Hrbek, and Harper) to produce big-time as the Giants.  The sad issue is that they are NOT the Giants.
Kirby Puckett, as good as he is here (didn't use the bad Vanilla RBI Puckett) IS like a poor-man's Willie Mays-
he can hit for average and power and fly around the bases- but is really just that.  He ISN'T as good as Mays.
The same can be said of pretty much the entire Twins lineup- where they're good, they just aren't better than
the teams that also rely on the 3-6 spots, which are the '34 Cardinals, '54 Giants, '75 Reds, and if I were to guess, the 2004 Red Sox.

There ARE a couple areas where the Twins DO beat a few of those teams; Chili Davis is as dominant as ever, and Shane Mack is surprisingly good- it's just that even those two can't go up against the likes of Gehrig, Monte Irvin, Johnny Bench, Garry Carter, Tony Perez, and Frankie Frisch, who occupy one or both of those batting order spots for other teams.

One other tidbit before we move on to pitching- this team has, for some reason, the largest hit-to-HR ratio; I'm not doing this mathematically, and I'm throwing out the Yankees here, since they ruin any curve, but out of the rest of the teams, the Twins seem more dependent on players like Mack and Puckett and Davis and Hrbek hitting doubles or HRs than any other team.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if those four can be held to mostly singles and some doubles, the Twins may be stopped cold.

On to the pitching-

The Mets have two quality starters, Gooden and Ojeda (and Ojeda pitches pretty well for me, nice control and curve to complement Dr. K's fastball, so I don't know what the others have against him), a good middle reliever in McDowell, and a quality, if sometimes inconsistent, closer in Orosco.  Sometimes, I've found, in a pinch, McDowell can go some good distance, and really I think could be a third stater against some teams- but with Ojeda and Dr. K, i've never found a reason to try it.

The Twins have a pitching staff that's similar- three starters (Scott Erickson in his 20-win season, Jack Morris, and Tapani) and a closer in Rick Aguilera.  I took the players with the best stats, so these four are the ones on the team.

Does anyone see the first HUGE issue?

If you're a big baseball fan like me- no, I'm a Mets fan, not a twins fan, so on the surface it'd look OK to me.

But if you're a big Twins fan you probably see it..........

ALL RIGHT-HANDED.

That's right, not a lefty among them.

They have the best stats in the regular and postseason of that year, so they're on the team- but still:

4 RIGHTIES!

Needless to say, regardless of the quality of the staff, this is a team in trouble.  Erickson and Morris are fine starting pitchers that can go deep and complement each other like a Koufax-Drysdale Lite, and the relief pitching seems solid if unspectacular, but with four righties, this staff is really hit-or-miss.  If you're playing a team like the Giants or Cardinals, where it's either 50-50 or more right-handed batters, then this staff can really become a big factor and make things happen.

But against such teams as the Reds, who are 50-50 but have Rose, Morgan, and Griffey Sr. all righty, or the Mets with mostly lefties and Darryl Strawberry leading the attack, or, worse of all, the in-division YANKEES, who do have mostly righties but also have Earle Combs leading off lefty and then, one batter later, RUTH AND GEHRIG BACK TO BACK AS LEFTIES- this is a staff that WILL get rocked.



The Twins have the blessing and curse of playing in the AL.  If they played in the National League, with 6 teams and two playoff spots, then they'd be buried most likely behind powers like the Reds, Dodgers, Mets, and Cardinals.

But they're in the AL, so only four teams to play- and it really does look like the 1913 A's are definitely the weakest team in the division (maybe even in the who 10-team league.)  So the Twins are thus looking to be in third place, just one spot away from a playoff birth.  However, those two teams are the Yankees and Red sox (assuming the 2004 Red Sox play as well as I and everyone should expect them to), and because they're in a smaller division, they'll see them more often.

The season's 5 games long, so every team in the NL will play each other once.  But AL teams will end up playing two out of their three opponents TWICE- and two games against the Yankees and/or Sox could easily crush the Twins' playoff hopes.

Bottom line- there's talent on this team, and a playoff run could happen.  But with so many obstacles it won't be easy...........

Comments?


The last team, the 2004 Red Sox, coming up- and then the tourney!

The last team- the 2004 Red Sox- is finished.

The 2004 Red Sox are just what you'd expect them to be- powerful offense, great Schilling-Pedro-Lowe pitching staff: a major threat to the Yankees.

There really isn't too much that can be said about this team that's unexpected or really would be unkown, knowing the real-world 2004 Sox.  Damon's still fast, Manny's still flashy, Ortiz still crushes the long ball, Pedro and Schilling still throw smoke.........

This team really DOES hit a lot of HRs- only the Big Red Machine Reds and the Ruth-Gehrig Yankees have hit more so far in the test games.

Which reminds me- the season is officially ready to start!

Here are the "Preview Power Rankings":

1. The 1927 Yankees/"DA YANKS" in the newspaper
2. The 1975 Reds/"RED MACH" in the newspaper
3. The 2004 Red Sox/"IDIOTS" in the newspaper
4. The 1965 Dodgers/"BLUE CREW" in the newspaper
5. The 1986 Mets/"AMAZINS" in the newspaper
6. The 1934 Cardinals/"DA GANG" in the newspaper
7. The 1991 Twins/"TWINKIES" in the newspaper
8. The 1954 Giants/"DA G MEN" in the newspaper
9. The 1908 Cubs/"DA CUBS" in the newspaper
10. The 1913 A's/"MACK MEN" in the newspaper

The schedule:

NL:

Cubs- Giants, Reds, Mets, Dodgers, Cardinals
Cardinals- Dodgers, Giants, Reds, Mets, Cubs
Giants- Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers, Reds, Mets
Dodgers- Cardinals, Mets, Giants, Cubs, Reds
Reds- Mets, Cubs, Cardinals, Giants, Dodgers
Mets- Reds, Dodgers, Cubs, Cardinals, Giants

AL:

A's- Red Sox, Twins, Yankees, Yankees, Twins
Yankees- Twins, Red Sox, A's, A's, Red Sox
Twins- Yankees, A's, Red Sox, Red Sox, A's
Red Sox- A's, Yankees, Twins, Twins, Yankees

May the best teams win- I'll keep you poster.  Comments?

Quote from: obiwanobiwan on 02/16/09, 01:38:32 PM
I looked on the Internet for the "unofficial" Twins nickname of the period, and every search
turned up........... "Twinkies."   :o  (If there are any Twins fans out there, please explain.)

You seriously don't get it?

I mean, it's common knowledge that fatties Kent Hrbek and Kirby Puckett loved Twinkies and were even caught on TV eating them DURING A GAME!
It was a big story for a while.  The nickname was a natural fit

Why are the Phillies called the Phils?

Why are the Blue Jays called the Jays?

Quote from: Attezz on 02/17/09, 10:31:22 AM
Why are the Phillies called the Phils?

Why are the Blue Jays called the Jays?

Because they had alot of guys named Phil and Jay on their teams?

Alright, alright, calm down, sorry, should've caught the fat thing........

In all fairness, Puckett was before my time- I grew up with Piazza and the Mets (I know, ouch, but I wouldn't trade 'em, the Mets.  I only saw Mike Piazza, my favorite player ever and reason I came to love the Mets and stop being afraid of the baseball when playing catch, play in person once- and that game he hit a huge homer over the right-centerfield fence, and I was sitting along the mid-level seats on the first-base side of Dodger Stadium, so it seemed so much closer, and so did Mike as he rounded first............. I'll never forget it........)

So- any predictions for the tourney?

Piazza had unheard of opposite field power.

Week 1:
CHI@NYG: 17-24 STL@LAD: 15-13 CIN@NYM: 6-27
PHIA@BO: 6-8 NYY@MIN: 17-13

As the line scores show, it was a wild first week. The A's-Red Sox game was the only one where the pitching seemed to be able to somewhat contain the offenses.  Two out of the three NL games were blowouts, while the other three games were reasonably tight, with the Cardinals-Dodgers game being decided in the 9th.

Week 1 MVP:
A Yankee, but not one you'd probably guess.  The Yankees hit 8 HRs against the Twins in their game, with one of those belonging, unsurprisingly, to the great Babe Ruth.  But our Week 1 MVP outslugged the mighty Ruth that day, hitting 3 of the 8 HRs by the Yanks that day.  That man: Joe Dugan-NYY.

Week 2 coming...... comments so far?

Week2:
CHI@CIN: 9-14 STL@NYG: 8-11 NYM@LAD: 10-18
PHIA@MIN: 16-17 NYY@BOS: 6-24

Week 2 MVP:
Plenty of deserving players this week, but when you hold the Murderer's Row Yankees to 6 runs on a complete game for the win with 7 K's, you win out.                                  That man: Curt Schilling- BOS.                          

Week 3:
CHI@NYM: 7-13 STL@CIN: 8-15 NYG@LAD: 8-6
PHIA@NYY: 11-14 BOS@MIN: 10-11

Week 2 MVP:
Another week with a lot of big-time heroes.  Lou Gehrig swatted 2 HRs, each after the A's had walked Ruth intentionally to pitch to him.  Johnny Antonelli pitched 6 great innings against the Dodgers, the first 4 of them perfect, with 7 K's while hitting a 2B and a 3B and scoring twice.  This week's MVP comes from that Giants-Dodgers game, but is not Antonelli, who might be called the unofficial runner up this week.  For going 5 for 5 in that same game, with two 3B and 2 HR with 4 of the Giants' 8 runs coming off of his RBIs, including the winning run, this week's MVP is Willie Mays- NYG.

Comments?