MLB 2009 Season

[Patrick]

Gotcha!

Up over and out.

what can one say? ...tremendous

[WorldB3]

Go Rockies.

You are rooting for the team the not only kept you out of the playoffs this year (ok, maybe the Braves would have also) but also the same team that went 0-16 against the Atlanta Braves in 1993. Had the Rookies won one stinking game against the Braves that year, your 103 win Giants with two 20 game winners at the top of the rotation and a Will Clark, Matt Williams and a Barry Bonds in their prime that would have probably gone all the way, if only had the Rookies just won one game against the Braves, like maybe one of four they played against them the last week of the season, then Salman Torres would have never have happened Rockies. Go Rockies?

Some Giants fan you are.

Edited October 1, 2009 by WorldB3

[papsrus]

Hey! Some of you guys bin hatin' on the Rays a little bit while I'm gone?

Nothing like the steam some other clubs get, but ...

Last year was a magic run. At least now they're a reasonably competitive and entertaining club with some upside, which is a far sight from what they used to be.

Bullpen. Nuff said.

BoSox -- Dan, wtf? Are they going to make any noise in the playoffs?

Yankees -- Yikes!

Angels -- Like 'em

Cards -- Scary

Dodgers -- Not scary

Dark horses anyone?

[WorldB3]

Hey! Some of you guys bin hatin' on the Rays a little bit while I'm gone?

Nothing like the steam some other clubs get, but ...

Last year was a magic run. At least now they're a reasonably competitive and entertaining club with some upside, which is a far sight from what they used to be.

Bullpen. Nuff said.

BoSox -- Dan, wtf? Are they going to make any noise in the playoffs?

Yankees -- Yikes!

Angels -- Like 'em

Cards -- Scary

Dodgers -- Not scary

Dark horses anyone?

I would be surprised if its not a Cards - Yanks WS, but its hard to count out the WFC's with that line up and top of rotation.

If it comes down to a Cards-Phils NLCS it will be a war and entertaining as it gets.

Love the Rays, you just need a new yard and another 200 million in payroll to compete in the AL East every year. Good luck.

[papsrus]

Love the Rays, you just need a new yard and another 200 million in payroll to compete in the AL East every year. Good luck.

Well, on the bright side, the Orioles are going to call Sarasota their new spring training home for the next X-number of years. Can't hardly wait for those Pirates-O's showdowns come March. :blush2:

In 2007, the Rays blew a LOT of late-inning leads. Last year, the reverse -- they were winning games in the late innings. Had what seemed like a dozen or more walk-off wins. This year, back to blowing a lot of late-inning leads.

They actually have a nice home record this year -- (50-27) which is as good or better than any division leader in baseball outside the AL East. Sucked on the road.

Edited October 1, 2009 by papsrus

[BERIGAN]

Funny and true story from the Sunday Mariners game. No one could believe it when it happened.

Forgot to mention, that's really great!!!

[Noj]

I don't think I've ever seen a sports prediction that accurate. Crazy!

[JETman]

As a New Yorker, who is a lifelong Mets fan, I hate to say that I have that same disgusting feeling in the pit of my stomach that I had in 1996 and 1998-2000!!!

[Soulstation1]

Hey! Some of you guys bin hatin' on the Rays a little bit while I'm gone?

Nothing like the steam some other clubs get, but ...

Last year was a magic run. At least now they're a reasonably competitive and entertaining club with some upside, which is a far sight from what they used to be.

Bullpen. Nuff said.

BoSox -- Dan, wtf? Are they going to make any noise in the playoffs?

Yankees -- Yikes!

Angels -- Like 'em

Cards -- Scary

Dodgers -- Not scary

Dark horses anyone?

Keep hope alive!!!!!!!

Edited October 1, 2009 by Soulstation1

[Big Al]

Guys,

Nothing worse then hearing you bitch about your team "backing into the playoffs".

This will be my final post in the MLB thread for this year, now that the Rangers playoff hopes are officially over, despite the fact that when the crushing reality of this past month settled in it was too late to do anything about it. The Rangers don't deserve to be in the playoffs, and I've been saying that since August. Still, there's something bittersweet about watching the Red Sox "back into the playoffs" after losing six straight, knowing it was my team that opened the door for them.

So, for anyone who cares, Big Al's Rangers Quick Year in Review:

GOOD:

1) They finished above .500 for the first time in years. Seriously, if anyone had told me the Rangers would be above .500 for most of the season, I woulda danced for joy. And this was supposed to be a rebuilding year! Who woulda guessed a legitimate playoff chase would've been a part of this season? Not me, that's for sure.

2) A bumper crop of young pitchers proved themselves this year. Hopefully, they'll be around for a while and won't get traded to another team for a "veteran."

3) Michael Young's graceful transition to third base and his mentoring of Elvis Andrus. He could've been a real ass about this whole situation, but did the right thing by swallowing his pride, helping his team, and in the process having one of the best year's of his career. It's a crime that he's been in the majors this long and doesn't have a World Series ring to show for it. If anyone deserves to be traded to a real contender, it's Michael Young.

4) They played amazingly well against teams that are better than them, even going so far as to take the season series from the Red Sox and taking a series from the Yankees in New York.

BAD:

1) Ron Washington could be the most underachieving manager in the MLB. More than once I heard fellow fans gripe that a lot of his managerial decisions cost the Rangers games. The sad fact is, the Rangers had the talent this year to take them far; they just don't have the manager who knows how to take them further. I wish this were Wash's last year, but Rangers management has taken this year as a sign that Wash is the right man for the job. Yes he is, as long as mediocrity is your long-term goal, because Washington lacks neither the experience nor the killer instinct that is needed to get into and play October baseball.

2) CJ Wilson needs to go. Period. End of story. He's the Brad Lidge of the Rangers. Ron Washington's continued use of him continues to boggle the mind, because Wilson could not be trusted with a lead any smaller than five runs.

3) They couldn't beat losing teams if their playoff lives depended on it. In fact, it did, and it goes a long way in explaining why the Rangers are not in the playoffs this year.

I don't know that I can call this a "good" year, because even though there were far more positives than negatives, the negatives were huge and, once again the Rangers are not in the playoffs. So, even though it wasn't a "bad"year per se, I hesitate to call this a "good" year when so much more could've been accomplished. This was yet another mediocre "coulda been" season, certainly not the first and far from the last, if the last 35+ years are any indication.

The Rangers will always be my team, but I honestly don't believe I'll ever see them in the playoffs again in my lifetime.

Happy playoffs, to those of you whose teams are playing. Personally, I think it's the Yankees year again, but what do I know? Anything is possible, which is why this will always be my favorite sport and why the Rangers are my favorite team.

See y'all next season.

[PHILLYQ]

As a New Yorker, who is a lifelong Mets fan, I hate to say that I have that same disgusting feeling in the pit of my stomach that I had in 1996 and 1998-2000!!!

I'm a Yankee fan with a Met fan sister and Met fan friends and I extend my sympathy to you guys. I don't think I've ever seen a rash of injuries to so many key players in one year. To top it off, Reyes hurt himself again recently and needs surgery with next year already looking a bit shaky.

[Neal Pomea]

Salute to all the teams qualifying for post-season! I was interested in Atlanta, but they were eliminated today.

For my home team in Washington? Wait til next year! (it might take a lot of years, actually!). Convinced it's bad karma embracing the name Nationals/Senators. Guess I should be glad we didn't name them the Wizards or Redskins.

Can't anybody name a ball team around here?

Edited October 2, 2009 by It Should be You

[Tim McG]

Go Rockies.

You are rooting for the team the not only kept you out of the playoffs this year (ok, maybe the Braves would have also) but also the same team that went 0-16 against the Atlanta Braves in 1993. Had the Rookies won one stinking game against the Braves that year, your 103 win Giants with two 20 game winners at the top of the rotation and a Will Clark, Matt Williams and a Barry Bonds in their prime that would have probably gone all the way, if only had the Rookies just won one game against the Braves, like maybe one of four they played against them the last week of the season, then Salman Torres would have never have happened Rockies. Go Rockies?

Some Giants fan you are.

[omg]

I'm rooting against the hated Dodgers.

Haven't you been reading me?

Wow.

Edited October 2, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

BTW...Giants beat up on the Rockies this year.

I think maybe you need to stick to thinking there are no rivalries in the MLB.

Or remain an A's fan.

Edited October 2, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[WorldB3]

BTW...Giants beat up on the Rockies this year.

I think maybe you need to stick to thinking there are no rivalries in the MLB.

Or remain an A's fan.

I know you hate the Dodgers but seriously every team in the NL West is the Giants rival, they are the teams you need to pass to get to the playoffs, every team in the AL West is the A's rival. I won't root for the Dodgers or the Angels this post season.

Rivalries really only exists for the teams (for fans its different) when both teams are good, sadly the A's were not worthy of being a rival this year even if A's fans hate the Angels, the Angel players for the most part probably didn't give a crap. Texas this year was their rival.

This year was the first since 2004 were the Giants were worth of being called the Dodgers rival.

Edited October 2, 2009 by WorldB3

[Chalupa]

This is really disgusting if the allegations are true.

[Tim McG]

BTW...Giants beat up on the Rockies this year.

I think maybe you need to stick to thinking there are no rivalries in the MLB.

Or remain an A's fan.

I know you hate the Dodgers but seriously every team in the NL West is the Giants rival, they are the teams you need to pass to get to the playoffs, every team in the AL West is the A's rival. I won't root for the Dodgers or the Angels this post season.

Rivalries really only exists for the teams (for fans its different) when both teams are good, sadly the A's were not worthy of being a rival this year even if A's fans hate the Angels, the Angel players for the most part probably didn't give a crap. Texas this year was their rival.

This year was the first since 2004 were the Giants were worth of being called the Dodgers rival.

Then you need to do some research.

Rivalries exist because of the juxtaposition of the teams in a given market, they exist because of the division they both play in and they exist because the fans know the history. You, I'm afraid, do not.

Because you have allowed yourself to believe that the Giants weren't worthy of being taken seriously by the Dodgers then obviously you don't follow the Giants close enough to know the history of their head-to-head competition each year. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what the records are, they battle each other as if the WS depended on it. With the exception of this year's very young and apparently naive starters, this is a storied rivalry; The oldest in MLB history.

Now if you want to hold to the ideology that the W-L column determines whether or not there is a rivalry, then have a blast.

But you would be dead wrong.

Edited October 2, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

BTW....in case you haven't noticed, I have two favorite baseball teams.

The Giants.

And whoever is playing the Dodgers.

Now, if you were a real Giants fan, you'd already know that.

Edited October 2, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[BruceW]

Haven't followed baseball too much the last two years but if I had to pick a team to follow it would be the

ANGELS

They have one of the best and fairest managers in baseball.

[Dan Gould]

Because you have allowed yourself to believe that the Giants weren't worthy of being taken seriously by the Dodgers then obviously you don't follow the Giants close enough to know the history of their head-to-head competition each year. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what the records are, they battle each other as if the WS depended on it. With the exception of this year's very young and apparently naive starters, this is a storied rivalry; The oldest in MLB history.

I find this last claim quite amusing, as I believe you can't find a damn person on the planet who currently takes a side in this rivalry who also took a side when they battled in New York.

New fans in Cali might have embraced the previous rivalry, but does that matter? If Goodie were alive in the fifties, he wouldn't have given a shit about the Giants or Dodgers - they were on the East Coast where baseball is not worth following.

Now you embrace the rivalry as the "oldest" in MLB history? What a joke.

Given that its a completely truncated history, pre- and post- move, I don't think that's a true "old" rivalry. Can't be when it only goes back three generations or so.

Now, Cards vs Cubs - that's a rivalry that truly spans the previous century. Same with the Sox and Yankees.

[Tim McG]

Haven't followed baseball too much the last two years but if I had to pick a team to follow it would be the

ANGELS

They have one of the best and fairest managers in baseball.

Since I have no dog in this fight, that's who I'm going with, too.

Edited October 2, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Because you have allowed yourself to believe that the Giants weren't worthy of being taken seriously by the Dodgers then obviously you don't follow the Giants close enough to know the history of their head-to-head competition each year. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what the records are, they battle each other as if the WS depended on it. With the exception of this year's very young and apparently naive starters, this is a storied rivalry; The oldest in MLB history.

I find this last claim quite amusing, as I believe you can't find a damn person on the planet who currently takes a side in this rivalry who also took a side when they battled in New York.

New fans in Cali might have embraced the previous rivalry, but does that matter? If Goodie were alive in the fifties, he wouldn't have given a shit about the Giants or Dodgers - they were on the East Coast where baseball is not worth following.

Now you embrace the rivalry as the "oldest" in MLB history? What a joke.

Given that its a completely truncated history, pre- and post- move, I don't think that's a true "old" rivalry. Can't be when it only goes back three generations or so.

Now, Cards vs Cubs - that's a rivalry that truly spans the previous century. Same with the Sox and Yankees.

Typical Dan-logic: Because a given team originates someplace else, you aren't supposed to root for them now.

It is the oldest rivalry in baseball, Dan. Period. Look it up.

What hogwash.

Edited October 2, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Because you have allowed yourself to believe that the Giants weren't worthy of being taken seriously by the Dodgers then obviously you don't follow the Giants close enough to know the history of their head-to-head competition each year. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what the records are, they battle each other as if the WS depended on it. With the exception of this year's very young and apparently naive starters, this is a storied rivalry; The oldest in MLB history.

I find this last claim quite amusing, as I believe you can't find a damn person on the planet who currently takes a side in this rivalry who also took a side when they battled in New York.

New fans in Cali might have embraced the previous rivalry, but does that matter? If Goodie were alive in the fifties, he wouldn't have given a shit about the Giants or Dodgers - they were on the East Coast where baseball is not worth following.

Now you embrace the rivalry as the "oldest" in MLB history? What a joke.

Given that its a completely truncated history, pre- and post- move, I don't think that's a true "old" rivalry. Can't be when it only goes back three generations or so.

Now, Cards vs Cubs - that's a rivalry that truly spans the previous century. Same with the Sox and Yankees.

Typical Dan-logic: Because a given team originates someplace else, you aren't supposed to root for them now.

It is the oldest rivalry in baseball, Dan. Period. Look it up.

What hogwash.

You really shouldn't have said that, Timmy.

Giants date to 1883. Dodgers to 1884.

The Cubs date to 1876, and the Cardinals to 1882.

That would make the Cubs vs the Cardinals rivalry date two years older than the Giants vs Dodgers.

Now, if you look back in time you find different names in different years for the same franchise. So let's consider when a team first was called the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Cardinals:

Giants: 1885

Cards: 1900

Cubs: 1903

Dodgers: 1911

So, by this measure, the Cubs and Cards have gone at it since 1903, while the Dodgers and Giants have gone at it only since 1911.

How about if we consider the fact that team names changed over time, back and forth? This factor only effects the Dodgers half of the claimed "oldest rivalry", because the Dodgers really went back and forth on their name. They were the Dodgers in 1911 and 1912, but then spent a season as the Superbas (which they had been called for a good portion of their history to that point), then went to the Robins and only became the Dodgers, permanently and forever after, as of the 1932 season.

So, by this measure, its not even close - the Dodgers have been rivals of the Giants under those names and continuously, only from 1932 to 2009. The Cubs have been rivals of the Cardinals, under those names and continuously, from 1903 to 2009.

So, you're wrong, yet again, Goodie. There is no definition that makes the Giants and Dodgers the "oldest rivalry".

Here are the team pages:

Cubs

Cards

Giants

Dodgers

And don't give me the "Cubs and Cardinals aren't rivals" baloney. Illinois is split down the middle between Cub fans upstate and Card fans among those who are closer to St. Louis.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Dan Gould

[Tim McG]

Because you have allowed yourself to believe that the Giants weren't worthy of being taken seriously by the Dodgers then obviously you don't follow the Giants close enough to know the history of their head-to-head competition each year. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what the records are, they battle each other as if the WS depended on it. With the exception of this year's very young and apparently naive starters, this is a storied rivalry; The oldest in MLB history.

I find this last claim quite amusing, as I believe you can't find a damn person on the planet who currently takes a side in this rivalry who also took a side when they battled in New York.

New fans in Cali might have embraced the previous rivalry, but does that matter? If Goodie were alive in the fifties, he wouldn't have given a shit about the Giants or Dodgers - they were on the East Coast where baseball is not worth following.

Now you embrace the rivalry as the "oldest" in MLB history? What a joke.

Given that its a completely truncated history, pre- and post- move, I don't think that's a true "old" rivalry. Can't be when it only goes back three generations or so.

Now, Cards vs Cubs - that's a rivalry that truly spans the previous century. Same with the Sox and Yankees.

Typical Dan-logic: Because a given team originates someplace else, you aren't supposed to root for them now.

It is the oldest rivalry in baseball, Dan. Period. Look it up.

What hogwash.

You really shouldn't have said that, Timmy.

Giants date to 1883 in the NL. Dodgers to 1890.

The Cubs date to 1876 in the NL and the Cardinals to 1892.

That would make the Cubs vs the Cardinals rivalry date two years after than the Giants vs Dodgers.

Now, if you look back in time you find different names in different years for the same franchise. So let's consider when a team first was called the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Cardinals:

Giants: 1885

Cards: 1900

Cubs: 1903

Dodgers: 1911

So, by this measure, the Cubs and Cards have gone at it since 1903, while the Dodgers and Giants have gone at it only since 1911.

How about if we consider the fact that team names changed over time, back and forth? This factor only effects the Dodgers half of the claimed "oldest rivalry", because the Dodgers really went back and forth on their name. They were the Dodgers in 1911 and 1912, but then spent a season as the Superbas (which they had been called for a good portion of their history to that point), then went to the Robins and only became the Dodgers, permanently and forever after, as of the 1932 season.

So, by this measure, its not even close - the Dodgers have been rivals of the Giants under those names and continuously, only from 1932 to 2009. The Cubs have been rivals of the Cardinals, under those names and continuously, from 1903 to 2009.

So, you're wrong, yet again, Goodie. There is no definition that makes the Giants and Dodgers the "oldest rivalry".

Here are the team pages:

Cubs

Cards

Giants

Dodgers

And don't give me the "Cubs and Cardinals aren't rivals" baloney. Illinois is split down the middle between Cub fans upstate and Card fans among those who are closer to St. Louis.

Nice try Danny...if not wholly inaccurate.

The Giants were first admited to the National League in 1883.

The Dodgers joined the NL in 1890.

By 1889 after many financial difficulties and bankruptcies, there were only two teams in any league left- The Giants and the Dodgers.

It is the longest standing/continuous rivarly in the history of the MLB.

The Cards played in the American Association [which went bankrupt] and were not admitted to the National League until 1899.

The Cubs played in the National Base Ball League the the American association before joining the National League. Though they may be older, the NL rivalry between the Cubs and the Cards began after the Dodgers vs Giants rivarly

Now if you're going to use minor league games and defunct leagues as a way to make your point, then you are only pleading the case for the prosecution. Again, nice try.

Edited October 4, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

I love how you make shit up as you go along. Your years are completely fucked up, and the Cubs are listed in NL for the entirety of their existence.