"baseball is so much better now"

Hu War Yu said:
Didn't they win a WS a while back?
Click to expand...
Salmon>>>Trout

That 2002 team had no HOFers on the roster, just a group of solid players that made up a really good team.

Now they have two first ballot HOFers and can’t even sniff the playoffs because the rest of the team sucks
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
Salmon>>>Trout

That 2002 team had no HOFers on the roster, just a group of solid players that made up a really good team.

Now they have two first ballot HOFers and can’t even sniff the playoffs because the rest of the team sucks
Click to expand...
They got lucky because Dusty went to the bullpen too soon in Game 6.
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
Salmon>>>Trout

That 2002 team had no HOFers on the roster, just a group of solid players that made up a really good team.

Now they have two first ballot HOFers and can’t even sniff the playoffs because the rest of the team sucks
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of those guys also just had "a good year" at the same time. You can call that a result of "teamwork" if you like but I'm skeptical. In particular, almost exactly the same starting rotation pitched the next year but had an ERA almost a full run higher.
 
DragonFromTo said:
Seems like a lot of those guys also just had "a good year" at the same time. You can call that a result of "teamwork" if you like but I'm skeptical. In particular, almost exactly the same starting rotation pitched the next year but had an ERA almost a full run higher. .
Click to expand...
For sure, but looking at the roster just based on names and not diving into career stats, most every player, I remember well and say “that guy was pretty good”
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
For sure, but looking at the roster just based on names and not diving into career stats, most every player, I remember well and say “that guy was pretty good”
Click to expand...

I suspect that happens (win or lose) on every team without "stars" because they end up writing a little bit about everyone instead of focusing on the stars. Even on a losing team the narratives tend to revolve around the big names. In Toronto it was always Phil Kessel's fault that the Maple Leafs weren't winning, it was never the fault of the talentless pluggers taking up the rest of the roster spots.
 
DragonFromTo said:
I suspect that happens (win or lose) on every team without "stars" because they end up writing a little bit about everyone instead of focusing on the stars. Even on a losing team the narratives tend to revolve around the big names. In Toronto it was always Phil Kessel's fault that the Maple Leafs weren't winning, it was never the fault of the talentless pluggers taking up the rest of the roster spots.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right, but the only WS champion this century that had less star power was the 2015 Royals and possibly the 05 White Sox
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
You’re probably right, but the only WS champion this century that had less star power was the 2015 Royals and possibly the 05 White Sox
Click to expand...

Oh for sure, I'm not disagreeing with you on the star power thing. But I think the team (and its individual players) is probably viewed as being better than they were because they won the Series (without a star). I think they might have been an above average team (without stars) that caught lightning in a bottle that year.
 
Illustrious Potentate said:
Salmon>>>Trout

That 2002 team had no HOFers on the roster, just a group of solid players that made up a really good team.

Now they have two first ballot HOFers and can’t even sniff the playoffs because the rest of the team sucks
Click to expand...
Throw a dart blindfolded at the 2002 Angels roster and you'll hit a player who was 'roiding. In fact, I challenge you not to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top