Originally posted by mudpie
Thats where you are wrong. I was here long before you, I will be here long after you are gone. Wanna play a game Dumb-A$$?

Where have you been then, if you were here before me?

If you read my profile it is very clear. I only play clan games.
You are not a member, so you can't play clan games.
You are also provisional, but there is no reason I can think of to play you.

I have no idea who you are, and I doubt seriously that you know me.

Let's keep it that way, shall we?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Where have you been then, if you were here before me?

If you read my profile it is very clear. I only play clan games.
You are not a member, so you can't play clan games.
You are also provisional, but there is no reason I can think of to play you.

I have no idea who you are, and I doubt seriously that you know me.

Let's keep it that way, shall we?

Pretty pathetic retort Fred-Boy.....you ususaly spew acid at the flock much better than that! You must be losing your touch!

Originally posted by no1marauder
That wasn't a potentially deciding game.

In my lifetime, nothing beats Game 6 of 1986.

But the game set the tone for the rest of the series and was arguably the spark that let them win the series because they were underdogs. If they had not won the series, however, fine, but they did.

Sorry, it beats any of your Yankee highlight reels. :'(

Originally posted by whodey
But the game set the tone for the rest of the series and was arguably the spark that let them win the series because they were underdogs. If they had not won the series, however, fine, but they did.

Sorry, it beats any of your Yankee highlight reels. :'(

Game 6 of the 1986 Series didn't involve the Yankees.

Gibson's HR wasn't decisive or potentially decisive.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That wasn't a potentially deciding game.

In my lifetime, nothing beats Game 6 of 1986.

But the Cards had two rallies, one inning after another, that were comparable to the Mets' rally. Plus, the Cardinals got clean hits (although the one in the 9th could have been caught by Cruz) rather than having to rely on a wild pitch and an error.

I think this game 6 was better.

Originally posted by whodey
But the game set the tone for the rest of the series and was arguably the spark that let them win the series because they were underdogs. If they had not won the series, however, fine, but they did.

Sorry, it beats any of your Yankee highlight reels. :'(

It doesn't beat all Yankee highlight reels. The moments in the 2001 series, where the Yankees tied up both games 4 and 5 on consecutive nights with 2 out, 2 run home runs against Kim, was by the most amazing moment in WS history, although, of course, they did eventually lose the series on another classic rally.

Originally posted by sh76
But the Cards had two rallies, one inning after another, that were comparable to the Mets' rally. Plus, the Cardinals got clean hits (although the one in the 9th could have been caught by Cruz) rather than having to rely on a wild pitch and an error.

I think this game 6 was better.

It lacked the story line in 1986 where the Red Sox were about to end 68 years of frustration and the Shea Stadium scoreboard had already flashed "Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox 1986 World Champions" (a "Dewey beats Truman" moment). The Mets' rally didn't contain cowardly intentional walks like the 10th here and there was nobody on with two outs and two strikes unlike the 9th here.

Few people outside of Texas care about the Rangers; the Mets and Red Sox have national followings and a significant baseball history. As I said, few people will remember this game in 25 years.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It lacked the story line in 1986 where the Red Sox were about to end 68 years of frustration and the Shea Stadium scoreboard had already flashed "Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox 1986 World Champions" (a "Dewey beats Truman" moment). The Mets' rally didn't contain cowardly intentional walks like the 10th here and there was nobody on with two outs an ...[text shortened]... a significant baseball history. As I said, few people will remember this game in 25 years.

I don't understand your calling intentional walks cowardly.
I call it intelligent thinking by a manager.
I am sure if it have been a hot hitter from the opposition batting, wouldn't chide the move.

I believe if you let the best player on the opposing team beat you when you had other
options to avoid that outcome, then you should be fired as the manager.

This isn't rocket science and it has been employed since the 20's when they would walk
Babe Ruth. When a guy is going good, you pick your spots to face him...period.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I don't understand your calling intentional walks cowardly.
I call it intelligent thinking by a manager.
I am sure if it have been a hot hitter from the opposition batting, wouldn't chide the move.

I believe if you let the best player on the opposing team beat you when you had other
options to avoid that outcome, then you should be fired as the m ...[text shortened]... y would walk
Babe Ruth. When a guy is going good, you pick your spots to face him...period.

I don't call all intentional walks "cowardly". But this one was and poor strategy to boot. I gave my reasons why in the other thread, but statistically it comes down to Lance Berkman has a better chance to get a hit with men on 1st and 2nd then Albert Pujols has does with a men on second only.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't call all intentional walks "cowardly". But this one was and poor strategy to boot. I gave my reasons why in the other thread, but statistically it comes down to Lance Berkman has a better chance to get a hit with men on 1st and 2nd then Albert Pujols has does with a men on second only.

And, I told you in that thread that the smartest play was to walk them both.

I would have taken my chances with Holliday or whoever was in the game for him at
the time.

Pujols and Berkman are both clutch, experienced hitters. Holliday was experienced
but slumping, and the others are kids who had never been there before.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
And, I told you in that thread that the smartest play was to walk them both.

I would have taken my chances with Holliday or whoever was in the game for him at
the time.

Pujols and Berkman are both clutch, experienced hitters. Holliday was experienced
but slumping, and the others are kids who had never been there before.

No one in their right mind puts the tying run on 3rd and the winning run on 2nd. I thought you were joking.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No one in their right mind puts the tying run on 3rd and the winning run on 2nd. I thought you were joking.

I would and I tell you why.
With two outs, I now have a force at any base.
If the guy was going to get a hit that would score a man from second anyway,
the game is more than likely gone anyway.
However, I would have to be confident that my reliever could / would throw strikes,
in order to use that strategy.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I would and I tell you why.
With two outs, I now have a force at any base.
If the guy was going to get a hit that would score a man from second anyway,
the game is more than likely gone anyway.
However, I would have to be confident that my reliever could / would throw strikes,
in order to use that strategy.

Notice the qualifier "in their right mind".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Notice the qualifier "in their right mind".

I'll bet you I have managed more victories than you have in baseball.

I also bet I have played in more games than you have.

Your idea of "right mind" may not be as keen as you think.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I'll bet you I have managed more victories than you have in baseball.

I also bet I have played in more games than you have.

Your idea of "right mind" may not be as keen as you think.

Could you give one example in MLB history where a manager decided to walk two batters in a row with a man on second with two out with his team holding a one run lead?

Anybody can claim anything on the web.