Why is the WS never competitive?

J0nnD0ugh · 10-30-2008, 12:51 AM

This one only lasted 5 games. & it seemed like a nailbiter because of the delay & it wasn't a sweep. If memory serves me correct, there hasn't been one to go 6 games since Arizona won.

JJLinn · 10-30-2008, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J0nnD0ugh


	This one only lasted 5 games. & it seemed like a nailbiter because of the delay & it wasn't a sweep. If memory serves me correct, there hasn't been one to go 6 games since Arizona won.

Close...last one to go 6+ was the Angels-Giants series the next year that went the distance.

I agree though, and I've been wanting to see another epic series like the ones in 2001 and 2002 because I really didn't follow baseball back then and didn't watch. I have yet to witness a truly great World Series, so I hope another good one comes sooner rather than later.

Sportsforever · 10-30-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J0nnD0ugh


	This one only lasted 5 games. & it seemed like a nailbiter because of the delay & it wasn't a sweep. If memory serves me correct, there hasn't been one to go 6 games since Arizona won.

Never is not a good term...there have been and will be epic WS. As for this one, I thought it was great. Three of the games were 1-run games, a 4-2 game, and the blowout in Game 4. It was fun baseball and enjoyable to watch.

rsox · 10-30-2008, 01:58 AM

Actually the last WS to go 6 games was the Marlins/Yankees series in 2003, the Angels/Giants was the last to go 7.

In the past three seasons we have seen these "Cinderella" teams make it to the WS only to fall flat on their faces in the series. "Cinderella" is 2-12 in that time.

As a Red Sox fan i am more than happy that the Sox have won 2 championships in the last 5 years but as i baseball fan i am somewhat disappointed that we have not seen a truely competitive series since '02.

On the plus side the only good thing to come from these short series' is that we don't have to endure a full 7 games of the Buck/McCarver two-headed monster (moron?) that Fox insists on sticking us with.

marktg30 · 10-30-2008, 02:04 AM

I haven't even cared about baseball since the 98 chase for 62. Other than that I only checked Griffey's performance every day (me favorite athlete since I was 7).

Strike in 94 and Steroids killed baseball.

pfunk880 · 10-30-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsox


	On the plus side the only good thing to come from these short series' is that we don't have to endure a full 7 games of the Buck/McCarver two-headed monster (moron?) that Fox insists on sticking us with.

Haha, good point.

Couldn't they find anyone better? Anyone at all?

JJLinn · 10-30-2008, 02:22 AM

They had someone better...Bob Costas.

Sandman42 · 10-30-2008, 02:36 AM

This one was probably the best one since 2003. Sure it only went 5 games, but at least 4 of the 5 games were close.

J0nnD0ugh · 10-30-2008, 03:07 AM

I didn't think this one was great. The first few games, hardly anyone could get a hit w/RISP. They were mostly scored on groundouts. The winning run in game 3 was a HBP, WP, E-2, 2 BB's & a swinging bunt. And that was the game w/drama. Yawn.

gta95 · 10-30-2008, 03:13 AM

I thought this one was exciting, but I was caught in the roller coaster. Close games and some great performances.

Lighten up J0hn, your acting like you lost money over all this.

10-30-2008, 01:58 AM	#4 (permalink)
rsox MVP OVR: 17 Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 4,266	Re: Why is the WS never competitive? Actually the last WS to go 6 games was the Marlins/Yankees series in 2003, the Angels/Giants was the last to go 7. In the past three seasons we have seen these "Cinderella" teams make it to the WS only to fall flat on their faces in the series. "Cinderella" is 2-12 in that time. As a Red Sox fan i am more than happy that the Sox have won 2 championships in the last 5 years but as i baseball fan i am somewhat disappointed that we have not seen a truely competitive series since '02. On the plus side the only good thing to come from these short series' is that we don't have to endure a full 7 games of the Buck/McCarver two-headed monster (moron?) that Fox insists on sticking us with.

10-30-2008, 02:04 AM	#5 (permalink)
marktg30 MVP OVR: 18 Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Athens, OH Posts: 1,239	Re: Why is the WS never competitive? I haven't even cared about baseball since the 98 chase for 62. Other than that I only checked Griffey's performance every day (me favorite athlete since I was 7). Strike in 94 and Steroids killed baseball. __________________ College football will have a playoff when it changes its name from NCAA to NFL Development League.

10-30-2008, 02:22 AM	#7 (permalink)
JJLinn O RLY? OVR: 36 Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Bloomsburg, PA Posts: 5,398	Re: Why is the WS never competitive? They had someone better...Bob Costas. __________________ Pittsburgh Millers: BLB NCAAB: Duke NCAAF: Florida NFL: Browns MLB: Orioles NBA: Suns NHL: Flyers Soccer: Tottenham/Leeds United/Ebbsfleet United

10-30-2008, 02:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
Sandman42 3/6/09 OVR: 46 Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 7,829	Re: Why is the WS never competitive? This one was probably the best one since 2003. Sure it only went 5 games, but at least 4 of the 5 games were close.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode