Maybe I would actually get to see games (granted we keep losing)? Does Turner still own TBS (or anything)?
Baseball What ifs.
- Thread starter 81usaf92
- Start date
No. Turner is basically retired. Warner Bros owns Turner broadcasting.
I figured that was the case. I had forgotten that he has Lewy body dementia.
He might still have some ownership in Ted's Montana Grill.
Best game you ever saw (does NOT have to be in-person attended)
July 12, 1985 - Braves trail Phillies, 4-2, entering the bottom of the ninth, and I'm in the left-field stands with my cousin and grandfather. Braves tie it up and then Dale Murphy launches a three-run homer into right. The moment you heard the crack of the bat, there was this momentary quiet and my cousin said, "It's GONE!" And it was. My grandfather was buried on Christmas Eve 5 1/2 months later.
September 17, 1999 - my son's first game ever, he's nine months old. Son is chosen Jr Brave of the Game, and is given a Mike Remlinger autograph ball, and we're shown on the JumboTron. John Rocker lets the Expos tie it, so we go to ten. Chipper - in his MVP year - nails a walkoff that makes....Mike Remlinger the winning pitcher.
Best game you didn't see at the time but wish you had been there
Game 5 of the 1986 ALCS - Angels one strike from WS
Kirk Gibson HR game
Braves beating Pirates, 4-0, to win the NL pennant and head to the World Series
Francisco Cabrera
July 12, 1985 - Braves trail Phillies, 4-2, entering the bottom of the ninth, and I'm in the left-field stands with my cousin and grandfather. Braves tie it up and then Dale Murphy launches a three-run homer into right. The moment you heard the crack of the bat, there was this momentary quiet and my cousin said, "It's GONE!" And it was. My grandfather was buried on Christmas Eve 5 1/2 months later.
September 17, 1999 - my son's first game ever, he's nine months old. Son is chosen Jr Brave of the Game, and is given a Mike Remlinger autograph ball, and we're shown on the JumboTron. John Rocker lets the Expos tie it, so we go to ten. Chipper - in his MVP year - nails a walkoff that makes....Mike Remlinger the winning pitcher.
Best game you didn't see at the time but wish you had been there
Game 5 of the 1986 ALCS - Angels one strike from WS
Kirk Gibson HR game
Braves beating Pirates, 4-0, to win the NL pennant and head to the World Series
Francisco Cabrera
Craig Kreindler has a facebook page of baseball paintings he does from baseball cards and black and white photographs. One of the great things about his page are the comments from all over the country of those who lived the event. Very intriguing for me!
Bill Mazerowski 1960
Bill Mazerowski 1960
Last edited:
Were the 1986 New York Mets the best team of the last 50 years like ESPN says?
Not only "no," but "HELL no!"
Not only "no," but "HELL no!"
Remembering the Detroit Tigers "Yankee Killer," Frank Lary (born in Northport Alabama)
Detroit Free Press
I concur. There are numerous teams that were better than that Mets team (and some of those teams did not win championships). With that said, those Mets teams of the mid-to-late 80's were, let's just say, full of characters.
Look, I'm not a big fan of these "greatest of all-time" scenarios in the first-place, so I'll give ESPN minimal credit here for at least keeping it to the last 50 years. Baseball hasn't changed that much like if you're trying to compare all those "Yankees buy the best player and keep winning" years.
My first hunch - which I guess you go with in life and trivia - is that the greatest one-year team of all-time is probably either the 1976 Reds or the 1984 Tigers, both perhaps not so coincidentally managed by the same guru, Sparky Anderson. I began watching MLB in June 1977, so the Big Red Machine's heyday is right before my viewing years. But as I was becoming more of a fan in 1979-82, those teams were spoken of with reverence, almost like you speak of Alabama football today or God.
When 81 told me they chose the Mets, my thought was, "Typical. They chose the geographically closest team to them, the same team that won the WS they claim was the greatest ever." But when you lived through it, I'm hard-pressed to say the 86 Mets were even the best team of the DECADE much less the best team of the last 50 years. Yes, they won 108 games.
They also played so poorly in the LCS that the MVP was the pitcher of the losing team, and two of their four wins over an upstart Houston team were in 12 and 16 innings. They couldn't beat Houston's starters to save their lives. Then they needed Boston to fall apart in both game 6 and 7 of the WS.
The Mets look better in retrospect because of what surrounds them as champions:
1981 - Dodgers in the strike year
1982 - Cardinals very quietly
1983 - Orioles very quietly
1984 - dominant Tigers
1985 - Royals come back from 3-1 down in both series
1986 - dominant Mets in regular season
1987 - 100 to 1 underdog Twins win
1988 - Dodgers upset both the A's and Mets
1989 - all anyone actually recalls is the earthquake, and that A's team was likely better than the Mets
The Mets and A's were the only pre-season favorites to really do it, although everyone expected Detroit to contend. But given the Tigers won the series in 5 and the A's swept, the fact the Mets had to go to 7 games always seems to me to put them in a bind.
Ask yourself this question: how many 1986 Mets could start on the 1976 Reds team?
1B - Tony Perez/Keith Hernandez
2B - Joe Morgan/Tim Teufel and Wally Backman
SS - Dave Concepcion/Rafael Santana
3B - Pete Rose/Howard Johnson
RF - Ken Griffey/Darryl Strawberry
CF - Cesar Geronimo/Lenny Dykstra
LF - George Foster/Mookie Wilson
C - Johnny Bench/Gary Carter
I mean, the only Met I can assure you would even start is Dykstra over Geronimo. I wouldn't take Strawberry over Griffey, either. (Folks think Griffey wasn't good - because his son was so great - but much like Barry Bonds takes the shine off Bobby, the Dad was a damn good player). Gary Carter was a VERY GOOD catcher, but he wasn't Johnny Bench. My goodness, the Reds on one team had the greatest catcher ever, the greatest second baseman, and the guy who got more hits than anyone else.
Now compare the pitching staffs:
1976 REDS
Don Gullett, Jack Billingham, Gary Nolan, Pat Zachry, Fred Norman, Will McEnany, Pedro Borbon Sr
1986 METS
Dwight Gooden, Ron Darling, Bob Ojeda, Jesse Orosco, Roger McDowell, Sid Fernandez, Rick Aguilera, Doug Sisk
Gooden as of 1986 was by FAR the best pitcher of all these listed. He also went 0-2 in the WS against Boston with an 8.00 ERA. Two of the three Sox wins came against Doc. Gullett probably would have been a HOFer if he could have stayed healthy. (He actually played for four straight World Champions - 75/76 Reds and 77/78 Yanks).
So tell me this...how could the Mets be the better team when AT MOST maybe four guys on their team would be able to play for the Reds? Aguilera 1986 was NOT the 90s Twins Aguilera, he was a nobody. I can see Gooden and Orosco from the pitching staff. At best.
And this is why I don't think they're the best team at all.
My first hunch - which I guess you go with in life and trivia - is that the greatest one-year team of all-time is probably either the 1976 Reds or the 1984 Tigers, both perhaps not so coincidentally managed by the same guru, Sparky Anderson. I began watching MLB in June 1977, so the Big Red Machine's heyday is right before my viewing years. But as I was becoming more of a fan in 1979-82, those teams were spoken of with reverence, almost like you speak of Alabama football today or God.
When 81 told me they chose the Mets, my thought was, "Typical. They chose the geographically closest team to them, the same team that won the WS they claim was the greatest ever." But when you lived through it, I'm hard-pressed to say the 86 Mets were even the best team of the DECADE much less the best team of the last 50 years. Yes, they won 108 games.
They also played so poorly in the LCS that the MVP was the pitcher of the losing team, and two of their four wins over an upstart Houston team were in 12 and 16 innings. They couldn't beat Houston's starters to save their lives. Then they needed Boston to fall apart in both game 6 and 7 of the WS.
The Mets look better in retrospect because of what surrounds them as champions:
1981 - Dodgers in the strike year
1982 - Cardinals very quietly
1983 - Orioles very quietly
1984 - dominant Tigers
1985 - Royals come back from 3-1 down in both series
1986 - dominant Mets in regular season
1987 - 100 to 1 underdog Twins win
1988 - Dodgers upset both the A's and Mets
1989 - all anyone actually recalls is the earthquake, and that A's team was likely better than the Mets
The Mets and A's were the only pre-season favorites to really do it, although everyone expected Detroit to contend. But given the Tigers won the series in 5 and the A's swept, the fact the Mets had to go to 7 games always seems to me to put them in a bind.
Ask yourself this question: how many 1986 Mets could start on the 1976 Reds team?
1B - Tony Perez/Keith Hernandez
2B - Joe Morgan/Tim Teufel and Wally Backman
SS - Dave Concepcion/Rafael Santana
3B - Pete Rose/Howard Johnson
RF - Ken Griffey/Darryl Strawberry
CF - Cesar Geronimo/Lenny Dykstra
LF - George Foster/Mookie Wilson
C - Johnny Bench/Gary Carter
I mean, the only Met I can assure you would even start is Dykstra over Geronimo. I wouldn't take Strawberry over Griffey, either. (Folks think Griffey wasn't good - because his son was so great - but much like Barry Bonds takes the shine off Bobby, the Dad was a damn good player). Gary Carter was a VERY GOOD catcher, but he wasn't Johnny Bench. My goodness, the Reds on one team had the greatest catcher ever, the greatest second baseman, and the guy who got more hits than anyone else.
Now compare the pitching staffs:
1976 REDS
Don Gullett, Jack Billingham, Gary Nolan, Pat Zachry, Fred Norman, Will McEnany, Pedro Borbon Sr
1986 METS
Dwight Gooden, Ron Darling, Bob Ojeda, Jesse Orosco, Roger McDowell, Sid Fernandez, Rick Aguilera, Doug Sisk
Gooden as of 1986 was by FAR the best pitcher of all these listed. He also went 0-2 in the WS against Boston with an 8.00 ERA. Two of the three Sox wins came against Doc. Gullett probably would have been a HOFer if he could have stayed healthy. (He actually played for four straight World Champions - 75/76 Reds and 77/78 Yanks).
So tell me this...how could the Mets be the better team when AT MOST maybe four guys on their team would be able to play for the Reds? Aguilera 1986 was NOT the 90s Twins Aguilera, he was a nobody. I can see Gooden and Orosco from the pitching staff. At best.
And this is why I don't think they're the best team at all.
If the Atlanta Braves did not acquire Fred McGriff in 1993, would they have won the NL West?
I'm going with.....no......
I'm going with.....no......
1B. Lance Berkman or Bagwell
2B.Joe Morgan
3B. Bobby Bonilla
SS Bucky Dent
C Thurman Munson
LF Hank Aaron
CF ?? Mickey Rivers maybe
RF Reggie Jackson
P. Bob Gibson
Honorable mention Barry Bonds, Craig Biggio, Roger Maris (as a Cardinal), Lou Brock, Craig Nettles
Last edited:
To have seen games with Joe Morgan, Thurman Munson, Hank Aaron, Reggie Jackson, and Bob Gibson, the best 1B you've seen is either Berkman or Bagwell? Interesting.
I've never seen anyone with an OMG first baseman live. Bagwell IS in the HOF. Hank was still in the outfield when I saw him.
I saw Orlando Cepeda, who was really good.
Let me make a few adjustments here:
1) I saw Jorge Posada AND Yadier Molina, both of whom I'd rate well ahead of Javy Lopez.
2) I saw Robinson Cano play, too, and I'd rate him well ahead of Boone. And I also saw Dustin Pedroia.
In center field, it depends on whom you wish to rate where. Among those I saw in person:
George Hendrick
Garry Maddox
Dale Murphy
Marquis Grissom
Andruw Jones
Carlos Beltran (with the Royals even)
Gary Mathews, Jr
Grady Sizemore
Kenny Lofton
Josh Hamilton
Jim Edmonds
Curtis Granderson (with three different teams!)
Mike Trout
Adam Benintendi
Jackie Bradley
Chris Taylor
Joey Gallo
Bear in mind that Trout was a rookie when I saw him, so he barely registered. But given the course of the careers, I'm guessing Trout probably gets the nod.
And Mariano Rivera as the reliever since I saw him as well.
Not to dismiss Bagwell, but with those names, especially the Yankees, it just seemed like you would have seen one of the all time greats. Then, I googled the starting infield for Munson's career, and Chris Chambliss was the 1B for most of it. A good 1B, definitely not the caliber of Bagwell, though.
“What if John McNamara substitutes Dave Stapleton for Bill Buckner late in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series?”
Me: Boston still loses the series.
Me: Boston still loses the series.
Twitter:
If the Hall of Fame were to welcome some new members today—like Gil Hodges, Dick Allen, Buck O’Neill, Roger Maris, or Jim Kaat—I think we would consider it a banner day for a sport that could use a banner day. Celebrating the legends is a good thing
Selma:
Gil Hodges, Dick Allen, and Roger Maris aren't even close to being Hall of Famers. O'Neill - I'm embarrassed because I actually thought he was in there. Kaat is defensible and probably should already be in there.
It’s not a hall of fame without Thurman [Munson]. Travesty.
If you actually believe Thurman Munson is a Hall of Famer when every single metric available shows he isn't, there's not much I can do other than figure it's a good thing you're not one of the voters.
Why Roger Maris? Don Mattingly over him any day of the week.
How about neither one since neither one was that good? Yankee fans are seriously the most moronic apologists on the planet. They're worse than people who think Michigan football is a national brand.
Vic Davalillo and Manny Mota should be inducted for their post-season play against the Phillies.
Wow, I didn't know HOF candidacies can be reduced to "this guy got a drag bunt with two outs and got on base" and "this guy hit a double to keep the same game going only because Greg Luzinski couldn't play the outfield worth a damn and it should have been ruled an error." (Game 3, 1977 NLCS folks).
The only one I would have a problem with on that list is Kaat. Good player for a VERY long time, but not elite IMHO.
283 wins
16 Gold Gloves
His record doesn't look "great" because he pitched for 25 years, which averages out to a 13-11 record per season which, of course, is not a Hall of Fame record microanalyzing it. But Kaat was a middle reliever his last 10 years in the big leagues with few decisions. Cut out those seasons and you have
242 wins
16 Gold Gloves
Average yearly record of 16-13, which is Don Sutton territory but with fielding.
Throw in his years as a broadcaster and.....I'm not gonna say Kaat is a slam dunk HOFer, but he's not a bad candidate, either. All Kaat would need to make it is to turn his 18-win seasons in 1962 and 1965 into 20-win seasons and flip those losses into a few of other years. If he did that, he'd have five 20-win seasons, which is a virtual certainty.
Was Kaat ELITE? of course not but neither was any other player on this list. If they were, they'd already be in the Hall.
If the Hall of Fame were to welcome some new members today—like Gil Hodges, Dick Allen, Buck O’Neill, Roger Maris, or Jim Kaat—I think we would consider it a banner day for a sport that could use a banner day. Celebrating the legends is a good thing
Selma:
Gil Hodges, Dick Allen, and Roger Maris aren't even close to being Hall of Famers. O'Neill - I'm embarrassed because I actually thought he was in there. Kaat is defensible and probably should already be in there.
It’s not a hall of fame without Thurman [Munson]. Travesty.
If you actually believe Thurman Munson is a Hall of Famer when every single metric available shows he isn't, there's not much I can do other than figure it's a good thing you're not one of the voters.
Why Roger Maris? Don Mattingly over him any day of the week.
How about neither one since neither one was that good? Yankee fans are seriously the most moronic apologists on the planet. They're worse than people who think Michigan football is a national brand.
Vic Davalillo and Manny Mota should be inducted for their post-season play against the Phillies.
Wow, I didn't know HOF candidacies can be reduced to "this guy got a drag bunt with two outs and got on base" and "this guy hit a double to keep the same game going only because Greg Luzinski couldn't play the outfield worth a damn and it should have been ruled an error." (Game 3, 1977 NLCS folks).
The only one I would have a problem with on that list is Kaat. Good player for a VERY long time, but not elite IMHO.
283 wins
16 Gold Gloves
His record doesn't look "great" because he pitched for 25 years, which averages out to a 13-11 record per season which, of course, is not a Hall of Fame record microanalyzing it. But Kaat was a middle reliever his last 10 years in the big leagues with few decisions. Cut out those seasons and you have
242 wins
16 Gold Gloves
Average yearly record of 16-13, which is Don Sutton territory but with fielding.
Throw in his years as a broadcaster and.....I'm not gonna say Kaat is a slam dunk HOFer, but he's not a bad candidate, either. All Kaat would need to make it is to turn his 18-win seasons in 1962 and 1965 into 20-win seasons and flip those losses into a few of other years. If he did that, he'd have five 20-win seasons, which is a virtual certainty.
Was Kaat ELITE? of course not but neither was any other player on this list. If they were, they'd already be in the Hall.
Heres' the Roger Maris Isn't A HOF In Nutshell:
Player A vs Player B
G: 1541 vs 1465
AB: 5032 vs 5101
R: 811 vs 826
H: 1281 vs 1325
2B: 216 vs 195
3B: 53 vs 42
HR: 256 v 275
RBI: 796 vs 851
BB: 795 vs 652
SB: 84 vs 21
BA: .255 vs .260
Slug: .471 vs .476
Pretty similar, right?
Player A is five points down in BA and Slugging but has quadruple the steals, 9 more triples and 21 more doubles. Player B has 19 more home runs and about 55 more RBIs. Player A played from 1958-70 and Player B from 1957-1968.
So player B on the stat sheet is, oh a LITTLE bit better maybe.
But two caveats:
Player B played for 7 pennant winning baseball teams, Player A for 3 and a bunch of sorry ones
Player B played in parks more favorable to a left-handed hitter than Player A did, inflating his stats.
NONE of these numbers suggests Hall of Fame to me. These are outfielders with no speed, one Gold Glove between them in 24 years, and batting averages around .260 who average about 22 homers a year. These are common skills both then and now. I would assert without question that NEITHER of these guys comes close to meeting minimum Hall standards.
Player A is Senators/Twins outfielder Bob Allison, whom most of you probably never heard of and even if you did, he was nothing special as far as being an elite ballplayer. Player B...is Roger Maris, who people say should be in the Hall.
There's a word for these people: idiots.
Maris had a 61-homer season that somehow magically transformed his career into something it wasn't. Basically, Maris is Brady Anderson without steroids. Anderson was a .256 hitter with a much higher OBP than Maris (.362 vs .345), 210 career homers, had that one year where he hit rockets and oh yeah, he stole 315 bases, or almost 300 more than Maris did. Granted, Anderson played in the high-run 90s and Maris in the low-run 60s, but still.
Maris has no business in the Baseball Hall of Fame. He was absolutely a gentleman of the first order and a good ball player, but he was not a HOFer on the best day of his life, either.
Player A vs Player B
G: 1541 vs 1465
AB: 5032 vs 5101
R: 811 vs 826
H: 1281 vs 1325
2B: 216 vs 195
3B: 53 vs 42
HR: 256 v 275
RBI: 796 vs 851
BB: 795 vs 652
SB: 84 vs 21
BA: .255 vs .260
Slug: .471 vs .476
Pretty similar, right?
Player A is five points down in BA and Slugging but has quadruple the steals, 9 more triples and 21 more doubles. Player B has 19 more home runs and about 55 more RBIs. Player A played from 1958-70 and Player B from 1957-1968.
So player B on the stat sheet is, oh a LITTLE bit better maybe.
But two caveats:
Player B played for 7 pennant winning baseball teams, Player A for 3 and a bunch of sorry ones
Player B played in parks more favorable to a left-handed hitter than Player A did, inflating his stats.
NONE of these numbers suggests Hall of Fame to me. These are outfielders with no speed, one Gold Glove between them in 24 years, and batting averages around .260 who average about 22 homers a year. These are common skills both then and now. I would assert without question that NEITHER of these guys comes close to meeting minimum Hall standards.
Player A is Senators/Twins outfielder Bob Allison, whom most of you probably never heard of and even if you did, he was nothing special as far as being an elite ballplayer. Player B...is Roger Maris, who people say should be in the Hall.
There's a word for these people: idiots.
Maris had a 61-homer season that somehow magically transformed his career into something it wasn't. Basically, Maris is Brady Anderson without steroids. Anderson was a .256 hitter with a much higher OBP than Maris (.362 vs .345), 210 career homers, had that one year where he hit rockets and oh yeah, he stole 315 bases, or almost 300 more than Maris did. Granted, Anderson played in the high-run 90s and Maris in the low-run 60s, but still.
Maris has no business in the Baseball Hall of Fame. He was absolutely a gentleman of the first order and a good ball player, but he was not a HOFer on the best day of his life, either.
Latest threads
-
What are yall thoughts about the potential of UNC making a bid for the SEC?- Started by Bama Lee
- Replies: 14
-
-
Trump signs executive order prohibiting 'third-party, pay-for-play payments' to athletes- Started by CrimsonJazz
- Replies: 10
-
