User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.0238 seconds
84 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, November 06, 2009
David Wells: Yankees beat out the Red Sox as team of decade
Pork Rinds: saturated fat 2g, cholesterol 15mg...and a lot more tubby ####.
Let’s end one debate before it really gets started. The Red Sox gave it a nice run for a while, but the Yankees are the team of the decade—again.
I can just imagine what the scene in Red Sox Nation is about now. The fans are bitter. Very bitter. The Yankees are back on top, and that can’t be sitting too well in New England.
Boston fans can cry all they want that the Yankees bought a championship, but so what? The Yankees are winners. They get the ring. Their city is happy and they are sticking out their tongues at the Red Sox and the rest of the world.
... If people want to vilify me for leaving Game 5, that is their prerogative. It doesn’t haunt me one bit. If people say we lost because of me, then those people have a problem.
...Right before Game 5, I had back spasms. I threw five or six warm-up pitches and told pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre to get another pitcher ready because I wasn’t going to make it. Mel was like, “No, you can do it.”
I threw maybe 10 warm-up pitches total in the bullpen—I spent most of the time lying on my back—and said, “If you guys want me to pitch, so be it.”
I went out there and my first pitch was like 78 mph. I soon came out of the game, and here is why Joe Torre is such a tool: I came out of the game and some guys were mad. I went in the training room and had no trainer, no doctor, no coach, nobody. I had to have one of the clubhouse kids put an icepack on my back. Then I had back surgery a week later.
Repoz
Posted: November 06, 2009 at 04:53 PM | 100 comment(s)
Related News: General, History, Boston, NY Yankees
Related News: General, History, Boston, NY Yankees
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Sam Hutcheson's Top 11 Sabrenerd Baseball Dork's* Basements
(9 - 4:37pm, Feb 09)
Last: JMN Is Convinced He Has H1N1 Every Time He Coughs
(9 - 4:37pm, Feb 09)
Last: JMN Is Convinced He Has H1N1 Every Time He Coughs
Newsblog: Mets' Citi Field to become more homer-friendly next season; center-field wall gets chopped to 8 feet
(16 - 4:37pm, Feb 09)
Last: Teal & Black
(16 - 4:37pm, Feb 09)
Last: Teal & Black
Newsblog: Baseball Pictures of the Day: Miami
(15 - 4:36pm, Feb 09)
Last: RMc is the Commissioner of Baseball
(15 - 4:36pm, Feb 09)
Last: RMc is the Commissioner of Baseball
Newsblog: Tango: Evaluating the 2009 forecasts - Chone/ZiPS + Fantistics win
(10 - 4:33pm, Feb 09)
Last: rudygamble
(10 - 4:33pm, Feb 09)
Last: rudygamble
Newsblog: Hardball Talk: Gleeman: Lenny Dykstra is back with some more can't miss investment advice
(74 - 4:33pm, Feb 09)
Last: An Athletic in Soxland
(74 - 4:33pm, Feb 09)
Last: An Athletic in Soxland
Newsblog: freep: Johnny Damon likes Yzerman, Tigers
(32 - 4:27pm, Feb 09)
Last: Sam Hutcheson (perhaps some sort of ninja)
(32 - 4:27pm, Feb 09)
Last: Sam Hutcheson (perhaps some sort of ninja)
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Agreed. My preferred decade runs from 2004-2013. The Yankees still have a lot of catching up to do as far as I'm concerned.
In case you missed it Peaches, we covered this particular ground about a week ago.
I hope Frank Thomas reads how insulted Wells is that people didn't believe he was really hurt.
A decade is *any* consecutive period of ten years. A century is *any* consecutive period of 100 years.
When referring to the team of the decade, it is understood that the reference is to the ten years with the same first three digits (1980s, 1990s, 2000s). The 00s ends with 2009.
It is correct to say that the Yankees' 1999 World Championship was their final championship of the century. It is incorrect to say that it was their final championship of the 20th Century.
EDIT: Consecutive
Then my preferred decade is 1972-1974, 1988-1990, 2000-2003.
Even if anyone accepted those endpoints, Yankees just need another championship to pass. In the first 6 years of that decade:
RS: 2 WS, 1.5 divisions, 5 playoffs
NYY: 1 WS, 3.5 divisions, 5 playoffs
You're an idiot.
Oh, I don't know about that. You've got Steve Phillips, Curt Schilling, Tony Bernazard, Bud Selig, A.J. Pierzynski . . . I'd say Wells finishes in the money, but doesn't take top honors.
I feel so dirty that I almost liked David Wells when he was wearing a Red Sox tent.
What the #### were you thinking? I've hated him ever since he turned up to spring training with the gout.
Naw. Wells in a landslide. In fact, he probably causes landslides. Hey Wells, stay away from 86th street you stupid ####!
And we know how easy it is to get championships....
I would have never thought that in a debate about which team was the team of the decade, the focus would be on the meaning of decade. This site should have a whole subdomain: baseballlanguagefactory
Cone's was better. Because it didn't involve David ####### Wells.
RS: 2 WS, 1.5 divisions, 5 playoffs
NYY: 1 WS, 3.5 divisions, 5 playoffs
Nice, you gave 'em credit for the half-division title. Entirely appropriate in this case (though not in the context of the bet).
Well, he's right though. There's still almost 2 months to go. The Red Sox still could win the AFC East.
Fixed.
And because Cone went on to be an entertaining broadcaster, whereas Wells went on to still be David Wells, noted schmuck.
Define "decade" please.
Wells could have taken better care of his body. Just like Mel Stottlemyre could of taken care of Dwight Gooden by not pitching him 200 innings as a teenager and not messing with his pitch repertoire.
Right here, Tom Hicks. Right here is why you're a ####### #######. Because you guys have been spinning this #### for 90 years.
Vacant.
And that's my honest answer.
This is really weird to read. It's of course correct, but it's impossible to think of the Yankees as having an inability to find outfielders that can hit, of all things.
I imagine a lot of athletes (or people in general) are like this. I know of a guy with ties to my city who does loads of charity work; is here a lot, puts in money, time, effort - shakes a lot of hands, etc. He's generally thought of as a tool. Another guy, a little younger, breezes into town once a year, throws an enormous party and everyone hails him as a philanthropist. When guy #1 is asked to do more PR he says it isn't charity if you tell everyone about it.
Ah well.
Which team is the best that plays within 300 leagues of my home? How many gills of beer did David Wells drink the night before his perfect game?
* Yes, I know this is a silly argument.
By regular season record, it was the Yankees, of course.
I redacted the post by mistake; but yeah, I would guess it is pretty common. I always think of it when there are Wells-bashing posts here due to Wells' bloviative tendencies.
Team of the Decade, 1980s: The Breakfast Club
I'm perfectly happy to accept that Wells is a quietly decent guy, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't present himself as a loud jerk, which is really annoying. And that 2003 Game 5 stunt was garbage.
Of course, because the 80's didn't really start until the Reagan recession ended in 1983, and it didn't end until the Bush recession hit in 1992. So, the team of the 80's was the A's.
Poster of the Decade
Thread of the Decade
Post of the Decade
Snark of the Decade
Handle of the Decade
arguments?
The Team of the 80's was definitely Crockett and Tubbs.
Certainly a more interesting debate than who was the team of the 2000s or what the correct decade is.
For the 1980-89 period, most World Series wins is the Dodgers (1981, 88), most regular-season wins was the Yankees, most World Series appearances was the Cardinals (82, 85, 87). I'd agree with bunyon and go with the last of these. You could maybe add the Mets and Tigers to the discussion on the strength of their one dominant season ('86, '84, respectively).
If you use 1981-90, you can make a case for the A's with the 3 straight pennants to end the "decade".
Grampa: Now, my story begins in 19-dickety-two. We had to say "dickety" cause that Kaiser had stolen our word "twenty". I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles.
Martin Prince: "Dickety"? Highly dubious!
Grampa: What're you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem!
That is one of the weakest "Team of the Decade" titles, though.
2001, at least. It had been around a while before my first visit, which was the day of the Giambi/Mabry trade, May 2002.
That's right, seven ####### years. As for poster of the decade, given all the time you guys will save deciding on that one, I expect an awesome gift.
Created on: 12-Apr-00
Expires on: 11-Apr-10
Last Updated on: 10-Mar-09
Francesa thought the two teams were "tied if we include 2000."
Not. I'm a Red Sox fan but it's pretty clear that the Yankees were the team of the decade:
Championships: Yankees 2, Red Sox 2
Pennants: Yankees 4, Red Sox 2
Playoff appearances: Yankees 9, Red Sox 6
Division titles: Yankees 8, Red Sox 1
Average Wins: Yankees 96.5, Red Sox 92.0
WTF is the argument for the Red Sox? They've had a good last half of the decade, but the Yankees have them soundly beat as far as the whole decade goes.
Uh, no. I'm not bitter, but I'm just a fan, not a member of Red Sox nation. Maybe RSN is bitter. Who cares?
The Yankees deserved to win this year. I hope that next year is entertaining. And, beyond that...who cares?
Oh, I don't know about that. You've got Steve Phillips, Curt Schilling, Tony Bernazard, Bud Selig, A.J. Pierzynski . . . I'd say Wells finishes in the money, but doesn't take top honors.
Naw. Wells in a landslide. In fact, he probably causes landslides. Hey Wells, stay away from 86th street you stupid ####!
OK. You don't like any of those candidates? I see your Wells, and I raise you a Brett Myers and a Ramon Castro.
Hah!!
Team of the Decade, 1970s: Loggins & Messina
Bruce, Clarence, Vini and the rest of the E Street Band would disagree, but they're too busy laughing uncontrollably.
Poster of the Decade
Thread of the Decade
Post of the Decade
Snark of the Decade
Handle of the Decade
STATS!
Total Entries
24391 - Repoz
-8991 - NTNgod
-5978 - Jim Furtado
-2732 - The Original Gary
-2667 - Dan Szymborski
-1812 - SG in ATL
-1674 - Sean Forman
Ditto.
The White Sox. Their drought was two years longer.
I am not a fan of either color of sox. But the White Sox drought was not so ballyhooed and did not include a comeback from an 0-3 deficit against the hated rival.
I'd be shocked if someone did.
By this argument, the Mets are the team of the '60s.
Edit: I should add some substance to that snark. If you're arguing that the Sawx's '04 World Series run was the most memorable event of the decade, that's sensible. "Team of the Decade" has nothing to do with that argument. I don't understand why you're trying to tie one subject to the other as if they were in any way similar.
By this argument, the Mets are the team of the '60s.
And the Dodgers are pretty clearly the team of the '40s, and arguably are the team of the 50s as well.
wells is the ######### of the millennium. what millenium? doesn't matter, he played in the 90s and he played in the aughts, so you can pick your millennium and not worry if it started on 1/1/00 or 1/1/01.
everybody wins!
This sort of mature, adult attitude toward sports and life has no place on the internet, Bivo.
It did involve them actually winning their division.
Does your club have a secret handshake?
I'd go with Sonny and Cher.
I assume you mean WS, not WC.
Well, in addition to the Red Sox, the 2000's featured 2 teams winning their first ever WS (D'Backs and Angels), a team wining their first WS in a longer drought than the Red Sox (White Sox), a team winning it's second WS in only it's 10th year of eligibility (Marlins), and a team going to the WS in only it's first winning season ever (Rays). The Red Sox are far from the only team with an historical seasonal performance in the 2000's.
I assume WC = World Champion.
As opposed to Water Closet.
That would have to be the Pirates, right?
Ah, a gentleman and a scholar.
And, yes, the Dodgers are clearly the team of the '40s.
1900s--Chicago Cubs of Tinker to Evers to Chance. 3 pennants, 2 WC. Only Pittsburgh had more pennants but only 1 WC.
1910s--Boston 4 and 4 and brought us Babe Ruth.
1920s--Yankees.
1930s--Yankees, see I can be reasonable.
1940s--Dodgers broke the color line and won 3 pennants and no WC. Yankees and Cards won more pennants but, c'mon, they broke the color line. Wins are not the only thing that matter in life.
1950s--A dual entry Yankees vs. Dodgers--great rivalry.
1960s--The Red Sox of the '00s won the same number of WS as the Yankees so, no, by "the same logic" the Mets would be the team of the '60s. Again, no. The Dodgers personified the era of the pitcher and won WC in '59-'63-'65.
1970s--Big Red Machine 4 and 2 over Oakland 3 and 3. This one's close.
1980s--KC Royals.
1990s--Atlanta Braves.
2000s--Boston Red Sox.
Which is why I said, Greatest historical significance.
This one seems an odd choice, even given your apparent method. Why KC - 2 WS, 1 Title, 1st in team history - over the Phillies, also 2 WS, 1 Title, 1st in team history, but the Phillies had a longer history and won the head-to-head World Series matchup?
The Braves of the '90s are an interesting proposition, though. Making the post-season, and winning their division, every year they could do so from 1991-1999, is a pretty amazing accomplishment. Yes, only the one World Championship, but they lead in play-off appearances (8-5), division titles (8-3), and pennants (4-3). Their run of excellence is, in its own way, a major historic accomplishment.
I don't buy it, but I don't think it is the argument of an utter lunatic.
Expires on: 11-Apr-10
THE END IS NEAR! RUN!
In terms of performance, three championships to one ends the argument, particularly given that they went head to head twice, blew a 2-0 lead in the first series and got swept the second time around.
By the criteria set out in post 58, nobody 50 years from now, when telling the story of baseball in the 1990's, would start with the Braves.
Okay, I'll conced that "utter lunatic" might be pushing it.
Hell, I don't see how you *don't* start the story of the 1990s as told in 2050 without starting with the Braves.
You're absolutely right, just like you'd start our World War II history by talking about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, and end it by talking about Japan's destruction at the hands of the U.S. (Not necessarily led by Chad Curtis, however.)
If I'm following this analogy, Bobby Cox is Tojo, right? And Joe Torre is Harry Truman?
Don't you mean your an idiot? There are such a thing as standards for Internet insults.
Stupid Czolgosz.
I offered to pay up a couple years later! SJ declined!
First of all, being called an utter lunatic is no big deal. I've been called worse on the basketball court.
Second I'm happy to have triggered a discussion of who the team of the '90s is.
Third, I love #88. Can we have a thread for that. George Steinbrenner is.... How about Hideki Matsui?
Toss in Scorcese/DeNiro as nominees for team of the seventies
Disco and cocaine.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main