Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Jay Kirk Baseball Thread since 2017: The 2020 season, Nationals Repeat?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, w87r said:

Yeah for sure.

 

Won't be much baseball this year though. 

 

Nice to talk about something though.

 

Yeah, that's too bad. We can always talk baseball history. When I was younger, I enjoyed hearing about the history of baseball on the radio. I also enjoyed reading about it here. 

 

Whenever you need a good thread to follow, come here. People are nice to each other.

 

Btw, welcome to the Baseball Thread. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2006Coltsbestever

    5760

  • NFLfan

    2258

  • Jay Kirk

    2230

  • PrincetonTiger

    1830

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just wanted to let everyone know I still feel healthy, just working a lot. Hozer and I miss doing play by play of Cubs games on here and commenting on the games. Everything will be back to normal soon

As most of you know, I'm a Cardinals fan.  But you don't know that at one time I was a Cubs fan.  This was in the early 1980's while I was in college and got cable TV.  Our TV provider had WGN and sin

Posted Images

@buccolts What is your all-time great Pirates team? Who are the best Bucs players at their position? 

 

Does it start with Willie Stargell?

Does it include the guys I am familiar with like:

Doug Drabek?

Van Slyke?

Bonds?

Jay Bell and Jose Lind? (Just kidding but they make a good double play duo)

 

I remember the 80s and early 90s: Sid Bream, Zane Smith, Bonilla, John Smiley?, 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

@buccolts What is your all-time great Pirates team? Who are the best Bucs players at their position? 

 

Does it start with Willie Stargell?

Does it include the guys I am familiar with like:

Doug Drabek?

Van Slyke?

Bonds?

Jay Bell and Jose Lind? (Just kidding but they make a good double play duo)

 

I remember the 80s and early 90s: Sid Bream, Zane Smith, Bonilla, John Smiley?, 

Dave Parker.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NFLfan said:

@buccolts What is your all-time great Pirates team? Who are the best Bucs players at their position? 

 

Does it start with Willie Stargell?

Does it include the guys I am familiar with like:

Doug Drabek?

Van Slyke?

Bonds?

Jay Bell and Jose Lind? (Just kidding but they make a good double play duo)

 

I remember the 80s and early 90s: Sid Bream, Zane Smith, Bonilla, John Smiley?, 

Hey NFLfan,

As much as I love me some Pops, it HAS to start with Clemente, although I will start the list off with 1B.

 

I got:

1B: Willie Stargell

2B: Bill Mazeroski

SS: Honus Wagner (Dick Groat)

3B: Pie Traynor (Bobby Bonilla, Bill Madlock)

LF: Ralph Kiner 

CF: Barry Bonds (Andrew McCutchen, Andy Van Slyke)

RF: Roberto Clemente (Dave Parker)

C: Manny Sanguillen (Burgess & Kendall were probably better, but really enjoyed watching Manny play. Tony Pena was close behind those 3)

SP: Bob Friend (John Candelaria, Vern Law, Doug Drabek. Not a strong group here for an All-Time, but..?)

RP: Kent Tekulve

 

So, how do the Cubs put our an all time team without a battery of Bill Hands, and Barry Foote?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, buccolts said:

Hey NFLfan,

As much as I love me some Pops, it HAS to start with Clemente, although I will start the list off with 1B.

 

I got:

1B: Willie Stargell

2B: Bill Mazeroski

SS: Honus Wagner (Dick Groat)

3B: Pie Traynor (Bobby Bonilla, Bill Madlock)

LF: Ralph Kiner 

CF: Barry Bonds (Andrew McCutchen, Andy Van Slyke)

RF: Roberto Clemente (Dave Parker)

C: Manny Sanguillen (Burgess & Kendall were probably better, but really enjoyed watching Manny play. Tony Pena was close behind those 3)

SP: Bob Friend (John Candelaria, Vern Law, Doug Drabek. Not a strong group here for an All-Time, but..?)

RP: Kent Tekulve

 

So, how do the Cubs put our an all time team without a battery of Bill Hands, and Barry Foote?

Pittsburgh put together a pretty solid team.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, w87r said:

Yankees roster:

C: Yogi Berra

1B: Lou Gehrig, Don Mattingly

2B: Robinson Cano, Tony Lazzeri

SS: Derek Jeter, Phil Rizzuto

3B: Alex Rodriquez, Wade Boggs, Craig Nettles

LF: Mickey Mantle, Dave Winfield

CF: Joe DiMaggio, Bernie Williams, Rickey Henderson

RF: Babe Ruth, Roger Maris

 

DH: Reggie Jackson

 

SP: Whitey Ford, Roger Clemons, Andy Pettitte

 

Closer: Mariano Rivera

 

 

No team is competing with this.

 

The 2nd team will beat most first teams.

 

Yeah, Yankees have it for sure.   The Cardinals may be the only team who could give them a run.  

Of course they have usually also had the highest payroll in the league.   In a league without a salary cap, it is fair game for them to pay the most.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, buccolts said:

Hey NFLfan,

As much as I love me some Pops, it HAS to start with Clemente, although I will start the list off with 1B.

 

I got:

1B: Willie Stargell

2B: Bill Mazeroski

SS: Honus Wagner (Dick Groat)

3B: Pie Traynor (Bobby Bonilla, Bill Madlock)

LF: Ralph Kiner 

CF: Barry Bonds (Andrew McCutchen, Andy Van Slyke)

RF: Roberto Clemente (Dave Parker)

C: Manny Sanguillen (Burgess & Kendall were probably better, but really enjoyed watching Manny play. Tony Pena was close behind those 3)

SP: Bob Friend (John Candelaria, Vern Law, Doug Drabek. Not a strong group here for an All-Time, but..?)

RP: Kent Tekulve

 

So, how do the Cubs put our an all time team without a battery of Bill Hands, and Barry Foote?

That Pirates all-time team is beastly, great job @buccolts

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@buccolts, I remember as a young kid I thought Dave Parker was the man! I started watching in the late 70's so I know all about the 1979 Pirates. Like the 2016 Cubs they came back to win the WS after being down 3-1. That is so tough to do. Odds in doing that are like 90 to 1.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

@buccolts, I remember as a young kid I thought Dave Parker was the man! I started watching in the late 70's so I know all about the 1979 Pirates. Like the 2016 Cubs they came back to win the WS after being down 3-1. That is so tough to do. Odds in doing that are like 90 to 1.

 

Yeah, I sure miss playing AL East teams in the WS. ('60 Yanks, '71 & '79 Orioles).

Those were the days.

Glad we have some new blood in the FO now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, buccolts said:

 

Yeah, I sure miss playing AL East teams in the WS. ('60 Yanks, '71 & '79 Orioles).

Those were the days.

Glad we have some new blood in the FO now.

The NL Central is so tough right now, even the Reds are getting better. It seems like the Pirates get streaky and reel off 5 or 6 wins in a row but they don't maintain it for some reason. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The NL Central is so tough right now, even the Reds are getting better. It seems like the Pirates get streaky and reel off 5 or 6 wins in a row but they don't maintain it for some reason. 

 

Last year was agonizing. The Pirates season was pretty much a mirror of the Colts. 

The Pirates were on fire going into the All Star break then fell totally apart after it.

I didn't think they were as good as they played early (though we always hope, right?), but I don't think they were as bad as they finished up, either.

 

Like I said, glad to see us bring in some new blood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, buccolts said:

 

Last year was agonizing. The Pirates season was pretty much a mirror of the Colts. 

The Pirates were on fire going into the All Star break then fell totally apart after it.

I didn't think they were as good as they played early (though we always hope, right?), but I don't think they were as bad as they finished up, either.

 

Like I said, glad to see us bring in some new blood.

Last year was agonizing for me as well. Cubs just melted down the stretch, not sure what this year will bring? I don't like the Cubs pitching but the lineup is very good if not great. Maybe the team got burned out on Maddon and will play harder for Ross??

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Last year was agonizing for me as well. Cubs just melted down the stretch, not sure what this year will bring? I don't like the Cubs pitching but the lineup is very good if not great. Maybe the team got burned out on Maddon and will play harder for Ross??

I'll just be happy when it's back.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest news from the baseball world is, a 60 game season has been agreed to be played by the owners and players. Opening day will be July 23rd. Teams will play the other teams in their division 10 times = 40 of their games which makes every single game important. Still only 5 teams from each league will make the playoffs.

 

Is this good or bad for the Cubs? The Cubs over the last 5 seasons have had the 2nd most wins from 2015-2019 in the NL at 471-339, only team record wise that has been better are the Dodgers in that span. Cubs won the World Series in 2016 though, Dodgers have not won one since 1988. Instead of a marathon of a season, I think the 60 game sprint might benefit the Cubs because of health reasons. It is most likely guys like Bryant, Rizzo, and Baez will stay healthy for 60 games. Also Pitchers like Lester and Darvish who are older should benefit from this too. 

 

Whoever wins the World Series should an asterisk be placed by that team because of a 60 game season? I am not sure on that one??

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The latest news from the baseball world is, a 60 game season has been agreed to be played by the owners and players. Opening day will be July 23rd. Teams will play the other teams in their division 10 times = 40 of their games which makes every single game important. Still only 5 teams from each league will make the playoffs.

 

Is this good or bad for the Cubs? The Cubs over the last 5 seasons have had the 2nd most wins from 2015-2019 in the NL at 471-339, only team record wise that has been better are the Dodgers in that span. Cubs won the World Series in 2016 though, Dodgers have not won one since 1988. Instead of a marathon of a season, I think the 60 game sprint might benefit the Cubs because of health reasons. It is most likely guys like Bryant, Rizzo, and Baez will stay healthy for 60 games. Also Pitchers like Lester and Darvish who are older should benefit from this too. 

 

Whoever wins the World Series should an asterisk be placed by that team because of a 60 game season? I am not sure on that one??

Originally I had the Cubs pegged at 81-81/82-80 in that area because I did not think they could stay healthy over 162 games. Also with older Pitchers like Lester and Darvish, I figured the long season would catch up with them.

 

As of now I can see them making a WildCard in the NL only playing 60 games. I think the Braves will win the East, Dodgers the West, and I can see 3 teams from the Central making the playoffs = Cards as division winners, Brewers and Cubs getting in. Nats are the World Series Champs but I see them taking a step back, most champs do that next season.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Whoever wins the World Series should an asterisk be placed by that team because of a 60 game season? I am not sure on that one??

 

Will you feel the same way if the Cubs win the 2020 World Series?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

60 games is more than 100 fewer games in the season. It will be weird. I don't know what to make of it. However, I will enjoy watching sports for the first time in what seems like years.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

60 games is more than 100 fewer games in the season. It will be weird. I don't know what to make of it. However, I will enjoy watching sports for the first time in what seems like years.

In a 60 game season some team that is average could get hot for a short stretch and win it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

In a 60 game season some team that is average could get hot for a short stretch and win it all.

 

True. Which team could that be?  :thinking:

 

Pirates? Reds? Twins?

 

Top two sleepers: Reds and Twins. Are the Twins really sleepers. (I am asking myself.) Don't know. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

 

True. Which team could that be?  :thinking:

 

Pirates? Reds? Twins?

 

Top two sleepers: Reds and Twins. Are the Twins really sleepers. (I am asking myself.) Don't know. 

Those are all good sleepers. Devil Rays too? How about the Mets :billiejean:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Those are all good sleepers. Devil Rays too? How about the Mets :billiejean:

 

I don't know. If we had Thor, I'd say we have a good chance. He is out after having Tommy John surgery. The Braves and Nats are too strong.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This season will be a sprint, and not a marathon like a 162 game season.

 

I agree that a team not considered a favorite for a 162 game season could get hot and surprise.

 

I agree the Reds, Twins and Rays fit that, although the Rays were very good last year.

 

Although every game counts in a 162 game season, they count even more in a 60 game season.

 

And, since all the teams are in the same situation, then the only reason for an asterick next to the champion's name is that it was a 60 game season.  Whoever wins will earn it, for sure.  And, it should not be viewed as any less of an accomplishment as it would be in a normal year.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2020 at 7:40 AM, NFLfan said:

 

From what I remember, Maddux was great with the Cubs. I thought he was a better pitcher with the Clubs than with the Braves but it may be my perception. I thought Maddux was great, especially considering that he was pitching in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field. 

 

Fowler is the second best CF in Cubs history? I would have never guessed. Did the Cubs ever have a CF with the last name of Walton? When I first started to follow baseball consistently, the Cubs had Grace, Sandburg, Dunston, Girardi, Dawson. I can't recall the 3B or the LF. In CF, they had a young kid whose name I believe was Walton. At pitcher, Maddux, Sutcliffe, Mike Bielecki. Do you remember those Cubs?

I don't know but they did have a LF named Lou Brock at one time Lol

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jay Kirk said:

I don't know but they did have a LF named Lou Brock at one time Lol

True but for only 3 full seasons. I kind of based my lineup on longevity. Lou was more of a Cardinal IMO. How you doing Jay? All is well here, just been working a lot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 10:51 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Originally I had the Cubs pegged at 81-81/82-80 in that area because I did not think they could stay healthy over 162 games. Also with older Pitchers like Lester and Darvish, I figured the long season would catch up with them.

 

As of now I can see them making a WildCard in the NL only playing 60 games. I think the Braves will win the East, Dodgers the West, and I can see 3 teams from the Central making the playoffs = Cards as division winners, Brewers and Cubs getting in. Nats are the World Series Champs but I see them taking a step back, most champs do that next season.

I must disagree on one thing . The Reds are probably Stronger than you might think they will come into play.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

True but for only 3 full seasons. I kind of based my lineup on longevity. Lou was more of a Cardinal IMO. How you doing Jay? All is well here, just been working a lot.

Same here doing well been really busy , have a huge garden with a longtime childhood friend be reaping the rewards within a couple weeks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Reds may be better than Cubs, seriously.

They are a team that no one can count out. Although this short season with some funny nuances will carry an asterisk , I'm still really looking forward to some live sports. MLF has been my only source of sports entertainment Lol. Major League Fishing

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jay Kirk said:

Same here doing well been really busy , have a huge garden with a longtime childhood friend be reaping the rewards within a couple weeks.

Others and I have tried to keep it a little busy in here but tough with no Baseball.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Others and I have tried to keep it a little busy in here but tough with no Baseball.

Lol I know and its not a problem . Baseball wise there's been very little to talk about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jay Kirk said:

Lol I know and its not a problem . Baseball wise there's been very little to talk about.

I can't wait for July 23rd, lets hope it lasts. Yeah IMO I think whoever wins it an asterisk does belong but a championship is a championship. Whoever wins it all still deserves it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I can't wait for July 23rd, lets hope it lasts. Yeah IMO I think whoever wins it an asterisk does belong but a championship is a championship. Whoever wins it all still deserves it.

Yes but you will never be able to compare it with other Championship teams and seasons in my opinion. Never the less its still MLB

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jay Kirk said:

Yes but you will never be able to compare it with other Championship teams and seasons in my opinion. Never the less its still MLB

Of course, whoever wins it all in a 60 game season can't be compared to lets say the 1998-2000 Yankees, 2011 Cards, 2016 Cubs, etc..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 12:25 PM, NFLfan said:

 

True. Which team could that be?  :thinking:

 

Pirates? Reds? Twins?

 

Top two sleepers: Reds and Twins. Are the Twins really sleepers. (I am asking myself.) Don't know. 

No the Twins are no sleeper Lol

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • A major factor in pressure numbers was MN didn't emplooy the short passing game Jax did last week so you would expect more hits, etc.   It looked like to me that the D line was playing on the opposition side of the ball more than before.  That is what you want from Buckner.  If he makes tackles and sacks, that's gravy.  He was a wrecking ball, and would have still been a wrecking ball if he didn't record a sack.
    • Rivers should’ve had 2 TD’s yesterday. He starting to finally feel comfortable. Glad to see he also didn’t make those forced throws.
    • People have said it over and over: Cover 2 needs a D-Line that forces a QB to make quick reads and poor decisions.  We got that yesterday from our D-Line.  CB's didn't have to spend all day covering guys and, to their (and Flus') credit, they played up instead of back.
    • In our D, what Ballard has been looking for is a 3T who can hit the opposing QB.  Buckner's that guy, and he can also eat up blockers and play the run.   If we're blitzing LBs or DBs and Buckner is eating up blockers and allowing them to get to the QB (or opening space for them to attack a running back), he's doing a good job.  If he's drawing double teams and allowing our edge guys to get easier match-ups, he's also doing a good job.     Last week we had 4 sacks, this week  we had 3.  Last week we also only had 4 QB hits (all of them were sacks).  This week, even though we had one less sack, we also had 7 QB hits (4 of them were Buckner, who recorded 1.5 sacks).  By having our DL have sacks and QB hits, it allows for more LBs or DBs to stay in coverage.  It also startles the QB.  There is not a single QB in the league who would enjoy being hit by Buckner.... let alone getting hit 4 times.  That type of pressure forces QBs to release the ball quicker and in some instances make worse decisions which improve the backend of our defense's chance of intercepting the ball and creating turnovers.     None of Cousins' 3 INTs yesterday came when we had more than the DL rushing the QB - Willis' pick had 4 DL rushing the QB and Cousins (though he didn't get hit on the play) was forced to move around in the pocket and make somewhat of a rushed throw/underthrow which Blackmon made a nice play on breaking it up and Willis happened to be in a nice position to intercept.  The Carrie INT we had 3 DL rushing (Leonard was kinda playing a rover and they got pressure on Cousins, he had to step up in the pocket to make that throw and he underthrew it -- granted it wajs a Hail Mary at the end of the first half, we were still able to keep everyone in our secondary in coverage and the DL was able to get some pressure on Cousins.  Then Moore's interception we kept everyone but the DL in coverage, and though Cousins wasn't necessarily under much pressure on that given play, he did throw that ball very quickly and behind his intended WR.   So, ultimately, the defense's job is to not give up points and to get our offense on the field.  Our offense's job is to score points and keep our defense off the field.  While there are ways for our D to avoid giving up points that may not include the DL pressuring the QB, it certainly helps if they can for a variety of reasons including (1) it forces the QB to throw faster, typically resulting in worse decisions, (2) it makes the opposing QB to play more timidly than he probably would if he wasn't getting hit, (3) it allows our LBs and DBs to stay in coverage which therefore is likely to reduce easy checkdown passes, (4) a sack is a loss of yards, meaning our D is keeping the other team from moving down the field and likely helping provide better field position for the O and potentially setting up more favorable opportunities for our STs, (5) when a sack results in a safety, not only does it prevent the other team from scoring, but it gives us points and more likely than not fairly good field position to our offense when they get the ball back, (6) aside from helping lead to worse throws/more interception opportunity, a sack which results in a fumble also gives the D a better chance at a turnover (most QB fumbles are the result of being hit behind their own OL), and (7) if the DL shows they can hit the QB or make tackles for loss, it likely leads to the opposing OL to use more double teams or require a TE/RB to help block (not only does that take away one or several offensive weapons, but if the DL is requiring double teams, it allows for more gaps for our LBs and DBs to get through regardless of it is a drawn blitz play to get to the QB or if it frees up a lane to get to the RB).  
    • Gordon is OK.  he wasn't worth what he thought he was worth.  He only averaged more than  3.9 ypc once in his career though.  He was valuable because of his contributions in the passing game.   James White has been a decent player but almost exclusively in the passing game.   Ball is an unknown.  No doubt. Showed some potential, but it's impossible to say either way.   I don't think it's a secret that Wisco backs tend to bust though.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...