NL Wild Card Playoff Game

[Gom]

Hey ****face, what did game 7 of 2003 have that games 4 and 5 didn't have?

 

The fact that it was Game 7? What f***ing horseshit. All you have said that is required of a great game is sheer drama.

 

Games 4-6 of the ALCS were great games for that very reason. Nothing gets taken away from them because the Sox spanked the Yanks in Game 7.

 

Double Elimination game you moron. How is it possible you have survived this far and natural selection didn't work yet?

 

Game 4 for your team was great. However, if that was game 7, it would have been greater due to the magnitude for both teams. Sorry if I insult your sensitivities for being a Sox fan. I still think one of the most amazing games I ever say was WS 2001 game seven, and we were on the losing end. I can honestly say that that game hurt more than any other game ever. 2004 wasn't close in my personal book. [Watch this idiot now tell me how my personal feelings for my team were wrong].

 

Who here posts: "Imagine how great this would be...tie game, bottom of the ninth, fourth game of the ALCS, with the lead 2-1 in our favor."

 

It's always game 7. Then in magnitude, game 6.

 

You really are possibly the dumbest person to ever post here.

[TheKilo]

Double Elimination game you moron. How is it possible you have survived this far and natural selection didn't work yet?

 

Game 4 for your team was great. However, if that was game 7, it would have been greater due to the magnitude for both teams. Sorry if I insult your sensitivities for being a Sox fan. I still think one of the most amazing games I ever say was 2001 game seven, and we were on the losing end. I can honestly say that that game hurt more than any other game ever. 2004 wasn't close in my personal book. [Watch this idiot now tell me how my personal feelings for my team were wrong].

 

Who here posts: :Imagine how great this would be...tie game, bottom of the ninth, fourth game of the ALCS, with the lead 2-1 in our favor."

 

It's always game 7. Then in magnitude, game 6.

 

You really are possibly the dumbest person to ever post here.

 

Yes, Gom. I am the dumbest person to ever post here.

 

So what you're telling me, is that for a game to be truly great, it HAS to be a double elimination game?

 

I think that's possibly the dumbest f***ing thing I've ever heard.

 

And 2004 wasn't great? So basically what this is boiling down to, is that when your team wins the elimination game, or the Sox lose (and I love how you threw 2001 in as an afterthought, nice touch), then it's a truly great game?

 

Tell me, what did game 7 in 2003 have that games 4 and 5 didn't. Don't tell me it wasn't a double elimination game, because that's on the Yankees for not showing up in game 7 in '04.

 

Extra innings? '03 had it, but so did game 4 in '04.

Walk off homerun? '03 had it, so did game 4 in '04.

Late inning comeback against arguably your rival's best pitcher? '03 had it, but so did game 4 in '04.

 

What's it missing to be one of the great games ever?

[Gom]

Make the argument for instant replay Gom... would've just made the game four innings shorter. I haven't seen the replays but I've heard them described as "inconclusive" -- which in the NFL means, the play stands as called.

 

What a fantastic game. Great day to be a Rockies fan. Feels good knowing that while the Red Sox may be my team, I've supported the Rockies more than 95% of the people in that stadium tonight have.

 

I don't think it was a homerun. The replays showed that in my mind. I think that the homerun call would have went in at worst as inconclusive like you stated. However, he CLEARLY didn't touch the plate.

 

That being said, congrats as you seem to be a Rockies fan. Great game.

 

Still, baseball needs Instant Replay.

[Ray10]

Wow that was a big surprise didn't expect the Rockies to come out and win that one kind of a surprise to see them in the postseason but I think it's good for baseball to have new teams playing each other in the N.L this year all four of those teams are teams we never see in the postseason really.

[Gom]

Yes, Gom. I am the dumbest person to ever post here.

 

So what you're telling me, is that for a game to be truly great, it HAS to be an elimination game?

 

I think that's possibly the dumbest f***ing thing I've ever heard.

 

For the most part, yes. In the annals of baseball history, it's the way it's been. You hear about Bobby Thompson's homerun. Why? Elimination game.

 

The Yankees coming back against the Guardians with 6 runs in April won't go down as a truly great game. Why? IT WAS f***ING APRIL!

 

Yankees Classics aside, who believe a 10-1 win against the Royals deserves to be show 17 times in an off-season, no games in April are truly great games.

 

Mazeroski's homerun....great game. Bobby Thompson....great game. Bucky Dent, Aaron Boone, Bill Buckner, Carlton Fisk, Joe Carter, Scott Brosios....all have in common...elimination game.

 

So the answer is yes. A truly great game is an elimination game. There are some very notable exceptions, but in general, the games that leave the biggest marks are the win or go home games.

 

Tell you what...you list 10 great games that weren't elimination games, and I will list ten games that were. Let's see which games will be rated higher as truly great games.

[See Red]

I don't think it was a homerun. The replays showed that in my mind. I think that the homerun call would have went in at worst as inconclusive like you stated. However, he CLEARLY didn't touch the plate.

 

That being said, congrats as you seem to be a Rockies fan. Great game.

 

Still, baseball needs Instant Replay.

 

I'm saying I've seen the homeplate calls talked about as being inconclusive. I watched the HR quite a bit and it looked like a clear HR to me. I'll hold off on commenting any further on the final play because I've heard people say he did touch the plate, I've seen others say he didn't, and most say it's not conclusive. I haven't yet seen it... I was watching the game at Chili's after we closed and left sometime during the celebration.

[TheKilo]

For the most part, yes. In the annals of baseball history, it's the way it's been. You hear about Bobby Thompson's homerun. Why? Elimination game.

 

The Yankees coming back against the Guardians with 6 runs in April won't go down as a truly great game. Why? IT WAS f***ING APRIL!

 

Yankees Classics aside, who believe a 10-1 win against the Royals deserves to be show 17 times in an off-season, no games in April are truly great games.

 

Mazeroski's homerun....great game. Bobby Thompson....great game. Bucky Dent, Aaron Boone, Bill Buckner, Carlton Fisk, Joe Carter, Scott Brosios....all have in common...elimination game.

 

So the answer is yes. A truly great game is an elimination game. There are some very notable exceptions, but in general, the games that leave the biggest marks are the win or go home games.

 

Tell you what...you list 10 great games that weren't elimination games, and I will list ten games that were. Let's see which games will be rated higher as truly great games.

 

Hold on buddy, you said double elimination games. Don't f***ing pull this ******** with me.

 

You find the ten greatest double elimination games, and I'll find the others.

 

Fisk in '75

Kirk Gibson

Henderson in '86

Games 4 and 5 in '04

Kirby Puckett's walkoff

Larsen's perfect game

Denkinger game

Game 6 2003 NLCS

Joe Carter in '93

[See Red]

Hold on buddy, you said double elimination games. Don't f***ing pull this ******** with me.

 

You find the ten greatest double elimination games, and I'll find the others.

 

Fisk in '75

Kirk Gibson

Henderson in '86

Games 4 and 5 in '04

Kirby Puckett's walkoff

Larsen's perfect game

Denkinger game

Game 6 2003 NLCS

Joe Carter in '93

 

How about some "Go crazy, folks! Go crazy!"?... Ozzie Smith, 1985 NLCS to put the Cardinals up 3-2 in the series.

[Gom]

Hold on buddy, you said double elimination games. Don't f***ing pull this ******** with me.

Go back and read my post, you moron. Do I have to quote it, or can you just scroll up four posts. You know, scroll, that little vertical bar on the right....

 

Do they even teach people how to read where you are from?

 

Any elimination game is what I said. Of course, a double elimination game, because BOTH teams are on the brink, means more. So...game 7 is more stressful, then game 6, then game 5, etc.

 

Imagine if your game 4 in 2004 was a game 7. Or the Brosius game was game 7. Or hell, the Yankee six run comeback from April this year was game 5 against the Guardians in this series. The magnitude of the game goes a long way in determining it's greatness.

 

By the way, thanks for making my list. Now go and do what I asked. Find me non-elimination games. I'll wait......

 

P.S. You left out one of the greatest games ever, 1986 Game 6. Oh..wasn't great? Not good enough for your list? Wonder why?

 

And you have the audacity to call me a troll? You? Try being objective once in a while.

[TheKilo]

Go back and read my post, you moron. Do I have to quote it, or can you just scroll up four posts. You know, scroll, that little vertical bar on the right....

 

Do they even teach people how to read where you are from?

 

Any elimination game is what I said. Of course, a double elimination game, because BOTH teams are on the brink, means more. So...game 7 is more stressful, then game 6, then game 5, etc.

 

Imagine if your game 4 in 2004 was a game 7. Or the Brosius game was game 7. Or hell, the Yankee six run comeback from April this year was game 5 against the Guardians in this series. The magnitude of the game goes a long way in determining it's greatness.

 

By the way, thanks for making my list. Now go and do what I asked. Find me non-elimination games. I'll wait......

 

P.S. You left out one of the greatest games ever, 1986 Game 6. Oh..wasn't great? Not good enough for your list? Wonder why?

 

And you have the audacity to call me a troll? You? Try being objective once in a while.

 

Double Elimination game you moron. How is it possible you have survived this far and natural selection didn't work yet?

 

Game 4 for your team was great. However, if that was game 7, it would have been greater due to the magnitude for both teams. Sorry if I insult your sensitivities for being a Sox fan. I still think one of the most amazing games I ever say was WS 2001 game seven, and we were on the losing end. I can honestly say that that game hurt more than any other game ever. 2004 wasn't close in my personal book. [Watch this idiot now tell me how my personal feelings for my team were wrong].

 

Who here posts: "Imagine how great this would be...tie game, bottom of the ninth, fourth game of the ALCS, with the lead 2-1 in our favor."

It's always game 7. Then in magnitude, game 6.

 

You really are possibly the dumbest person to ever post here.

 

LOL! I LOVE IT!

 

Especially when you tell me to be objective.

 

Find me where I said non-elimination games meant more. Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Mr Crunchy]

why dont you 2 guys ask each other out??

 

the sexual tension between you 2 is troubling the rest of us so why not just get it over with.

[Gom]

Your question:

Hey ****face' date=' what did game 7 of 2003 have that games 4 and 5 didn't have?[/quote']

My answer:

Double Elimination game you moron. How is it possible you have survived this far and natural selection didn't work yet?

So....I answered your question. So let's see...both games had a comeback against the most dominating pitcher from the other side. One game was elimination for both teams, the others were not. Not only that, but game 7 was sudden death as it went to extra innings.

 

Keep posting, I enjoy making you look like an idiot.

[TheKilo]

Your question:

 

My answer:

 

So....I answered your question. So let's see...both games had a comeback against the most dominating pitcher from the other side. One game was elimination for both teams, the others were not. Not only that, but game 7 was sudden death as it went to extra innings.

 

Keep posting, I enjoy making you look like an idiot.

 

 

I'm still waiting for those top 10 double elimination games.

[yankees228]

How about some "Go crazy' date=' folks! Go crazy!"?... Ozzie Smith, 1985 NLCS to put the Cardinals up 3-2 in the series.[/quote']

 

EDIT: Ignore what I said about that being a double elimination game.

 

As for the argument about double elimination games as opposed to other games in the series, I think it being a double elimination game adds to it, but there are a lot of other things that should be looked at.

[yankees228]

I'm still waiting for those top 10 double elimination games.

 

Not that I'm trying to help out Gom, but I enjoy this kind of thing, so I'll give it a shot (in no particular order).

 

2006 NLCS Game 7 (Mets-Cardinals)

2003 ALCS Game 7 (Yankees-Red Sox)

2001 World Series Game 7 (Yankees-Diamondbacks)

1997 World Series Game 7 (Marlins-Guardians)

1995 Division Series Game 5 (Yankees-Mariners)

1992 NLCS Game 7 (Braves-Pirates)

1991 World Series Game 7 (Twins-Braves)

1976 ALCS Game 5 (Yankees-Royals)

1962 World Series Game 7 (Yankees-Giants)

1960 World Series Game 7 (Yankees-Pirates)

 

There are obviously better ones, but they go further back, and I think I'll keep this argument in the last 50 years.

 

By, Kilo, to add to your list, how about 1986 NLCS Game 6 (Mets-Astros).

[Gom]

First of all, I said double elimination games were more exciting, except that Kilo can't read. I think that these games listed by yankees228 will be more exciting than the list that Kilo can make, and only because of the fact that they were double elimination games.

 

By the way yankees228, you forgot to add Yanks/Sox 1978 playoff and Bobby Thompson's game. Add those two, and the argument is over.

[TheKilo]

First of all, I said double elimination games were more exciting, except that Kilo can't read. I think that these games listed by yankees228 will be more exciting than the list that Kilo can make, and only because of the fact that they were double elimination games.

 

By the way yankees228, you forgot to add Yanks/Sox 1978 playoff and Bobby Thompson's game. Add those two, and the argument is over.

 

You can't read because I never said that non-elimination games meant more.

 

All I said was that it was not a requirement that it be a double elimination game. There are plenty of games that aren't double elimination that make for great baseball.

[See Red]

And for what it's worth, according to the MLB rulebook, the call at the plate was wrong... the right call would've been calling Michael Barrett for obstructing the batters path to home plate. It's never called, but a rule is still a rule.

[redsoxrules]

And for what it's worth' date=' according to the MLB rulebook, the call at the plate was wrong... the right call would've been calling Michael Barrett for obstructing the batters path to home plate. It's never called, but a rule is still a rule.[/quote']

 

you're allowed to block homeplate

[riverside sluggers]

No Gom, the argument isnt over. You just dont want to accept that what the Red Sox did was the greatest comeback in the history of the playoffs

[yankees228]

No Gom' date=' the argument isnt over. You just dont want to accept that what the Red Sox did was the[b'] greatest [/b]comeback in the history of the playoffs

 

lol. Where did he say it wasn't?

[Gom]

lol. Where did he say it wasn't?

Leave him alone yankees228. I never said the Red Sox comeback wasn't the greatest comeback ever, everyone who knows how to read knows that. He's a little slow. Don't make fun of the guy for being illiterate. He's a Sox fan, after all.

[riverside sluggers]

lol. Where did he say it wasn't?

 

Ok...

 

This whole argument has been, in his words --"Those games were great but they were not truely great games"

 

Then the whole double elimination s*** started up

[yankees228]

Ok...

 

This whole argument has been, in his words --"Those games were great but they were not truely great games"

 

Then the whole double elimination s*** started up

 

Wow. He never said that once. All he said was that a double elimination game adds something to the intrigue.

 

On top of that, I have no idea where you brought the "greatest comeback ever" stuff from. I don't think he mentioned anything about that.

[ARod2212]

No Gom' date=' the argument isnt over. [b']LOL '04 CHOKREZZ!!! FOULKESY@@@![/b]

 

That had nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

[TheKilo]

And for what it's worth' date=' according to the MLB rulebook, the call at the plate was wrong... the right call would've been calling Michael Barrett for obstructing the batters path to home plate. It's never called, but a rule is still a rule.[/quote']

 

You can block the plate if you're in the process of making a play....since he was fielding the ball he was in the process of making one.

 

 

He never tagged Holliday anyways.

[See Red]

You can block the plate if you're in the process of making a play....since he was fielding the ball he was in the process of making one.

 

 

He never tagged Holliday anyways.

 

As I read the rule, and my interpretation of it, is that I was right and as I understand it from some people who are a bit older than me and might remember, it's how it used to be called. But how it's called these days it different, admittedly, and has been as long as I've been alive... I bring it up merely to point out that anyone arguing the Pads got jobbed here are wrong, at least in my interpretation of this.

 

7.06 ( ... NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

 

If you look into it further, you'll see that the rulebook does not refer to catching a thrown ball as "fielding" - "fielding" is playing a ball off of the bat. So it's basically saying he can impede the runners path if he has the ball, or he's fielding the ball off of a bat, and you can only block the plate if you have the ball. In my opinion, anyway.

 

But whatever, it's all semantics and interpretation and the first post was as much tongue in cheek as anything, and the purpose of this post was merely to defend my thinking in my last one, not to get into an argue about the issue since it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Even if it does mean that, it's not called that way anyway...