July 4, 200619 yr http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnatio...ht&lid=tab6pos1 #14 seed vs #3 Yankees..... Yup, more voting.
July 4, 200619 yr I did my part by voting for the 1917 White Sox. It seems to me they are forgetting the 2005 World Champions Chicago White Sox.
July 5, 200619 yr QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jul 4, 2006 -> 06:28 PM) The '05 Sox we're too "lucky" to qualify. which yankees team went 11-1 in the playoffs? I forget. I would need a good explination why a team goes 11-1 and gets lucky. Did anyone see the '07 cubs and think that ESPN thought the 2007 cubs would be good or something for half a second like i did? And why are the '95 braves on this list. they only won 90 games (on this list that is not that many)
July 5, 200619 yr QUOTE(RX Bandits @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 02:19 AM) which yankees team went 11-1 in the playoffs? I forget. I would need a good explination why a team goes 11-1 and gets lucky. Did anyone see the '07 cubs and think that ESPN thought the 2007 cubs would be good or something for half a second like i did? And why are the '95 braves on this list. they only won 90 games (on this list that is not that many) 99 yanks I believe. It is pretty odd how they left off the 05 sox. Wire to wire plus 11 and 1 in the playoffs deserves a little respect.
July 5, 200619 yr QUOTE(RX Bandits @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 03:19 AM) Did anyone see the '07 cubs and think that ESPN thought the 2007 cubs would be good or something for half a second like i did? Yep, then I realized it meant 1907 At least it doesn't have the '04 Red Sox on there. If they were there, but the '05 Sox weren't.. well.. something would be wrong.
July 5, 200619 yr When I read that the '05 Sox were left off, I realized the whole episode is a farce. The 16-1 finish, 11-1 postseason, 4 straight complete game victories by the starters -- I don't know if anyone remembers the Tom Verducci article -- I think this is the link (but I don't have the subscription) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/...ostseason/2005/ -- that put our team in the company of only 1 or 2 others in history. Of course, we didn't dominate with run differential like other teams have, but that just made our accomplishment all the more impressive.
July 5, 200619 yr Agreed, the 2005 Sox are still not getting any respect. I voted for the 1917 Sox regardless.
July 5, 200619 yr QUOTE(RX Bandits @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 02:19 AM) And why are the '95 braves on this list. they only won 90 games (on this list that is not that many) the 95 season was shortened due to the strike. It's a joke that the 2005 sox aren't on there though.
July 6, 200619 yr QUOTE(RX Bandits @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 02:19 AM) which yankees team went 11-1 in the playoffs? I forget. I would need a good explination why a team goes 11-1 and gets lucky. Did anyone see the '07 cubs and think that ESPN thought the 2007 cubs would be good or something for half a second like i did? When I saw the '07 Cubs I thought ESPN was smoking something to think the Cubs would be that good. Then I realized then meant 1907. Regardless I voted for the 1917 White Sox.
July 6, 200619 yr QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) the 95 season was shortened due to the strike. It's a joke that the 2005 sox aren't on there though. Still, even if they won the rest of their games they would have only finished with 98.
July 6, 200619 yr QUOTE(VAfan @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 04:22 PM) When I read that the '05 Sox were left off, I realized the whole episode is a farce. The 16-1 finish, 11-1 postseason, 4 straight complete game victories by the starters -- I don't know if anyone remembers the Tom Verducci article -- I think this is the link (but I don't have the subscription) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/...ostseason/2005/ -- that put our team in the company of only 1 or 2 others in history. Of course, we didn't dominate with run differential like other teams have, but that just made our accomplishment all the more impressive. I remember right after the WS Boston Gammons even said they were one of the best couple teams he'd ever seen, putting them right there with the '98 Yanks.
July 6, 200619 yr QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jul 5, 2006 -> 09:30 PM) Still, even if they won the rest of their games they would have only finished with 98. They only played 144 games in '95 meaning the season was shortened by 18 games so they could have won as many as 108 games that season. QUOTE(knightni @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 02:28 AM) The '94 season was the strike season. '95 was shortened as well.
July 7, 200619 yr QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 6, 2006 -> 02:34 AM) They only played 144 games in '95 meaning the season was shortened by 18 games so they could have won as many as 108 games that season. '95 was shortened as well. You're right, I mis-read it.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.