So when is Jeff going to Walz off with his first NC? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

So when is Jeff going to Walz off with his first NC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago). You ask whether the Irish who had a 3-1 record against UConn was the better team, or whether it was the Huskies who lost three times but won when it counted the most? Clearly, ND was the better team on three days in January, February, and March, but then that best of all months rolled around, and UConn got much the better of the Irish. So once more, you pick which day you're talking about, and I'll see if I can help your thick noggin understand who was the better team.

And Digger, you are using unreal scenarios to ask ultimately pointless questions, like the Greek philosopher who tried to prove that a man could never catch a turtle under his "half-the-distance-in-half-the-time" scenario. If, if, if. If the Red Sox and Yankees only had a three game series in 2004, clearly the Yankees are the better team, but seeing as they needed a 4th win, they ended up not being the better team. Louisville and Baylor did not play 10 or 100 times last season except in maybe an WCBB video game. If you wish to dream up 100 alternate universes where they played a games that included some wins for Baylor and some for Louisville, that is your right, but I just checked the NCAA results again and it shows they played one game and that Louisville was the better team in the universe I live in. But for Meyers, I will admit that there could be times that a corrupt referee associated with Ming the Merciless unleashes a time-warping device that not only allows Baylor to win but makes Arsenal last year's UEFA champ. And though there obviously is a Ham in West Ham, there is equally an arse in Arsenal. And any notion that the better team does not win is definitely related to an expulsion of noxious air from there-a-butts.
 
DobbsRover2 said:
As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago).
Expand ...

Actually, he said "there is no CRYING in baseball"

careful of the link....Tom as Jimmy D uses some words in the clip....
 
Bingo, RadyLady, from "A League of Their Own."
 
.-.
DobbsRover2 said:
As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago). You ask whether the Irish who had a 3-1 record against UConn was the better team, or whether it was the Huskies who lost three times but won when it counted the most? Clearly, ND was the better team on three days in January, February, and March, but then that best of all months rolled around, and UConn got much the better of the Irish. So once more, you pick which day you're talking about, and I'll see if I can help your thick noggin understand who was the better team.

And Digger, you are using unreal scenarios to ask ultimately pointless questions, like the Greek philosopher who tried to prove that a man could never catch a turtle under his "half-the-distance-in-half-the-time" scenario. If, if, if. If the Red Sox and Yankees only had a three game series in 2004, clearly the Yankees are the better team, but seeing as they needed a 4th win, they ended up not being the better team. Louisville and Baylor did not play 10 or 100 times last season except in maybe an WCBB video game. If you wish to dream up 100 alternate universes where they played a games that included some wins for Baylor and some for Louisville, that is your right, but I just checked the NCAA results again and it shows they played one game and that Louisville was the better team in the universe I live in. But for Meyers, I will admit that there could be times that a corrupt referee associated with Ming the Merciless unleashes a time-warping device that not only allows Baylor to win but makes Arsenal last year's UEFA champ. And though there obviously is a Ham in West Ham, there is equally an arse in Arsenal. And any notion that the better team does not win is definitely related to an expulsion of noxious air from there-a-butts.
Expand ...

Hmmm. There are people who want shared meaning and there are people who want to be right. I've bowed out of a few BY discussions once it became clear I was dealing with the latter.
 
DaddyChoc said:
no need... you 2 have me all figured out.

that was silly question to ask from the start
Expand ...

It would help if you would quote the post or say the posters you mean.

I certainly haven't figured you out.
 
I dont want you to... and blocking me would be easier :rolleyes:
 
DobbsRover2 said:
As to Meyers7, there is really only question to answer, since as I believe Tom Hanks once said in some movie, "There's no tieing in basketball," (unless you're talking about some Lady Vols 0-0 game from a century ago). You ask whether the Irish who had a 3-1 record against UConn was the better team, or whether it was the Huskies who lost three times but won when it counted the most? Clearly, ND was the better team on three days in January, February, and March, but then that best of all months rolled around, and UConn got much the better of the Irish. So once more, you pick which day you're talking about, and I'll see if I can help your thick noggin understand who was the better team.
Expand ...
Ok, the day before the semifinal. And based on what?

And I'm talking about sports, not just basketball. As I've said you seem to know very little about sports.
 
.-.
meyers7 said:
Ok, the day before the semifinal. And based on what?

And I'm talking about sports, not just basketball. As I've said you seem to know very little about sports.
Expand ...
I know absolutely nothing about sports because unlike most posters I just let the results and numbers speak for themselves, instead of trying to let the tookus do the work for me, which of course is the preference of Arse-nists. I checked last year's schedule and I can't find any mention of UConn and ND playing a game on the day before the NCAA semifinal, so it's hard to give any absolutely definitive statement about who was better on that day. But for your Better Team fantasy game wanker session, I can provide some numbers for you to decide who your imaginary winner is:

1. Notre Dame was 3-0 against UConn during games from early in the season, though both teams were seeded in #1 slots for the tourney.

2. Both teams were obviously 4-0 going into the semifinal game of the tourney, but UConn had crushed teams by an average margin of 39.25 points and won the regional final by 30, and ND had won games by 22.75 points and won their previous game over Duke by 11.

3. UConn was a 2.5 point favorite going into the game, and preview picks by the experts ranged from those who thought that UConn would be the BETTER TEAM by a few points and those who thought that ND would be the BETTER TEAM by a few points, with varying scenarios offered as to why one team or the other would win by a few points, none of them including that Stewie would pop for 29 points or that Diggins would shoot 3-15.

4. 87.5% of poll-takers on alexrgct's FF prediction poll thought that UConn would win and go on to capture the NC. That opinion was not shared in ND land. Plus a number of UConn posts suggested fretfully that Diggins was a UConn nemesis of supernatural proportions.

So putting together some facts here for your women's April 6, 2013 fantasy basketball Better Team game, get out your console and see where they take you in finding your pre-semifinal Better Team champion.
 
Icebear said:
Bingo, RadyLady, from "A League of Their Own."
Expand ...
Right, that was the movie about UConn's 2002 to 2004 years in the Big East. And Tom Hanks playing Geno plainly says in this mainly unedited snippet from the script: "Because there's no crying in bas[k]e[t]ball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BAS[K]E[T]BALL! No crying!" And it worked, because that constantly sulky weepy-girl Taurasi finally gave up her wallflower behavior and led them to some NCs.
 
DobbsRover2 said:
Right, that was the movie about UConn's 2002 to 2004 years in the Big East. And Tom Hanks playing Geno plainly says in this mainly unedited snippet from the script: "Because there's no crying in bas[k]e[t]ball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BAS[K]E[T]BALL! No crying!" And it worked, because that constantly sulky weepy-girl Taurasi finally gave up her wallflower behavior and led them to some NCs.
Expand ...

What did you say?
 
DobbsRover2 said:
Talking about getting ridiculous.

1. If you think a team that busts through to the NC game and in the process knocks off the pre-tourney unanimous pick as champion to have been just lah-lahing along and playing over their heads the whole time against everybody, then I would really love to take advantage of you in a high-stakes poker game. My wallet could use some fattening.

2. On the question of whether the better team always wins, as noted, you can go on saying that the Patriots were the better team in Super Bowl 2011 and should have won, gosh darn it. I simply say that the better team won. If your expectations were upset, my profound apologies. I know that the 1988 LA Dodgers had no right beating Oakland, but they were still the better team in the WS.

3. RT stated that Louisville was not a top 10 team in 2013, and I pointed out that the final poll showed them to be the #3 team. What part of that do you not understand? If you want to go back to early-March polls and say that Louisville was not a top 10 team and that UConn was the #3 team in 2012-13, that's your right. And you might as well cite some November and preseason polls in your future factoids about a team. Personally, in my admittedly strange accounting, UConn finished #1 last year and Louisville was voted #3.
Expand ...

no right beating oakland? "good pitching beats good hitting" is one of the oldest truisms in baseball. the mighty A's hit 0.177 in that series. the A's pitching was good,also, just not as good. it was no upset, rather it was no contest. stick to basketball.
 
boontonbomber said:
no right beating oakland? "good pitching beats good hitting" is one of the oldest truisms in baseball. the mighty A's hit 0.177 in that series. the A's pitching was good,also, just not as good. it was no upset, rather it was no contest. stick to basketball.
Expand ...
Absolutely right, a season like Hershiser's comes around once every 180 years or so, and you can actually win a WS riding two hot pitchers (Orel and Belcher), which is hard to do in the regular season. But the A's Bash Brothers lineup of Canseco and McGwire, with Baylor, Parker, Lansford, Henderson, and a nice-hitting Stan Javier had megaton more hitting than a Dodgers lineup of 1-AB Gibson (beautiful as it was) and um ............ well Steve Sax was occasionally good for a hit and Mike Marshall could play well enough when his head was screwed on right.

There is usually a limit to how much ground a good pitching corps can make up for a feeble batting lineup (628 runs during the season and next to last in OPS in the NL even with their bigger bats around, and mainly missing Scioscia and Gibson, and the traded Pedro Guerrero for the WS) when the opponents' 800-run lineup is so dominating and pitchers like Dave Stewart, Bob Welch, Storm Davis and the fearsome Dennis Eckersley are throwing well. Bob Costas had it pretty much dead-on when he said that this was the worst team ever to take the field for a World Series, but they were still by far the BETTER TEAM in the 1988 WS. And I have a few stats to prove that notion, such as 4 wins.

And some of the great pitching corps have gone to World Series and been smacked around by a great hitting lineup. Now you could say that then they didn't have good pitching, but then it's a slippery slope definition for how you define good pitching. The tired old line about "good pitching beats good hitting" is one of those cliches that sportscasters throw out that should get them thrown out of the booth, just like in basketball and football when they say that "a good defense wins the games." I have seen so many crushingly good defenses get lit up by smart offenses in both sports, that when I hear that line I just think, "stick to not spewing dumb cliches."
 
.-.
DobbsRover2 said:
Absolutely right, a season like Hershiser's comes around once every 180 years or so, and you can actually win a WS riding two hot pitchers (Orel and Belcher), which is hard to do in the regular season. But the A's Bash Brothers lineup of Canseco and McGwire, with Baylor, Parker, Lansford, Henderson, and a nice-hitting Stan Javier had megaton more hitting than a Dodgers lineup of 1-AB Gibson (beautiful as it was) and um ............ well Steve Sax was occasionally good for a hit and Mike Marshall could play well enough when his head was screwed on right.

There is usually a limit to how much ground a good pitching corps can make up for a feeble batting lineup (628 runs during the season and next to last in OPS in the NL even with their bigger bats around, and mainly missing Scioscia and Gibson, and the traded Pedro Guerrero for the WS) when the opponents' 800-run lineup is so dominating and pitchers like Dave Stewart, Bob Welch, Storm Davis and the fearsome Dennis Eckersley are throwing well. Bob Costas had it pretty much dead-on when he said that this was the worst team ever to take the field for a World Series, but they were still by far the BETTER TEAM in the 1988 WS. And I have a few stats to prove that notion, such as 4 wins.

And some of the great pitching corps have gone to World Series and been smacked around by a great hitting lineup. Now you could say that then they didn't have good pitching, but then it's a slippery slope definition for how you define good pitching. The tired old line about "good pitching beats good hitting" is one of those cliches that sportscasters throw out that should get them thrown out of the booth, just like in basketball and football when they say that "a good defense wins the games." I have seen so many crushingly good defenses get lit up by smart offenses in both sports, that when I hear that line I just think, "stick to not spewing dumb cliches."
Expand ...

i think it's fair to say that the dodgers won that series because their good pitching shut down the bashers( 11 runs in 5 games). hard to say cliche, with an example like that staring you in the face. and because of their pitching, the dodgers certainly had every right to win that series. your spouting off about all of the great A's hitters only serves to help back up my point. and it's far from the only example of that happening in the series. good pitching is often the key in a short series. oh, and costas is a blowhard ,whose next game in any sport will probably be his first.
 
boontonbomber said:
i think it's fair to say that the dodgers won that series because their good pitching shut down the bashers( 11 runs in 5 games). hard to say cliche, with an example like that staring you in the face. and because of their pitching, the dodgers certainly had every right to win that series. your spouting off about all of the great A's hitters only serves to help back up my point. and it's far from the only example of that happening in the series. good pitching is often the key in a short series. oh, and costas is a blowhard ,whose next game in any sport will probably be his first.
Expand ...
Um, so how many examples of your hard-and-fast "great pitching beats great hitting" dogma can you dig up? What happened in 2006 when Detroit had the best pitching staff in the MLB (from the AL no less) but couldn't do the job on the good-hitting Cards? The 2008 Phillies and the 2009 Yankees had crushingly good offenses and torched great pitching corps in the WS. How about in 2004 when the best offense by far in the Red Sox crushed pretty much the best pitching corps with the Cardinals on the other end? Etc., etc.

Seriously? I mean, provide at least a morsel of a fact before stating anything about something "staring you in the face," which is a line I heard over on the Summitt a number of times with as little relevance. Great offenses destroy great (but inadequately prepared defenses) more often then the opposite because they have more weapons and can take the action where they want to. But the Maginot Line believers can feel smug in their delusions. Whatever.

I will grant you though that Bob Costas is a blowhard, but he is a lovable blowhard who is much loved by Dodgers fans for the blessing he bestowed on them in 1988.

As to how this all relates to WCBB, it's just that the Husky defense is a great bedrock to base a team on, but when the offense does not execute on all cylinders against a top opponent (first three ND games), they likely go down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,479
Messages
4,577,180
Members
10,488
Latest member
husky62


Top Bottom