Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I think this is a very good question. I think we scored 978 runs in 2000. We're on a similiar pace this year. This is a tough one for me. Let me know what you guys think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 15, 2004 Author Share Posted June 15, 2004 I'm goin with this years. But, just barely. I absolutely love Harris and Uribe at the top of the line-up. Power wise we're similiar. It's so close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 15, 2004 Author Share Posted June 15, 2004 Sorry. I don't know why the answers r messed up like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I say the 2000 team was slightly better because they were more clutch. It seemed like no lead was safe for the other team in the late innings & indeed we pulled quite a large number of games out of our ass like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I say the 2000 team was slightly better because they were more clutch. It seemed like no lead was safe for the other team in the late innings & indeed we pulled quite a large number of games out of our ass like that. Right now the 2004 offense seems like it's going to put up better numbers, but you're right about that Nuke. I can remember so many 2-out rallies that year; that club was really fun to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1549 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I think 2000's was a little better but it is close. With Durham and valentin at the top of the order we knew what we had, but Harris and Uribe are still have to prove themselves in my mind. This years offense is really good, but 2000 just seemed more reliable. Then again things are always better in memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I vote blank! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Really though, I think this year we are a little more versatile. We have players that play 2 or 3 positions this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 IMO, the 2000 offense clicked better. They could put up runs in bunches. However, I think this offense will be better suited for the postseason. We have a LH bat in the middle of the lineup instead of at the top(Valentin in both cases), and I think we will get another LH bat somewhere down the line as well. 2000 will have the stats and clutch hits over the 2004 offense, however, I think we all will like the 2004 offense more in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSHarris1 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 hell yea its much better infield than last year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I'll go with this year because we haven't seemed to skip a beat with Magglio out of the line-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danman31 Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I say the 2000 team was slightly better because they were more clutch. It seemed like no lead was safe for the other team in the late innings & indeed we pulled quite a large number of games out of our ass like that. Well said. There was a certain aura surrounding that offense. You could feel they were it. I had a confidence that no team was going to shut that offense down on any given day. I had that confidence in our offense on this year's team....for about 2 games. This lineup looks better on paper, but is more inconsistent and less clutch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I say the 2000 team was slightly better because they were more clutch. It seemed like no lead was safe for the other team in the late innings & indeed we pulled quite a large number of games out of our ass like that. No sooner do I post something like this than we come back in the late innings and fry the Fish. I love this s***!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I think 2000's was a little better but it is close. With Durham and valentin at the top of the order we knew what we had, but Harris and Uribe are still have to prove themselves in my mind. This years offense is really good, but 2000 just seemed more reliable. Then again things are always better in memory. We knew what we had with Valentin at this point in 2000? Jose was a huge question mark when we traded our ace pitcher, Jamie Navarro, for him and Eldred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Jose was a huge question mark when we traded our ace pitcher, Jamie Navarro, for him and Eldred. Ace Pitcher Jamie Navarro?!??! Please tell me that was supposed to be in green. The word "ace" should never be mentioned in the same PARAGRAPH as Navarro's name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Ace Pitcher Jamie Navarro?!??! Please tell me that was supposed to be in green. The word "ace" should never be mentioned in the same PARAGRAPH as Navarro's name. He's right, though. Navarro was the ace of our staff at the time. That's how bad it was. Look how far the staff has come since 1999... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Ace Pitcher Jamie Navarro?!??! Please tell me that was supposed to be in green. The word "ace" should never be mentioned in the same PARAGRAPH as Navarro's name. Oh c'mon Nuke ... referring to Navarro as an ace is so outrageously ridiculous, that I didn't think green was necessary. The words themselves are just dripping with sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Oh c'mon Nuke ... referring to Navarro as an ace is so outrageously ridiculous, that I didn't think green was necessary. The words themselves are just dripping with sarcasm. Whew! Ok, for a second there I thought you'd gone temporarily insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.