Jump to content

Detroit Tigers World Series Thread


Heads22

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 829
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(Bonderman38 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 01:18 AM)
It's only because of the surprise. The Sox were a bit of a surprise last year, but not this big of one. But, I agree. There is absolutely no point in comparing the Tigers to Tiger Woods.

 

The Sox were picked to finish 4th by many "experts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sox get just as much positive coverage as the Tigers.

 

Up until a week ago nearly everyone on ESPN predicted Chicago would win the world series, and talked about how great your pitching was...

 

As for fluff pieces, how about that commercial for the ESPYs? :P "and everyone got behind us...."

 

Of course, both of our teams coverage pales in comparison to what the Bostons and New Yorks of the world get, but that's to be expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2006 -> 09:42 PM)
My goodness, did anyone just see that ridiculous bit on sportscenter? Why both Tiger Woods and the Tigers are so great. Wow. What a gigantic fluff piece.

 

We never got sh*t like that last year.

I blame Magnum PI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(spawn @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 01:44 PM)
I'm thinking we need to worry more about the Sox winning than the Tigers losing. Just my .02.

 

I'm thinking that the reality of the situation isn't going to be affected at all, in either direction regardless of what folks in here worry about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read a very interesting stat. With our 5 run 1st tonight against the Tribe, the Tigers became the first team since 1891 to score 5 or more runs in the 1st inning in 3 consecutive games. The Cleveland Browns of that year had been the last to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Bonderman38 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 10:34 PM)
The Sox didn't average 100 losses in the last five years and they didn't lose 119 games in 2003 though.

 

They were equally surprising. Both were teams that hadn't done spiff in a decade.

 

The Tigers sucked the past 10 years or so, while the Sox were mediocre. You generally never strive to suck or strive for mediocrity(unless you're the Cubs), so there is no pride really in either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Bonderman38 @ Jul 24, 2006 -> 08:34 PM)
The Sox didn't average 100 losses in the last five years and they didn't lose 119 games in 2003 though.

And therefore, we didn't get to draft anyone nearly as sure as a Justin Verlander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2006 -> 01:40 PM)
And therefore, we didn't get to draft anyone nearly as sure as a Justin Verlander.

 

I've always said I'd rather be spiffty than mediocre. At least you get the draft picks. Less heart break too, you can just say we suck instead of being so close, yet so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...