[BigSlick]

or in other words...

The park is 1 DAY old on the first opening day.

The park is 1 YEAR old on it's 2nd opening day... 2 years old on it's 3rd opening day etc.. and therefore 99 years old on it's 100th opening day.

The 100th birthday is the completion of 100 years, not the beginning of the 100th year.

This post has been edited by BigSlick: 10 April 2011 - 06:41 PM

[VoteRiceIn]

Did the Cubs throw the 1918 WS? If so, the 2004 WS needs to be rebranded as the first WS win by the RS in 88 years.

This post has been edited by VoteRiceIn: 23 April 2011 - 10:49 PM

[BigSlick]

VoteRiceIn, on 23 April 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Did theCubs throw 1918 WS?If so, the 2004 WS needs to be rebranded as the first WS win by the RS in 88 years.

As Steve Langford would say...

Who gives a shit, who gives a f***?

This post has been edited by BigSlick: 23 April 2011 - 09:51 PM

[VoteRiceIn]

BigSlick, on 23 April 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

Who gives a shit, who gives a f***?

You could also ask who gives a f*** that Ted Williams hit .400+ in a single season , that Nolan Ryan threw 1,082 career no hitters (or something close) or that Joe Dimaggio got a hit in 56 straight.

Honestly, I do.

Whether or not the Cubs threw the WS in 1918 doesn't change a damn thing in the world at the end of the day but the possiblity that the Cubs may have thrown the 1918 WS is at the very least intriguing and I'd think that this story would be (and should be) of interest to history & baseball fans alike.

[BigSlick]

I read the article a few days ago. One of the 1919 White Sox claimed the Cubs did it too but didnt name anyone. The article stated that there was one Cub who had a questionable series and that's it. That's why I don't care. If they had come up with anything of any substance I would have cared.

[roidrage]

Once the Federal League folded after the 1914 season and salaries were crushed, it is reasonable to think the temptation was there for all teams from 1915 through the Black Sox scandal.

[The Ghost of Ned Martin]

BigSlick, on 24 April 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

I read the article a few days ago. One of the 1919 White Sox claimed the Cubs did it too but didnt name anyone. The article stated that there was one Cub who had a questionable series and that's it. That's why I don't care. If they had come up with anything of any substance I would have cared.

I agree that there isn't much of anything, aside from the fact that the disgraced White Sox claimed it happened, to support the claim. I would imagine there was a fair amount of sordid activity taking place at that time given how little the players were paid and how badly some of the owners treated them.

It is an interesting possibility but unless additional evidence emerges, nothing more.

[BigSlick]

Has anyone ever "slowly been down 0-2"?

[Mike LansWho]

BigSlick, on 25 April 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

Has anyone ever "slowly been down 0-2"?

Yes, when Tim Wakefield or Daisuke Matsuzaka are the pitchers.

[MrNewEngland]

Mike LansWho, on 26 April 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Yes, when Tim Wakefield or Daisuke Matsuzaka are the pitchers.

When has Dice-K ever had an 0-2 count?

[rominer]

MrNewEngland, on 26 April 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

When has Dice-K ever had an 0-2 count?

You're thinking of the old Dice-K.

Asshole.

[BigSlick]

<bump>

If Abner Doubleday had been left handed would players run around the bases clockwise instead of counter-clockwise because that's the way he would have been facing when he batted?

[Manny's PS2]

BigSlick, on 26 September 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

<bump>

If Abner Doubleday had been left handed would players run around the bases clockwise instead of counter-clockwise because that's the way he would have been facing when he batted?

What if he was born with no arms? Then what?

[BigSlick]

Manny, on 27 September 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

What if he was born with no arms? Then what?

I know the answer to that question, but I'm not answering until my question is answered.

[Manny's PS2]

Okay, yes they would be running to third first or would third turn into first and first would be third? Second would remain second and home would be home.

[BigSlick]

Manny, on 27 September 2011 - 07:58 AM, said:

Okay, yes they would be running to third first or would third turn into first and first would be third? Second would remain second and home would be home.

Okay, he would only pinch run.

[Mike LansWho]

BigSlick, on 27 September 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

Okay, he would only pinch run.

Or, he would simply swing his meat bat.

[Manny's PS2]

Mike LansWho, on 27 September 2011 - 08:26 AM, said:

Or, he would simply swing his meat bat.

It always boils down to teh gheyness with you...Not that there's anything wrong with that....

[BigSlick]

When is the 100th anniversary celebration when all of the old players are invited back?

Edit: Nevermind, it's this coming Friday.

This post has been edited by BigSlick: 14 April 2012 - 09:45 AM

[rominer]

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of Derek Lowe's no-hitter. So I glanced at the box score from that day.

In addition to the zeros in the hit column for the (Devil) Rays, I couldn't help but notice the lack of zeros in the hit column for the Red Sox. Every player in the lineup had at least one hit. Even Rey Sanchez.

So, since I'm curious but have no interest in actually looking this up, I'll throw it out there for whoever else:

Have there been other no-hitters in which it's been an "all hitter" for the other side? I imagine there have been. But it can't be too common.