9th inning argument

[tonyballs]

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

 

[Mitchrapp]

He was at 82 pitches.. If he was at 100 pitches you replace him... DD did a good job getting Dotel, and ballaster but we do need a another lefty if smokes is not going to pitch Coke in back to back games... No way Daniel S. should be called on to save the day.. I have no problem with leaving JV in... He looked hyper up to me in the 9th.. Oh well move on..

Not sure you replace him at 100 pitches. He's freakin' Verlander, he averaged 116 last year, that's average.

 

[jimrice]

regardless of the number of pitches he threw, once you start to lose it, you lose it. and I didn't mind that he started the 9th, it was Smoker should have known when he lost his stuff.

Ugh. Nonsense.

 

[jared]

Next time, under the same circumstances, I hope JL leaves him in.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, the OP is inherently flawed anyway, because, as everybody on this board knows, Verlander isn't truly an ace.

 

[tonyballs]

Well, the OP is inherently flawed anyway, because, as everybody on this board knows, Verlander isn't truly an ace.

He never was!!

 

[theTutor]

Well, I never started the isn't an ace thing. I'm not sure who originated it. I just said I needed to see one more good year to make a determination and I did. Nobody was willing to.accept that but oh well. He's an ace and I'm glad he is.

 

[Thumb]

Well, I never started the isn't an ace thing. I'm not sure who originated it. I just said I needed to see one more good year to make a determination and I did. Nobody was willing to.accept that but oh well. He's an ace and I'm glad he is.

He was an Ace before last year though, only morons couldn't see that.

 

[tonyballs]

Well, I never started the isn't an ace thing. I'm not sure who originated it. I just said I needed to see one more good year to make a determination and I did. Nobody was willing to.accept that but oh well. He's an ace and I'm glad he is.

But you did start it. It was ALL you.

Nice back-pedal, buddy...lol.

 

[theTutor]

But you did start it. It was ALL you.

Nice back-pedal, buddy...lol.

Never started a thread. I chimed in on it and stated my opinion. Maybe more than once but I don't care......I am entitled to be allowed to wait til he has a dominate year to solidify my opinion. If you guys wanted to think he was an ACE from his rookie year, so be it, It didn't bother me.

 

[tonyballs]

Never started a thread. I chimed in on it and stated my opinion. Maybe more than once but I don't care......I am entitled to be allowed to wait til he has a dominate year to solidify my opinion. If you guys wanted to think he was an ACE from his rookie year, so be it, It didn't bother me.

Never said you started a thread. Pay attention actually...

You're the one who stated Verlander wasn't an ACE after multiple people proved you wrong time and time again with his numbers throughout his young career. He has been an ACE since he put on a Tigers uni. You just couldn't admit it. An ACE in your eyes was a 20 game winner and and a Cy Young winner...that's it, no arguing about it. Well, now he's done it and you're finally on board? Get real!!

 

[Slick]

ahhhh Chica smacked around like the 2 dollar whore he is.....lol

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, I never started the isn't an ace thing. I'm not sure who originated it. I just said I needed to see one more good year to make a determination and I did. Nobody was willing to.accept that but oh well. He's an ace and I'm glad he is.

The thing is, you just don't know the meaning of simple and common things a lot of the time.

A year ago, or whatever, you were insisting that a "fact" was something that couldn't be disproven - back when I was a middle school teacher, even my sixth graders knew that wasn't the dictionary definition of what a fact is.

With regard to baseball the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "ace" simply as

the best pitcher on a baseball team <the ace of the staff>

That's all.

Here is the link, 6b.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ace

 

[theTutor]

The thing is, you just don't know the meaning of simple and common things a lot of the time.

A year ago, or whatever, you were insisting that a "fact" was something that couldn't be disproven - back when I was a middle school teacher, even my sixth graders knew that wasn't the dictionary definition of what a fact is.

With regard to baseball the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "ace" simply as

the best pitcher on a baseball team <the ace of the staff>

That's all.

Here is the link, 6b.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ace

so Cliff Lee isn't an ACE?

 

[Slick]

so Cliff Lee isn't an ACE?

is Jake Peavy ?

 

[tinselwolverine]

so Cliff Lee isn't an ACE?

That's a good question; why would you suggest that Cliff Lee isn't?

 

[tonyballs]

so Cliff Lee isn't an ACE?

C'mon, man...you know the answer to that one. It's yes. Not all baseball teams have that luxury of having two ACES on their team. Call Halladay and Lee ACE-1 and ACE-2.

That's gold, Jerry!!!

 

[jimrice]

Growing up, the ace of the staff was the best pitcher on the staff. So, Cliff Lee would not be an ace and someone like Mike Maroth in 2003 would be.

But on the old ESPN board, posters were so consumed with defining what an ace was that it seems to have taken on new meaning in the internet age.

The fact that the criteria is subjective now is probably what makes it a fun thing to argue about.

 

[Slick]

well according to Chica....on the old ESPN board an "Ace" was a Cy Young award winner or a multiple 20 win season guy.

He was smacked around religiously for his views.

 

[jimrice]

well according to Chica....on the old ESPN board an "Ace" was a Cy Young award winner or a multiple 20 win season guy.

He was smacked around religiously for his views.

Yeah, I remember.

I'm mostly talking about the main board, where there were 20 page threads attempting to define "ace". The more subjective, the better the argument.