English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

the 70's with pete rose and reggie jackson and them dudes or the players of today...i think the 70's would give them a hell of a game..hank aaron,willy mays,roberto clemente,just to name a few...i know,todays players are'nt to bad themselfes.But i'll take the playes from the 70's i think they would win in a best of 7 series

2006-06-17 17:00:18 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports Baseball

6 answers

I'll take today's all-stars...Think about this team and tell me anybody could beat them.

C - Victor Martinez (backup - Ivan Rodriguez)
1B - Albert Pujols (Derrek Lee)
2B - Alfonso Soriano (Chase Utley)
SS - Miguel Tejada (Derek Jeter)
3B - Alex Rodriguez (Eric Chavez)
LF - Manny Ramirez (Jason Bay)
CF - Carlos Beltran (Ken Griffey Jr)
RF - Ichiro (Vladimir Guerrero)
DH - Barry Bonds (David Ortiz)
SP - Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Roy Oswalt, Roger Clemens, Roy Halladay, Johan Santana
RP - Jon Papelbon, Brad Lidge, Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner

There are so many other guys that could fill in...future Hall of Famers like Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, and Todd Helton...guys in their prime like Lance Berkman, Nomar Garciaparra and Bobby Abreu...young hitters like Matt Holliday, Ryan Howard, and Miguel Cabrera...up-and-coming aces like Felix Hernandez, Francisco Liriano, and Justin Verlander...and the list could go on and on. But I'd take this lineup against the best any year/era could throw out there.

2006-06-18 01:31:35 · answer #1 · answered by iwastypingthat 4 · 12 4

I would take the players of the 70's if the rules were the same as they were in the 70's. A pitcher could throw high and tight and not worry about getting thrown out of the game.

Also the guys of the 70's are the last of players that the majority played more for the love of the game than the money. They had more heart and desire. They were not so focused on getting a big contract. Todays players, of course not all, but a majority will do anything to score that big payday. Take steroids, swing for the fence when they should drive the ball the other way, sit out a game because there finger hurts....etc etc....

Give me 9 Pete Roses anyday.

2006-06-17 17:40:33 · answer #2 · answered by brandontipsword 1 · 0 0

I would have to say the 80's, Ryne Sandberg, Barry Bonds(prior to performance enhancers) Dwight Gooden, Lee Smith, Ozzie Smith, Johnny Bench, Gary Carter, Nolan Ryan, Shawon Dunston, Mike Schmidt, Leon Durham, Jose Conseco, Steve Garvey, fernando valenzuela, Goose Gossage, Cal Ripken, Daryll Strawberry, Mike Scocia, Oral Hershieser,Tom Seaver the players from the 80's still were not in it for the money. unlike todays players, 26 million a year. what is NY thinking

2006-06-17 20:05:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A starter ought to finished 5 innings to get credit for a win. If he does not finished the game, his team ought to have the lead while he leaves, and can't supply up the lead at any factor (no longer even the tying run). If the starter does not meet the 5 inning requirement defined above, a alleviation pitcher gets credited with the win. If the 1st alleviation pitcher is available in, and does not supply up the lead, and no next pitcher supplies up the lead, that first alleviation pitcher gets credit for a win. If the lead alterations palms at any time after the starter leaves (or if the starter does not flow 5), the alleviation pitcher who's the pitcher of checklist (final pitcher to checklist an out for the winning team) on the time that his team regains the lead for the final time gets credit for the win. there's a sprint judgment in contact with the sturdy scorekeeper on particular activities, however. If he or she feels as though the pitcher replace into no longer deserving of the win with the aid of fact of a loss of effectiveness (is available in with a 9 run lead, supplies up 10 in one inning, in user-friendly terms to have his team score 2 to win), the win could be provided to a distinctive pitcher who replace into extra clever, and nonetheless meets a great sort of the factors mandatory to qualify for a win. that's amazingly uncommon, however.

2016-10-31 01:51:47 · answer #4 · answered by seelye 4 · 0 0

i'd go with the guys like the 80's or 90's they were good players. i m not sticking up for the phils but they had a good team in 1980 and 1993.

2006-06-17 17:04:32 · answer #5 · answered by joey t 1 · 0 0

i think the guys f the 70's would win

2006-06-17 18:14:43 · answer #6 · answered by katers 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers