Author Topic: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3  (Read 16033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22272
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #150: June 18, 2009, 04:55:01 PM »
I beat.

Offline DC_Bucs

  • Posts: 43
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #151: June 18, 2009, 04:56:39 PM »
Well...technically we're still in a rain delay with Houston, right? So that would be a 4 month rain delay.  The White Sox and Rangers had a 7 1/2 hour rain delay in 1990 before the game was postponed.  We're just approaching 4 hours now.  We've got a while to go.

Wow, I guess so. Do you know what the record delay was for a game that was restarted on the same day?

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93630
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #152: June 18, 2009, 04:57:24 PM »
The Jays just swept the Phillies in Philly. they are going to own us this weekend :?

Offline Nathan

  • Posts: 10723
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 23244
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #154: June 18, 2009, 05:02:03 PM »
hahahahahah Dukes is getting day off today - that's so classic
:worship: :rofl:

AZ still has Zim-with-1-N, even though he was dropped from his user name...
and Ronnie "Bazooka Gum" Belliard.
          :pimp: 

Online Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 15394
  • babble on
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #155: June 18, 2009, 05:02:12 PM »
Wait, isn't that a violation of the SF Iron Rule of Statistics?

Theorem
The Jays just swept the Phillies in Philly. they are going to own us this weekend :?

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22272
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #156: June 18, 2009, 05:04:08 PM »
Wow, I guess so. Do you know what the record delay was for a game that was restarted on the same day?
They don't really records of that but the Nats and Phils had an almost 5 hour delay in 2006 while the Phils were making a Wild Card push.  Nats won.

Online DCFan

  • Posts: 13039
  • What are you dense?
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #157: June 18, 2009, 05:04:09 PM »
Was baseball ever really as popular on a national level as the NFL is today? And I do mean on a truly national level. In the so-called "Golden Era" of Major League Baseball, which I generally see described as being roughly from the end of World War II until the Dodgers and Giants folded after the 1957 season, it would surely be debatable to what degree either baseball OR the NFL was truly a "national sport."

During the period you mentioned, baseball reigned supreme.  The '58 football championship (Colts and Giants) is credited with being the impetus for starting the ascendancy of football. Course that was about the time that TV became a regular part of everyones life and home. Pete Rozell got football into TV faster than baseball and the rest is history as they say.

Offline 1995hoo

  • Posts: 920
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #158: June 18, 2009, 05:06:15 PM »
During the period you mentioned, baseball reigned supreme.  The '58 football championship (Colts and Giants) is credited with being the impetus for starting the ascendancy of football. Course that was about the time that TV became a regular part of everyones life and home. Pete Rozell got football into TV faster than baseball and the rest is history as they say.


And this is really to some degree what I was suggesting—TV was such a huge paradigm shift that it's hard to compare anything prior to its ascendancy. Of course, I suppose Nat of the Living Dead's point remains valid insofar as we have no way of knowing whether there might ever be some future paradigm shift of similar proportions.

Offline Roarin Storen

  • Posts: 1435
  • #teamlocke
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #159: June 18, 2009, 05:19:37 PM »
I'm still here. My friend I was with left. Ive never felt so lonely.

Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #160: June 18, 2009, 05:29:21 PM »
I'm still here. My friend I was with left. Ive never felt so lonely.

Estimate how many people are in the stadium.

Offline Evolution33

  • Posts: 5093
    • Blown Save, Win
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #161: June 18, 2009, 05:33:05 PM »


I don't think I could stay in one place for five hours without strippers.

Offline natsfan4evr

  • Posts: 6171
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #162: June 18, 2009, 05:41:37 PM »
Why don't we just forfeit? Does anyone think we'll beat them with that sorry ass lineup that was posted?

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93630
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #163: June 18, 2009, 05:43:30 PM »
6:30 start :puke:

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37395
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #164: June 18, 2009, 05:44:06 PM »
My brother left 30 minutes ago - they are taking the tarp off now though. I feel really bad for him.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nationalsjournal/2009/06/the_running_rain_thread.html

Offline Coladar

  • Posts: 2826
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #165: June 18, 2009, 05:47:08 PM »
lol, I had recorded the entire game from 1-4:30 and was all set to sit back and watch an epic loss, and the end of Manny (Los(t) Idiot) Acta's far too long career in DC and got this. Apparently the weather god's want to make Acta suffer a little bit longer considering he'd have been fired at this point if not for the rain.

All that said, they'll get it in if the field is at all playable. The radar: http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?product=N0R&rid=OKX&loop=yes
clearly shows that the rain is almost over if not over already. Acta's days are almost over with. And looking at that lineup it seems clear he wants to make certain he gets fired, as someone who's job is on the line with this game and this game alone simply does *not* put that lineup into play. He wants gone at this point, no question.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37395
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #166: June 18, 2009, 05:47:58 PM »
Manny is so bad that he benched Dukes a day after he showed he didn't care in the field. That should be the final straw.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37377
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #167: June 18, 2009, 05:53:14 PM »
I'm still here. My friend I was with left. Ive never felt so lonely.

you've got the nats!!!

6:30 start time per NJ

Offline Roarin Storen

  • Posts: 1435
  • #teamlocke
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #168: June 18, 2009, 05:54:05 PM »
6:30? Fml I finally left 20 min ago, on the metro now.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30719
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #169: June 18, 2009, 05:54:52 PM »
So does this mean we're going to be forced to watch on MASN2 while the Birds game gets MASN HD? :?

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37395
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #170: June 18, 2009, 05:55:02 PM »
6:30? Fml I finally left 20 min ago, on the metro now.

My bro did the same thing - he's gonna try to get back in. Bet scalper tickets are damn cheap right now.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 73692
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #171: June 18, 2009, 05:55:34 PM »
Was baseball ever really as popular on a national level as the NFL is today?

Yes. But it has to be interpreted in context. NOTLD pointed out that they never thought baseball would be superseded by any other sport in the US but that was before some of the current leagues ever took off. THe NBA didn't come into existence until, I believe, the 1940's. The NFL didn't come around until the 1920's. By that time baseball already had decades of being entrenched as the one big American sport. Soccer is not a new sport so it's not like it will suddenly take off in the US when people discover it or when their leagues gain popularity through exposure. Soccer leagues have existed in the US since the late 19th century but they always failed. The NFL is the only sport that will eclipse baseball in popularity and that only because, let's face it, football is a better sport to watch on television. Soccer will never be seen as an exciting sport to watch on TV unless you're already a soccer enthusiast.

They can point to the growing number of kids playing soccer now but how does that compare proportionally to the number that played it back in the 1970's? It's also an easy sport for kids to play when they are young (it keeps them active and outdoors) because, like basketball, you only need a ball and a certain number of kids to play whereas in baseball and football every kid needs equipment. Also, if you think about it, the skill set necessary to play a game of football, baseball and even basketball is a little more demanding than it is to play soccer so it's easier for kids to play a game of soccer than it is for them to play the other sports.

Offline d_mc_nabb

  • Posts: 778
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #172: June 18, 2009, 05:55:37 PM »
Have ya watched American football?
Same numbers, we just take more breaks and swap people around more


This is true, but the upsides are:

Every play, something happens, and every play, there is score potential for either side.

That, and you get to watch big peoplebeat the living daylights out of eachother.

Also, I feel like football takes a lot more strategy, so it's easier for me to appreciate. I don't know this for sure though, as I'm not a soccer fanatic.

Offline Roarin Storen

  • Posts: 1435
  • #teamlocke
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #173: June 18, 2009, 05:56:03 PM »
This is pretty depressing.

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37377
  • LAC 8)
Re: Nationals @ Yankees, Game 3
« Reply #174: June 18, 2009, 06:22:41 PM »
some interesting Nats notes per Jayson Stark

Quote
We've pretty firmly established that the Nationals aren't going to win the World Series. But only five other teams in the whole sport were more than six games under .500 after Wednesday night. And that's a deadline shopper's worst nightmare.

"Some of these teams that are in it don't even want to be in it," said one AL executive. "I think they'd rather unload some guys and dump some money. But when you're a few games out, it's hard to explain that to your fans."

So we'll do everybody a favor. We'll pick the sellers and leave them out of it. We took the nine teams at the bottom of ESPN.com's MLB Power Rankings. Then, with help from a group of front-office personnel around the game, we nominated the player on that team most likely to get traded.

Get the picture? Now start making that shopping list.

 • Nationals: Nick Johnson, 1B
There might be 18 players on this team who are available. And names like Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham and Joe Beimel are going to be just as prominent in the Rumor Central annals over the next six weeks as Nick Johnson. But Johnson makes the most sense. He's about to be a free agent. He doesn't fit in D.C. long term. He's still an on-base machine (.415 OBP, eighth in the NL). He hits left-handers (.333 average, .536 slugging percentage). And he's played in 20 postseason games, back in his Yankees incarnation.

"They could move Dunn," said an executive of one team. "But the price would be way too astronomical to actually make a deal. And if they move Nick Johnson, they accomplish what they need to accomplish. They're better off putting Dunn at first base so they can play Willingham or other people in the outfield. And they're more likely to move Johnson than Willingham, because at least Willingham they can control."

• In the wash: The rampaging state of flux in Washington goes beyond the manager's office. The Nationals still haven't committed to highly respected interim general manager Mike Rizzo as their full-time GM. And we're now hearing that former Astros GM Gerry Hunsicker, currently a senior VP for baseball operations in Tampa Bay, has surfaced as a candidate if Rizzo doesn't get the job.