Author Topic: ESPN Coverage (2012)  (Read 5809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tokeydog

  • Posts: 1107
  • I like beer!
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #50: April 07, 2012, 10:26:01 AM »
God those videos are great!

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8384
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #51: April 07, 2012, 09:31:15 PM »
And while I have the google working, here is Bob Feller demonstrating different grips. It looks like Feller's right hand starts well below his belt, pretty much like Strassburg. He generates his power by extending his arm as far as possible in the wind-up, and by getting some acceleration from every joint, shoulder to fingers.

Bob Feller Demonstrates Pitching

How long did Feller pitch?


this is a sick video

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 16613
  • I'd like to buy a clutch hit, Pat
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #52: April 08, 2012, 06:07:04 PM »
Hey ESPN...The Red Sox snatched defeat from the jaws of victory today and they and the Yankees are now a combined 0-6!  :panic:

:thumbs:

Online Squab

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 3472
  • Sit down Stanton.
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #53: April 08, 2012, 06:17:38 PM »
Hey ESPN...The Red Sox snatched defeat from the jaws of victory today and they and the Yankees are now a combined 0-6!  :panic:

:thumbs:

ESPN Scorecenter update on my phone:
Yanks, Red Sox both 0-3. 1966 was the only other season in which both teams started 0-3.

Wow, two teams in the MLB started 0-3. Minnesota, Atlanta, San Diego are also 0-3.

Online spidernat

  • Posts: 51414
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #54: April 08, 2012, 06:29:49 PM »
red sox didn't lose. The scoreboard is just plain wrong.  :lmao:

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 10332
  • babble on
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #55: April 08, 2012, 08:50:56 PM »
Mets (3-0) fans are having a ball with this.

Hey ESPN...The Red Sox snatched defeat from the jaws of victory today and they and the Yankees are now a combined 0-6!  :panic:

:thumbs:


Online CALSGR8

  • Posts: 11062
  • Be Loud * Be Proud * Be Positive
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #56: April 08, 2012, 09:44:26 PM »
The Orioles are 3-0 too!  You KNOW these standings are going to flip flop!

Online PC

  • Posts: 38429
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #57: April 08, 2012, 10:02:48 PM »
Caught the end of this conversation on BT this morning.

Stras talk.mpg

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 16613
  • I'd like to buy a clutch hit, Pat
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #58: April 14, 2012, 11:44:27 PM »
Heaven forbid Jackson's gem of a game today would make the headlines on their MLB page.  This is from 11:42 p.m. Saturday:

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 10676
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #59: April 14, 2012, 11:57:22 PM »
Not as important as the rally squirrel.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17710
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #60: April 15, 2012, 12:22:03 AM »
Which story would you remove from the list?

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37337
  • LAC 8)
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #61: April 15, 2012, 12:24:58 AM »
i don't watch espn.  nor do i go to their website.  it's the same crap, different day there.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 13870
  • Lerners = Bluth family
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #62: April 15, 2012, 01:25:02 AM »
Which story would you remove from the list?

You're right, Ozzie Guillen getting a headache is more important.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17710
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #63: April 15, 2012, 01:31:55 AM »
You're right, Ozzie Guillen getting a headache is more important.

That was one of the biggest stories of the week and almost caused an international incident.  Seriously, don't think Jackson's game is more important than it actually is.  It was a really nice game on a team that hasn't really done anything ever vs. at team that is a middle of the pack team themselves.  The Nats haven't done anything to warrant that level of attention yet.  Enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it's one of the biggest stories in baseball, because it isn't, at least not this early in the season.  Sorry.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 13870
  • Lerners = Bluth family
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #64: April 15, 2012, 01:34:37 AM »
That was one of the biggest stories of the week and almost caused an international incident.

Um, and what does Ozzie having a headache have to do with it?

Reminds me of the media reporting about Antonin Scalia tripping at a restaurant.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 17710
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #65: April 15, 2012, 01:55:40 AM »
Um, and what does Ozzie having a headache have to do with it?

Reminds me of the media reporting about Antonin Scalia tripping at a restaurant.

Except it's not.  It's a story about how it's killing him to not be with his team.  Given the circumstances of the past week, it's pretty relevant story.

Online PC

  • Posts: 38429
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #66: April 15, 2012, 02:04:35 AM »
That was one of the biggest stories of the week and almost caused an international incident.  Seriously, don't think Jackson's game is more important than it actually is.  It was a really nice game on a team that hasn't really done anything ever vs. at team that is a middle of the pack team themselves.  The Nats haven't done anything to warrant that level of attention yet.  Enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it's one of the biggest stories in baseball, because it isn't, at least not this early in the season.  Sorry.

Well, NO team has done anything in 2012.  Remember this news for 2012....not some time in the past when the Yankees and Red Sox were actually winning something.  At this point in the season, every team is on the  same footing.   And if you look at the updated updates, they have dumped the Guillen story so it wasn't that important.


Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37337
  • LAC 8)
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #67: April 15, 2012, 02:09:47 AM »
[JCA] they should have more Sawx headlines there [/JCA]

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 13870
  • Lerners = Bluth family
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #68: April 15, 2012, 02:21:32 AM »
Except it's not.  It's a story about how it's killing him to not be with his team.  Given the circumstances of the past week, it's pretty relevant story.

Um, wow.  That's news.  I'm sure no one would have expected a major league manager to be in disarray after being suspended.  Homey, PLEASE.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15495
  • Future
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #69: April 15, 2012, 02:23:41 AM »
Um, wow.  That's news.  I'm sure no one would have expected a major league manager to be in disarray after being suspended.  Homey, PLEASE.

Yeah I can agree with this

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37337
  • LAC 8)
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #70: April 15, 2012, 02:34:52 AM »
Yeah I can agree with this

+2

as can I!

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 10676
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #71: April 15, 2012, 07:34:24 AM »
Guys, the rally squirrel is more important than a 2-hit complete game shutout. Stop being absurd.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13447
  • The Truth.
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #72: April 15, 2012, 07:41:43 AM »
Guys, the rally squirrel is more important than a 2-hit complete game shutout. Stop being absurd.

The rally squirrel is bigger than Jesus.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 15979
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #73: April 15, 2012, 08:15:08 AM »
Which story would you remove from the list?

Clemens isn't a sports story, hell it's barely a story at all.

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 23124
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #74: April 15, 2012, 08:21:15 AM »
The rally squirrel is bigger than Jesus.

I don't know about the squirrel but The Beatles were.   :)