Why is the WS never competitive?

[J0nnD0ugh]

This one only lasted 5 games. & it seemed like a nailbiter because of the delay & it wasn't a sweep. If memory serves me correct, there hasn't been one to go 6 games since Arizona won.

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

This one only lasted 5 games. & it seemed like a nailbiter because of the delay & it wasn't a sweep. If memory serves me correct, there hasn't been one to go 6 games since Arizona won.

Close...last one to go 6+ was the Angels-Giants series the next year that went the distance.

I agree though, and I've been wanting to see another epic series like the ones in 2001 and 2002 because I really didn't follow baseball back then and didn't watch. I have yet to witness a truly great World Series, so I hope another good one comes sooner rather than later.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

This one only lasted 5 games. & it seemed like a nailbiter because of the delay & it wasn't a sweep. If memory serves me correct, there hasn't been one to go 6 games since Arizona won.

Never is not a good term...there have been and will be epic WS. As for this one, I thought it was great. Three of the games were 1-run games, a 4-2 game, and the blowout in Game 4. It was fun baseball and enjoyable to watch.

[rsox]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

Actually the last WS to go 6 games was the Marlins/Yankees series in 2003, the Angels/Giants was the last to go 7.

In the past three seasons we have seen these "Cinderella" teams make it to the WS only to fall flat on their faces in the series. "Cinderella" is 2-12 in that time.

As a Red Sox fan i am more than happy that the Sox have won 2 championships in the last 5 years but as i baseball fan i am somewhat disappointed that we have not seen a truely competitive series since '02.

On the plus side the only good thing to come from these short series' is that we don't have to endure a full 7 games of the Buck/McCarver two-headed monster (moron?) that Fox insists on sticking us with.

[marktg30]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

I haven't even cared about baseball since the 98 chase for 62. Other than that I only checked Griffey's performance every day (me favorite athlete since I was 7).

Strike in 94 and Steroids killed baseball.

[pfunk880]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

On the plus side the only good thing to come from these short series' is that we don't have to endure a full 7 games of the Buck/McCarver two-headed monster (moron?) that Fox insists on sticking us with.

Haha, good point.

Couldn't they find anyone better? Anyone at all?

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

They had someone better...Bob Costas.

[Sandman42]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

This one was probably the best one since 2003. Sure it only went 5 games, but at least 4 of the 5 games were close.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

I didn't think this one was great. The first few games, hardly anyone could get a hit w/RISP. They were mostly scored on groundouts. The winning run in game 3 was a HBP, WP, E-2, 2 BB's & a swinging bunt. And that was the game w/drama. Yawn.

[gta95]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

I thought this one was exciting, but I was caught in the roller coaster. Close games and some great performances.

Lighten up J0hn, your acting like you lost money over all this.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

I thought this one was exciting, but I was caught in the roller coaster. Close games and some great performances.

Lighten up J0hn, your acting like you lost money over all this.

It's exciting because you are a Philly fan.

For those of us who just enjoy the competiton & sport w/out any personal interest in who won or loss, it was another anticlimatic end to the season.

I'm not upset at all. I don't gamble. I would just like to have something memorable on the field. I admit I'm not as fanatical about baseball as I am about football & college b-ball. But I think it does say something that the only competitive WS I could come up w/in recent memory was the Az/Yanks one.

You can't tell me the WS since then hasn't been humdrum the last few years. Just some tidbits have stood out. That mammoth HR by Bonds, the Sox teams finally winning, the NYC media making Soriano the goat in the Marlins series (& that stood out only because I happened to be in NYC when that happened), that's it. If you have a vested interest in the clubs that played, you were on pins & needles. For the rest of us, it was as dramatic as C-Span.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

This one was probably the best one since 2003. Sure it only went 5 games, but at least 4 of the 5 games were close.

I think I liked the White Sox/Astros series as far as individual games go. Even though it was a sweep, you had a game won in the bottom of the ninth, a fourteen inning classic, and a 1-0 deciding game.

[rspencer86]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

Even though it only went 5 games, I enjoyed watching this year's World Series. I guess I enjoyed seeing different teams other than the normal Red Sox, Yankees, etc.

[Skerik]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

It's exciting because you are a Philly fan.

For those of us who just enjoy the competiton & sport w/out any personal interest in who won or loss, it was another anticlimatic end to the season.

Yeah. One blowout game, and the other four games were decided by a total of five runs. Totally unexciting.

The games may have been lopsided at 4-1, but four of the five games were absolute nailbiters. I think the problem for a lot of people may have been that the Phillies won with a total team effort and you couldn't point to one or two "superstars" like Bonds or Pujols or Manny who took the whole team on their backs with incredible performances. Total team performances, especially those featuring low-scoring pitchers' duels, aren't all that sexy to the average joe.

Oh well. Sorry America!

[rspencer86]

Re: Why is the WS never competitive?

Yeah. One blowout game, and the other four games were decided by a total of five runs. Totally unexciting.

The games may have been lopsided at 4-1, but four of the five games were absolute nailbiters. I think the problem for a lot of people may have been that the Phillies won with a total team effort and you couldn't point to one or two "superstars" like Bonds or Pujols or Manny who took the whole team on their backs with incredible performances. Total team performances, especially those featuring low-scoring pitchers' duels, aren't all that sexy to the average joe.

Oh well. Sorry America!

Good post. Shane Victorino doesn't inspire the same enthusiasm as Man-Ram. Still an enjoyable Series to watch IMO.