Jump to content

25 greatest games at OPACY


MDtransplant757

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
39 minutes ago, MDtransplant757 said:

2131 is going to be #1 forever. Wonder if game 1 of the ALDS is up there. I'm going to be upset if it isn't. 

Which ALDS Game 1? 

I went to both of the recent ones and neither would be worthy.  In 2012 we lost to the Yankees and in 2014 we blew out the Tigers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MDtransplant757 said:

Tigers blow out in 2014. I feel that game is a classic, and a lot of people would probably agree with me

A fun game, no doubt, but I don't put it on the level of the other things we've seen in the Top 10 thus far. Nor the games that are still ahead. And I severely doubt it's going to make an appearance, given the gravity of some of the other games that are certainly locks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

As FlipTheBird said, an awesome game, but not worthy of being named one of the top 5 games in OPACY history. 

It was a great game... but honestly gets overshadowed by the fact that it was probably the third most exciting game in that series, haha. Game 2, obviously, is legendary. But Game 3 in Detroit was amazing, too. Bud Norris out-dueling David Price? Nellie Cruz further continuing to have a flair for the dramatic? And then Britton shutting it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, FlipTheBird said:

It was a great game... but honestly gets overshadowed by the fact that it was probably the third most exciting game in that series, haha. Game 2, obviously, is legendary. But Game 3 in Detroit was amazing, too. Bud Norris out-dueling David Price? Nellie Cruz further continuing to have a flair for the dramatic? And then Britton shutting it down.

That is definitely not how I remember it. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, No. 6 was the 10-run comeback against the Red Sox. I remember this game vividly, though I'll admit the only reason I stayed tuned in long enough to see the comeback was because I had a paper to write, and it worked as background white, even down 10-1. So I saw the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FlipTheBird said:

FYI, No. 6 was the 10-run comeback against the Red Sox. I remember this game vividly, though I'll admit the only reason I stayed tuned in long enough to see the comeback was because I had a paper to write, and it worked as background white, even down 10-1. So I saw the whole thing.

Unfortunately, what I remember most about this game is that instead of building on that fantastic comeback, the very next day we blew a 5-1 9th inning lead against the Red Sox and lost 6-5 in extra innings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FlipTheBird said:

FYI, No. 6 was the 10-run comeback against the Red Sox. I remember this game vividly, though I'll admit the only reason I stayed tuned in long enough to see the comeback was because I had a paper to write, and it worked as background white, even down 10-1. So I saw the whole thing.

Thank you for the update

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FlipTheBird said:

The 2009 O's were very, very bad.

 

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Unfortunately, what I remember most about this game is that instead of building on that fantastic comeback, the very next day we blew a 5-1 9th inning lead against the Red Sox and lost 6-5 in extra innings. 

But, hey, they parlayed that worst record in the AL into Manny Machado. So it worked out? They don't blow that game, they might pick after the Royals or Indians in the ensuing draft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FlipTheBird said:

 

But, hey, they parlayed that worst record in the AL into Manny Machado. So it worked out? They don't blow that game, they might pick after the Royals or Indians in the ensuing draft...

That's a silver lining for sure.   The 2010 draft was pretty strong -- Harper, Machado, Sale, Harvey, Pomeranz, Yelich, Syndergaard and Aaron Sanchez were all first rounders that year.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...