PDA

View Full Version : Let's Get Past 2004, Before We Start Thinking 1999



Edskin
06-12-2006, 06:51 AM
At 36-24, I was pretty pumped, just as most you were. And yes, I had some daydreams about the 1999 magic. However, those thoughts were tempered by my memory of 2004, when we got off to a nearly identical start, and then crumbled the rest of the way.

In 2004, we were 34-22, basically the same record through as many games as we had this year. Things were looking good. Then, we had a 7 game losing streak, and even though we bounced back for a few weeks following that streak, we never again we able to regain the ground/momentum we lost. Later in July, we lost 11 of 12 to officially end any hopes. But IMO, that initial 7 game losing streak is what spelled the beginning of the end.........

06-07-2004 at Oakland Athletics 2-13 L 34-23
58 06-08-2004 at Oakland Athletics 6-10 L 34-24
59 06-09-2004 at Oakland Athletics 8-17 L 34-25
60 06-11-2004 at Cleveland Indians 5-6 L 34-26
61 06-12-2004 at Cleveland Indians 7-8 L 34-27
62 06-13-2004 at Cleveland Indians 8-10 L 34-28
63 06-14-2004 at Philadelphia Phillies 7-10 L 34-29

I bring this up because I think it's VERY important to first establish that this is NOT 2004 all over again before we even start thinking about 1999 all over again.

The big difference is that I have a lot more faith in the starters than I did in 2004, but our bats are inconsistent and the bullpen is dreadful, two things that could combine for a losing streak.

Our brilliant road trip gives us some wiggle room to lose 3 in a row to a bad Cubs team, however, we must be able to stop that bleeding NOW. The White Sox loom this weekend, so I think it's best if we get out of our little funk ASAP against the Brewers the next three days.

macro
06-12-2006, 08:51 AM
It was said here at the time, and has been repeated in the past few days, that the 2004 team was doing it with mirrors. I think this team is more "deserving" (for lack of a better word) of it's record than that team was. That being said, it's probably going to be a losing nine-game homestand, so I agree that it's important to stop the bleeding ASAP so as to not erase most or all of the gains made during the winning streak.

One thing I find to be a sad commentary on the recent history of this franchise (and I don't direct this toward you, Ed) is that 1999 is a season that is looked up with nostalgia, and the team didn't even make the playoffs.

westofyou
06-12-2006, 09:45 AM
One thing I find to be a sad commentary on the recent history of this franchise (and I don't direct this toward you, Ed) is that 1999 is a season that is looked up with nostalgia, and the team didn't even make the playoffs.

I see more 2004 than 1999 and mostly it's because of this.


ERA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

INNINGS PITCHED IP G ERA
1 Scott Sullivan 113.2 79 1.56
2 Danny Graves 111 75 1.49
3 Scott Williamson 93.1 62 2.16
4 Dennys Reyes 61.2 65 0.77
5 Gabe White 61 50 0.14

Blimpie
06-12-2006, 09:49 AM
Funny, when I think of our bullpen, I see.....

http://www.kinoweb.de/film99/SixthSense/pix/6s1.jpg

top6
06-12-2006, 09:58 AM
One thing I find to be a sad commentary on the recent history of this franchise (and I don't direct this toward you, Ed) is that 1999 is a season that is looked up with nostalgia, and the team didn't even make the playoffs.In fairness, though, that 1999 team was better than a lot of teams that have made the playoffs the last few years. Indeed, 96 wins would have been good enough to make the postseason in every year since - and would have been good enough to win the NL central in many of those years.

And that 1999 team was just so much fun. I look at that team with more nostalgia than I do that 1995 team.

paulrichjr
06-12-2006, 10:10 AM
In fairness, though, that 1999 team was better than a lot of teams that have made the playoffs the last few years. Indeed, 96 wins would have been good enough to make the postseason in every year since - and would have been good enough to win the NL central in many of those years.

And that 1999 team was just so much fun. I look at that team with more nostalgia than I do that 1995 team.

Couldn't say it better myself. 100% agree

Edskin
06-12-2006, 12:23 PM
1999 was a much more "fun" year than 1995-- I totally agree.

The 1999 team ran into some incredibly bad luck in terms of how good the NL was that season. If the Pirates could have just scored ONE run in that Mets series or if Marquis Grissom doesn't make that catch........

KronoRed
06-12-2006, 03:24 PM
....or if we beat the brewers ;)

wheels
06-12-2006, 04:06 PM
.....Or if Davey Johnson had started Kevin Brown instead of that rookie against the Astros.

Oh, what could have been.