The Bitter Rivals Thread

[Yankillaz]

Ok. Talking about rivalries:

Toronto Blue Jays vs. Oakland Athletics from 1989 to 1992. I HATED Dave Stewart. Of course, then he went to Toronto so I HAD to like him.

[YankeeMan]

Ok. Talking about rivalries:

Toronto Blue Jays vs. Oakland Athletics from 1989 to 1992. I HATED Dave Stewart. Of course, then he went to Toronto so I HAD to like him.

Hey yankillaz, Welcome to the THREAD OF DOOM! There's only ONE RULE in here...

Ken has his opinion and he thinks everyone's entitled to it!

Hmm, no, wait, I think that's me! :clown:

Jays-A's? And you didn't have to like Stewart. I've despised A-Rod his entire tenure in pinstripes.

[YankeeMan]

And I feel...
The "modern era" in the NBA = Bill Russell + Wilt Chamberlain

Really, because in 1979 (year before Magic-Bird roof: ), except in certain cities (most notably Seattle and Washington), some of the games of the NBA "World Championship Series" (later known as the "NBA Finals") were shown on "tape delay" (after the 11 o'clock news on the east coast). [And, Ken, you're old enough to remember that!] Does that sound "major league" to you? :stare:

[Yankillaz]

Modern NBA began in 1984, the famous draft year.

I had to like him, Yankeeman, he gave my team a different edge.

[KenFougere]

Hey yankillaz, Welcome to the THREAD OF DOOM! There's only ONE RULE in here...

Ken has his opinion and he thinks everyone's entitled to it!

Hmm, no, wait, I think that's me! :clown:

I've never laughed so loud and long in my life! - Again, you SO suck! -

[epaddon]

Of the Bruins two Cups, of the Orr era, the first one keep in mind came under rules that dictated one of the expansion teams would always make the finals, as they expansion teams were placed in the Western Conference and the "Original Six" comprised the Eastern Conference. The St. Louis Blues never offered much in the way of opposition.

72 against the Rangers was different though if Ratelle doesn't break his ankle its probably a different story.

The Bruins then managed to lose the Finals five times before winning another Cup. A mark surpassed only by the Flyers who have lost the Cup Finals six times since their last victory.

I also think had Don Cherry not committed his "too many men on the ice" blunder in the 79 Semis, they play the Rangers and the Rangers knock them off.

And I would make the case that never before or since was there more excitement in the USA over the NHL then when the Rangers won the Cup in 94.

[epaddon]

As a Yankee fan, I can't argue with the success of the Red Sox in winning three times in ten years. What I can argue with is how Red Sox management hypocritically likes to act like their success is being done through Moneyball style means and that they can still play the "underdog" in relation to the Yankees which is garbage and trying to have both sides of an argument. I can respect the Red Sox more if they can acknowledge that they finally won when they learned to have ownership that was *like* the Yankees instead of letting the ghost of Tom Yawkey (the most undeserving member of the Hall of Fame period. Steinbrenner and Jacob Ruppert both should have been put in before Yawkey ever was since his achievements were the most destructive to any franchise in the history of the game) still run their operation.

[KenFougere]

Really, because in 1979 (year before Magic-Bird roof: ), except in certain cities (most notably Seattle and Washington), some of the games of the NBA "World Championship Series" (later known as the "NBA Finals") were shown on "tape delay" (after the 11 o'clock news on the east coast). [And, Ken, you're old enough to remember that!] Does that sound "major league" to you? :stare:

The reason I picked the Bill Russell - Wilt Chamberlin era is because of their decade long fierce rivalry, {boarder-line hatred for each other}. Chamberlin had all the personal scoring records while Russell listened to and totally bought into "Red" Auerbach's team concept which is why Wilt won all the personal accolades and Russell & the Celtics won all the Championships...

BTW, As a coach, "Red" Auerbach won 938 games and nine National Basketball Association championships in ten years.
As general manager and team president of the Celtics, he won an additional seven NBA titles, for a grand total of 16 in a span of 29 years,
making him the most successful team official in the history of ALL North American professional sports.

[KenFougere]

Of the Bruins two Cups, of the Orr era, the first one keep in mind came under rules that dictated one of the expansion teams would always make the finals, as they expansion teams were placed in the Western Conference and the "Original Six" comprised the Eastern Conference. The St. Louis Blues never offered much in the way of opposition.

72 against the Rangers was different though if Ratelle doesn't break his ankle its probably a different story.

The Bruins then managed to lose the Finals five times before winning another Cup. A mark surpassed only by the Flyers who have lost the Cup Finals six times since their last victory.

I also think had Don Cherry not committed his "too many men on the ice" blunder in the 79 Semis, they play the Rangers and the Rangers knock them off.

And I would make the case that never before or since was there more excitement in the USA over the NHL then when the Rangers won the Cup in 94.

It's my opinion, the Bruins were the best team in the 1970 playoffs. Proof: They beat the Rangers, (4-2), who finished only 2 wins behind Boston in the regular season. Then they swept the 1st place Blackhawks in the semi's. Clearly no one was going to beat the Bruins in the playoffs that year. Weather an original six team or expansion.

1970 Playoffs.png
In 1972 the Rangers would have lost to the Bruins with or without Rattle. Boston was too powerful offensively for the Rangers to overcome. (Reg. Season Record: Bruins 5W - Rangers 1W)

[YankeeMan]

And I would make the case that never before or since was there more excitement in the USA over the NHL then when the Rangers won the Cup in 94.

I find that interesting. Do continue. :clown:
15-new-york-rangers-1994-stanley-cup-championship-rings.jpg

The reason I picked the Bill Russell - Wilt Chamberlin era is because of their decade long fierce rivalry, {boarder-line hatred for each other}. Chamberlin had all the personal scoring records while Russell listened to and totally bought into "Red" Auerbach's team concept which is why Wilt won all the personal accolades and Russell & the Celtics won all the Championships...

BTW, As a coach, "Red" Auerbach won 938 games and nine National Basketball Association championships in ten years.
As general manager and team president of the Celtics, he won an additional seven NBA titles, for a grand total of 16 in a span of 29 years,
making him the most successful team official in the history of ALL North American professional sports.

Yes, and throughout the decades, the Big Ten Conference has had a GREAT RIVALRY in football...

ohio-state-michigan-rivalry.jpg

But no one would legitimately claim it's the dominate conference in football. My point is this... Back in the 1960's, if you were a talented high school athlete with pro potential in two sports -- one being basketball (the other football or baseball), which one would you follow <all other factors being equal>? Clearly, if you're pragmatic about it, it's NOT basketball. This directly affects the potential "level of competion." Now, flash forward to today: same kid, same situation. Basketball's not such a bad choice now. But I know, even if you think I'm right, you must hold the party line.

[KenFougere]

I find that interesting. Do continue. :clown:
[ATTACH]136718[/ATTACH]

Yes, and throughout the decades, the Big Ten Conference has had a GREAT RIVALRY in football...

[ATTACH]136719[/ATTACH]

But no one would legitimately claim it's the dominate conference in football. My point is this... Back in the 1960's, if you were a talented high school athlete with pro potential in two sports -- one being basketball (the other football or baseball), which one would you follow <all other factors being equal>? Clearly, if you're pragmatic about it, it's NOT basketball. This directly affects the potential "level of completion." Now, flash forward to today: same kid, same situation. Basketball's not such a bad choice now. But I know, even if you think I'm right, you must hold the party line.

Probably the most lucid point I've ever heard you make. Prescription perhaps?

[YankeeMan]

... Prescription perhaps?

Yeah, but I can't remember if the doctor said take one pill three times a day or three pills once a day. So, just to be safe, I'm doing both! :clown: [Hey, I'd read the instructions on the label but, Whoa, after I take those first three pills in the morning, boy is my vision blurry. ]

[KenFougere]

The missing link!

Yeah, but I can't remember if the doctor said take one pill three times a day or three pills once a day. So, just to be safe, I'm doing both! :clown: [Hey, I'd read the instructions on the label but, Whoa, after I take those first three pills in the morning, boy is my vision blurry. ]

Finally. This explains, 'You'. And why you've become a, 'Yankee fan'. -

You poor bastarid . . . :dismay:

[YankeeMan]

Now Ken, since you've tacitly conceded the point in basketball, we shall further your education in hockey... And cure you of that peculiar Bostonian obsession known as "Bobby Orr:"

Orr_v_Gretzky.jpg

Oh, and how many people wear the #99 in the NHL nowadays? Bobby Orr is precursor, a portent, a prophecy... The one that followed is THE GREAT ONE!!! [Jeez, Ken, that was his nickname when he was playing! They didn't call Orr that.] !

[KenFougere]

Hockey 101

Now Ken, since you've tacitly conceded the point in basketball, we shall further your education in hockey... And cure you of that peculiar Bostonian obsession known as "Bobby Orr:"

[ATTACH]136725[/ATTACH]

Oh, and how many people wear the #99 in the NHL nowadays? Bobby Orr is precursor, a portent, a prophecy... The one that followed is THE GREAT ONE!!! [Jeez, Ken, that was his nickname when he was playing! They didn't call Orr that.] !

You can't be serious? The longer I know you, the more of your rhetoric I have to endure. Sometimes after reading statements like the one quoted above, I can't accept it simply because you're from New York and you simply don't know any better.

Now try to follow my line of reasoning here...

• Bobby Orr was a DEFENSEMAN.
• Gretzky was a OFFENSEMAN
• Bobby Orr played only 9 healthy seasons.
• Gretzky played double that.
• Only you could compare pts/gm between a defenseman & a centerman.

Seriously. Please read up on Orr. Not his stats, but some sportswriters opinions who consistently saw him play and comment on how he truly transformed the game of hockey. Flyer's Rival Bobby Clarke, commenting on Orr, said, "It wasn't fair that he was made to play with us. There should have been a higher league for him to go to."
He was the most complete hockey player of all time. He made his teammates better players. An example, at the end of the 1971-72 regular season, SEVEN Bruins finished in the top 10 NHL scorers. Without Orr, that can't happen and hasn't happen since.
Please, put 20-30 minutes aside to research his career and see how highly he was, and is still regarded in hockey history. After that, I'd like to know if your opinion of his place in hockey history has changed...