|
|
Welcome to Talksox. For full access to all of our features, register for your free account now.
Registration allows you to:
- Respond to over 500,000 posts in 12,000+ threads by 5,000 members
- Send private messages, share photos, make friends
- Gain full access to the best Red Sox community on the internet
If you are a current Talksox member, this message will disappear after you log in.
|
Vivid Seats is a great one-stop source for MLB game dates and tickets. Find MLB tickets for all teams including opening day, regular season and playoffs - Red Sox tickets are onsale now, as well as Houston Astros tickets for the entire baseball season.
|
 |
|
11-05-2009, 02:39 PM
|
#31 (permalink)
|
|
Legend
Join Date: Aug 21 2006
Posts: 6,247
|
Re: Team of the 2000s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradisecity
Inquiring minds want to know- Why is it all about the rings?
|
I wouldn't expect a Red Sox fan to understand.
__________________
"Every year, the infielders move a step back because you have lost some speed, and the outfielders move in a step because you have lost some of your power. When they can shake hands, you're finished."
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 02:46 PM
|
#32 (permalink)
|
|
All-Star
Join Date: Jan 26 2006
Posts: 1,096
|
Re: Team of the 2000s
No- I'm looking for a serious response- We have as many rings as you this decade, yes? (more, technically) Why is it all about the rings?
__________________
Everybody wants a piece of me. Nobody can stomach the whole thing
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 02:55 PM
|
#33 (permalink)
|
|
MVP
Join Date: Nov 27 2006
Location: Back Bay, Boston
Posts: 4,018
|
Re: Team of the 2000s
Here's one thing I've never understood, shouldn't the decade start at 0 (ie, 2000) and end at at 9 (2009)? Everything is based on base 10 numbers, which are 0-9, then start over with another place setting, thus 2000 is the next set, along with 2010, etc.
__________________
Get Lackey, check.
Get Beltre, check.
Win another Championship, pending.
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 02:57 PM
|
#34 (permalink)
|
|
All-Star
Join Date: Jan 26 2006
Posts: 1,096
|
Re: Team of the 2000s
that would mean that we had year zero.
__________________
Everybody wants a piece of me. Nobody can stomach the whole thing
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 03:00 PM
|
#35 (permalink)
|
|
All-Star
Join Date: Oct 09 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: Team of the 2000s
There was no team of the 2000s. IMO, you have to have some sort of dynasty to qualify. And two rings, as impressive as that is, isn't a dynasty. Probably splitting hairs here, but I firmly believe anything less than three rings isn't a dynasty.
__________________
The highlight of my career? In '67 with St. Louis, I walked with the bases loaded to drive in the winning run in an intersquad game in spring training.
http://jewsinbaseball.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 03:00 PM
|
#36 (permalink)
|
|
Catalyst
Join Date: Aug 02 2006
Posts: 18,285
|
Re: Team of the 2000s
Well, technically, there should be a year zero. If we are to consider our calendar based on the birth of Jesus then theoretically, time should start after that with seconds to minutes to days, months to years. So theoretically, a year zero should have occured. But I dont think we did it that way to be honest with you.
__________________
Another championship for the best franchise in the history of organized sports. It's a great time to be a Yankee fan.
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 03:02 PM
|
#37 (permalink)
|
|
MVP
Join Date: Nov 27 2006
Location: Back Bay, Boston
Posts: 4,018
|
Re: Team of the 2000s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradisecity
that would mean that we had year zero.
|
From a number perspective, yeah. Everything starts with zero, and it's a real number. What was there before 1 AD? You can't jump from -1 AD to 1 AD, there has to be a number (0) in between. It would be like skipping 2000 and going straight from 1999 to 2001. As Jacksonian pointed out, the death of Jesus should have started at zero. When a baby is born, you don't call it 1 year old.
__________________
Get Lackey, check.
Get Beltre, check.
Win another Championship, pending.
Last edited by TedWilliams101; 11-05-2009 at 03:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 AM.
|
