ANGELCAT-IDA61

MLB changes 2018?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

If it's in MLB The Show then it's in the style guide and will be there for 2018 barring a sudden change. That video game follows the damn style guide to a hair pulling fault. 

 

Either the style guide is wrong, or the developers are, especially with throwbacks. The game has the Mariners, Padres and Phillies in the wrong font for numbers, and used the incorrect "fat" lettering for the Red Sox throwback script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 3:53 PM, the admiral said:

Baylor was all over the place but probably best associated with Baltimore (at least in my mind), Mauch with the Twins, I've never thought to associate Frank Tanana with anyone

 

Gene Mauch won the second and third championships in team history, the 1982 and 1986 A.L. West titles. [Edited from "the first two championships" after I rememberd about the Angels' 1979 title.]  And this was in the days when the divisional title meant something.

 

Is there a manager who had more heartbreak than Gene Mauch? First there are the 1964 Phillies, which we all know about. Then in 1982 the Angels take a 2-games-to-none lead in the best-of-five ALCS, only to see the Brewers win three straight. And finally the sorrowful events of 1986, which later turned tragic. 

 

Mauch may never have made it to the World Series; but he was a champion with the Angels.

 

 

People who saw Frank Tanana only in the later years of his career might not realise that this guy whom they perceived as a crafty lefty was at one time a feared fireballer. Tanana and Nolan Ryan back-to-back were deadly. And it wasn't always clear which was the better one; some observers rated Tanana higher on account of his much better control.

 

Tanana's persona was well-defined: he was young and had a surfer's cool, in stark contrast to the older, much squarer Ryan.  And together the two of them were formidable, something like the Angels' answer to Koufax and Drysdale.

 

Tanana and Ryan together gave the Angels their identity in the mid-1970s.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slapshot said:

 

Either the style guide is wrong, or the developers are, especially with throwbacks. The game has the Mariners, Padres and Phillies in the wrong font for numbers, and used the incorrect "fat" lettering for the Red Sox throwback script.

I feel like throwbacks are not in the style guide because there's plenty wrong with throwbacks in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Gene Mauch won the first two championships in team history, the 1982 and 1986 A.L. West titles. And this was in the days when the divisional title meant something.

 

They never meant that much; to make anyone number-retirement worthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Jim Bouton wore no. 56 with the Yankees as early as 1962.

Image result for jim bouton 56 yankees

 

But numbers above the 50s were pretty much unheard of outside of spring training and perhaps late-season callups until Fisk adopted no. 72 (which did indeed look ridiculous).

 

IIRC, that’s because he wasn’t expected to make the roster his first year, and took the high-number they issued him as a challenge.  He wore it the rest of his career as inspiration.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

I feel like throwbacks are not in the style guide because there's plenty wrong with throwbacks in the game. 

 

But it took a year or two for the M’s’ cream unis to get in the game (were they in the game for '17?)...so there are instances where they don't follow the style guide even for current unis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

But it took a year or two for the M’s’ cream unis to get in the game (were they in the game for '17?)...so there are instances where they don't follow the style guide even for current unis.

That issue was because before The Show 17 they had a system where each team could only have 4 current uniforms and the Mariners had 5 so they simply made a choice on which 4 to put in and they decided to leave out the cream unis. So that wasn't an issue of the style guide as much as of the way they allocated space in the game for uniforms. There's a whole debacle with that game and the style guide but they made plenty of progress with The Show 17 so hopefully it continues to improve from here.

 

With that said I don't wanna derail this thread so if anyone wants to bring it up message me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/01/2018 at 9:41 PM, Gothamite said:
On 05/01/2018 at 8:37 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Gene Mauch won the first two championships in team history, the 1982 and 1986 A.L. West titles. And this was in the days when the divisional title meant something.

 

They never meant that much; to make anyone number-retirement worthy. 

 

Sure it does. 

 

Even if the Orioles had never made it to the World Series, Earl Weaver would be a club hero for having won the division six times between 1969 and 1979. 

 

Divisional titles won through 1993 are significant championships in their own right. And the details of Mauch's particular history make him worthy of this affirmation. What's more, a retirement of Mauch's number by the Angels would serve as a redemption for the entire larger-than-life 1986 team, and for the barely believable fate that befell it.

 

Mauch, who was 8th all-time in victories when he retired and is 12th now, deserves to be in the Hall of Fame; and he certainly deserves to be honoured by the team with which he won two championships (and which failed to record a winning season in the time between his two stints as manager).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

he certainly deserves to be honoured by the team with which he won two championships

 

No, he didn’t. 

 

He won two divisional titles, which is not at all the same thing. 

 

Even if you want to call them “division championships”, that adjective is crucial. It clarifies the difference between a career-defining accomplishment and a significantly less meaningful one.  Blurring that line devalues actual championships, which really ought to require winning playoff games.

 

Yes, division titles are meaningful and arguably were more so back in the day. But even back in the day they weren’t anywhere so meaningful as either a world championship or even a pennant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Gothamite said:
On 1/7/2018 at 10:27 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

he certainly deserves to be honoured by the team with which he won two championships

 

No, he didn’t. 

 

He won two divisional titles, which is not at all the same thing. 

 

Even if you want to call them “division championships”, that adjective is crucial. It clarifies the difference between a career-defining accomplishment and a significantly less meaningful one.  Blurring that line devalues actual championships, which really ought to require winning playoff games.

 

Please do not say that I "want to call them 'divisional championships'", as though I made that up.  They are in fact called "divisional championships", and always have been.

 

Teams hang banners in recognition of divisional titles.

 

2c881698803ec386ae252ca1b85c3bb2.jpg

 

Xk0wWYK.jpg

 

The Blue Jays held a day in honour of the 1985 team.

 

https://www.mlb.com/bluejays/video/blue-jays-honor-1985-squad/c-376500883?tid=8877962

 

In his address, Buck Martinez refers to that team as Toronto's "first championship team".

 

In the 1984 NLCS, the Cubs added "N.L. East Champions" patches to the right sleeve of their uniforms.

 

EP-161029058.jpg

 

The point is that divisional titles are actual championships; and it won't do to try to diminish them.

 

(And, by the way, let me remind you that playoff games didn't exist until 1969; so the position that "actual championships" require the winning of playoff games is untenable and is not grounded in historical reality.)

 

 

23 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yes, division titles are meaningful and arguably were more so back in the day. But even back in the day they weren’t anywhere so meaningful as either a world championship or even a pennant.

 

Of course it's better to win the pennant, and still better to win the World Series. But, a divisional championship won in the four-division days was not far from a pennant in terms of prestige and importance, especially when such a title was an expansion team's first championship ever (1985 Blue Jays) or was a long-suffering franchise's first championship after a long drought (1983 White Sox; 1984 Cubs).

 

And multiple divisional championships in that period, such as Mauch's with the 1982 and 1986 Angels, are legitimate career-defining accomplishments for a manager, even absent a pennant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, itsmb8 said:

So, um.... does anyone have access to the online style guide? :D

those who do would get it revoked for sharing information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DiePerske said:

those who do would get it revoked for sharing information.

I feel like that would be standard.  Regardless, I said that jokingly anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i mean, this was pretty godsdamned significant for the franchise, since they last one it 14 years before - and 10 years before that - but had they returned to mediocrity right afterwards, I wouldn't say Charlie Manuel should be honored (though he won't be honored with a number retirement anyway.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

No, he didn’t. 

 

He won two divisional titles, which is not at all the same thing. 

 

Even if you want to call them “division championships”, that adjective is crucial. It clarifies the difference between a career-defining accomplishment and a significantly less meaningful one.  Blurring that line devalues actual championships, which really ought to require winning playoff games.

 

Yes, division titles are meaningful and arguably were more so back in the day. But even back in the day they weren’t anywhere so meaningful as either a world championship or even a pennant.

 

FWIW, Major League Baseball refers to the team that finishes atop each division as the division champion. With that said, I share your opinion Gothamite, but I also think that the importance of a division championship is subjective to each franchise/fan base. I think you see that across MLB stadiums where some teams show credit to every team honor won while others stick to pennants and/or world championships only. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Championship" without a modifier implies the big one at the end. Referring to winning the AL West twice as "two championships" is kind of a bad-faith argument, even if the accomplishment is nothing to sneeze at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

"Championship" without a modifier implies the big one at the end. Referring to winning the AL West twice as "two championships" is kind of a bad-faith argument, even if the accomplishment is nothing to sneeze at.

 

Well, I can only refer again to Buck Martinez's comments, in which he refers to the 1985 Blue Jays as a "championship team" and as "champions".

 

Still, @Brandon9485 said that the meaning of a divisional championship is subjective to each franchise and fan base.  And I agree with that.  The question in this branch of the discussion was about which Angels numbers should be retired; and let us note that the retiring of numbers is also dependent on the context of the team.  In the context of the Angels, the 1982 and 1986 divisional titles were perceived as the first championships in team history (even if both seasons ended in hopes that were raised and then dashed).  So it's reasonable to assert that the manager of these two teams is an important figure in the team's history, and one who should be honoured with a number retirement. 

 

Also, if one is to give an weight to context and to subjective factors, then the career-long heartbreak of Mauch having missed pennants on three occasions by the slightest of margins, considered alongside the horrible events of 1986, make a number retiring for Mauch the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DiePerske said:

those who do would get it revoked for sharing information.

I've never understood why that thing is so secretive. In theory everything in the guide is things we already see on a regular basis on the uniforms and on merchandise so what's the big secret? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think it has something to do with not having things get leaked early and having a super jump for the IP thieves.  

Just a guess on my end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now