Is this team starting to remind anyone of the '89 team? They seem to be getting wins in clutch situations, and a number of coming back in later innings to pull it off. Two characteristics that maid the '89 team so successful. I have only seen one game this year, but if they are playing the game loosely and having fun then that would be another similarity.

This team is nothing like the 1989 team, sorry. This team is closer to the 1993 in style, but that team was loaded with Pitching (Granger, Wunsch, Moore, Clemons, Codrington, Parker) and had a pretty solid line-up.

I think this team is doing it as a team. That is what is important.

the hitting isnt as good as 89 is it? i dunno... i was in kindergarten in 89 so hell if i know, but this is what i have been told...

Well if we aren't a legendary team are which are we: good team or great team?

patience, my child. time will tell...

There may never be a team in all of college baseball that hits as well as the '89 team did. Case closed.

Now, if they could have found some clutch pitching and avoided the dreaded Aggie Choke...

This team is MUCH closer to the '93 team than the '89 team. Actually, this team reminds me of the '88, '95 and '98 teams.

ddp

[This message has been edited by Luke The Drifter (edited 3/9/2004 10:32p).]

We have a loooooooong way to go before we even begin to contemplate the eventuality of having the ability to even be considered in the same league, ball park or zip code as the VAUNTED '89 team.

I know because I was there.

So there.




_____________________________________________________
Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

it double posted me too.

So there.


_____________________________________________________
Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Ectomy (edited 3/9/2004 10:34p).]

Rocks- no need to apologize.

I am of the opinion that the '89 team will never be equalled. They had the hitting and base running abilities that this team hasnt shown.

I this team doesnt remind me of '89, except in wins. I just want to hear a solid argument one way or the other.

This team is not the '89 team. This team is very very good, and they are tough to beat because they just refuse to die even when they dont play good baseball like tonight. But...the '89 team was 26-0 then 40-1. It was one of the best ever, this team has not shown the utter domination of '89. Please stop comparing the two.

There have been teams in the past 15 years we use as measuring sticks ('89, '93, '99), this team is shaping up to be added to that list.

I do believe we have the talent and chemistry. Only time will tell, though.

I have to agree, stop comparing this team to the 89 team. As mentioned, we had great teams in 93 and 99 that advanced to Omaha, but even those teams couldnt compare to the 89 squad. Texas A&M and much of college baseball will probably never see a team as solid as 89. I still hate LSU to this day!
bottom line, we have a very good team this year

My thinking is that, overall, this is the best team since 1989. As others have posted, the '89 team could be the best ever. They destroyed teams. Putting up 8-10 runs in an inning wasn't that unusual for them.

Luke

1995 and 1998 weren't the same type of team. 1995 was hitting heavy but really didn't have a lot of pitching. Remember that we beat UNC in the regionals to face Miami on Sunday with a walk on pitching. I forget who it was, but it was lightening in a bottle.

The 1998 team, on the other hand, had very good pitching for most of the year with Rupe, Fossum, Caple, Ward and French, but was a very average offensive team with really only Tyner and Kuzmic standing out at the plate.

This team does remind me of 1999 in it's make up, a lot of offensive talent with a good but not great amout of pitching. I do think we've got better pitching than 1999 top to bottom, though I don't see a Fossum out there this year.

The '89 team hit with power throughout the line up and had lots of games with huge innings
scoring 8-10 runs and more. Our current team may end up being a little more balanced between pitching and hitting...so far, our fielding has won us a few games this year too.
No one on the team has more than 2 home runs after 17 games.
It is way too early, but the fast start and never say die attitude is great. I've seen all but 5 games and I saw all three on the left coast.

For you younger guys, the '89 team finished no. 2 in the nation without going to the CWS.
I don't recall the names of the announcers for the first tv game of the CWS that year, but when one of them asked the other, which of the 8 teams he thought would win the CWS, his response was, " I don't know, the best team in the country is not even here"! That my friends says it all and it is unlikely that we will ever see a team like that again, but we may get back to Omaha with a different type of team!!

The '89 team hit with power throughout the line up and had lots of games with huge innings
scoring 8-10 runs and more. Our current team may end up being a little more balanced between pitching and hitting...so far, our fielding has won us a few games this year too.
No one on the team has more than 2 home runs after 17 games.
It is way too early, but the fast start and never say die attitude is great. I've seen all but 5 games and I saw all three on the left coast.

For you younger guys, the '89 team finished no. 2 in the nation without going to the CWS.
I don't recall the names of the announcers for the first tv game of the CWS that year, but when one of them asked the other, which of the 8 teams he thought would win the CWS, his response was, " I don't know, the best team in the country is not even here"! That my friends says it all and it is unlikely that we will ever see a team like that again, but we may get back to Omaha with a different type of team!!

The '89 team hit with power throughout the line up and had lots of games with huge innings
scoring 8-10 runs and more. Our current team may end up being a little more balanced between pitching and hitting...so far, our fielding has won us a few games this year too.
No one on the team has more than 2 home runs after 17 games.
It is way too early, but the fast start and never say die attitude is great. I've seen all but 5 games and I saw all three on the left coast.

For you younger guys, the '89 team finished no. 2 in the nation without going to the CWS.
I don't recall the names of the announcers for the first tv game of the CWS that year, but when one of them asked the other, which of the 8 teams he thought would win the CWS, his response was, " I don't know, the best team in the country is not even here"! That my friends says it all and it is unlikely that we will ever see a team like that again, but we may get back to Omaha with a different type of team!!

The '89 team had "live" bats which have changed since then. I think the hitters on this team could match 'em using the same bats. But this team has far better depth in pitching. The downfall of the '89 team was no pitching depth, an absolute necessity for tourney play.

this team should not even be compared to the 93, 98, or 99 teams...those teams had alot of power..alot..while this team is good, it is by no means dominant (yet) and will have to work hard for every run they get. they also lack the 3 consistently solid weekend starters that those other teams had. this team is pretty solid, and may show some power later on, and a couple real good weekend starters may emerge from the pitching corps, but this team has shown nothing that merits comparisons to the 98,99 or 93 teams, much less the 89 team.

ishmael--are you nuts?! the "live" bats you are talking about do not make that much of a difference at all...and the bat doesnt matter anyway...its who is swinging it that makes the difference...and no, this team would still not hold a flame to the 89 team, even with your ultimate mega-bat.

More out of the park with that team and more got quickly through the gaps, often to the bottom of the wall on the fly. Those bats also produced hard shots through the infield that were too hot to handle or were between the infielders so fast they had no time to react.

So no, I am not nuts. They changed them for the safety of the players and yes it was a distinct hitting advantage for hard hitters.

"live" bats didn't start coming around until the early 90's.

I don't recall the offensive numbers although I know that they were impressive. However, to say that the '89 team was one of the all-time great teams is a little much. There's more to baseball than offense. The fact is that the Ags had two chances to win at home and couldn't do what great teams do. LSU didn't even make it to the championship game in Omaha.

It's a team game and every year a really great offensive team is left out of the mix because of average pitching or fielding. Offensively, the Ags were fun to watch in '89. Watching Byington come to the plate and seeing the opponent's outfielders play just short of the warning track was fun. But Texas Tech was fun to watch in football this year. They just didn't have the whole package. Neither did the '89 ags.

As for the announcer who said that the best team wasn't in Omaha that year, I'll just say this: there were teams in Omaha that year who came through in the clutch to make it to Omaha. The Ags can't say that they came through in the clutch. Great teams come through in the clutch.

This year's team has been doing the little things to win. They're fun to watch and continue to improve. If they make it to Omaha they will have done something that the '89 team couldn't do. Give them some space and see what happens.

I think some people are just a little drunk on maroon kool-aid.

What do the '89, '93, '98, and '99 teams all have in common?

They all won the conference championship.

I think this team is real good, top 15ish, but I also don't really think they are as good as any of those teams. Until they either make the College World Series or win a conference championship, I'm not putting them up there with any of those teams.

Let's remember that sometimes you win games you should have lost, and you sometimes lose games you should have won. In both the games we lost, the other team had more hits and more guys get on base. We've won 7 games where the other team had more hits than us. We've won 4 games where the other team had more baserunners than we did.

I think we are no doubt good, I'm just not sure we are great, and I'd classify all of 89, 93, 98 and 99 as great teams.

quote:

---

the "live" bats you are talking about do not make that much of a difference at all

---

Uhh yeah they did.

Not to the '89 team, since they weren't juiced by then.

Look at Holt's power #s from '99 to '00, and the line-up around him has little to do with that. He made other people around him better in '99, and in '00 he was seeing the exact same pitches.

I do not think you are correct about that droop. Those college bats in '89 were sending scorcers regardless of which team was hitting. Now possibly they got a little hotter, but they were still far more lethal than now. Send this to Mark Johnson and get his opinion. He has watched them all.

Oh yeah - it is waaay too early to compare this team to anyone.

Yesterday's win did nothing to ease my feeling that we are playing above our heads. Its still very early.

---------------------------
http://houstonbaseballfans.com/

Why dont we wait until we play some tough conference games to annoit this team as great. We are playing great right now, but it is a long season guys and gals.
I do like seeing the clutch hitting and clutch pitching. That is what seperates a good team from a great team.

quote:

---

However, to say that the '89 team was one of the all-time great teams is a little much.

---

I believe A&M was something like 58-5 heading to the post season. Has another team since then compiled a season record like that?

quote:

---

As for the announcer who said that the best team wasn't in Omaha that year, I'll just say this: there were teams in Omaha that year who came through in the clutch to make it to Omaha.

---

There was also a team in Omaha, who lost in the championship game, who got it's a-s kicked by A&M that season. That same team finished behind A&M in the final polls that season.

I thought having "horn" in my name necessarily made me gay. -skihorn, posted 3:27p, 02/16/04

The thing that bothers me about this team is that while we're winning games, we're not coming out and dominating people.

We're winning, but rarely coming out and putting someone away early.

Of course, on the flip side, that can be beneficial to the character of the team, and beneficial further into the season when that kind of experience pays off.

I saw the '98 team a little different. That team did have GREAT hitting. Mark Johnson even stated that the unusually high number of home runs was something that was just happening and not taught. That team also featured Daylan Holt (dylan??). He had a decent stick in 1998. I watched everygame that year at home and the ones in Austin and baylor. They hit a lot of home runs and put up a lot of points. I watched 2-3 games that year that were WON IN THE LAST AT BAT WITH GRAND SLAMS. That team was good enough to win it all but slipped (or choked) in the CWS.

Also that team spend a portion of the year in the number 1 spot. This team has a ways to go before we can claim that.

Well sipAGonizer, I suppose you're right. But wouldn't you have taken an a** kicking from UT that year to have had a shot at the national championship? Say what you want about UT in 1989. They didn't win all of their games, even got their a** kicked a few times. But when it counted, when it really counted they came through, especially at home. They lost in the title game. They ran out of pitching, started an outfielder on the mound in the finale. But they lost the national championship by 2 runs. And, if I recall correctly, they knocked Ben McDonald out in Omaha, something that the Ags couldn't do in their own stadium.

58-5 is nothing to sneeze at. I don't think that UT has ever had as good of a record heading into post-season. But I wouldn't be bragging about such a record when it wasn't good enough to make the CWS.

/\
|
|
snagging sips/bandwagon wannabe pretend sips isn't even a challenge anymore.

A&M was a better team than tu that year, and most baseball experts thought so as well, evidenced by the fact we finished #2 in the final polls that season.

I thought having "horn" in my name necessarily made me gay. -skihorn, posted 3:27p, 02/16/04



[This message has been edited by sipAGonizer (edited 3/10/2004 12:48p).]