Indians Top 10 Prospects (From a Phillies fan)
Trying to better learn the minor leagues and have been ranking each teams prospects. This is my Indians one. Trying to see where i messed up basically
6 months ago
Doug Pederson MVP
120 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yea
Fully admitt i was biased but only in ranking Knapp so high. And the reason for that was because I was raving about Knapp at the start of 2009 so its kind of hard not to get excited about the guy. Also as i stated he was injured and the Indians still wanted him. When was the last time you can remember a team was willing to take an injured prospect in a trade for a former Cy Young Winner.
I got a lot of shit for putting Marson in there but hes a solid big league catcher ive seen him play but I just dont know if, with Santana in their system he will get the oppertunity (and by oppertunity i mean more then two months to get acclamated to big league pitchers)
Carrasco was the only one honestly one the list I would say maybe shouldnt have been on here cause hes damaged goods I think but hes still young and has a lot on his resume already at his age.
Thanks for reading it
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 1:30 AM EST up reply actions
Try it without thinking about batting average or pitcher wins. Also – compare Hector Rondon and Eric Berger, understanding that every else, professional or not, has Rondon ranked significantly higher.
Its kinda hard
When i came into this not knowing anyone and didnt look at anyone else’s list. Because if I looked at Baseball America’s list why wouldnt I just copy theres’
Worst thing I did was waste 10 mins of your time Thanks for reading it though
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
I wasn’t offended. I don’t want you to copy their list. I’m saying that it’s pretty much impossible to compare the records of Rondon and Berger, and not put Berger well behind Rondon. Not because of BA, but because of their numbers. If you have some scouting observation, fine, but it looks like you’re just going off their numbers, and I think you’re incorrect.
So I say, look at those two, and rethink your process. If you disagree, you should explain why.
You did a nice job of not plagiarizing anyone else’s top 10.
... Paul Hoynes is a really great guy ...
o my god
Someone who found something positive about it
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
The problem with your list is the lack of scouting reports. You solely rely on statistics to grade a farm system, and that’s generally not the way to go. On top of that, you only use the traditional stats which don’t tell the whole story.
It’s a nice try, but I’d read up on the more advanced metrics out there and you should never disregard scouting reports when it comes to ranking/evaluating prospects. Combine those reports with the more revealing stats and you have a better foundation to work with.
I don’t really know why you would highlight Eric Berger’s “eye-popping” numbers and yet not have Hector Rondon on your top 10
Re: this guy
Considering we usually see an influx of dumb newbies on opening day, we should probably tidy the place up in advance, no?
by supermarioelia on Mar 13, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
Thanx for your post. There sure are allot of ‘top ten profiles’ circulating these daze and anytime an outside source presents one, it’s a treat to read. This site is truly an “Indian site” and we take all things Indian seriously. I’d disagree with a number of your assessments but appreciate your time and effort. After all, we’re here for the entertainment.
It’s natural that as the information available has exploded, baseball fans have begun to position themselves as fanalyst evaluators of farm systems. This is all very “power to the people” after all: we took over stats to the point that Bill James, the original fanalyst, works for one of the game’s flagship franchises and Baseball Prospectus, the Wall Street Journal for serious baseball fans composed of the best fanalysts going, bleeds away employees as they’re hired by major league front offices. Heck, individuals that we’ve all known and interacted with on forums (Bendix, anybody?) managed to transfer blogging into gigs within baseball; not journalism gigs, mind you, but working for teams gigs.
So, of course as the market became saturated with individuals analyzing statistics or generally painting a better picture of how to win in baseball, it only makes sense that the roots would go even deeper and we’d all start seeking out new, fresh territory. The evaluation of prospects works perfectly, of course: not only is the information available increasing exponentially but no real analytical or mathematical ability is required. At all.
So, we polished up our shields and headed into the fallow prospect evaluation fields. I’m as guilty as anybody and, frankly, that’s one of the few things I’ve ever written that I look back and go “Why did I do that?”
At this point, though, what Jay said in the Bullpen Banter thread bears repeating. What is the point? Unlike the better evaluation of statistics or the development of new metrics, the discovery of new market inefficiencies or the exposing of front office incompetency, I can’t think of a single thing that’s being added to the larger discussion by these inane scouting evaluations that are being put together. Does it really mean anything if Doug thinks Lou Marson is being underrated? Should it make us feel more assured about his future? It means about as much as if I told you that I was under the impression that Hyundai was underutilizing India as a manufacturing base, which is to say, nothing. It means nothing.
Of all the realms where old baseball men used to rule, this is the one where they still deserve to. This evaluation, along with the bullpen banter, along with the dozens of others that are posted along these tubes nearly daily are all just a reiteration, a regurgitation, a total waste of time because, more than likely, no one’s actually seen these guys play and, just as importantly, if you had, you wouldn’t know what you were looking at anyway. Indians fans, especially, ought to know this: we have tried to act like we didn’t need scouts, none of whom really liked David Huff or Yohan Pino, and it’s obvious that scouts know things we don’t.
I mean this sincerely, what’s the point? What’s the point of pretending like you’ve found a diamond in the rough, as if you were the only one who’d ever seen Eric Berger’s numbers? You think they’re secret or something? What’s the point of duping yourself and others into thinking Josh Rodriguez is someone to notice, like you’re the only one who read (and are now repeating) the Josh Rodriguez pre-draft scouting reports?
If I were less generous, I’d say the point was to try to be noticed for something, anything, for whatever purpose (money, indulging a fantasy, whatever). But, I tend to be a bit more generous and so I’ll assume that all of the fanalyst scouterrazzi think they’re adding something to a larger discourse or discussion and I’ll also point out that, unequivocally, they are not.
Maybe this is a stopping point on a path to all of us having a better understanding of prospects and their role in baseball but, right now, it just feels like a monumental waste of time.
by afh4 on Mar 13, 2010 12:03 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
Not a monumental waste of time for me, since I enjoyed reading your response.
by YoDaddyWags on Mar 13, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
Guilty here too.
I could really use an oscillation overthruster
by stuart dean on Mar 13, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
And yet he wasn’t prized by scouts. It’s as if other people had access to information beyond his baseball cube profile.
by afh4 on Mar 13, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
When I was in 5th grade, I typed out the Browns draft and handed it to friends. I was aghast when one declined my gift saying that he could just as well read it in the paper.
I could really use an oscillation overthruster
by stuart dean on Mar 13, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Eloquent. Maybe we’re just fortunate to have had Chuck around to remind us that so much of our analysis is just wish-fulfillment exercise.
All of which misses the real point, though: Who in the unholy hell is Brett Brach?
by fleerdon on Mar 13, 2010 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
Skimming again, I meant to point out, I’m very intrigued by Andrew’s ideas about the irrelevance of top-whatever lists. I think most of us, and myself especially, would be better off not even knowing these guys exist til they’ve had a healthy, good, age-appropriate season at AA.
by fleerdon on Mar 13, 2010 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
I agree and disagree. If you remember my intro piece to the prospects section of last year’s Annual, I talk about how following the minors gives you a better appreciation and a better sense of the organization as a whole. I think it makes watching Cleveland more entertaining when you have some sense of what is going on in Columbus, Akron, Kinston, and elsewhere. That said, I think it does make sense to not even consider guys below Kinston in any thoughts or plans for the big league club. They are fun to follow in their own right, but penciling a just drafted guy in a short-season league to a future big league roster is dumb. Thinking about the timeline and paths Lonnie Chisenhall might take to Cleveland at this point, not dumb.
Really enjoyed both that piece, and your 2010 series. I think the problem, as ever, is people using the lists for things the lists weren’t designed for. Comparing systems or gauging a trade by a BA-style top ten list is akin to buying one car over another solely because it has more horsepower. But that’s why people make these lists. It raises some questions. First, you ask, why a top ten list — what if a team has fewer than ten MLB-viable prospects? What if it has more? It’s completely arbitrary. And then, you ask, why a list? That was kind of the point of my fake-BA top ten post from a few months ago. What value does this really have anymore?
by fleerdon on Mar 14, 2010 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
You know, publications should probably follow that advice: list as few or as many legit prospects as organizations have.
I mean, people might not agree the order of our 20 prospects, but they all know we have 20 prospects right.
by Gradyforpresident on Mar 14, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
For the record, Hyundai is underutilizing India.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 13, 2010 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Weird thing: I’m at SXSW in Austin. Woman who writes as @BettyDraper on Twittter at some point in time taught a creative writing class at the university level. Lady Gaga (pre-Gaga days) was in her class.
Lady Gaga was just ‘hired’ by Polaroid as a creative director.
STBNL
I think I’ll just start up an internet dispute resolution service that consists purely of arbitrarily drawn, unsupported conclusions.
Eric Berger is a legit 10-20 guy in the Indians’ system.
Slavery was, in fact, the primary cause of the American Civil War.
The iPad has many practical applications.
Darkness on the Edge of Town is a stronger album than Born to Run.
Deckard wasn’t a Replicant.
by fleerdon on Mar 13, 2010 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
Is it possible that we’re old fogies — even you, Andrew?
That the new generation thinks nothing of making a Bleacher Report?
And thinks nothing of posting a link to it on the most hallowed grounds of Indians fanalysis — shudder — a FanShot on LetsGoTribe?
As I’ve observed before once or twice, the rocky landing a lot of n00bs have here isn’t because they’re morons, but because they’re unaccustomed to the idea that a website might have standards for content — any standards at all.
The Bullpen Banter guys had the temerity to start their own blog and spam-promote it on half the SBN baseball sites (most of whom deleted their post, by the way). Koobs launches a new site and calls it “the best blog in the world.” All this guy did was post something on Bleacher Report — or is there no difference? Is starting a Bleacher Report blog just as presumptuous as starting a Wordpress blog, or setting up your own hosting with a Joomla template?
Gee, it’s just so hard to tell!
Obviously I’m in sympathy with your basic idea. I myself ventured into the prospect-ranking game four years ago, but even then, I didn’t feel it was worth posting my own ranking unless I was bringing something new to the table — which, in my own small way, I think that I did. I would not have posted a generic “top prospects” list even in 2006, let alone in 2010. Indeed, I have never posted such a list, although I did commission Adam to make one for the Annual last year. Even for that publication, however, we attempted to be comprehensive while also bringing a few new tricks to the party.
So obviously, there is a group of us that takes “publishing” seriously. We do not publish just to show that we are learning. We publish once we think we’ve already learned quite a bit more than most.
The question I raise now is, is this just a generational difference? Is this guy essentially just tweeting a prospect list, or updating his Facebook status with one? Is there anything wrong with it?
Should we in fact have standards for self-promotion of content in a FanShot, where so far we have been quite lenient? Maybe it’s time for the mods to start defining a distinction there. Probably something we’ll discuss privately, but I’d be curious to see what others think.
I think that if one of us who has been around a while wanted to find out if we were good enough to take our insights out into the wild (read: not LGT or some other message board) and then linked to one of these such posts once in a while, nobody would have a problem with it.
Putting a link in our signatures might be comparable to this.
However, when a guy shows up and in his first 50 posts (nonetheless his first one) does that very thing, naturally it isn’t going to be well-respected.
I thought we already had the first-post/fanpost/fanshot rule. Maybe that is enough… in theory it should have prevented this post.
... Paul Hoynes is a really great guy ...
But we have allowed people to show up and do a one-time FanShot to promote something like a new web site.
Yeah, I dunno, there are a few gems, such as when we found ourselves floating Grady in exchange for the entire AA Midlands Rockhounds franchise. Streaking in general isn’t commendable behavior, but that doesn’t mean it won’t pep things up a bit.
by fleerdon on Mar 13, 2010 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
Is there anything wrong with it? I actually just wrote a couple paragraphs saying “yes” before I realized I didn’t agree with them.
Writing anything even moderately insightful about baseball is ungodly time-consuming and there’s hardly any money in it even for the people who make their livings that way. Almost everybody realizes that eventually, in much the same way that my friends and I found out in college that our respective ceiling as musicians was “polite applause at open-mic night.”
So when young men (“…always young men, looking for deleted Smiths singles and original — not re-released on vinyl — Frank Zappa albums”) stop in and audition their self-inserting baseball fan fictions (which, despite your protests, MVP, is what you’re doing here) … well, I guess I figure life will dash their expectations soon enough. As long as they’re not too thin-skinned about the feedback, where’s the harm? Is the LGT peanut gallery’s endorsement so valuable that we need to erect a few more barriers to getting it? Do we have so many engaging things to say that the occasional plug will obstruct our view of our own brilliance?
by fleerdon on Mar 13, 2010 6:33 PM EST up reply actions
Should we in fact have standards for self-promotion of content in a FanShot, where so far we have been quite lenient? Maybe it’s time for the mods to start defining a distinction there. Probably something we’ll discuss privately, but I’d be curious to see what others think.
It falls within the “blatant site pimping” clause, though for the most part we’ve let most anything baseball-related stay up. Speaking for myself, I really dislike deleting something that is least tangentially related to baseball, however inane I think it is. And I’m not passing judgment on this post, either. Just saying that I am leaning towards using more editorial judgment in the future.
Are we really not allowed to post something for the sake of discussion? to use this fanshot as an example, does every prospects list have to teach us something new, or is it ok for it to simply be here to spark discussion, as something to talk about during spring training?
I tend to be a bit more generous and so I’ll assume that all of the fanalyst scouterrazzi think they’re adding something to a larger discourse or discussion and I’ll also point out that, unequivocally, they are not.You really don’t think it could be that they just wanted to share their opinion, and see what we though? Every post doesn’t have to “add something,” it could simply be to spark a debate.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Mar 14, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
There is and has been no editing on this site because of content that abides by the Ground Rules. There is no editorial control over whether something can appear on this site based on the quality of prose. What Jay is talking about is whether some of the content being posted here should be moderated based on Ground Rule #7.
Does it really mean anything if Doug thinks Lou Marson is being underrated? Should it make us feel more assured about his future?
Absolutely the thought that went through my head when I read jdudas’s reply above. If I made one of these lists and put Carrasco, Pino and Rondon 1-2-3, all with ETAs of May 2010, will readers think “ALCS HERE WE COME, BABY!!”? Because if they will, maybe I should write it on behalf of the Cleveland Indians so that the stadium can fill up on a daily basis, and we can then spend that money trading two of the three to Seattle for CP Lee.
Also! Would you mind if this post became a regular of
boxes like this
whenever we have some guy come along who thinks he’s a talent evaluator?
... Paul Hoynes is a really great guy ...
dude
I just did this to better learn the minors. I dont think my list is dead accurate thats why I posted it on here to find out from Cleveland fans who i missed. Obviously from all accounts I slotted some way too high and missed others completly.
And the Doug Pederson thing is obviously a joke.
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, your amateur baseball analysis goals are unfathomably modest. I got into this for the bling and the bimbos and the Italian sports cars.
by fleerdon on Mar 13, 2010 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
If you want to learn the systems, can’t you just read BP? Or BA? Or Law? Why try to do it yourself and end up with something as absurd as Eric Berger in a top 10?
With respect, Andrew, why not? What is to be lost if Doug wants to pass his time this way? He’s got exceedingly modest goals and to the extent that others have engaged his effort (irrespective of its merits in relation to the lists of more authoritative sources) then it has been useful.
If we stipulate that you’re right and afh4 and westbrook are wrong — our guest’s intentions are earnest … then it seems to me that if you wanted to rank prospects purely as an academic exercise, to enrich your baseball acumen, you’d make your list, compare it to the established sources, and try to suss out the differences; e.g., “Why am I the only guy in the known universe who knows Brett Brach’s name?” (No offense, Brett.) If he’d done THAT, and then came along and tried to defend his choices in context, this post might get some traction. But doing somebody else’s homework for them is not a valuable learning experience.
by fleerdon on Mar 13, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, that’s what I was thinking. The post on the other side of the page is written with more of an attitude of “Hey, we’re experts at this, and here is our list.” This guy said he wanted to learn the systems, but he did seem pretty offended when we started correcting him. There’s still a lot of fun and learning in these discussions. Not that I would mind a bit if the mods blocked this kinds of posts. But if they don’t, I’ll still comment from time to time.
I’m not buying that. If this was the case than why so sensitive to the less than glowing initial reviews?
I could really use an oscillation overthruster
how would you feel if you thought you worked hard on something, then presented it to people, and the initial reaction was essentially “hey! check out how dumb this guy is!”
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Mar 14, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I would feel that maybe I need to smarten up before I post again.
by Jay on Mar 14, 2010 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just to clear things up
I in no way think in bill James or found something that Indians fans dsnt already know. if I thought this list was 100% correct I wouldn’t have posted it asking who I missed
I do these for two reasons 1) is because I love Baseball and just want to know who’s the up
and comming guys and 2) Because it’s a hell of a lot more fun then doing a 6 page page paper on Diversity in our generation or
the effects of Florida in city water pipes
Suprising to most I didn’t just put a bunch of names into hats I actually did do sone research on the matter. Yes I missed some
guys and yes I slotted guys too high or
too some slotted guys on a list they didn’t belong.
If I wasted your time I appologize but I came into this list knowing four Indians prospects and came away knowing a lot more. so while some of you criticize me just for doing the list I, in a way, accomlished my goal of better understanding another teams system
thanks all for reading even if you thought it was awful (which appear to be most)
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 1:53 PM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Think of it like this – if everyone here would have just said “Oh, I think you missed so and so but good attempt” you’d simply go back to your method of creating the list and slightly tweak it to amend in what we think. But then again, it doesn’t mean much. I think if you want learn more about ours our anyone other system, then the best route is not to be doing this exercise but to instead read the popular and meaningful lists that already exist along with a lot of the articles that are already out there. This will allow you to understand who they are and why they are picked/rated. That will do a lot more for you that creating such a list. So we may come off harsh, but it really seems to be in your better interest.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
I agree. Look, no one here is changing the world. We’re here for no other reason than to pass time doing something that we enjoy: obsessively following the Cleveland Indians baseball club. Doug’s list was fun for him, and it was fun for me to engage.
Of course his list doesn’t matter, either in a larger cosmic sense or in a much smaller (and still pretty meaningless) baseball sense. Nor does my gut sense that Lou Marson might be a bit underrated matter in either of these senses.
In any event, this is a strange discussion (what’s the point of fan analysis?) on a site entirely dedicated to exactly that.
I think the purpose of fan analysis is to provide a viewpoint that is otherwise absent from the marketplace and that can be argued is inherently valuable. Whether that’s Jay clearly being the most knowledgeable person outside of the Indians’ FO when it comes to the Indians and their dealings with contract issues or Paul providing well-rounded, meaningful analysis of the Indians’ team composition. This is as opposed to just, oh, making up imaginary prospect rankings. I mean this is literally made-up and not in a “ha ha” way but in a way that poses as genuine analysis.
Fair enough, but I suppose that this just doesn’t bother me at all. If I really want to know something about the Indians, I’m going to read Jay, Paul, Tony Lastoria, you, etc. Doug is just some dude on the internets. He isn’t claiming to be otherwise. I’m fine with that.
Doug is much less controversial on the other team sites. Not a lot of activity in August in D.C., I notice.
Yea
I deffinitly have gotten the most response from
this one. no one cared about the Nats one
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 3:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
And if you think LGT is tough, wait’ll you do your top ten Seattle prospects.
by YoDaddyWags on Mar 13, 2010 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You raise a lot of good points and this points to a lot of the chafing between the MSM and the blogosphere. I think Westbrook’s post below is worth considering and I think the association with Bleacher Report matters. Bleacher Report has a placement deal with major search engines and so this list is probably going to end up being eyeballed by some people who want legitimate information and that, to me, is a shame. Even if it wasn’t on Bleacher Report all that’s happening here is the creation of noise to signal, which, again, I think sucks. At some point, somebody from MLB Trade Rumors or Swerbs or whatever is probably going to point to this article as a reference and end up perpetuating viewpoints that do nothing but feed the Cle.Com faithful by perpetuating misinformation.
I don’t know what the solution is here and I don’t question anybody’s right to write something like this. I just wonder, how do we denote this list as nonsense when comparing it to other, more legitimate blog-based sources?
I think my problem with this boils down to:
• Joined Let’s Go Tribe! – 03/11/10 8:33 PM EST
• Posted Indians Top 10 Prospects (From a Phillies fan) on Let’s Go Tribe! – 03/12/10 11:00 PM EST
• Could have put his top 10 in the bullpen banter thread but he started with a fanshot.
• Wanted to draw traffic to his piece on bleacher report
• If it was truly for fun, I don’t know if the last bullet point makes sense
• It’s bleacher report… the home of the kind of no-value stuff that could be posted more modestly elsewhere.
... Paul Hoynes is a really great guy ...
Im
Awfully sorry for offending you by having the audacity to come on here and try and recurve feedback regarding something I wrote on your team.
At least I’ve kept you entertained as you play god on this site. Chill out dude and stop trying to get in my head and get down to the root of this.It’s not the Da Vincci Code it’s not
that complicated.
I wrote something. Wanted feedback posted it on here and obviously just ruined ur day. It’s a prospect list that ur treat ing like I spanned ur site.
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 3:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Don’t take everything you read on here so personally. You came here and posted something and left yourself open for critique. If you have issues with being critiqued, I suggest you avoid posting fanshots on this site and asking for feedback.
When
Did I ever get mad or upset at someone critiquing the piece. I didn’t get pissed until this guy starts trying to find the root of why I did this when I already explained why I did. after hearing the feedback
I understand I failed at the list so I had no problems with the feedback just problems with people taking the list too seriously.
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 13, 2010 3:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Disagree. You were very offended from criticism one and almost seemed to create a “looking for feedback” cover story in response. You haven’t ruined anybody’s day here – it would take a much more serious offense to come close.
I could really use an oscillation overthruster
yea
I never took offense to guys alerting me on guys I missed. You may think I did but I came on here to find out from Indians fans on who I missed.
When questioned on why a guy was slotted where he was I explained myself but never once was i offended by a guy saying “Where’s Hector Rondon”
And I do these just for fun. I like to make my list and then take a look at Baseball America’s list and just see how mine compare but I also want feedback from the people that watch the team everyday
There is no underlying reason for this. Im not getting paid, and as my “profile” on the bleacher report explains I dont expect phonecalls from ESPN any time soon. If MLBTR are quoting me they have gotten desperate.
I post these because its just a good way to guage on how accurate the lists are in the eyes of the fans.
by Doug Pederson MVP on Mar 14, 2010 4:22 AM EST up reply actions
it’s classic LGT metadiscourse. what’s not to love?
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Mar 13, 2010 10:47 PM EST up reply actions
You know what’s missing? A discussion about beer.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 14, 2010 3:50 AM EST up reply actions
seriously people, brats.
and this isn’t some elitist above the common man hot dog thing. they’re just better.
by Gradyforpresident on Mar 14, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ll allow it.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Mar 14, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Or a Top-5 Moments in Korean Sports History list, from SeoulSoxFan on Sons of Sam Horn:
1. Korea scores the “golden goal” to beat Italy 2-1 in World Cup quarterfinals
This was the peak of Korean football fever, with literally millions of Koreans flooding the streets in “red devil” t-shirts. I was working in Korea at the time, and I still have not seen any other spectacle come close to this. As a footnote, Italy accuses Korea of bribing the referee, then kicks out Ahn (who headed in the winning goal) out of its Serie-A league shortly after Cup, in one of the all-time douche move. Bloggers were seriously suggesting boycotting all Italian food, i.e., pizza and spaghetti.
2. Hong Soo-whan comes back to KO the reigning champion Hector Carrasquilla after 4 knock-downs in 1977
I could not talk for 3 days after screaming for joy. Still one of the greatest boxing come back wins ever IMHO. And this was an away match for Hong. Back when Korea was still a developing country, boxing was pretty much the only sport where a Korean can be a world champ.
3. Korea beats Japan in baseball (not in WBC, but in the “Super Series” circa 1982)
Before the WBC rivarly, there was the “Super Series” that pitted Korea against Japan. Famous for the “frog” suicide bunt that brings home the tying run, followed by the come-from-behind 3-run HR for the win. This was the inaugural year for Korean pro baseball, and the entire country partied for days after the win.
4. Park Ji-sung score first goal for Manchester United
Park “Three-Lung” Ji-sung becomes the first Korean to play for a premier league team (Man U no less) then finally scores the first goal ever for an Asian-born player in the Premier league.
5. Park Tae-whan wins first ever Olympic gold in swimming in 2008
by YoDaddyWags on Mar 14, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
This list is from early last year. But the first Korean Olympic gold pops up here at #5. Does Queen Yu-Na bump Park Tae-whan, or does she go higher?
Hard for me to evaluate, but the way they crafted the storyline on NBC, you would think it was the most important sporting event in S. Korea’s history.
She’s huge, I mean huge, over there
by Gradyforpresident on Mar 14, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- BIG Series: Padres and Giants set to battle for control of NL West
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
.jpg){kind=link}