Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I enjoy pennant races for divisions that aren't the NL Central. I love these close pennant races, but if I had my way, the Cubs would have the sort of lead the Cards currently hold over them. I'd much rather have post season meetings between the unstoppable force and the immovable object over two teams that were in third place (but three games back) going into September facing off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruiser Chong 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I enjoy pennant races for divisions that aren't the NL Central. I love these close pennant races, but if I had my way, the Cubs would have the sort of lead the Cards currently hold over them. I'd much rather have post season meetings between the unstoppable force and the immovable object over two teams that were in third place (but three games back) going into September facing off. That's not how it usually works out, though. Honestly, being dominant during the regular season is great and all, but getting to the postseason first and foremost is really the important thing. It's not the most dominant team that always wins. In fact, it would seem that in baseball, the heavy favorites are often some of the earliest exits. Case in point, San Fransico and Atlanta, two of the best teams record-wise in baseball last season, didn't make it past the first round. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Williams better not be the Astros manager on Thursday night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I enjoy pennant races for divisions that aren't the NL Central. I love these close pennant races, but if I had my way, the Cubs would have the sort of lead the Cards currently hold over them. I'd much rather have post season meetings between the unstoppable force and the immovable object over two teams that were in third place (but three games back) going into September facing off. That's not how it usually works out, though. Just pointing out how I'd like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruiser Chong 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Honestly, what can he do right now? I watched most of the game today and their lack of offense would ensure a poor record for any team, good pitching or not. Beltran got them back into the game, but their pen is simply too thin now. If you can get quality starts and somehow make it to the 9th with Lidge, they'd be in a good situation. Unfortunately, their starters aren't known for going all that deep into games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Don't you worry 'Sault, we will get the Yanks/Sox ALCS rematch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I enjoy pennant races for divisions that aren't the NL Central. I love these close pennant races, but if I had my way, the Cubs would have the sort of lead the Cards currently hold over them. I'd much rather have post season meetings between the unstoppable force and the immovable object over two teams that were in third place (but three games back) going into September facing off. I'd rather have less post-season, and make the regular season more meaningful. This has the added benefit of making sure the teams duking it out in October really ARE the best teams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
treble 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Not nescessarily. I never understood the argument that says the wild card allows weaker teams to make the playoffs, since most of the time the wild card team has a better record than at least one of the division winners (hell, the 2001 A's were the 2nd best team in all of baseball, definitely not a weak team). Even the old system didn't nescessarily mean that the 2 best teams in each league would play in the LCS. The '73 Mets finished 3 games over .500 but made the playoffs since the division sucked. The Dodgers and Giants both had better records than in the west but were left out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Don't you worry 'Sault, we will get the Yanks/Sox ALCS rematch. We can hope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Word is that the Cubs may be trying to send Alex Gonzalez to Montreal for Orlando Cabrera, once Gonzo returns. I'm not crazy about Cabrera, but for the most part, he's an upgrade offensively and defensively. Best yet, if the deal were to go through, the Cubs would likely not have to give up any prospects. I'd say go for it, since Gonzalez' contract is up after this year and he's reportedly not part of the team's plans for 2005. I don't see that happening at all. Cabrera is also a FA at the end of the year and has a very good track record. Its been an off-season for him so far but he could pull it around instantly. If Montreal wants to trade him they're going to get some very good prospects for him. Urbina is shakey at times, but considering what we've got right now, I wouldn't mind getting him. Thing is, even the Tigers aren't completely out of the playoff race yet. One's gotta believe they'll begin to fade eventually, but with no one in that division really taking charge of things, they're hanging around. Detroit knows it still doesn't have the starting pitching to make it to the playoffs or through the playoffs. I'm sure they'll be trying to shop Dmitri Young, Bobby Higginson, and Urbina. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfaJack 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Not nescessarily. I never understood the argument that says the wild card allows weaker teams to make the playoffs, since most of the time the wild card team has a better record than at least one of the division winners (hell, the 2001 A's were the 2nd best team in all of baseball, definitely not a weak team). Even the old system didn't nescessarily mean that the 2 best teams in each league would play in the LCS. The '73 Mets finished 3 games over .500 but made the playoffs since the division sucked. The Dodgers and Giants both had better records than in the west but were left out. Obviously there's no perfect system and certainly no way to absolutely guarantee the top teams make the playoffs, short of doing away with the divisions and taking the top two teams in each league for a best of seven LCS. I'm not sure how practical that would be with 30 teams these days though. I say just dump the wild card and go back to two divisions in each league. You'd occassionally have something similar to '73, but at least there'd be no chance a second place team would win the World Series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Not nescessarily. I never understood the argument that says the wild card allows weaker teams to make the playoffs, since most of the time the wild card team has a better record than at least one of the division winners (hell, the 2001 A's were the 2nd best team in all of baseball, definitely not a weak team). Even the old system didn't nescessarily mean that the 2 best teams in each league would play in the LCS. The '73 Mets finished 3 games over .500 but made the playoffs since the division sucked. The Dodgers and Giants both had better records than in the west but were left out. The problem is not the Wild Card. Its that with three rounds of playoffs, the World Series rarely consists of the best team in each league. I can think of two World Series since the Wild Card began where we got the best possible Series. 1995 (Atlanta/Cleveland), and 1999 (NY Yankees/Atlanta). The last two years, we've been priviledged with second place teams in the Series. And great pennant race moments (Ashburn toasts the potential Dodgers winning run to prevent a playoff in 1950, Yaz's hot streak in '67) are lost in favor of divisional series we'll never remember. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the max 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I remember the divisional series from 2001 more than I remember either of those two World Series, al. I think the addition of the wild card gives a young team that wasn't quite good enough to win its division (the case of the Angels and Marlins) the chance to play hard in the postseason. I sure as hell remember more from the Marlins run last year, with the excellent division series against the Giants than the 1999 World Series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I don't see that happening at all. Cabrera is also a FA at the end of the year and has a very good track record. Its been an off-season for him so far but he could pull it around instantly. If Montreal wants to trade him they're going to get some very good prospects for him. Since when has Cabrera had a good track record? Here are Cabrera's OPS+ numbers since 1998: 97, 71, 68, 87, 84, 95. He has NEVER hit above the league average. His most similar batters through 28 are Jeff Blauser, Shawon Dunston, Neifi Perez, Jay Bell, and Alex Gonzalez (Cubs version). He's not anyone I would trade appreciable talent for, or to whom I'd pay over $2 Million, if that. I wouldn't sign him at all if it meant giving up draft picks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I think the addition of the wild card gives a young team that wasn't quite good enough to win its division (the case of the Angels and Marlins) the chance to play hard in the postseason. I sure as hell remember more from the Marlins run last year, with the excellent division series against the Giants than the 1999 World Series. So we should award the team that loafs all season and decides to gun it up at the end than the team that has proven it can win all season? Which team is a more deserving champion? More and more, the champions, in any major sport, are not necessarily the best teams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the max 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 The Marlins are an exception though, as they were the best team once they fired useless Jeff Torborg. Only problem was that Atlanta had an awesome offensive season, and Florida couldn't overcome them. So, it's right to penalize a team for having a great year, but playing in a tight division? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Sports have never been about the best teams always winning. If that were so then people wouldn't watch as they love underdogs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 So, it's right to penalize a team for having a great year, but playing in a tight division? If you're looking for the best team, then yes. Its happened quite a few times in the past, with the '42 Dodgers, '62 Dodgers, '93 Giants, etc. When I propose the regular season gaining some meaning, its really no different than a good team losing out because they played in a tight division series. All but one team has to lose sometime. Sports have never been about the best teams always winning. If that were so then people wouldn't watch as they love underdogs. Agreed. But the underdogs should be there legitimately. The 1960 Pirates, great underdogs in the Series against the Yanks, led the league in runs scored and allowed. We had the '75 Red Sox and the '75 Reds in a great series. Underdogs are great stories. But if we love underdogs so much, why don't we create a series between the best team, and the worst team? Even underdogs need to be winners first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Just for Al I say we do away with all post season play. Whichever team has the best record automatically wins because damnit, their REGULAR SEASON record says so. It doesn't matter if a team gets to beat up on an exceptionaly weak team 19 times while in the other league there's a division with 5 solid teams. Fuck those 5 solid teams for trying. Best record in Regular Season...woohoo! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 12, 2004 So, it's right to penalize a team for having a great year, but playing in a tight division? Absolutely. The best of the second place teams is still a team that just wasn't good enough. If you're looking for the best team, then yes. Its happened quite a few times in the past, with the '42 Dodgers, '62 Dodgers, '93 Giants, etc. 85 Yankees were a pretty good team (and second best in the AL) that lost out. That's just the way it was Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 It doesn't matter if a team gets to beat up on an exceptionaly weak team 19 times while in the other league there's a division with 5 solid teams. Fuck those 5 solid teams for trying. Best record in Regular Season...woohoo! Well, I'd propose we change the unbalanced schedule as well. And I'm not proposing the elimination of playoffs entirely. But some restraint is needed. 85 Yankees were a pretty good team (and second best in the AL) that lost out. That's just the way it was You might find this article interesting. The best second place teams in history.... http://www.robneyer.com/book_02_05.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 12, 2004 You might find this article interesting. The best second place teams in history.... http://www.robneyer.com/book_02_05.html "one of the best bridesmaid teams of the century" There's something to put on a business card. God, 85 sucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 To no surprise Mulder and Clemens have been named to the starting pitchers for the All-Star Game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 13, 2004 (edited) In Big Unit news, Randy has moved on to the "fuck with everyone's head phase" '"I was really torn between the Boston clam chowder and the Manhattan clam chowder."' And there are eight Yankees in Houston recruiting him and seemingly doing nothing else. That's not even counting Torre, White, Mattingly, Sojo, Randolph Stottlemyre and Monteleone. This could get embarassing. Edited July 13, 2004 by Anglesault Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 13, 2004 If the Yankees had gotten Schilling there would A.) Be no need most likely...but even then B.) No debate on where he would go Thank god for Schilling and Theo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 13, 2004 B.) No debate on where he would go Why's that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 13, 2004 He would have his best friend who's like family to him recruiting him to an organisation that can pay him anything. Since the Red Sox have Schilling he may be more comfortable in Boston, not to mention he would be Ace #3 and not worry about having to carry the pitching staff. Right now if the Yankees got him he becomes their ace with Vasquez their #2 starter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 13, 2004 He would have his best friend who's like family to him recruiting him to an organisation that can pay him anything. They're friends again this week? This is a fucking soap opera. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 13, 2004 Schilling said in an interview that the reports of them being at eachother's throats was bullshit. He views Randy like family and both of their families spend alot of time with one another. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted July 13, 2004 Schilling said in an interview that the reports of them being at eachother's throats was bullshit. He views Randy like family and both of their families spend alot of time with one another. Schilling said I'll wait for the Johnson take on the situation. Especially since almost every one of these reports-real or not-portrays Curt as the bad guy in the feud. It's natural for Schilling to deny it. My cousin from Tucson (in for the month) is a big D-Backs fan and keeps up with the team pretty well out there, and has met the team a couple of times over the last few years. She says the vibe in Arizona is that Curt's more loud and obnoxious personality began to grate on Johnson Doesn't really mean anything by itself, but it fits with the reports. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
