Remove this ad

Lead

Oct 6 15 4:21 PM

Tags : :

All your non-Dodger playoff fun... have it at, here.  Only on TBS.

Very funny.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Oct 6 15 5:47 PM

All of the great options for color commentators and we get Ms. Mendoza for the AL wild card game. ESPN is politically correct, if nothing else. I don't know, but while she's not bad to look at, it's her voice we hear and it is just irritating, at best. Kruk seems even less animated than usual (if that's possible), working alongside her. Chris Archer had some good insight.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Oct 6 15 6:51 PM

WildHare wrote:
All of the great options for color commentators and we get Ms. Mendoza for the AL wild card game. ESPN is politically correct, if nothing else. I don't know, but while she's not bad to look at, it's her voice we hear and it is just irritating, at best. Kruk seems even less animated than usual (if that's possible), working alongside her. Chris Archer had some good insight.

The chick doesn't bother me and I find it easy to ignore Kruk.  I'm just delighted whenever Chris Berman isn't there. 

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Oct 7 15 7:31 AM

Forgot to put up my "rooting rankings", since the Yankees are out now, I'll leave them off, but I would have only rooted for them over the Cards in the World Series:

1. Dodgers- goes without saying
2. Pirates- my Dad's team growing up, so always have a fondness for them
3. Cubs- 1908 and 1945, they deserve a little love I guess
4. Astros- Never won since they've been around, and used to be in NL
5. Rangers- Same as Astros, but always an AL team, so just a bit lower
6. Royals- 30 years since they've won it
7. Mets- 29 years for them, but since they are playing Dodgers first, I hope they aren't around that long
8. Blue Jays- at 22 years since the won they are the second shortest span left with Yankees out
9. Cards- Fuck them and the Clydesdales horse they ride in on (actually the horse are cool, but fuck everything else about this team)


Funny how it's been 22 years or more for 8 of these 9 teams to have won it all 

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Oct 7 15 10:22 AM

Throwdeuce wrote:

Forgot to put up my "rooting rankings", since the Yankees are out now, I'll leave them off, but I would have only rooted for them over the Cards in the World Series:

1. Dodgers- goes without saying
2. Pirates- my Dad's team growing up, so always have a fondness for them
3. Cubs- 1908 and 1945, they deserve a little love I guess
4. Astros- Never won since they've been around, and used to be in NL
5. Rangers- Same as Astros, but always an AL team, so just a bit lower
6. Royals- 30 years since they've won it
7. Mets- 29 years for them, but since they are playing Dodgers first, I hope they aren't around that long
8. Blue Jays- at 22 years since the won they are the second shortest span left with Yankees out
9. Cards- Fuck them and the Clydesdales horse they ride in on (actually the horse are cool, but fuck everything else about this team)


Funny how it's been 22 years or more for 8 of these 9 teams to have won it all 

Yeah, for me, your 2-8 can go in almost any order, but I'll play, too:

1- Dodgers - duh.
2- Astros - young and exciting team... plus, I might be the only one in the predictions thread that expected them to surprise folks this year.  I never dreamed playoffs, though.
3- Cubs - See Astros, minus my personal prediction.  Don't even think I mentioned them.
4- Pirates - love the enthusiam.  And Clint Hurdle is a class guy.
5-8 - Royals, Rangers, Mets, Blue Jays - put 'em in any order you wish. I'm just not invested in them.  Kinda like vegetables.  
9- Cards - I sin every time I even thing of them.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Oct 7 15 5:59 PM

Matthew wrote:
Looks like the Cubs are going to walk away with the Wild Card, while the Pirates get stuck with a lump of Cole.
Bucs just had a look at the game with the bases loaded and one out and the Pittsburgh crowd going bonkers.  Starling Marte hit a sharp grounder to short for a 6-4-3 dp and Arrieta escaped a huge dilemma.  

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#12 [url]

Oct 8 15 12:41 PM

Throwdeuce wrote:
Congrats Cubs, now beat those cheating fucks from St. Louis so the Dodgers can then beat you in the NLCS
Not that I'm rooting for the redbirds to win anything, but I sure wouldn't mind them getting past the Cubbies - and us past the Mets - so we can get an opportunity at pay-back.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Oct 8 15 12:50 PM

monsooner wrote:
Throwdeuce wrote:
Congrats Cubs, now beat those cheating fucks from St. Louis so the Dodgers can then beat you in the NLCS
Not that I'm rooting for the redbirds to win anything, but I sure wouldn't mind them getting past the Cubbies - and us past the Mets - so we can get an opportunity at pay-back.

I remember when people were saying the same last year about the Giants. Personally I just rather them be knocked out, if it's done before Dodgers play them, so be it.

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Oct 8 15 1:24 PM

Pirates have to be thinking, "Why, Us?" Two straight years they get HFA for the wild card game, only to run into the hottest pitcher in baseball, Bumsnotter last year and Arrieta this year. One, and done, in consecutive seasons.

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Oct 8 15 1:41 PM

When 162 games have been played and you end up with the second best record in the entire MLB you simply should not be subject to a one game playoff. This shows a terrible flaw in the structure of the playoffs IMHO. The Pirate fans should be deservedly furious.

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Oct 8 15 1:48 PM

beefchopper wrote:
When 162 games have been played and you end up with the second best record in the entire MLB you simply should not be subject to a one game playoff. This shows a terrible flaw in the structure of the playoffs IMHO. The Pirate fans should be deservedly furious.

I agree.  Bill Shaikin asked Manfred about this recently, and he just gave the usual lawyer talk:

_____
"Shaikin: The Pittsburgh Pirates and Chicago Cubs finished with the second-best and third-best records in MLB, and yet one of those teams will be eliminated from the postseason after one game. Since the wild card was introduced in 1995, never before have the second-place and third-place teams also had the second-best and third-best records in the league. Would you consider revising the playoff format to seed teams by their record, regardless of division, or do you view this season as a historical blip? 

Manfred: I think it is a mistake to set or adjust your playoff format based on the outcome in a particular year. I think you should establish your playoff format based on fundamental incentives that you want in your system. The fundamentals for us in the current format are No. 1, you’ve got to play your tail off to win your division because it’s a huge advantage; No. 2, the two wild-card spots keep more teams in contention right through the end of the season, and you saw that with Anaheim, Texas, Houston and the Yankees; and No. 3, I think the one-game play-in disadvantages wild cards appropriately, without putting division winners at a disadvantage of too long a layoff. Because I think those three fundamental incentives are good, I don’t worry too much about who won and who lost in particular numbers this year. I think the incentives in the system are really sound, fundamentally."
_____

Why do we even need incentives to begin with?  And how does it encourage anyone to win the division when the third place team (and I realize the Cubs weren't an ordinary third place team, but still...) just got into the postseason?  Not to mention the team who won the second wild card last year won everything in a World Series against another wild card team.  The fact that you have to add these non-sensical incentives tells me that the fundamental structure of divisions are what's the problem.  The current structure that Manfred thinks fixes the problem actually makes it worse.  Now, it's nearly meaningless to win the division.  If he wants to fix it, just eliminate divisions (who gives a shit about where a team is located?), the top four teams in each league get in the postseason.  Done.

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Oct 8 15 1:52 PM

Matthew wrote:
beefchopper wrote:
When 162 games have been played and you end up with the second best record in the entire MLB you simply should not be subject to a one game playoff. This shows a terrible flaw in the structure of the playoffs IMHO. The Pirate fans should be deservedly furious.

I agree.  Bill Shaikin asked Manfred about this recently, and he just gave the usual lawyer talk:

_____
"Shaikin: The Pittsburgh Pirates and Chicago Cubs finished with the second-best and third-best records in MLB, and yet one of those teams will be eliminated from the postseason after one game. Since the wild card was introduced in 1995, never before have the second-place and third-place teams also had the second-best and third-best records in the league. Would you consider revising the playoff format to seed teams by their record, regardless of division, or do you view this season as a historical blip? 

Manfred: I think it is a mistake to set or adjust your playoff format based on the outcome in a particular year. I think you should establish your playoff format based on fundamental incentives that you want in your system. The fundamentals for us in the current format are No. 1, you’ve got to play your tail off to win your division because it’s a huge advantage; No. 2, the two wild-card spots keep more teams in contention right through the end of the season, and you saw that with Anaheim, Texas, Houston and the Yankees; and No. 3, I think the one-game play-in disadvantages wild cards appropriately, without putting division winners at a disadvantage of too long a layoff. Because I think those three fundamental incentives are good, I don’t worry too much about who won and who lost in particular numbers this year. I think the incentives in the system are really sound, fundamentally."
_____

Why do we even need incentives to begin with?  And how does it encourage anyone to win the division when the third place team (and I realize the Cubs weren't an ordinary third place team, but still...) just got into the postseason?  Not to mention the team who won the second wild card last year won everything in a World Series against another wild card team.  The fact that you have to add these non-sensical incentives tells me that the fundamental structure of divisions are what's the problem.  The current structure that Manfred thinks fixes the problem actually makes it worse.  Now, it's nearly meaningless to win the division.  If he wants to fix it, just eliminate divisions (who gives a shit about where a team is located?), the top four teams in each league get in the postseason.  Done.

THat's what would be the fairest by far but it will never happen because the division format gives the fans of even marginal teams like the Angels hope that their team will amke the playoffs right up the the end.  That equals more ticket sales, higher TV ratings, and the certainty that it won't change.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Oct 8 15 2:07 PM

beefchopper wrote:

THat's what would be the fairest by far but it will never happen because the division format gives the fans of even marginal teams like the Angels hope that their team will amke the playoffs right up the the end.  That equals more ticket sales, higher TV ratings, and the certainty that it won't change.

Oh, exactly.  Two more postseason games, more money, etc.  The other thing I hate is how all these crap decisions are also being driven, beyond money, by this "excitement" fetish.  As long as it makes things more exciting (and by that logic, why not add a 3rd, 4th, and 5th wild card to have even more teams involved at the end?!), then it's O.K. to screw over teams who actually played really well in the season.  They've done a great job making winning a division utterly meaningless.  If it's going to be left to such a crap shoot, then why even bother playing 162 games, if it's merely to set group rounds?  This is what bugs me with baseball: they have two contradictory systems in place.  There's still this importance of winning your division that carries over from a time when it truly mattered, but it's now tangled up inside a newer system that places less emphasis on it in the name of excitement, and inclusion.  They don't mix together.

I can deal with Manfred defending this system for other reasons; but to say that it defends the very thing it actually destroys is ludicrious.

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Oct 8 15 2:20 PM

Matthew wrote:
beefchopper wrote:

THat's what would be the fairest by far but it will never happen because the division format gives the fans of even marginal teams like the Angels hope that their team will amke the playoffs right up the the end.  That equals more ticket sales, higher TV ratings, and the certainty that it won't change.

Oh, exactly.  Two more postseason games, more money, etc.  The other thing I hate is how all these crap decisions are also being driven, beyond money, by this "excitement" fetish.  As long as it makes things more exciting (and by that logic, why not add a 3rd, 4th, and 5th wild card to have even more teams involved at the end?!), then it's O.K. to screw over teams who actually played really well in the season.  They've done a great job making winning a division utterly meaningless.  If it's going to be left to such a crap shoot, then why even bother playing 162 games, if it's merely to set group rounds?  This is what bugs me with baseball: they have two contradictory systems in place.  There's still this importance of winning your division that carries over from a time when it truly mattered, but it's now tangled up inside a newer system that places less emphasis on it in the name of excitement, and inclusion.  They don't mix together.

I can deal with Manfred defending this system for other reasons; but to say that it defends the very thing it actually destroys is ludicrious.
Well I disagree saying that winning the division is meaningless. I much rather know my team has a chance to win a series still after losing the first game.

  

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Oct 8 15 2:34 PM

Well first mild upset IMO finally happens. Rangers beat Blue Jays 5-3 in game 1 of their series. Price gave up 2 homers (out of 5 hits Rangers even got) in 7 innings. Gallargo gave up 2 runs in 5 innings, but Jays could only manage 6 hits themselves all day. I thought Jays in 4 thinking Hamels would get the one for Rangers, so maybe this series goes 5?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help