AnythingChicago

This is October: 2014 MLB Postseason Thread

Recommended Posts

Kramerica's right.

If one of the Giants/Cardinals won, it would be a bit easier to stomach.

Giants/Dodgers would be freaking awesome. Hell, even Cards/Nats would have a nice REVENGE storyline

But Giants/Cardinals is so played out. What's the storyline- SEE THE ONLY NL TEAMS THAT EVER WIN IN OCTOBER AGAIN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing there is that as we're seeing in just about every sport now, it's whoever is hot at the right time, not necessarily who is the best. Look in the last decade at those Cardinals World Series wins, LA Kings Stanley Cups, New York Giants Super Bowls. The only sport where this isn't the case is the NBA.

I find this fascinating. The NBA's postseason sees the least amount of "hot" teams coming from lukewarm regular seasons to turn on all engines in the playoffs, pleasing us who hate seeing teams like the LA Kings, NY Giants and STL Cardinals from happening. And yet, it's the NBA's postseason which receives the most amount of criticism for being "too boring," "too predictable," and always having the top teams win the biggest games, the same thing we yearn for from the NFL's, NHL's and MLB's playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, dbad. You're basically the Bill O'Reilly of sports.

wnd_addd2693c837b063a473f5135ba3e67d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be possible that there are guys throwing breaking stuff more effectively than they used to, but a fastball is a fastball and will always be a fastball. For all the talk about how NFL players are bigger and stronger human beings than their counterparts from 30 years ago (this is one of the things they argue about at a cocktail party in hell, and the party never ends), applying that sort of evolution to baseball would result in something like 250-mph heat, and that's just not ever going to happen. I like that.

Correct, though I do believe the average fastball has probably increased by about 5-10 MPH in the last 20-30 years. But you're right about it not being that dramatic of an increase, relatively speaking.

Ten? The only way that's possible is the advent of hard-throwing relievers who hit 100 on the gun for an inning and that's it. 100-mph fastballs existed thirty years ago, it's just that the specialists didn't.

I agree with you, but I'm not sure the "how" of it matters. Batters face harder throwers more often than they used to, period.

But maybe that's irrelevant for what you were discussing originally. I guess I sort of missed the context.

I'm just more interested in how the physics of baseball have remained relatively static while we hear all this talk in the other sports about how human beings have gotten so big and so fast and so strong at a trajectory that defies evolution. If we took the leaps and bounds that football players have allegedly made and ascribed them to baseball players, then not only would pitchers be dealing 200 with regularity and 250 when they're really on, but every home run hit out of Cincinnati would land in the state of Kentucky. Neither is happening even with the known presence of performance-enhancing drugs, which means that either the growth of football players is a load of crap or baseball is a special game. I think it's at least a little of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing there is that as we're seeing in just about every sport now, it's whoever is hot at the right time, not necessarily who is the best. Look in the last decade at those Cardinals World Series wins, LA Kings Stanley Cups, New York Giants Super Bowls. The only sport where this isn't the case is the NBA.

I find this fascinating. The NBA's postseason sees the least amount of "hot" teams coming from lukewarm regular seasons to turn on all engines in the playoffs, pleasing us who hate seeing teams like the LA Kings, NY Giants and STL Cardinals from happening. And yet, it's the NBA's postseason which receives the most amount of criticism for being "too boring," "too predictable," and always having the top teams win the biggest games, the same thing we yearn for from the NFL's, NHL's and MLB's playoffs.

This would never happen for revenue reasons, but perhaps the answer would be to not let 16 of the 30 teams into the postseason when we all know there's only about 4 who have a chance at coming out on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royals are the darlings now, but if they make the playoffs two more times they'll be "played out" according to most people here. Can't enjoy anything.

Also, I don't get the "short series" thing after the first round. There are no 7 game series during the regular season. Sounds like a long series to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think of series in the setting of a normal baseball series. Just think of it in the setting of a series of games. I think we all know that a 7 game sample is not a particular fair manner to gauge a team.

(Again, I'm not saying the playoffs are unfair, I'm just saying they absolutely don't decide the best team.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I want to praise Kansas City for playing like their asses are on fire, blame has to go to Anaheim for not stepping up when it matters.

Going 2 for 25 with runners in scoring position for the series isn't going to get anything done. If this was early in the season, this could be something that can be chalked up to 'that's a fixable problem with practice and time'

In a playoff series, that spells doom.. and this was the best team in the majors this season. It's almost like they couldn't handle the pressure of being the big dog.

Now we have Kansas City and Baltimore in the ALCS and, let's face it, it makes me feel good to see new blood in the postseason do well.

The city of Anaheim is to blame for the Angels losing? What do they have to with anything? You think the Angels were distracted by the negotiations over the stadium? That really shouldn't affect the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone is so tired of the Giants and Cardinals always "winning the NL" then the other teams in said league have to put a stop it by beating them. Until then stop the god damn whining, bitching, moaning and complaining. It's starting to get real :censored:ing lame. I think 7 years on here seems like enough. Its been real and I enjoyed every minute of it so peace out mother :censored:ers and Go Giants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone is so tired of the Giants and Cardinals always "winning the NL" then the other teams in said league have to put a stop it by beating them. Until then stop the god damn whining, bitching, moaning and complaining. It's starting to get real :censored:ing lame. I think 7 years on here seems like enough. Its been real and I enjoyed every minute of it so peace out mother :censored:ers and Go Giants!

It's unique, considering the Giants have never lost in the playoffs with this core group and the Cardinals only lose to the Giants or the AL champ.

That said, in 2010-2011, one missed the playoffs while the other won it all. Last year, Giants missed the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Tigers are eliminated from the postseason, so does my intrest. Time to start caring about the Lions even more than I already did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone choose a Cardinals/Royals series right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think of series in the setting of a normal baseball series. Just think of it in the setting of a series of games. I think we all know that a 7 game sample is not a particular fair manner to gauge a team.

(Again, I'm not saying the playoffs are unfair, I'm just saying they absolutely don't decide the best team.)

Just how long would a series need to be? I think 5 and 7 are just fine in a head-to-head matchup.

This coming from a fan of a team with the best record in the NL in 2008... which promptly got swept. I've never considered blaming the series length for that year, or 2007, when they were the division winner with the worst record and did the exact same thing.

Are you stating that the Angels are still the best team? I'd argue that the very best teams have success in both the regular season and playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everyone is so tired of the Giants and Cardinals always "winning the NL" then the other teams in said league have to put a stop it by beating them. Until then stop the god damn whining, bitching, moaning and complaining. It's starting to get real :censored:ing lame. I think 7 years on here seems like enough. Its been real and I enjoyed every minute of it so peace out mother :censored:ers and Go Giants!

Then I am confused. What drove you away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Orioles win today means that this is the first time ever that Detroit has been swept.....

:ninja:

You must have short-term memory...

World-Series-win-Tim-Fuller.jpg

#CheapShotAboutDetroit

With imbalanced schedules and such, the team with the most wins doesn't mean that they're the best team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone choose a Cardinals/Royals series right now?

The Show-Me Showdown...I can dig it.

(And think of the color contrast...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone choose a Cardinals/Royals series right now?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think of series in the setting of a normal baseball series. Just think of it in the setting of a series of games. I think we all know that a 7 game sample is not a particular fair manner to gauge a team.

(Again, I'm not saying the playoffs are unfair, I'm just saying they absolutely don't decide the best team.)

Just how long would a series need to be? I think 5 and 7 are just fine in a head-to-head matchup.

This coming from a fan of a team with the best record in the NL in 2008... which promptly got swept. I've never considered blaming the series length for that year, or 2007, when they were the division winner with the worst record and did the exact same thing.

Are you stating that the Angels are still the best team? I'd argue that the very best teams have success in both the regular season and playoffs.

I'm not saying there is a right length of series. There isn't. When you get to this point, you play short series, that's just the way it is. If you don't happen to be at your best and/or don't get the bounces, you're not going to win the championship. So I'm not arguing for anything longer than they currently play.

The simple answer to your question about whether I'm still suggesting the Angels are baseball's best team is yes. The slightly more complex answer is that I'm not really sure. They were only two games better than Baltimore, and all schedules aren't equal. But what I am suggesting is that losing in the playoffs shouldn't take away from how good of a team they were and are in 2014.

Baseball is the chanciest of all the sports on a micro and macro level. That's why they play 162 in the first place. Pick your top 5 teams in baseball history. I'll bet most of them had a 3 or 4 (or more) game losing streak somewhere along the way. That happens in small samples, and it especially happens in baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Tigers are eliminated from the postseason, so does my intrest. Time to start caring about the Lions even more than I already did.

After yesterday afternoon, I'm considering fasting from sports for the winter. That Lions debacle along with the Tigers game really hurts the heart. I mean literally, I could feel arteries clog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.