2015 MLB Season Thread with Postseason Discussion

[2001mark]

No talk about how bad the jays fans were acting, throwing cans and crap on the field ? That was euro soccer bad

It seems like fans of many other teams are taking the moral high ground when it comes to the way some of the Jays fans reacted to that call earlier in the 7th inning. Honestly if that were to happen in any other teams ballpark it would be the same result. I'm not saying what they did was right, but it's not completely unexpected in a building full of drunk and angry sports fans.

I will never understand why you go to a sporting event and at some point end up drunk, and besides, we can´t say for sure they were drunk, maybe alot of them are just :censored:s .

I'm also on team 'why the f do you bring a newborn to such an environment??' re. the baby that nearly got hit.

[2001mark]

Good morning, y'all. Poor Don Mattingly. He may be fired. Mark McGwire, the hitting coach, may be gone too. Rick Honeycutt, the pitching coach may be let go as well. The entire Dodgers' staff may be let go. What a shame. More anger and resentment for Kershaw. Can't win a ring? How does that feel? Huh? How does it feel?

The Mets are a tough team. I see the Mets doing wonders. This will be a dogfight. The Cubs will play their hearts out. This will be a war.

Dodgers & Nationals should try a giant wholesale trade, to shuffle their rosters a bit.

[hbgoo1975]

The Dodgers will never win tbe World Series again! NEVER. The Giants and Yankees can win the World Series the rest of the decade for all I care!

[Almighty]

No talk about how bad the jays fans were acting, throwing cans and crap on the field ? That was euro soccer bad

It seems like fans of many other teams are taking the moral high ground when it comes to the way some of the Jays fans reacted to that call earlier in the 7th inning. Honestly if that were to happen in any other teams ballpark it would be the same result. I'm not saying what they did was right, but it's not completely unexpected in a building full of drunk and angry sports fans.

I will never understand why you go to a sporting event and at some point end up drunk, and besides, we can´t say for sure they were drunk, maybe alot of them are just :censored:s .

I'm also on team 'why the f do you bring a newborn to such an environment??' re. the baby that nearly got hit.

Exactly, it's just ridiculous, are babysitters not cool anymore or are people just getting dumber and dumber ? Like in a movie theatre there should be age limits at sporting events !

[Kramerica Industries]

Oh, the Cubs and Mets have a history, just not in the playoffs

Didn't the Cubs hack up a lead in 1969* allowing the Mets to win the NL East? If memory serves (from reading about it, I'm not quite old enough to remember it from seeing it) the Cubs were in first place most of the 1969 season only to have a really poor September. The Mets got hot and blew past the Cubs to win by 7 or 8 games. (Without looking, I think the '69 Mets had 100 wins. The Cubs finished with somewhere between 90-93.) This might even be where the curse of the billy goat started. Or was this the "black cat game" season? I suppose I could look it up, but I'd rather try to do it from memory. We'll leave the "look it up and then act like I know it cold" bit to greater minds than mine.

*1969 was the first MLB season to have divisional playoffs, btw

So, umm, this is the kind of post that's begging for someone who likes to take things too literally to respond to, and that's usually been the foil I've played on your posts for...well, too many years now, anyway, but...

1969 was the black cat game season. I'll let a Mets blog take the rest:

the Cubs built a seemingly insurmountable 10-game lead by Aug. 13. However, he wouldn’t be clicking them on this day, although superstition would be the headliner.

That lead was cut to a half-game on this date as Tom Seaver, backed by homers from Donn Clendenon and Art Shamsky, beat Ferguson Jenkins and the Cubs, 7-1, in what will forever be known as “The Black Cat Game.’’

While the Cubs were batting, a black cat walked behind the on-deck circle where Santo was standing.

“(The cat) kept walking around their on-deck circle,’’ said Ed Kranepool in a phone interview. “The crowd kept yelling and cheering, and the cat just stayed there.’’

No, the cat wasn’t planned.

From Aug. 14, the Mets sizzled at 39-11 while the Cubs went 21-29 during that stretch, including 8-17 in September. The Mets were 23-7 in September.

Funny to think of a 100-win team like the 1969 Mets being the massive underdogs that they were in the World Series, but that's what happened because their opponent won 109 games. Then again, this was 1969, so relatively new New York sports teams pulling shocking upsets over Baltimore sports teams was kinda en vogue that year.

[Needschat]

A textbook example of Tweeting as your nickname

[Sport]

Does anybody know why the Cubs and Cardinals were in the NL East while the Braves and Reds were in the west? That's never made any sense to me.

[infrared41]

Oh, the Cubs and Mets have a history, just not in the playoffs

Didn't the Cubs hack up a lead in 1969* allowing the Mets to win the NL East? If memory serves (from reading about it, I'm not quite old enough to remember it from seeing it) the Cubs were in first place most of the 1969 season only to have a really poor September. The Mets got hot and blew past the Cubs to win by 7 or 8 games. (Without looking, I think the '69 Mets had 100 wins. The Cubs finished with somewhere between 90-93.) This might even be where the curse of the billy goat started. Or was this the "black cat game" season? I suppose I could look it up, but I'd rather try to do it from memory. We'll leave the "look it up and then act like I know it cold" bit to greater minds than mine.

*1969 was the first MLB season to have divisional playoffs, btw

So, umm, this is the kind of post that's begging for someone who likes to take things too literally to respond to, and that's usually been the foil I've played on your posts for...well, too many years now, anyway, but...

I have no idea what that means. Can you elaborate? I was going from memory and I just wanted to make that clear. Nothing more to it than that.

[pmoehrin]

Does anybody know why the Cubs and Cardinals were in the NL East while the Braves and Reds were in the west? That's never made any sense to me.

The Cubs insisted on being in the East along with New York and Philly who they considered rivals at the time. The Cardinals didn't want to be in a division opposite the Cubs and likewise also preferred to have more games played on the East Coast. Both Pittsburgh and Montreal had to go to the East as well. That left the Reds and Braves as the odd teams out.

Even now it would still make more sense for Pittsburgh to be in the East and the Braves in the Central if you were to do things purely along geographic location.

[rams80]

Does anybody know why the Cubs and Cardinals were in the NL East while the Braves and Reds were in the west? That's never made any sense to me.

Cubs and Cardinals wanted more games against the Mets and the Phillies because BIG MARKETS.

[Kramerica Industries]

I have no idea what that means. Can you elaborate? I was going from memory and I just wanted to make that clear. Nothing more to it than that.

Joke misfire, I guess. Can't nail all of 'em.

In any case, I was confirming your recollection of the Mets and Cubs in 1969, and the black cat that "cursed" Chicago as the Mets ran away with the East.

[infrared41]

Funny to think of a 100-win team like the 1969 Mets being the massive underdogs that they were in the World Series, but that's what happened because their opponent won 109 games. Then again, this was 1969, so relatively new New York sports teams pulling shocking upsets over Baltimore sports teams was kinda en vogue that year.

Yeah, people tend to forget that the "shock the world" Amazin' Mets were a 100 win team in 1969. If memory serves, they weren't very good in 1968 so maybe the turnaround plays into the legend. Well that, and as you said, they took just five games win a World Series against an Orioles team that won 109 games. Still, I don't think it's as big an upset as it's played up to be.

Anyway, I've always thought the '73 Mets were the more "amazing" story. Again, going from memory, that Mets team won 83 games and beat a pretty good Dodgers team (scratch that it was the 99 win Reds* - even more impressive, I guess) in the NLCS. Didn't the Mets take the 70's dynasty Oakland A's to seven games in the World Series that year?

*My memory ain't what it used to be. The Dodgers came in second in 1974.

[infrared41]

I have no idea what that means. Can you elaborate? I was going from memory and I just wanted to make that clear. Nothing more to it than that.

Joke misfire, I guess. Can't nail all of 'em.

In any case, I was confirming your recollection of the Mets and Cubs in 1969, and the black cat that "cursed" Chicago as the Mets ran away with the East.

So the Billy Goat curse took place in the 40's, right?

[Kramerica Industries]

Actually beat the Reds in the LCS in 1973, a team that won 99 games that season (Los Angeles won 95 and finished 2nd). Initial instinct would have me think it helped the Mets that they had HFA that year, but the best-of-5 LCS years were always played under a 2-3 format, and you would have to figure that if the Reds had won their home games, then winning one game out of possibly three at Shea would've been a cake-walk for them. Instead, Mets snagged one at Riverfront and won two at home. And then in the World Series against the A's in the middle of the A's winning three straight championships, and the Mets nearly took them out as well; held a 3-2 series lead but couldn't win either of the last two in Oakland.

Those '73 Mets were managed by Yogi Berra. Maybe it should be no surprise that they had some spunk and character.

(I'm totally looking all this stuff up, by the way. I'm sure I won't remember relatively irrelevant details with perfect memory 40+ years after they've happened either.)

[pmoehrin]

Funny to think of a 100-win team like the 1969 Mets being the massive underdogs that they were in the World Series, but that's what happened because their opponent won 109 games. Then again, this was 1969, so relatively new New York sports teams pulling shocking upsets over Baltimore sports teams was kinda en vogue that year.

Yeah, people tend to forget that the "shock the world" Amazin' Mets were a 100 win team in 1969. If memory serves, they weren't very good in 1968 so maybe the turnaround plays into the legend. Well that, and as you said, they took just five games beat an Orioles team that won 109 games in the World Series. Still, I don't think it's as big an upset as it's played up to be.

Anyway, I've always thought the '73 Mets were the more "amazing" story. Again, going from memory, that Mets team won 83 games and beat a pretty good Reds team in the NLCS. Didn't the Mets take the 70's dynasty Oakland A's to seven games in the World Series that year?

In both years that team was all pitching. Not a single player on either the '69 or '73 team drove in 80 runs or scored 100 runs. Granted at the time offense was at a premium, but even by comparison they were still pretty inept at the plate.

If they could have gotten any offense at all, they would have been right there with the Reds, Pirates and the Dodgers contending for the NL pennant every year during the first half of the 70's. Seaver, Koosman and Matlack were hands down the best 1-2-3 starting pitching combo in the NL if not all of baseball during that time. Just didn't have enough around them to do much with it beyond those two years.

[infrared41]

Actually beat the Reds in the LCS in 1973, a team that won 99 games that season (Los Angeles won 95 and finished 2nd). Initial instinct would have me think it helped the Mets that they had HFA that year, but the best-of-5 LCS years were always played under a 2-3 format, and you would have to figure that if the Reds had won their home games, then winning one game out of possibly three at Shea would've been a cake-walk for them. Instead, Mets snagged one at Riverfront and won two at home. And then in the World Series against the A's in the middle of the A's winning three straight championships, and the Mets nearly took them out as well; held a 3-2 series lead but couldn't win either of the last two in Oakland.

Those '73 Mets were managed by Yogi Berra. Maybe it should be no surprise that they had some spunk and character.

(I'm totally looking all this stuff up, by the way. I'm sure I won't remember relatively irrelevant details with perfect memory 40+ years after they've happened either.)

That's right, the '73 Mets were managed by Yogi. I'd totally forgotten that. The things I remember most about the '73 Mets are the Pete Rose - Bud Harrelson fight, how much I hated the Reds back then, and how much I like the Mets uniforms. (I was 12 at the time.)

[cmm]

Does anybody know why the Cubs and Cardinals were in the NL East while the Braves and Reds were in the west? That's never made any sense to me.

Cubs and Cardinals wanted more games against the Mets and the Phillies because BIG MARKETS.

I read it was the other way, the Mets weren't happy about losing home games with the Dodgers and Giants so the National League gave them the Cubs and Cards who were bigger draws than the Braves and Reds.

[pmoehrin]

I read it was the other way, the Mets weren't happy about losing home games with the Dodgers and Giants so the National League gave them the Cubs and Cards who were bigger draws than the Braves and Reds.

I'm sure there's probably some truth to that as well.

If the remaining teams in the East didn't want the Cards or Cubs, they probably wouldn't be in the division.

[Mac the Knife]

Forgive me if this has been asked or answered... for some reason I can't find this out on my own despite having access to the online MLB Style Guide and what-not, but...

Am I partially color-blind, or are the Cubs, Mets, Royals and Blue Jays all sporting the same PMS blue?

[infrared41]

Forgive me if this has been asked or answered... for some reason I can't find this out on my own despite having access to the online MLB Style Guide and what-not, but...

Am I partially color-blind, or are the Cubs, Mets, Royals and Blue Jays all sporting the same PMS blue?

It's probably the Ambien. Anyway, I don't know if all three teams are sporting the exact color, but they're pretty damned close.