Gary.

2015 MLB Season Thread with Postseason Discussion

Recommended Posts

Not the best idea in the world...

V8q4t2V.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a series ends in 5 games it's because one team is obviously better. Enough with the excuses, the Mets weren't cheated they just can't close and weren't prepared for a team like the Royals.

Not true at all. It's possible for each game to be tight, back-and-forth games where either team is a pitch away from winning. And that's what we had, with the exception of games 2 and 3.

I think the 2005 Houston Astros were a great team. They probably would have won the World Series most other years. But they ran into a buzzsaw. And even though they were swept, they lost the four games by a total of 6 runs. Now, the White Sox were a better team top-to-bottom, but it was pretty close and the Astros would be proud of that team. When every game comes down to one swing, it's a tight series between two fairly equal teams. And nobody here said the Mets were cheated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royals hardly hit a homer this series. Killed the Mets by way of small ball, smart baserunning, and Mets miscues. The Scioscia-era Angels on steriods.

Not very exciting or entertaining at all, hope other teams don´t copy their style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just utterly appalled that Joe Buck had the nerve to talk about the Royals winning games four times more often than he did about the Mets winning games. That level of bias is unacceptable. And during the ALCS, he also talked about the Royals winning games twice as often as the Blue Jays. Disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a series ends in 5 games it's because one team is obviously better. Enough with the excuses, the Mets weren't cheated they just can't close and weren't prepared for a team like the Royals.

Not true at all. It's possible for each game to be tight, back-and-forth games where either team is a pitch away from winning. And that's what we had, with the exception of games 2 and 3.

I think the 2005 Houston Astros were a great team. They probably would have won the World Series most other years. But they ran into a buzzsaw. And even though they were swept, they lost the four games by a total of 6 runs. Now, the White Sox were a better team top-to-bottom, but it was pretty close and the Astros would be proud of that team. When every game comes down to one swing, it's a tight series between two fairly equal teams. And nobody here said the Mets were cheated.

The "cheated" comment was directed at Tank's home run comment.

I disagree, even if each game goes into extra innings, but the series ends in 5, one team is much better than the other. If the Mets truly were evenly matched with the Royals they wouldn't have choked in Games 1, 4, and 5. Sorry, but three choke jobs in one series happen because one team is obviously better. The Royals are a MUCH MUCH MUCH better team than the Mets in the 7th and later. The Mets are a slightly better team in innings 1-6. When you combine that the Royals are obviously better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the best idea in the world...

V8q4t2V.jpg

Just a memo for y'all:

Do not predict the future if you are not from the future!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Royals had maybe 800000 people for their parade. People abandoned cars on the interstate to get to the parade. There were people sitting in a fountain at Union Station just so they could see this.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article42755919.html

Seriously look at some of these pictures

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article42628542.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a series ends in 5 games it's because one team is obviously better. Enough with the excuses, the Mets weren't cheated they just can't close and weren't prepared for a team like the Royals.

Not true at all. It's possible for each game to be tight, back-and-forth games where either team is a pitch away from winning. And that's what we had, with the exception of games 2 and 3.

I think the 2005 Houston Astros were a great team. They probably would have won the World Series most other years. But they ran into a buzzsaw. And even though they were swept, they lost the four games by a total of 6 runs. Now, the White Sox were a better team top-to-bottom, but it was pretty close and the Astros would be proud of that team. When every game comes down to one swing, it's a tight series between two fairly equal teams. And nobody here said the Mets were cheated.

The "cheated" comment was directed at Tank's home run comment.

I disagree, even if each game goes into extra innings, but the series ends in 5, one team is much better than the other. If the Mets truly were evenly matched with the Royals they wouldn't have choked in Games 1, 4, and 5. Sorry, but three choke jobs in one series happen because one team is obviously better. The Royals are a MUCH MUCH MUCH better team than the Mets in the 7th and later. The Mets are a slightly better team in innings 1-6. When you combine that the Royals are obviously better.

How do you get I said the Royals cheated. I said they were pesky and mosquitos and did not hit the ball hard. The home run comment was they only hit one over the fence, an inside the park HR is not out of the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royals hardly hit a homer this series. Killed the Mets by way of small ball, smart baserunning, and Mets miscues. The Scioscia-era Angels on steriods.

Not very exciting or entertaining at all, hope other teams don´t copy their style

I hope more do. Small ball, to me, is way more exciting. I honestly find a solo home run boring, especially in comparison to a runner scoring from second; or a bases clearing single or double.

I prefer to enjoy scoring and the set up, rather than get lucky on a single pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royals hardly hit a homer this series. Killed the Mets by way of small ball, smart baserunning, and Mets miscues. The Scioscia-era Angels on steriods.

Not very exciting or entertaining at all, hope other teams don´t copy their style

I hope more do. Small ball, to me, is way more exciting. I honestly find a solo home run boring, especially in comparison to a runner scoring from second; or a bases clearing single or double.

I prefer to enjoy scoring and the set up, rather than get lucky on a single pitch.

Me too. It's more exhilarating watching the not so fast Hosmer try to get home on a play like that than to watch him jog around the bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a series ends in 5 games it's because one team is obviously better. Enough with the excuses, the Mets weren't cheated they just can't close and weren't prepared for a team like the Royals.

Not true at all. It's possible for each game to be tight, back-and-forth games where either team is a pitch away from winning. And that's what we had, with the exception of games 2 and 3.

I think the 2005 Houston Astros were a great team. They probably would have won the World Series most other years. But they ran into a buzzsaw. And even though they were swept, they lost the four games by a total of 6 runs. Now, the White Sox were a better team top-to-bottom, but it was pretty close and the Astros would be proud of that team. When every game comes down to one swing, it's a tight series between two fairly equal teams. And nobody here said the Mets were cheated.

The "cheated" comment was directed at Tank's home run comment.

I disagree, even if each game goes into extra innings, but the series ends in 5, one team is much better than the other. If the Mets truly were evenly matched with the Royals they wouldn't have choked in Games 1, 4, and 5. Sorry, but three choke jobs in one series happen because one team is obviously better. The Royals are a MUCH MUCH MUCH better team than the Mets in the 7th and later. The Mets are a slightly better team in innings 1-6. When you combine that the Royals are obviously better.

How do you get I said the Royals cheated. I said they were pesky and mosquitos and did not hit the ball hard. The home run comment was they only hit one over the fence, an inside the park HR is not out of the park.

I didn't think you said the Royals cheated, but that the Mets were cheated. As for the HR comment I thought someone said it was meant about the HR in game 6 of the ALCS. Totally my bad if that is not how you meant either comment.

I still believe the Royals showed they are a much better team as do almost all teams that win in 5 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mets will be back.

Thank God. If they disbanded the team, what the hell would they do with a seven year-old stadium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mets will be back.

With that good young pitching staff maybe next year they'll wear the CROWN, but right now the Royals are KING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mets will be back.

Thank God. If they disbanded the team, what the hell would they do with a seven year-old stadium?

Move the Islanders in and make them the NHL's first true outdoor team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mets will be back.

With that good young pitching staff maybe next year they'll wear the CROWN, but right now the Royals are KING.

What do they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mets will be back.

Just like the Cubs in 2004 that had Pryor, Wood, Zambrano and Clement in 2003?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Hosmer may have known what he was doing.

It was a calculated risk, but even with that, a dumb risk. Any time you send a runner, you're putting pressure on the defense to make the play. Often they do, but sometimes they F up. Look at the ninth inning of game 7 last year. Gordon tripled standing (or was it an error?), and he could have went for home. I was yelling for him to go home as it happened, but then I saw on the replay that the cutoff man in short center got the ball just after Gordon got to third. So if he went home last year and put the pressure on the defense to make the perfect throw, he would have been out by 10 feet more likely than not. It's not always a smart play.

Of course, the Royals won this time around, and maybe only took that chance because they had a two game cushion, anyway. But had Hosmer been thrown out to end the game, then we get a day of talk on how Hosmer screwed up. And if deGrom throws a gem in game 6, then there's ten times the pressure on the Royals in game 7. Things can turn around in a hurry in a short series. The Royals won, but that doesn't mean it was a smart risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been interesting if Duda's throw was on the mark because it would have been a very close play at the plate. The rules might've led to some controversy

Share this post


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