User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.5535 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Textbook Editor Posted: October 01, 2010 at 01:52 AM (#3652425)Not looking good for the Padres, which really sucks because I was hoping they'd get in over the Braves, just to get new blood in there.
Lincecum would be on rotation for any Monday playoff game, right? Yikes, talk about a hill to climb...
After 125 games, San Diego was 76-49 (.608). They have gone 12-22 (.353) down the stretch, losing to a lot of weak teams. The Giants (and the Rockies for awhile) played well. But San Diego had a 6.5 game lead in their division and should have made the playoffs.
Any tiebreaker involving the Braves will take place in Atlanta, I know that much.
But it's worse than they should have expected based on what they knew by September 1. They had an excellent team! Keep in mind that if the Pads had just played .500 ball over their last 34 games, they would have 5 more wins (and 5 fewer losses) and they'd have clinched first place already and they would still have a shot at the best record in the NL. But now they are going to watch the playoffs on TV.
What, you haven't bought into the "Bobby Cox Hail-And-Farewell Tour" sentiment?
Last Padres postseason appearance: 2006
New blood, indeed.
But hey, how about that Carlos Marmol?
Hey, all the cool kids are doing it:
TBR 94-65 [13-14 in SEPT]
NYY 94-65 [12-15 in SEPT]
Sorry to be pedantic, but only 2 of the original 8 NL clubs (Braves and Cubs) survive. Two others which date from the 19th Century were expansion (or replacement teams), the Giants and the Phillies. The other four "originals" (Reds, Dodgers, Pirates and Cardinals) joined later after being born in the American Association. There were other AA teams (such as the Orioles) which joined the NL, but then folded.
No. It is smart in particular to root against the Braves.
I don't understand what the parenthetical means. Yes, the Padres overperformed for most of the season, and they've also choked that lead away recently.
But now they are going to watch the playoffs on TV.
At least wait till it's official before saying that with such certainty. I am going to enjoy watching this sweep in person this weekend.
They don't do coin flips anymore -- they use things like H2H record to determine sites. If the Pads and Giants tie for the division (and the WC is out of play), game 163 will be in SD on Monday evening.
That is well and properly pedantic. Given the rather chaotic nature of the early NL and AA, it's a bit tougher to talk about the original teams of the NL. I have heard the term 'Classic Eight' to refer to the teams of the NL circa 1900 as a counterpart to the ALs original 8 teams used in these sorts of discussions.
(All meaning both the West and WC).
Yes. Pads would be either 3 or 4 back in the division with 2 to play, and 3 back in the wildcard.
I'm no Braves fan, but this is about the best playoff alignment I could've hoped for at this point. I'll be rooting for the Giants, but I'll settle for anyone pounding the crap out of the Phillies.
EDIT: 4 back in the division, period, since they're playing the Giants.
Yeah, but that was on a really weak schedule. The scheduler gave them a gift September and they still went below .500.
It's easier to have a fluke happen and take a superior team in a 5 game series than in a 7 game series.
If I'm the Giants and had a choice, I'd want to play the Phillies first, in a shorter series. So, if I'm them and we win today, I go with filler the last two games.
Yes, but don't you also have to factor in the chances that the superior team loses in the first round to the other team, thus allowing you to play the weaker team in that 7-game set.
Then again, you might have to factor in the chances that you lose in the first round to the inferior team, changing the calculus yet again.
Or, you could just realize that rooting for the proper opponent seems to work out just about half the time, and thus is pretty pointless.
I was ecstatic when the Marlins beat the Giants in 2003. That didn't work out too well.
Oh, sure. Absolutely. But if I'm thinking about any particular foe, if I think I'm the better team, I want a longer series. If I think I'm inferior, I want a shorter series.
But I engaged in some of that yesterday (I'm a Braves fan). My preference would be: Reds, Giants, Rangers as a gauntlet to run. Pointless, yes. But irresistible.
Yeah. They choked almost as severely as the 2002 Sacramento Kings did.
I have seen several of the Pads' games down the stretch; yesterday was one where I thought the pressure did get to them. But basically, I think it has been a case of regression in a rather dramatic fashion, as many have said. I also have to tip the cap to the Giants, who remain, in terms of the lineup at least, a team I find unimpressive. But they have gotten the job done. I actually thought at the beginning of September that Colorado would wind up winning it.
Assuming the Giants get it done, this will be a sweet win for Bruce Bochy as well as for Tim Flannery.
As far as the playoffs, I understand what bunyon is saying, but as a Reds' fan, I want to avoid the Phillies in the first round. I'd rather play them best-of-7 and have gotten to the NLCS than play them in the division series, even though there might be a better shot at an upset in a best-of-5.
I hope it's clear I'm just engaging in pointless speculation. I really do think it's silly to think about preferences. Get in and then do your best.
It's hard to blame Sacramento for that choke when the refs were the ones with their hands wrapped around the Kings throats in Game 6. I'd say they were strangled.
It's a coin flip either way. If you get the "worse" teams they can jump you in a five game series. If you get the "best" team you could jump them. Or not. And really, the randomness doesn't really get much better in a seven game series. It's all a damned farce, more or less. But it makes Bud money, so there's that.
I'm confused, Sam. Best of five and best of seven are BOTH a farce, or just best of five? If the best of seven is as well, how is that Selig's fault? Or is what I highlighted just hyperbole? (I'm not being snarky, I'm wondering if you have a new, wacky playoff proposal. If this is just anti-WC, I get the solution.)
The Phillies won't have any of the big 3 on short rest in the LDS, so I'd say that's definitely the tougher draw. But it looks like the seedings are pretty well wrapped up at this point.
Even if we simply had a round robin 348 game schedule in which each team played every other team 6 home and 6 away you'd end up with a team that was 243-105 and another that was 242-106; which is the better team? How certain are you? At some point, you have to come up with a plan to arrive at a winner. For all it's faults - and there are plenty - I think the current system is okay. You could make the LDS a 7 game series or the world series 5 without much effect.
*** I realize that the difference in randomness between a 5 and 7 game series isn't much. But it will be slightly more random in a 5.
That's the entire freaking staff.
I'd say that at this point they're a pretty tough opponent no matter who they play.
Oh sure - I wouldn't ever disagree with this. But using "farce" and citing Selig implied to me that there was some kind blame he was assigning and/or some kind of fix he was envisioning for not just the 5-game series, but the whole thing. This is what I was enquiring about.
The Giants' staff ERA in September was 1.78. In 232 innings, they allowed 151 hits and 58 walks (for a WHIP of 0.90), and had 234 strikeouts.
This is the buzzsaw I'm hoping the Phillies run into in the first round, Steve. (When I lived in San Francisco, I had a friend who positively turned purple when I rooted for the Giants only when it benefitted the Mets, but, oh well.)
That's new and different.
Both. The entire scenario. Short series baseball. Five games. Seven games. It's all ########.
That would be entertaining.
Well, the hopeless nihilism of a Braves' fan does make my day a little brighter; but once that wears off, I am legitimately curious as to your proposal for something better. I'm not against a best-of-nine. Or was there something else you were envisioning?
As long as the Wild Card race remains unresolved, I'd say it's pretty strong.
Hmmm. I'd say zero. I think the Phillies need to worry about the Phillies.
This is of course a very subjective question.
Yep. I agree.
But then they went 16/30 on FTs at home in Game 7 and lost in OT. That was on them.
The Giants have done it, of course, with a great and deep pitching staff and some ugly beards. However, compared with what they started the season with, their batting lineup is (in most respects) a lot more impressive at the end of the season than it appeared to be in the beginning. They went from a team with no power (122 home runs last year) to a team which can put 7 players in their lineup who can reasonably be called power threats:
2. Bengie Molina became Buster Posey -- huge improvement in all respects
3. Aubrey Huff* -- he was much better all year than most expected
4. Juan Uribe -- mostly became Freddie Sanchez, who was average
5. Pablo Sandoval -- the biggest offensive disappointment all year
6. Edgar Reneteria -- became Juan Uribe + Renteria, results were as expected
7. Mark DeRosa -- became Pat Burrell, far better than expected
8. Aaron Rowand -- became Andres Torres + Rowand, huge upgrade when Torres
9. Nate Schierholtz -- very late became Jose Guillen, but had a lot of Torres along the way
* His CHONE projection was 0.267/0.332/0.437 with a WAR of 1.1. Thus far, Huff's actual line is .290/.383/.508 with a WAR of 5.5. No one but Huff's mother, Pollyanna Huff, thought he'd be that good.
Sample-size issues noted, it is pretty hard for me to picture any NL team beating Philadelphia four times. SF has the best shot to do so IMO.
As much as I like the Giants, the sheer hideousness of Brian Wilson's hair and beard combination makes it difficult to root for them.
Our Phillies fan friend Harris disagrees vehemently.
That would be entertaining.
Wait--the Phils get the Reds in the first round, assuming the standings stay where they are now, right?
2 out of 3 isn't bad. THey've gotten nothing out of Guillen, other than piss-poor defense and the speed of an elephant with two broken legs.
It's fair to call it unimpressive: the Giants' team OPS+ is 93, almost exactly league-average. But it's no longer a bad offense, which it surely was in 2009.
I thought he would hit about .230 in SF.
What facet of my behavior to date would lead you to believe I would invest the time and energy to generate a "proposal for something better?" What aspect of my presentation leads you to think I would not be perfectly happy just hating on the current stupid as an end-in-itself?
I thought he would hit about .230 in SF.
Lackluster as Guillen's been, he has been an offensive upgrade over Rowand and Schierholtz, the guys whose PA's he's replaced.
Man, making the playoffs as a wild-card team really IS worse for you than not making them at all, isn't it?
14 divisional titles will skew a guy's perspective a little. Plus it's Hutcheson.
Yeah, his personality is so low-key, and his tactical approach so generally unimaginative, that he's easy to underrate, by casual fans as well as us geeks. But as I believe Chris Jaffe found in his Managers book, Bochy has compiled a long-term record that's actually fairly impressive.
I've long maintained that the lineup selection and in-game tactics stuff -- the X's and O's, if you will -- gets too much of our attention, and we fail to perceive the realm in which managers (in baseball and elsewhere) genuinely succeed or fail: the leadership aspect, the handling of the clubhouse, the "fostering the working environment" stuff that's impossible to quantify but nonetheless hugely impactful. And I think that in that aspect, Bochy is an excellent manager: he's a quietly forceful no-BS guy who earns the respect and trust of his players.
A lot of guys appear to be playing better than expected for the Giants, and it seems likely that this is at least in part a function of Bochy creating an atmosphere in which players are relaxed and confident and able to perform their best. I think Dusty Baker was also good at that for much of his tenure in SF, though he pretty clearly couldn't sustain that in Chicago.
My Bochy thoughts are given in post #34 in this thread. Short version: he's probably the most underrated manager over the last 20 years. At least Gardenhire has people talk about how underrated he is.
He has some foibles with lineup construction, but he generally manages to get the best players in the lineup, and he does a fantastic job with the bullpen.
He's pretty smart about platoons, and is fairly deft with his switches in late innings. He puts the Giants in a good position to win nearly all the time.
Which nation? Somalia?
I'm stumbling over "a."
Is he the one who went apeshit in 2008 when the Cubs occasionally rested starters in their final 6 games against the Mets and Brewers?
Wow. Thanks!
I'd like to root for the Pirates to really get some new blood it there, but the only way they get in is via the Dr. Strangeglove scenario... and that would be a little excessive.
Yes.
Too bad it didn't work.
I agree with both statements. I think because of Halladay-Hamels-Oswalt and an adequate (though not great) offense the Phillies will prevail. However, it is notable how often in the last decade the best regular season team turns out not to be the best post-season team: From 2000-2009, only one time did the NL team which won the regular season ring reach the World Series (the Cardinals in 2004). Since the 1997 wild-card-winning Marlins made it to the WS, only the '99 Braves and the '04 Cards won the regular season and then won 2 rounds of NL playoffs.
I think the "crapshoot" aspect of the playoffs is the best explanation. However, it should be noted that from 1992-1999, the Braves had the best record in the NL 4 times and all four of those years Atlanta made it to the World Series. (Of the 4 trips, the 1992 post-season differs being pre-wild-card, pre-three rounds.) That suggests to me (in this small sample) that if a team wins the regular season having say three great starting pitchers, it is more likely to advance in the playoffs than a club with more of an offense-defense balance. The 2010 Phillies appear to fit that bill. However, they might have to win a series from a team with even better overall pitching (the Giants, 122 ERA+), but one which is not as strong 1-2-3 in the rotation:
Halladay 7.0 vs. Cain* 4.5
Oswalt 5.2 vs. Lincecum 3.6
Hamels 4.7 vs. Sanchez 3.2
The edge the Giants have is in the bullpen. Not just a far better closer (Wilson vs. Lidge), but a 3.02 ERA among the SF relievers vs. a 3.91 ERA for the Philly relievers. (Note that both ballparks rate this year as roughly average, with the Philly park slightly harder to score runs in.)
*Cain could be the most underappreciated pitcher in baseball. Only Felix Hernandez of all pitchers Cain's age or younger has a higher career WAR. Cain is tied with AJ Burnett (who is 8 years his senior) for 33rd in WAR among active pitchers. Tim Lincecum has been hugely impressive. However, Lincecum is older than Cain, came up later and has a lower career WAR thus far. (The version of WAR used here is from b-ref, not Fangraphs.)
All it takes is a bad game from one of the aces and then one of their opponents to get a great start against one of the other aces and that about does it.
Sam may not feel like proposing something different. But I will:
One 28 team league. You play 6 (3 home) against every other team. The champion is the team that has the most wins at the end of the year. (27 x 6 = 162)
After the regular season, a cup championship is held. This will feature the top 10 teams plus the previous year's champions (both regular season and cup). If the previous season's champs are in the top 10, the top 12 advance.
These 12 then play a tournament, seeded by record, with the regular season champion being number one seed and the previous year's regular season champion being the number two seed. If they're the same, the 2 seed goes to the second best regular season record.
Seeds 5-12 play a best of three, all in the home park of the higher seed. The four winners advance to play a best of three at the home park of the 1-4 seeds. The semi final round is best of five, 2-2-1. The final round best of 7, 2-3-2. The winner is the cup champion.
The players on the regular season and cup champions split the championship pot (whatever revenue is collectively bargained for the purpose, but I'm thinking siginficant dollars - say a full share would be $1 million) evenly to divide as winner's shares.
Will all this be over in time for spring training?
Two 3 game series replace one seven game round. So, yeah, I'd guess it'll be over in the same time. In the proposal I made (silly academic exercise though it is), those 3 game series are played entirely at one location, with no off days. Hell, I'd say no off day between the two 3 game series to give the higher seeded teams a bigger advantage. So, six days for the two series. That is less than the time alloted for the now 7 game LCS. Hence, I've also shortened the postseason.
Kenny Mayne: So, with last night's victory over Boston, next week the Milwaukee Beers must beat Indianapolis in order to advance to Charlotte. That's in an effort to reduce their magic number to three.
Dan Patrick: Right, and then the Beers can advance to the National Eastern Division North to play Tampa.
Kenny Mayne: So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.
I think it's very easy to make too much of this. There's just not a whole lot of difference between a 96-win team and a 94-win team, not to the point where you can definitely declare one better than the other. Plus, you get situations like this year's AL East, where neither team really cares how many games they win down the stretch.
Last year, the Phillies had a comfortable lead in September and were never pushed; it doesn't seem at all significant to me that they ended up winning two fewer games than the Dodgers. They were still likely the best team in the NL.
Yes, thanks to the wild card, we've had perhaps the two best teams in the majors running neck and neck in the same division... neither of them giving a blessed damn over the past month whether they win a game.
I have to laugh when Yankees fans express worry about the Yankees' recent lengthy stretch of sub-.500 ball. The back end of the roster (particularly the pitching staff) has seen more action than the Surgeon General recommends. (This despite Andy's earlier insistence that the team would try throughout September for the division.) Their record is not indicative of their talent. And why in the hell would the team try, in a system such as this?
This is simply untrue.
No, it is simply true. It's not even that hard to check.
Wait - were you being sarcastic? They had the best record in 1993 and in 1997, too.
the Braves had the best record in the NL 4 timesand all four of those years Atlanta made it to the World Series ..."I stand corrected. I meant to say all four years Atlanta made it to the World Series Atlanta had the best record in the NL. But from 1992-1999, Atlanta had the best record in the NL 7 times, and in 3 of those they lost prior to the WS.
1992 -- 98-64 -- lost to Toronto in WS
1993 -- 104-58 -- lost to Philly in NLCS
1995 -- 90-54 -- beat Cleveland in the WS
1996 -- 96-66 -- lost to NYY in WS
1997 -- 101-61 -- lost to Florida
1998 -- 106-56 -- lost to San Diego
1999 -- 103-59 -- lost to NYY in WS
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main