PDA

View Full Version : So the "Two Best Records" fall on opening night


LoveYourSuit
10-02-2008, 01:25 AM
This is the reason that once we got in, ANYTTHING CAN HAPPEN.

Throw the records out.

Open game for everyone.

GoGoCrede
10-02-2008, 01:27 AM
Two of the three home teams lost. In the words of that one Celtics player, "Anything is possible!"

LoveYourSuit
10-02-2008, 01:37 AM
I always think home teams have the most preassure in a short series like the ALDS.

You loose one and your back is up against the wall in "must win" mode.

GoGoCrede
10-02-2008, 01:41 AM
I always think home teams have the most preassure in a short series like the ALDS.

You loose one and your back is up against the wall in "must win" mode.

I'm glad our guys pulled through last night under all the pressure, especially from the crowd. I think the crowd willed the Twins to lose. Electric. We stood for practically every strike.

Vernam
10-02-2008, 01:41 AM
Two of the three home teams lost. In the words of that one Celtics player, "Anything is possible!"Make it three out of four tomorrow. :praying:

Vernam

hawkjt
10-02-2008, 02:28 AM
Boston is scary good.They are really hitting on all cylinders and are the defending champs. DiceK tomorrow, then Beckett? Angels are in trouble.
Wish the Sox had Ellsbury and Pedroia. Ellsbury is exactly what the Sox need to find...a cenerfielder who hits and steals fifty bases.
Right now, the Red Sox have to be the favorite.

EuroSox35
10-02-2008, 03:36 AM
As usual, starting pitching throws everything else out the window

Fenway
10-02-2008, 05:50 AM
Tonight was a game Anaheim HAD to win.

For what it is worth every Red Sox fan is rooting for the White Sox to beat Tampa because the Rays just seem to have Boston's number.

PorkChopExpress
10-02-2008, 08:20 AM
Tonight was a game Anaheim HAD to win.

For what it is worth every Red Sox fan is rooting for the White Sox to beat Tampa because the Rays just seem to have Boston's number.

I would rather face the Angels, too.

Billy Ashley
10-02-2008, 08:38 AM
In the play offs, everyones got about an equal shot. The elite teams (Boston, Cubs, Rays) may have closer to a 1 in 7 1/2 chance of winning it all, but any difference is almost irrelevant. Short series baseball throws almost every projection out the window.

That said, there have been studies that have suggested that teams that do well in the post season tend to be ones that have guys who rack up K's in high volume. Which teams pitchers fit that mold?

Moses_Scurry
10-02-2008, 09:54 AM
In the play offs, everyones got about an equal shot. The elite teams (Boston, Cubs, Rays) may have closer to a 1 in 7 1/2 chance of winning it all, but any difference is almost irrelevant. Short series baseball throws almost every projection out the window.

That said, there have been studies that have suggested that teams that do well in the post season tend to be ones that have guys who rack up K's in high volume. Which teams pitchers fit that mold?

I disagree somewhat. I think maybe the top 4 or 5 have a pretty equal shot, but I don't think the Brewers are very close to the Red Sox in terms of chance to win it all. With 8 teams in the playoffs, there's usually a pretty big talent gap between #1 and #8.

Billy Ashley
10-02-2008, 10:18 AM
I disagree somewhat. I think maybe the top 4 or 5 have a pretty equal shot, but I don't think the Brewers are very close to the Red Sox in terms of chance to win it all. With 8 teams in the playoffs, there's usually a pretty big talent gap between #1 and #8.

Oh there certainly is a big gap between the two as far as talents. I'm just not sold on any series every being a slam dunk. We can all agree that the 2006 WS should have gone to the Tigers who were that season an elite team, but they lost to a bad one. Now certainly one example doesn't make a rule but think about the numerous times an alleged underdog has come out on top. It's likely a lot closer to 50% than one would think.

We're talking about such small samples here. I bad night from a good starter (and they all have them) could cost a team a chance at advancing. A good night for a relatively mediocre starter can happen too. It's just so darn hard to predict. Heck it's hard to predict what will happen over 162 games, even the best and brightest among us are wrong a great deal of the time... and one would thin k 162 games evens the luck factor out a tad.

hawkjt
10-02-2008, 11:43 AM
Tonight was a game Anaheim HAD to win.

For what it is worth every Red Sox fan is rooting for the White Sox to beat Tampa because the Rays just seem to have Boston's number.


I am rooting hard for Boston as I want the Sox to have home field.
Now, if the Sox lose,then I go for the Rays over Boston as no one town should have the Pats,Celtics and Red Sox type of success...not fair:D:

Moses_Scurry
10-02-2008, 12:01 PM
Oh there certainly is a big gap between the two as far as talents. I'm just not sold on any series every being a slam dunk. We can all agree that the 2006 WS should have gone to the Tigers who were that season an elite team, but they lost to a bad one. Now certainly one example doesn't make a rule but think about the numerous times an alleged underdog has come out on top. It's likely a lot closer to 50% than one would think.

We're talking about such small samples here. I bad night from a good starter (and they all have them) could cost a team a chance at advancing. A good night for a relatively mediocre starter can happen too. It's just so darn hard to predict. Heck it's hard to predict what will happen over 162 games, even the best and brightest among us are wrong a great deal of the time... and one would thin k 162 games evens the luck factor out a tad.

I'm in total agreement that no series is a slamdunk. I just don't like it when people state that each playoff team has a 1/8 chance of winning the world series as if it were a fact. I also have an issue with calling the 2006 cardinals a "bad" team. They were a great team with a season's worth of injuries and a massive cold streak in september. The team that won 100+ games in 2005 and 2004 was not that much different than the playoff 2006 team. I just think that if all playoff teams had a 1/8 chance, you would see the worst team (and this is subjective as I am not referring to W/L record) winning more often than you do. I don't believe that the '98 Cubs had an equal chance of winning the world series as the '98 Yankees.

scarsofthumper
10-02-2008, 12:05 PM
John Lackey said it best.

http://trashpile.net/upload/lkackey.gif

Hitmen77
10-02-2008, 12:10 PM
I'm not going to even worry about how the Sox match up vs. potential ALCS opponents. They have to beat the Rays first before I think about it.

But regardless of whether the Sox advance or not, I really want the Angels to win. I am just sick and tired of all the Red Sox hype. I hate, hate, hate the Red Sox! Their fanbase has gotten totally full of themselves in the last 10 years or so. I don't believe I'd ever get to the point where I like the Yankees better than the BoSox, but I'm probably at that point now.

asindc
10-02-2008, 12:54 PM
I'm not going to even worry about how the Sox match up vs. potential ALCS opponents. They have to beat the Rays first before I think about it.

But regardless of whether the Sox advance or not, I really want the Angels to win. I am just sick and tired of all the Red Sox hype. I hate, hate, hate the Red Sox! Their fanbase has gotten totally full of themselves in the last 10 years or so. I don't believe I'd ever get to the point where I like the Yankees better than the BoSox, but I'm probably at that point now.

If you lived on the East Coast, you would probably be there already.