PDA

View Full Version : World Series


Pages : [1] 2

thomas35forever
10-22-2012, 10:47 PM
Giants-Tigers. Should be entertaining. Hope San Fran takes it to those douchebags.

MUsoxfan
10-22-2012, 10:50 PM
Eh...sadly have to go with Detroit in this one. Can't cheer for the BALCO Bombers

Zakath
10-22-2012, 10:54 PM
Wednesday and Thursday in San Francisco, Saturday-Monday in Detroit, next Wednesday (Halloween) and Thursday back in San Francisco.

Despite the fact that these two are among the "original eight" in each of their leagues, they have never met in the World Series.

Giants in their 19th World Series (most by any NL team), Tigers in their 11th. Giants are 6-12 in their previous 18, Tigers 4-6 in their previous 10.

Remember that the Giants have home field due to the All-Star Game, mostly because Verlander got pounded in the first inning of that game, where a number of Giants had a big hand in that pounding. Usually it ends up that the All-Star Game is won or lost by players that won't even make the playoffs.

vinny
10-22-2012, 10:56 PM
I'm just glad to see the Giants put a ****ing stake through the hearts of the St. Louis rally squirrels once and for all.

I won't root for the Tigers in the series, but I won't root against them either. I think Detroit takes it in 5.

thomas35forever
10-22-2012, 10:59 PM
Cain and Verlander were the All-Star starters. When was the last time both All-Star starters pitched in the World Series in the same year?

ohthosechisox
10-22-2012, 10:59 PM
Giants have a lot of magic on their side. Let's hope it continues!

palehozenychicty
10-22-2012, 11:03 PM
Giants win in 7.

SoxSpeed22
10-22-2012, 11:06 PM
I am pretty damn sick of the Cardinals, so I'm happy the Giants won.
I don't like it, but I think the Tigers are going to win.

TDog
10-22-2012, 11:11 PM
Eh...sadly have to go with Detroit in this one. Can't cheer for the BALCO Bombers

No team in the majors hit fewer home runs than the Giants this year, and it really wasn't close.

MUsoxfan
10-22-2012, 11:18 PM
No team in the majors hit fewer home runs than the Giants this year, and it really wasn't close.

I don't care about that. The organization pretty much openly welcomed PEDs into their locker room for too long

DSpivack
10-22-2012, 11:19 PM
No team in the majors hit fewer home runs than the Giants this year, and it really wasn't close.

103; Tigers hit 92 just at home.

Zakath
10-22-2012, 11:23 PM
No team in the majors hit fewer home runs than the Giants this year, and it really wasn't close.

True. Giants only hit 103 HR's vs. 163 for Detroit. (Yankees led the majors with 245.) Giants, however, did lead the majors in triples (57), while the Tigers were 4th (39).

Giants actually hit better for average over the season than the Tigers (.269 vs. .268) despite playing in the NL. Tigers made up for that with a team ERA of 3.75 vs. 3.68 for the Giants, despite playing in the AL.

Giants seem to be better at stringing hits together to produce runs, and while their starters aren't quite as strong as the Tigers, they make up for it with a much better bullpen. The longer the series goes, the more I believe it favors the Giants.

Boondock Saint
10-22-2012, 11:45 PM
True. Giants only hit 103 HR's vs. 163 for Detroit. (Yankees led the majors with 245.) Giants, however, did lead the majors in triples (57), while the Tigers were 4th (39).

Giants actually hit better for average over the season than the Tigers (.269 vs. .268) despite playing in the NL. Tigers made up for that with a team ERA of 3.75 vs. 3.68 for the Giants, despite playing in the AL.

Giants seem to be better at stringing hits together to produce runs, and while their starters aren't quite as strong as the Tigers, they make up for it with a much better bullpen. The longer the series goes, the more I believe it favors the Giants.

I can't believe that. If they want to, the Tigers can have Verlander go games 1, 4 and 7.

happydude
10-23-2012, 01:32 AM
I'm just glad to see the Giants put a ****ing stake through the hearts of the St. Louis rally squirrels once and for all.

I won't root for the Tigers in the series, but I won't root against them either. I think Detroit takes it in 5.

Hell yeah.

chicagowhitesox1
10-23-2012, 01:38 AM
I'm going for our Central Division. Tigers in 6.

SephClone89
10-23-2012, 06:38 AM
The Giants have been my favorite NL team for basically my whole life, but my rather recent and serious ex-girlfriend is from the Bay Area and loves the Giants, so I have a kind of weird passive-aggressive ambivalence to them right now.

I suppose I'll be watching anyway.

soltrain21
10-23-2012, 08:27 AM
The Giants have been my favorite NL team for basically my whole life, but my rather recent and serious ex-girlfriend is from the Bay Area and loves the Giants, so I have a kind of weird passive-aggressive ambivalence to them right now.

I suppose I'll be watching anyway.

I remember those feels.

guillensdisciple
10-23-2012, 08:30 AM
Can't possibly watch the tigers win the series, please beat them Giants.

Bucky F. Dent
10-23-2012, 09:00 AM
Can't cheer for Detroit. Go Giants!

SOXSINCE'70
10-23-2012, 10:41 AM
).

Giants actually hit better for average over the season than the Tigers (.269 vs. .268) despite playing in the NL. Tigers made up for that with a team ERA of 3.75 vs. 3.68 for the Giants, despite playing in the AL.

Giants seem to be better at stringing hits together to produce runs, and while their starters aren't quite as strong as the Tigers, they make up for it with a much better bullpen. The longer the series goes, the more I believe it favors the Giants.

Also, Barry Zito,Ryan Vogelsong and Matt Cain each had an RBI in their last LCS starts.:cool:

GO GIANTS!!

I think the Giants take it in 6.

SOXSINCE'70
10-23-2012, 10:43 AM
Can't cheer for Detroit. Go Giants!

Neither can I,Bucky.Sox play the Tiggers too often for me to cheer for them.If the Tigers do win,it's a positive for
Leyland and Dombrowski.That's about all I could take away from the Tigers winning the WS.I still dislike them.They are
a division rival.

Wedema
10-23-2012, 11:15 AM
Detriot sucks!

TDog
10-23-2012, 12:05 PM
I'm going for our Central Division. Tigers in 6.

So we can argue that the AL Central is the strongest division in baseball, and that the World Series would have been won by the White Sox if not for the greatness of the Tigers outplaying them in a fierce struggle between two baseball titans.

If I'm a kid, and a bully spends six months beating me up on the playground, I don't wish him well. Of course, it means nothing who you support. It has no effect on who will win. The players don't care. It's not like you are going to run into Tigers fans who will welcome you on the bandwagon after supporting a bunch of losers all season. Maybe swallowing your pride would come with free drinks.

I like the Giants. I like the way they play baseball, strong pitching and defense, not swinging for the fences etc. But even if the Cardinals had won the NLCS, I wouldn't get a good feeling about seeing the Tigers win. Really, from a neutral perspective, there are more feel-good stories associated with the Giants than with the Tigers, although it's been months since anyone on the Tigers has been accused of a hate crime.

DeadMoney
10-23-2012, 12:52 PM
Should be interesting, but I'll be pulling for San Fran (and I actually think I like them in this series).

I will say this: The existence of just two power bats and an ace doesn't make a champion. The Giants play like a team and don't swing for the fences. They'll surely put pressure on the Tigers defense. The Tigers WILL need pitching and defense (in addition to their 'big 3') to win this.

And this is interesting...
- The White Sox were #3 in MLB in HRs (748 Rs), they couldn't do it.
- The Athletics were #7 in MLB in HRs (804 Rs), they couldn't do it.
- The Yankees were #1 in MLB in HRs (713 Rs), they couldn't do it.
- The Giants were DEAD LAST in MLB in HRs (718 Rs)... let's see if they can do it.

Hitmen77
10-23-2012, 01:23 PM
Wednesday and Thursday in San Francisco, Saturday-Monday in Detroit, next Wednesday (Halloween) and Thursday back in San Francisco.

Despite the fact that these two are among the "original eight" in each of their leagues, they have never met in the World Series.

Giants in their 19th World Series (most by any NL team), Tigers in their 11th. Giants are 6-12 in their previous 18, Tigers 4-6 in their previous 10.

Remember that the Giants have home field due to the All-Star Game, mostly because Verlander got pounded in the first inning of that game, where a number of Giants had a big hand in that pounding. Usually it ends up that the All-Star Game is won or lost by players that won't even make the playoffs.

It looks like the Giants broke a 3-way tie of most World Series appearances by an NL team. The Cardinals and Dodgers also have appeared in 18 WS. So, either way this year, the winner of the NLCS was going to make their 19th World Series appearances.

Oh, and as far as the 16 original franchises go, the White Sox are tied with Cleveland for dead last in appearance with only 5. :mad:

The Flubs have had 10 appearances, but of course their last appearance was almost 70 years ago.:redneck

hawkjt
10-23-2012, 02:10 PM
Giants have always been my favorite NL team so this call is easy for me....Go Giants!

I saw a stat that since they have gone to this format there are 6 teams that went into the World Series with 5 or more days off....5 of them lost.

Tigers were one of them in 2006...and they were swept by the Cards.

On paper, the Tigers have everything but home field going for them...4 rested starters who are on fire with ERA's under 1.0 in the playoffs...kind of like the Sox in 2005.

Verlander will only pitch twice unless Leyland changes his plan.
The Giants have to jump on them and get the Series back to SF, minimum.. they can win the last two in SF if they are trailing.

Soxman219
10-23-2012, 02:54 PM
Go Giants.

Zakath
10-23-2012, 10:41 PM
I saw a stat that since they have gone to this format there are 6 teams that went into the World Series with 5 or more days off....5 of them lost.


The exception was the 2008 Phillies, who had 7 days between the end of the NLCS win over the Dodgers and the start of the series vs. the Rays.

palehozenychicty
10-23-2012, 11:41 PM
So we can argue that the AL Central is the strongest division in baseball, and that the World Series would have been won by the White Sox if not for the greatness of the Tigers outplaying them in a fierce struggle between two baseball titans.

If I'm a kid, and a bully spends six months beating me up on the playground, I don't wish him well. Of course, it means nothing who you support. It has no effect on who will win. The players don't care. It's not like you are going to run into Tigers fans who will welcome you on the bandwagon after supporting a bunch of losers all season. Maybe swallowing your pride would come with free drinks.

I like the Giants. I like the way they play baseball, strong pitching and defense, not swinging for the fences etc. But even if the Cardinals had won the NLCS, I wouldn't get a good feeling about seeing the Tigers win. Really, from a neutral perspective, there are more feel-good stories associated with the Giants than with the Tigers, although it's been months since anyone on the Tigers has been accused of a hate crime.

That's funny.

AnkleSox
10-24-2012, 07:29 AM
San Francisco is a great city and a joy to visit. Detroit is a rotting cesspool full of jerks.

Go Giants.

asindc
10-24-2012, 09:04 AM
So we can argue that the AL Central is the strongest division in baseball, and that the World Series would have been won by the White Sox if not for the greatness of the Tigers outplaying them in a fierce struggle between two baseball titans.

If I'm a kid, and a bully spends six months beating me up on the playground, I don't wish him well. Of course, it means nothing who you support. It has no effect on who will win. The players don't care. It's not like you are going to run into Tigers fans who will welcome you on the bandwagon after supporting a bunch of losers all season. Maybe swallowing your pride would come with free drinks.

I like the Giants. I like the way they play baseball, strong pitching and defense, not swinging for the fences etc. But even if the Cardinals had won the NLCS, I wouldn't get a good feeling about seeing the Tigers win. Really, from a neutral perspective, there are more feel-good stories associated with the Giants than with the Tigers, although it's been months since anyone on the Tigers has been accused of a hate crime.

In this case, the kid was kicking the other kid's butt until the first kid wore down, at which point the second kid finished the fight. I see no bullies in this scenario. Regardless, seeing another AL Central team win the World Series would be mildly gratifying for me, if only because some of my friends are Tigers fans.

TheVulture
10-24-2012, 11:30 AM
Detroit is a rotting cesspool full of jerks.



Really? Every time I've been to Detroit I thought the people were more friendly than the average city.

TDog
10-24-2012, 12:45 PM
... I see no bullies in this scenario. Regardless, seeing another AL Central team win the World Series would be mildly gratifying for me, if only because some of my friends are Tigers fans.

Delmon Young, though, is a lousy excuse for a human being, who has been accused of being a bully. But I digress.

I'm sorry if my analogy doesn't ring true with you. It gives me no satisfaction to see a team that spent the summer beating up on the White Sox playing for the championship. Watching the Tigers win does nothing to legitimize my cheering for the White Sox in my mind or the mind of others. I took joy in seeing that they lost five of six to the Mariners, and I would take joy in watching them lose four games in the upcoming week.

samurai_sox
10-24-2012, 02:05 PM
Hopefully the long layoff has cooled down Detroit's bats, but if will not cool down the pitching,

the Giants have to come out of the gate hitting if they want to win it.

kobo
10-24-2012, 07:29 PM
Thank you Sandoval!! I hope Detroit gets swept.

Boondock Saint
10-24-2012, 07:29 PM
One inning in, and I'm already sick of Joe Buck. Justin Verlander is a great pitcher, not a mythical creature. It's not a miracle if someone turns on his fastball.

thomas35forever
10-24-2012, 07:59 PM
Thank you Sandoval!! I hope Detroit gets swept.
Wishful thinking IMO, but that would be sweet.

34rancher
10-24-2012, 08:01 PM
Eh...sadly have to go with Detroit in this one. Can't cheer for the BALCO Bombers

No team in the majors hit fewer home runs than the Giants this year, and it really wasn't close.

They had 1 guy hit more than 12 home runs. And he had 24. Only 3 guys hit double digits in hr.
This is mind boggling considering the days of Bonds and that he almost hit more in 1 season than the entire team this year.


Depressing seeing tigers there after we fell apart last 3 weeks

Wedema
10-24-2012, 08:12 PM
Barry Zito wasn't even on the World Series roster when the Giants won it all in 2010 and now he is starting game 1 of the 2012 World Series. Tim Lincecum won the NL CY Young in 2008 and 2009 and won 2 games in the 2010 World Series and is now in the bullpen for the 2012 World Series. Baseball is a strange game!

thomas35forever
10-24-2012, 08:15 PM
4-0 via the 2-run blast by Sandoval!:bandance:

ChiSoxGal85
10-24-2012, 08:15 PM
Wow. 4-0 Giants bot of 3rd. You gotta get to Verlander early, and they have. Can it hold up?

kobo
10-24-2012, 08:16 PM
Sandoval does it again!!! 4-0 Giants bottom of 3rd. This is great watching Verlander get lit up after all of Joe Buck's praising. Man he's horrible.

samurai_sox
10-24-2012, 08:21 PM
Verlander is having a meltdown, :gulp:

gf2020
10-24-2012, 08:22 PM
Maybe this game would be different if it were in Detroit. Karmic justice for Verlander treating his all star start like a self-serving joke. Hope his fun was worth it.

samurai_sox
10-24-2012, 08:34 PM
Want a good laugh? Check out the Tigers forum right now.

DSpivack
10-24-2012, 08:42 PM
All Hail King Verlander, Thane Of Glamis
All Hail King Verlander, Thane Of Cawdor

thomas35forever
10-24-2012, 08:43 PM
Maybe this game would be different if it were in Detroit. Karmic justice for Verlander treating his all star start like a self-serving joke. Hope his fun was worth it.
I love the thought of this as karma for his thinking at the time.

Zakath
10-24-2012, 08:46 PM
Wonder if Verlander is having flashbacks of Kansas City in July...

He's never going to want to see Sandoval again.

slavko
10-24-2012, 08:54 PM
"Shingo" is outpitching "Drysdale." Watch the situational hitting. Remember it. It's something you won't see at home.

ElevenUp
10-24-2012, 08:58 PM
Sandoval playing Mr. October tonight.

Wedema
10-24-2012, 09:04 PM
Sandoval playing Mr. October tonight.


He will be the new Mr. October if he hits number four.

Zakath
10-24-2012, 09:08 PM
12 HR in 396 AB during the regular season.
3 HR in 3 AB in the World Series.

SoxSpeed22
10-24-2012, 09:39 PM
Whatever it is, Sandoval just has Verlander for lunch.

thomas35forever
10-24-2012, 09:46 PM
Who was the last reliever to hit in a World Series game?

PaleHoser
10-24-2012, 09:48 PM
I'm feeling conflicted. Which would be better: Valverde giving up a HR to Lincecum or Sandoval's fourth tonight?

LoveYourSuit
10-24-2012, 09:52 PM
Sandoval is in the zone. Wow!

thomas35forever
10-24-2012, 09:55 PM
Smell ya later, Valverde.

kobo
10-24-2012, 09:57 PM
Watching Valverde get lit up never gets old.

mzh
10-24-2012, 09:58 PM
All Hail King Verlander, Thane Of Glamis
All Hail King Verlander, Thane Of Cawdor
His reign ended when the Woods of Louisville rose up against him. :D:

ChiSoxGal85
10-24-2012, 10:00 PM
Watching Valverde get lit up never gets old.
Icing on today's cake, that's for sure -- right on top of the Giants (aka: Sandoval) teeing off on Verlander.

tstrike2000
10-24-2012, 10:03 PM
I can't root for Detroit either. Melky who? Giants really playing great baseball and hopefully they win in five.

DSpivack
10-24-2012, 10:03 PM
His reign ended when the Woods of Louisville rose up against him. :D:

:rolling:

DSpivack
10-24-2012, 10:04 PM
I can't root for Detroit either. Melky who? Giants really playing great baseball and hopefully they win in five.

Melky is a big reason why this game is in San Francisco.

LoveYourSuit
10-24-2012, 10:05 PM
Watching Valverde get lit up never gets old.


Pisses me off that the team he had the most saves against this seasosn was ...... The Chicago White Sox. 6 of 7. :angry:

Zakath
10-24-2012, 10:13 PM
Melky is a big reason why this game is in San Francisco.

Melky did score the first run (and eventual game winner) in the ASG (off of Braun's double), but it was Sandoval's 3-run triple that really busted the game open for the NL.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
10-24-2012, 10:37 PM
Giants win!

The Almighty Verlander takes the loss.

samurai_sox
10-24-2012, 10:46 PM
Pisses me off that the team he had the most saves against this seasosn was ...... The Chicago White Sox. 6 of 7. :angry:

Did you really ****ing have to post that? :mad:

Buzzkill.

guillensdisciple
10-24-2012, 10:47 PM
**** Detroit.

Hendu
10-24-2012, 10:50 PM
Giants win!

The Almighty Verlander takes the loss.

And the Almighty Zito gets the win and an RBI. This is just a ****ty match-up for the Tigers.

I wouldn't be devastated if the Tigers win (I've had a great time in Detroit) but prefer the Giants (been to SF many times and love the city).

fram40
10-24-2012, 11:15 PM
The exception was the 2008 Phillies, who had 7 days between the end of the NLCS win over the Dodgers and the start of the series vs. the Rays.

How are the 2005 Sox not an exception as well? They won ALCS on Sunday, had five full days off until WS Game 1 on Saturday?

I must be missing something...

SaltyPretzel
10-24-2012, 11:25 PM
Really? Every time I've been to Detroit I thought the people were more friendly than the average city.

I've been to about 20 different cities for Sox games and Detroit has by far the rudest fans. Even the Tiger mascot threw a box of popcorn at me.

RadioheadRocks
10-24-2012, 11:35 PM
Maybe this game would be different if it were in Detroit. Karmic justice for Verlander treating his all star start like a self-serving joke. Hope his fun was worth it.


Post of the Year!!!

oh and in response to another post in this thread, I've been sick of Joe Buck since the 2005 post-season. Go the **** away already, loser!

palehozenychicty
10-24-2012, 11:45 PM
The Giants are really solid all around. This first game looked exactly like '10, where they blew out the seemingly invincible Cliff Lee and coasted to the title.
Verlander was only lit up by Sandoval, but nonetheless. An impressive win in the first game.

AnkleSox
10-25-2012, 12:05 AM
I've been to about 20 different cities for Sox games and Detroit has by far the rudest fans. Even the Tiger mascot threw a box of popcorn at me.

I would also say that Detroit fans of any sports visiting in Chicago are often ruder than the average visiting fan. Evidenced by many, many, many Sox/Tigers and Hawks/Wings games I've been to and finally my first Bears/Lions game on Monday.

thomas35forever
10-25-2012, 12:19 AM
Post of the Year!!!

oh and in response to another post in this thread, I've been sick of Joe Buck since the 2005 post-season. Go the **** away already, loser!
Sadly, that new deal MLB just signed with Fox will keep him around for awhile.:mad:

Falstaff
10-25-2012, 12:48 AM
Giants win!

The Almighty Verlander takes the loss.

Yes I thought it was clever that the Giants did not use their #1 pitcher against Verlander, (more or less expecting to lose this one). Then the rest of the series Giants will enjoy favorable pitching matchups.

Robin Ventura ought to play close attention and take notes on the methods SF will be using to destroy Detroit, and use those same tools next year for White Sox victories.

MUsoxfan
10-25-2012, 12:56 AM
Yes I thought it was clever that the Giants did not use their #1 pitcher
against Verlander, (more or less expecting to lose this one). Then the rest of the series Giants will enjoy favorable pitching matchups.

Robin Ventura ought to play close attention and take notes on the methods
SF will be using to destroy Detroit, and use those same tools next year for White Sox victories.

So Ventura's plan should be to use a lesser pitcher against Verlander because teams "destroy" Detroit that way? Brilliant!

Hendu
10-25-2012, 01:06 AM
I've been to about 20 different cities for Sox games and Detroit has by far the rudest fans. Even the Tiger mascot threw a box of popcorn at me.

I've never had problems in the D. Last year during a rainy April Sox game at Comerica, Mrs. Hendu and I hit an upper deck bar to warm up and got into a shot drinking contest with some of the other fans. That was a blast and the only time I've seen Mrs. Hendu get "tipsy."

I'm pretty low-key though. Just wear a Sox hat and not a jersey or anything, and cheer loudly for the Sox but never get negative about the opponent or the city I'm in. So I've had a good time at every ball park I've visited fortunately.

I would also say that Detroit fans of any sports visiting in Chicago are often ruder than the average visiting fan. Evidenced by many, many, many Sox/Tigers and Hawks/Wings games I've been to and finally my first Bears/Lions game on Monday.

I'd say the Yankees and Red Sox and even Cubs fans at the Cell are as bad. Can you blame Detroit fans for being rude though? I've been to Hawks games against an opponent other than the Wings, and the 'Detroit sucks' chant still breaks out. It goes both ways.

RadioheadRocks
10-25-2012, 03:57 AM
Sadly, that new deal MLB just signed with Fox will keep him around for awhile.:mad:

I know, and that seriously sucks ass. :angry:

tstrike2000
10-25-2012, 06:47 AM
Melky is a big reason why this game is in San Francisco.

And he also embarrassed himself and hurt his team with his suspension and website gaffe. So I guess what I meant is that the Giants have done a great job overcoming the loss of his bat and put that behind them as they could win another World Series.

jdm2662
10-25-2012, 08:20 AM
Yes I thought it was clever that the Giants did not use their #1 pitcher
against Verlander, (more or less expecting to lose this one). Then the rest of the series Giants will enjoy favorable pitching matchups.

Robin Ventura ought to play close attention and take notes on the methods
SF will be using to destroy Detroit, and use those same tools next year for White Sox victories.

Matt Cain pitched in game 7 of the NLCS and wasn't available. If he was, he would've started last night. It wasn't cleaver, it's just the circumstances and resources that were available.

It's good to see Barry Zito somewhat earning his contract. IT only took about six years...

SOXSINCE'70
10-25-2012, 10:20 AM
I've been sick of Joe Buck since the 2005 post-season. Go the **** away already, loser!

Yes indeed. Who can forget his immortal call of Joe Crede's RBI double in the bottom of the 9th in game 2 of the '05 ALCS ??

"Off the wall." (heavy sigh):rolleyes:
"The White Sox win it." (heavier sigh, sounding dejected). :angry:

He is one of the greatest proponents for the "mute" button on a remote that I have ever heard.

SOXSINCE'70
10-25-2012, 10:23 AM
Pablo Sandoval, I know this is only one game,
but IMO, you are a dominican Babe Ruth in training.
Way to go!!

This White Sox fan says
THANK YOU,THANK YOU,THANK YOU!!:bandance::bandance:

Sandoval-1,Tiggers-0.

GO GIANTS!!:)

TDog
10-25-2012, 12:42 PM
I love seeing Verlnader get beat up, especially with the way the announcers are building him up. I love seeing the announcers talk about how Verlander pitching to Zito is the most lopsided matchup imaginable just before Zito gets a two-out RBI single against Verlander. I love seeing Valverde get knocked around. Celebrate this. And I love seeing the Tigers lose.

It's only one game. The Giants won the first game at home. If the Tigers win tonight, they still have a chance to end the series in Detroit with Verlander pitching Game 5. The Giants won two of three in Detroit in interleague play last year with Zito throwing six shutout innings in the first game, but that was last year with a different Tigers rotation, Aaron Rowand leading off for the Giants, Chris Stewart catching for the Giants etc., and it was July.

Still, Verlander is supposed to be unbeatable. That's the way the Bay Area media was putting it during the A's series. The A's lost two of five to the Tigers, but won two of three in games that Verlander didn't start. When I saw Zito was pitching against Verlander in the opener, I cringed at the matchup. And the Tigers were the overmatched team on the field Wednesday night.

Tonight's game is the big game. Bumgarner seemed done in his last start. Hopefully his rest punctuated with help from his pitching coach on his delivery will make a big difference. And hopefully, Fister will be less of a challenge than Verlander. Cain and Voglesong will get starts in Detroit, but the Giants have been frustrated by Sanchez in the past.

Tonight's game is huge. San Francisco fans know that this could be the last game in AT&T this year, whether they get another parade or not. I hope they get a chance to enjoy it, just as Sox fans got a chance to enjoy the last game at the Cell in 2005.

I just hope they don't go off again chanting for Barry Mainilow.

JB98
10-25-2012, 12:49 PM
And he also embarrassed himself and hurt his team with his suspension and website gaffe. So I guess what I meant is that the Giants have done a great job overcoming the loss of his bat and put that behind them as they could win another World Series.

I can make a case San Francisco is a better team with Blanco in LF anyway. The Giants are a tremendous defensive team, a plus defender at every spot except 3B. And I would say Sandoval does enough offensively to make up for his deficiencies with the leather.

Melky is not a good outfielder at all. Blanco made two terrific defensive plays in LF in Game 1. I doubt Melky makes either of those plays. You wonder how the game would have changed if those catches don't get made.

JB98
10-25-2012, 12:54 PM
Speaking of defense in LF, did anyone else get a chuckle out of Delmon Young's "throw" back into the infield on the RBI hit by Zito last night?

I'm pretty sure my two-year-old nephew could have made a stronger toss than that.

ChiSoxGal85
10-25-2012, 02:37 PM
Speaking of defense in LF, did anyone else get a chuckle out of Delmon Young's "throw" back into the infield on the RBI hit by Zito last night?

I'm pretty sure my two-year-old nephew could have made a stronger toss than that.
I was LOL'ing at that, for sure. It looked something like intentional grounding!!!

bunkaroo
10-25-2012, 02:50 PM
I was LOL'ing at that, for sure. It looked something like intentional grounding!!!

Love it - both of my most hated Tigers (Young and the cooked potato) doing poorly.

http://i.imgur.com/uRuwp.gif

#1swisher
10-25-2012, 07:05 PM
Willy Mayes on the mound. :cool:

MLB
2 heroes. 1 ceremonial first pitch: pic.twitter.com/xqc0tcnf (http://t.co/xqc0tcnf)

Boondock Saint
10-25-2012, 07:41 PM
Fister just took one in the head. Only the top of the head, but still not good.

edit: Still pitching. Good to see.

Wedema
10-25-2012, 07:48 PM
Willy Mayes on the mound. :cool:

MLB
2 heroes. 1 ceremonial first pitch: pic.twitter.com/xqc0tcnf (http://t.co/xqc0tcnf)


When will Barry Bonds be throwing out the first pitch?

#1swisher
10-25-2012, 08:38 PM
Scoreless through five.

Zakath
10-25-2012, 09:13 PM
Bumgarner has been stellar tonight, much better than his two earlier playoff appearances.

Giants come out of this with a win and it really puts the pressure on the Tigers, who would then have to face the Giants' two best pitchers (Vogelsong and Cain) in Games 3 and 4.

Zakath
10-25-2012, 09:29 PM
DP, but Giants take a 1-0 lead.

samurai_sox
10-25-2012, 09:38 PM
I knew the layoff would derail Detroit's bats.

Zakath
10-25-2012, 10:02 PM
2-0. And Romo warming for the Giants.

Zakath
10-25-2012, 10:15 PM
Combined two-hitter, and now the Tigers find themselves in a 2-0 hole.

They may need to sacrifice some live chickens, because their bats are scared of the ball. Giants pitching is murdering them.

Couldn't happen to a nicer ****ing team.

samurai_sox
10-25-2012, 10:16 PM
Not looking good for the Tigers to win it all.

guillensdisciple
10-25-2012, 10:20 PM
In case I haven't said it enough.


**** Detroit.

JB98
10-25-2012, 10:25 PM
Detroit does not hit left-handed pitching well, nor does it play well on the road.

I don't know that it was necessarily the layoff that cooled the Detroit bats. Rather, these two games have just been the continuation of season-long trends.

chisoxfanatic
10-25-2012, 10:34 PM
Detroit does not hit left-handed pitching well, nor does it play well on the road.

I don't know that it was necessarily the layoff that cooled the Detroit bats. Rather, these two games have just been the continuation of season-long trends.
Isn't it great that it was Verlander who screwed up the HFA for them?

Zakath
10-25-2012, 10:36 PM
Isn't it great that it was Verlander who screwed up the HFA for them?

Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

JB98
10-25-2012, 10:40 PM
Isn't it great that it was Verlander who screwed up the HFA for them?

Next time he pitches in the All-Star Game, I'll bet he takes it more seriously -- instead of just trying to throw 100 mph fastballs "for the fans."

palehozenychicty
10-25-2012, 10:51 PM
Huge win for the Giants. But let's see what happens in Detroit. They play a lot better at home.

TDog
10-25-2012, 11:05 PM
Detroit does not hit left-handed pitching well, nor does it play well on the road.

I don't know that it was necessarily the layoff that cooled the Detroit bats. Rather, these two games have just been the continuation of season-long trends.

True, but Verlander on extra rest was supposed to negate the Giants' homefiueld advantage, just as he negated the A's homefield advantage by pitching ALDS Game 5 in Oakland.

The Tigers can blame the layoff and the homefield disadvantage, the latter being what they would have done if they had lost the ALDS in five to Oakland after grabbing a 2-0 lead at home.

Tonight's game probably could have gone either way. The Tigers probably should have scored, probably would have if they hadn't sent Fielder home on the Young double. The game being scoreless going into the seventh, I have know idea why Leyland conceded the first run of the game so late in the game to get the double play.

Even going into the half inning, I didn't understand why Leyland replaced Young defensely without taking out Fister. Fister was obviously on a short leash, and in fact he was taken out after allowing Pence to reach. Leyland could have double-switched with Young. Instead, he used one more backup outfielder than he needed to in a late close important game on the road

Leyland didn't send Fielder to be thrown out at the plate for the first out of the inning, but from that point, he was outmanaged. It was good to see.

The series is a long way from over, but even if the Tigers sweep in Detroit, they can't win without winning in San Francisco. And the Giants are 4-2 on the road this postseason, beating teams I believe were better than the Tigers.

JB98
10-25-2012, 11:15 PM
True, but Verlander on extra rest was supposed to negate the Giants' homefiueld advantage, just as he negated the A's homefield advantage by pitching ALDS Game 5 in Oakland.

The Tigers can blame the layoff and the homefield disadvantage, the latter being what they would have done if they had lost the ALDS in five to Oakland after grabbing a 2-0 lead at home.

Tonight's game probably could have gone either way. The Tigers probably should have scored, probably would have if they hadn't sent Fielder home on the Young double. The game being scoreless going into the seventh, I have know idea why Leyland conceded the first run of the game so late in the game to get the double play.

Even going into the half inning, I didn't understand why Leyland replaced Young defensely without taking out Fister. Fister was obviously on a short leash, and in fact he was taken out after allowing Pence to reach. Leyland could have double-switched with Young. Instead, he used one more backup outfielder than he needed to in a late close important game on the road

Leyland didn't send Fielder to be thrown out at the plate for the first out of the inning, but from that point, he was outmanaged. It was good to see.

The series is a long way from over, but even if the Tigers sweep in Detroit, they can't win without winning in San Francisco. And the Giants are 4-2 on the road this postseason, beating teams I believe were better than the Tigers.

I don't know why he did that either. If the Tigers had been ahead by one, then trading a run for two outs is a reasonable play. But not in a tie game. At least not in my opinion.

My thought after that inning was, "Well, the Giants only got one, but one might be enough." That's just how the game developed.

thomas35forever
10-26-2012, 02:01 AM
The series is a long way from over, but even if the Tigers sweep in Detroit, they can't win without winning in San Francisco. And the Giants are 4-2 on the road this postseason, beating teams I believe were better than the Tigers.
That's what I love. No celebrating a title with their fans right after it happens (if it even happens).

#1swisher
10-27-2012, 01:24 PM
Fox Sports: MLB
Steal a base, win a taco! Thanks to #SFGiants (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SFGiants&src=hash) Angel Pagan, America gets #FreeDoritosTacos (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FreeDoritosTacos&src=hash). Tuesday Oct. 30th from 2-6 pm.

TACO BELL
A stolen base just happened! #FreeDoritosTacos (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FreeDoritosTacos&src=hash) for America on Tuesday, October 30 from 2-6 p.m.

#1swisher
10-27-2012, 01:36 PM
Justin Verlander
Need you all tonight...tune in if you won't be there. #WorldSeries (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WorldSeries&src=hash)

zooey deschanel
So excited to be singing the national anthem at the #WorldSeries (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WorldSeries&src=hash) in Detroit tonight!
Also: I am rooting for BOTH teams!!! Go #Tigers (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Tigers&src=hash)! Go #Giants (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Giants&src=hash)! Can’t wait for the game!

#1swisher
10-27-2012, 06:29 PM
MLB
MVPs to come? @MiguelCabrera (https://twitter.com/MiguelCabrera) and @BusterPosey (https://twitter.com/BusterPosey) win Hank Aaron Award as the outstanding offensive performer in their respective leagues.

guillensdisciple
10-27-2012, 07:47 PM
Hopefully all of this continues this way.

guillensdisciple
10-27-2012, 08:16 PM
Awwwwww pobrecito Detroit, they got all excited after they got two on and then a double play. Awwwwwww

Zakath
10-27-2012, 09:51 PM
Tigers have yet to have a lead in this series, and haven't scored a run in 16 innings. They're being beaten in pretty much every facet of the game.

Man, this is fun.

voodoochile
10-27-2012, 10:00 PM
Gotta say this is a great job of calling balls and strikes by the ump tonight. Everytime I've thought he missed one the graphic strike checker confirms his call.

voodoochile
10-27-2012, 10:02 PM
In fact in general, it's been a well officiated series.

Boondock Saint
10-27-2012, 10:08 PM
Man, Lincecum is torching them right now.

voodoochile
10-27-2012, 10:08 PM
Wow I know the Giants have a great closer, but how do you take Lincecum out?

Boondock Saint
10-27-2012, 10:10 PM
Wow I know the Giants have a great closer, but how do you take Lincecum out?

I think you let Lincecum go tonight, and save Romo for tomorrow night.

voodoochile
10-27-2012, 10:13 PM
I think you let Lincecum go tonight, and save Romo for tomorrow night.
Actually, if I'm the Giants and they win, I don't rush anyone back. I assume Verlander's gonna pitch a no-no and play for game 5.

Edit: Nevermind, guess it's Scherzer. In that case, yeah go for the win, because I can't see Verlander giving up more than 1-2 in game 5.

Boondock Saint
10-27-2012, 10:27 PM
Is it just me, or is this ump's strike zone widening all of a sudden?

Zakath
10-27-2012, 10:28 PM
Blanco with another great defensive play in left.

Boondock Saint
10-27-2012, 10:32 PM
One game away. Feels good, man.

Zakath
10-27-2012, 10:36 PM
3-0. Giants pitching has been phenomenal in this series and really starting with Game 5 vs. the Cardinals.

In case you're wondering, the Tigers have already surpassed the fewest number of runs scored in a World Series. That was 2, scored by the Dodgers in the 1966 Series when they were swept by the Orioles.

Wedema
10-27-2012, 10:49 PM
On the post game show, AJ was talking about the Tiger bats being dead and now they have to face Matt Cain in game four. He then sarcastically said, "good luck, guys".

TDog
10-27-2012, 11:12 PM
The Tigers had their chances. How do they not score after loading the bases with one out and the top of the order up? Twice before they had two on and one out and grounded into double plays. The Giants played great defense (except for a meaningless two-outs-bases-empty error), but the Tigers lost this game as much as they were beaten especially with Sanchez having one inexplicable inning in an otherwise usual great start against the Giants.

I thought during the LCSs that either the Cardinals or Giants would be able to handle the Tigers or Yankees with relative ease. It's odd, though, that the NL series were so competitive, with the Giants needed to win six elimination games to get to the World Series and could be looking to sweep the Tigers. Bad managing and coaching may have cost the Tigers Game 2, and tonight was a winnable game for the Tigers.

Now, Cain has a chance to win the championship game in the same season that he won the game that gave his team the NL title (after winning the deciding game in th NLCS), won the All-Star Game and pitched a perfect game.

Zakath
10-27-2012, 11:16 PM
On the post game show, AJ was talking about the Tiger bats being dead and now they have to face Matt Cain in game four. He then sarcastically said, "good luck, guys".

Cain's only surrendered more than 3 runs once since August 6, and that was against the Cubs.

Good luck indeed.

DSpivack
10-27-2012, 11:24 PM
The Tigers had their chances. How do they not score after loading the bases with one out and the top of the order up? Twice before they had two on and one out and grounded into double plays. The Giants played great defense (except for a meaningless two-outs-bases-empty error), but the Tigers lost this game as much as they were beaten especially with Sanchez having one inexplicable inning in an otherwise usual great start against the Giants.

I thought during the LCSs that either the Cardinals or Giants would be able to handle the Tigers or Yankees with relative ease. It's odd, though, that the NL series were so competitive, with the Giants needed to win six elimination games to get to the World Series and could be looking to sweep the Tigers. Bad managing and coaching may have cost the Tigers Game 2, and tonight was a winnable game for the Tigers.

Now, Cain has a chance to win the championship game in the same season that he won the game that gave his team the NL title (after winning the deciding game in th NLCS), won the All-Star Game and pitched a perfect game.

What a year!

slavko
10-27-2012, 11:30 PM
Is it just me, or is this ump's strike zone widening all of a sudden?

45 degrees does that to you. What happened to those big bats? Gonna miss baseball, but that doesn't mean I don't want this to end in four.

Falstaff
10-28-2012, 12:17 AM
The Tigers had their chances. How do they not score after loading the bases with one out and the top of the order up? Twice before they had two on and one out and grounded into double plays. The Giants played great defense (except for a meaningless two-outs-bases-empty error), but the Tigers lost this game as much as they were beaten especially with Sanchez having one inexplicable inning in an otherwise usual great start against the Giants.

I thought during the LCSs that either the Cardinals or Giants would be able to handle the Tigers or Yankees with relative ease. It's odd, though, that the NL series were so competitive, with the Giants needed to win six elimination games to get to the World Series and could be looking to sweep the Tigers. Bad managing and coaching may have cost the Tigers Game 2, and tonight was a winnable game for the Tigers.

Now, Cain has a chance to win the championship game in the same season that he won the game that gave his team the NL title (after winning the deciding game in th NLCS), won the All-Star Game and pitched a perfect game.

Yes you can call me crazy but I think the White Sox would have put up a better showing in this low scoring series than the Tigers. The Tigers have been accustomed to winning big/dominating and not so much success in low scoring one run games against legit competition. But the White Sox have been a low scoring and somewhat successful ball club all summer. 1-0, 2-0 games are familiar territory and even late inning comebacks. The world series milieu would be just like playing KC for our team, no big deal. I sure hope Robin is paying attention to how to beat Detroit as we will be facing them several times in 2013. Maybe he can have a beer with Bochy during spring training and pick his brain.

RadioheadRocks
10-28-2012, 12:52 AM
Yes you can call me crazy but I think the White Sox would have put up a better showing in this low scoring series than the Tigers. The Tigers have been accustomed to winning big/dominating and not so much success in low scoring one run games against legit competition. But the White Sox have been a low scoring and somewhat successful ball club all summer. 1-0, 2-0 games are familiar territory and even late inning comebacks. The world series milieu would be just like playing KC for our team, no big deal. I sure hope Robin is paying attention to how to beat Detroit as we will be facing them several times in 2013. Maybe he can have a beer with Bochy during spring training and pick his brain.

The White Sox who played good baseball the first 2/3 of the season, perhaps... the White Sox who ran out of gas the entire month of September, not so much...

guillensdisciple
10-28-2012, 01:24 AM
**** Detroit!

TommyGavinFloyd
10-28-2012, 01:26 AM
What a year!

Yeah, and some people scoffed when they gave him that extension. The guy is probably the most underrated pitcher in the game. Look at his numbers over the years. Lincecum has got all the press but Cain has been putting in work. His W/L record isn't that good some of the seasons but that is almost all on the Giants' subpar offenses. I hope he destroys the Tigers tomorrow. This series has been so fun to watch. I think I'll pick up the Giants championship shirt afterwards; I like to reward teams that vanquish ones I hate.

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 01:55 AM
Sweep these bastards. That is all.

Frater Perdurabo
10-28-2012, 07:23 AM
The Giants are winning with pitching, the same way they did in 2010.

If the Sox want to beat Detroit, they need better pitching.

Zakath
10-28-2012, 09:56 AM
The Giants are winning with pitching, the same way they did in 2010.

If the Sox want to beat Detroit, they need better pitching.

They're also playing some really good defense. Even Crawford's error last night didn't come back to haunt them. Blanco in left has made some fantastic catches.

As others mentioned, Detroit has also blown a lot of chances. Quentin Berry gets his first start and was just a giant ball of suck last night. Grounds into a DP to end the third, K's with bases loaded and one out in the fifth, K's to end the seventh with one on.

Can't see the miracle comeback happening with the Giants pitching as well as they are. Detroit might be able to extend the series, but they're not going to swing the momentum enough to take four in a row.

palehozenychicty
10-28-2012, 10:45 AM
Yes you can call me crazy but I think the White Sox would have put up a better showing in this low scoring series than the Tigers. The Tigers have been accustomed to winning big/dominating and not so much success in low scoring one run games against legit competition. But the White Sox have been a low scoring and somewhat successful ball club all summer. 1-0, 2-0 games are familiar territory and even late inning comebacks. The world series milieu would be just like playing KC for our team, no big deal. I sure hope Robin is paying attention to how to beat Detroit as we will be facing them several times in 2013. Maybe he can have a beer with Bochy during spring training and pick his brain.

The White Sox aren't good enough right now. Maybe when they jump out of the dugout in '13, they'll have some better hitters and pitchers.

Golden Sox
10-28-2012, 11:57 AM
The Tigers were horrible in the 2006 World Series. I didn't think they would tank again. I was wrong, this 2012 World Series has been a bust for the Tigers again. I realize it's not over yet, but being down 3 games to none it sure doesn't look good for the Tigers. Watching the Tigers these last 3 games has been about as exciting as watching paint dry.

TDog
10-28-2012, 12:06 PM
The White Sox aren't good enough right now. Maybe when they jump out of the dugout in '13, they'll have some better hitters and pitchers.

I don't know that that's true. If the White Sox had held on to a 6-0 lead at home to the Tigers in May and closed out a lead in the ninth in Detroit, they would have finished with more wins than the Tigers, even with Cabrera having a career year. The trick would have been getting past the A's. The Yankees were done by the time they faced the Tigers.

The Sox, with John Danks out for most of the season, with Floyd out for a good part of the season, pushing young starters deeper with more work into a baseball season than they've ever gone before, relying heavily on rookies with great arms to carry the bullpen deep into the season, came close to winning the division. And even then, had Peavy been the money pitcher he was supposed to be, the Sox may have outlasted Detroit.

I don't think they would be leading the Giants in the World Series right now, though. I think the Giants field a better team -- better pitching, very strong defense and an offense that puts the ball in play to push across runs -- the fewest home runs in baseball and three strikeouts away from striking out the fewest number of times.

The Sox will need to improve next season, but there is ample room, even need for improvement among the top teams in the American League. The tightness of the races and the wild card in the American League this year I think were due to the league being much closer from top to bottom than the National League.

SOXSINCE'70
10-28-2012, 02:05 PM
Watching the Tigers these last 3 games has been about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Dominant pitching will do that to any team.

Neither Zito,Bumgarner or Vogelsong have allowed an earned run.:cool:

The Giants' 'pen' allowed 3 runs in the 9th inning of game 1,when the Giants were ahead 8-0.

The Giants have outscored the Tigers 12-3 in 27 innings of baseball.:o:

The Tigers haven't given up that many runs,but they can't cash in when the situation presents itself.:bandance::bandance:

soxnut1018
10-28-2012, 09:31 PM
Can we stop this God Bless America silliness?

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 09:41 PM
Can we stop this God Bless America silliness?
That's easily a candidate for worst public rendition of all-time.

ElevenUp
10-28-2012, 09:43 PM
That's easily a candidate for worst public rendition of all-time.

They were all singing harmony. Someone forgot the melody.

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 09:44 PM
They were all singing harmony. Someone forgot the melody.
Yep. Someone tell me their lead was absent.

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 10:03 PM
What a job by Affeldt. Striking out the heart of the order after giving up the DLW. An inning El Duque would be proud of.

Viva Medias B's
10-28-2012, 10:19 PM
Nice catch by Pagan.

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 10:26 PM
Did not look good with Infante. We're going to extras.

soxnut1018
10-28-2012, 10:38 PM
Scutaro again!

DSpivack
10-28-2012, 10:40 PM
Scutaro drives in Theriot. Sounds about right for this team.

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 10:41 PM
Cubs fans gotta be pulling their hair out with Theriot.

DSpivack
10-28-2012, 10:47 PM
Will a Romo lead a Giants to victory twice in one day?

DSpivack
10-28-2012, 10:49 PM
Anyone else just go from HD to SD?

tstrike2000
10-28-2012, 10:49 PM
Anyone else just go from HD to SD?

Yes, something wrong with Fox's feed apparently.

ElevenUp
10-28-2012, 10:52 PM
Triple crown winner strikes out looking to end The World Series. There is irony in there somewhere.

ChiSoxGal85
10-28-2012, 10:52 PM
Congratulations to the Giants! I approve.

johnnyg83
10-28-2012, 10:53 PM
Congrats Giants. Shut down the Tigers quite well.

tstrike2000
10-28-2012, 10:53 PM
Triple crown winner strikes out looking to end The World Series. There is irony in there somewhere.

On a fastball right down the middle.

gf2020
10-28-2012, 10:54 PM
Big week for me. On Tuesday, I fulfilled my destiny and had my name tag picked for the first time while attending a live taping of the "Doug Loves Movies" podcast. The comedian playing for me lost, so I got to have Doug Benson name a ****head as a consolation prize at the end of the show, which is heard by tens of thousands of people. Who did I name? The Detroit Tigers! Best decision ever. Thank you San Fransisco Giants for delivering Baseball Justice!

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 10:54 PM
Way to go, Giants. Well deserved all-around.

jshanahanjr
10-28-2012, 10:55 PM
Good sliders and 2 out clutch hits. Scouting report to the tame the Tigers. Plus maybe some bunting.

Lip Man 1
10-28-2012, 10:56 PM
Looks like Mike Iltich is going to be spending millions more in the next few years to win the series before he passes on.

Lip

Boondock Saint
10-28-2012, 10:56 PM
lulz

palehozenychicty
10-28-2012, 10:56 PM
Them Giants! They are very impressive. Congrats to them!

russ99
10-28-2012, 10:56 PM
Can we stop this God Bless America silliness?

Amen bro! 9-11 was over ten years ago. Time to get back to our usual traditions, not Bud's forced ones.

Congrats to the Giants, they remind me of our championship Sox, same kind of scrappy team.

Sorry Mr. Illitch, all that Little Caesars cash can't buy a title.

Viva Medias B's
10-28-2012, 10:57 PM
Way to go Giants!

Soxman219
10-28-2012, 10:58 PM
Question:

Does Melky Caberra get a ring?

soxnut1018
10-28-2012, 10:58 PM
Only 134 days until Opening Day.

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 10:59 PM
With this Giants victory, our Sox remain the only AL Central team to win it all since the division was formed.:gulp:

palehozenychicty
10-28-2012, 11:00 PM
Looks like Mike Iltich is going to be spending millions more in the next few years to win the series before he passes on.

Lip

They need to get better on the fundamentals. Money does talk. But talk is cheap.

The National League is schooling the AL this decade in fundamentals. Interleague aside, you can't argue that the Giants and Cards make all the right moves in game situations.

It's a real shift with the elimination of stimulants.

Soxman219
10-28-2012, 11:00 PM
Detroit Sucks! Detroit Sucks! Detroit Sucks!

johnnyg83
10-28-2012, 11:01 PM
With this Giants victory, our Sox remain the only AL Central team to win it all since the division was formed.:gulp:

Yep. Hard to believe the Royals have a more recent WS win than Detroit.

Sox - 2005
Twins - 1991
Royals - 1985
Tigers - 1984
Indians - 1948

Hitmen77
10-28-2012, 11:19 PM
Congratulations S.F. Giants on the 7th WS title in franchise history (2nd in San Francisco).:gulp:

The Giants are the 3rd team that have won 2 WS titles in the last 10 years. The others are the Red Sox and Cardinals.

With this Giants victory, our Sox remain the only AL Central team to win it all since the division was formed.:gulp:

I'm totally okay with that! The only thing I don't like about it is when some posters like to use this as some sort of vindication of the way Sox management has run this team over the years.

slavko
10-28-2012, 11:19 PM
Seven wins in a row to get the job done. Almost as good as eight in a row. I called the last pitch fastball to myself. But I didn't want it down Broadway. Fooled Cabrera anyway.

Bye baseball, gonna miss you.

TDog
10-28-2012, 11:20 PM
Amen bro! 9-11 was over ten years ago. Time to get back to our usual traditions, not Bud's forced ones.

Congrats to the Giants, they remind me of our championship Sox, same kind of scrappy team.

Sorry Mr. Illitch, all that Little Caesars cash can't buy a title.

I prefer the Milwaukee tradition of Roll Out the Barrell and can't disagree, but God Bless America is probably here to stay. The Star Spangled Banner before the game tradition began as a show of patriotism in World War I (long before the U.S. had an official national anthem), and it's still going on almost a century later.

The Giants were written off for dead twice this postseaon. I quite enjoyed the Giants persevering to make the Tigers look so bad.

guillensdisciple
10-28-2012, 11:22 PM
Ha, I'm happy.

thomas35forever
10-28-2012, 11:24 PM
Jealous that the Giants have so many fans there. Makes our turnout in Houston look miniscule.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
10-28-2012, 11:28 PM
Looks like Mike Iltich is going to be spending millions more in the next few years to win the series before he passes on.

Lip

Mr. Illitch didn't look good at all. I'll be surprised if he makes it to next Opening Day.

Zakath
10-28-2012, 11:35 PM
Sandoval a very deserving MVP, but no question that Dave Righetti deserves a lot of the credit for winning this series.

Pitching and defense wins titles; who knew...

TDog
10-28-2012, 11:50 PM
Question:

Does Melky Caberra get a ring?

Yes. The team is obligated to award rings to all players who were on the Giants active roster during the 2012 regular season and postseason. The union considers it a benefit.

It will be interesting, though, to see what sort of World Series share his former teammates vote him.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
10-28-2012, 11:51 PM
A funny aside: Tigers fans on their board are dogging Sergio Romo for his antics on the mound.

Umm, they do know who their closer was for the last couple of years, right? Tigers fans have absolutely zero reason to dog another team for having a closer who hot-dogs a bit.

Boondock Saint
10-29-2012, 12:39 AM
A funny aside: Tigers fans on their board are dogging Sergio Romo for his antics on the mound.

Umm, they do know who their closer was for the last couple of years, right? Tigers fans have absolutely zero reason to dog another team for having a closer who hot-dogs a bit.

This shoe, it's so uncomfortable on the other foot.

Konerko05
10-29-2012, 05:15 AM
Jealous that the Giants have so many fans there. Makes our turnout in Houston look miniscule.

Yeah, our fans suck.

Konerko05
10-29-2012, 05:17 AM
The Giants played extremely well this offseason. At first I was rooting for them because they weren't the Tigers. Then I started rooting for them because I actually like the team and a lot of their players.

Sad
10-29-2012, 06:02 AM
With this Giants victory, our Sox remain the only AL Central team to win it all since the division was formed.:gulp:

that's why I wanted SF to win it
and I can't stand the tigers :redneck

:bandance:

Dan H
10-29-2012, 06:24 AM
I'm happy to see Detroit lose because they didn't belong there in the first place. They muddled through the regular season and got to the playoffs mainly because the White Sox didn't have enough to get to the finish line. 88 wins is not impressive.

I am not one for this expanded playoffs. Teams should get to the post-season because of a great regular season. I don't like the view that a team can barely make it to the playoffs and then "get hot."

Zakath
10-29-2012, 07:35 AM
A funny aside: Tigers fans on their board are dogging Sergio Romo for his antics on the mound.

Umm, they do know who their closer was for the last couple of years, right? Tigers fans have absolutely zero reason to dog another team for having a closer who hot-dogs a bit.

That's too funny.

Guess they turned away from the TV while the Human Rain Delay was pitching.

QueerGirrl
10-29-2012, 07:46 AM
Congrats to the Giants!! Thanks for not even making it close! And because it can never be said enough: Detroit Sucks!!!! :gulp::bandance:

Golden Sox
10-29-2012, 08:04 AM
I'm told that the Tigers are going to sign Josh Hamilton this offseason. Put him into the Tigers lineup with Victor Martinez makes the Tigers much stronger next year.

Bucky F. Dent
10-29-2012, 09:10 AM
And now we wait for pitchers and catchers to report........:(:

russ99
10-29-2012, 09:24 AM
And now we wait for pitchers and catchers to report........:(:

Forget that, 10 days until FAs can start signing.

Love the Hot Stove league. Hopefully Hahn is a little more active than Kenny was the last few seasons.

Also, I gotta love that a bunt helped win the Series. Take that haters!

SephClone89
10-29-2012, 09:25 AM
Forget that, 10 days until FAs can start signing.

Love the Hot Stove league. Hopefully Hahn is a little more active than Kenny was the last few seasons.

Kenny was pretty active two offseasons ago.

SCCWS
10-29-2012, 10:38 AM
It looks like the AL dominance is over. The NL has now won the World Series 3 years in a row. Certainly the importance of good pitching over hitting showed this year.

doublem23
10-29-2012, 10:41 AM
It looks like the AL dominance is over. The NL has now won the World Series 3 years in a row. Certainly the importance of good pitching over hitting showed this year.

I'm not sure it's significant to anything that the 3rd best team in the NL beat the 7th best team in the AL in a 7-game series with the AL team coming off nearly a week break.

tstrike2000
10-29-2012, 10:47 AM
I'm told that the Tigers are going to sign Josh Hamilton this offseason. Put him into the Tigers lineup with Victor Martinez makes the Tigers much stronger next year.

Yes, they'll sign him to a 15 year deal until Hamilton's 46.

TDog
10-29-2012, 10:52 AM
I'm told that the Tigers are going to sign Josh Hamilton this offseason. Put him into the Tigers lineup with Victor Martinez makes the Tigers much stronger next year.

Who told you that?

I am guessing the Tigers won't re-sign Delmon Young with Martinez coming back. The Tigers seem to like Garcia and Dirks a lot. I also am guessing they would want to re-sign Sanchez and would be surprised if the Tigers needed to offer Hamilton the inflated contract he and his agent will demand.

TDog
10-29-2012, 11:15 AM
I'm not sure it's significant to anything that the 3rd best team in the NL beat the 7th best team in the AL in a 7-game series with the AL team coming off nearly a week break.

When the White Sox had five off days before the 2005 World Series, they didn't complain about the layoff. They also swept the Astros. It did, however, take five games for the Whtie Sox to beat the Angels after three off days heading into the ALCS. I actually read a couple of national columns in 2005 that diminished the 11-1 accomplishment of the White Sox because they had the benefit of long layoffs.

I thought while watching division and league championship series in both leagues that the National League teams were clearly better than the American League teams. Having seen the Yankees play against the Tigers, I believe the third-best team in the National League would have beaten the best team in the American League this year. I also believe the foruth-best team in the National League would have beaten the best team in the American League if they hadn't lost the NLCS after being up three games to one.

amsteel
10-29-2012, 11:22 AM
Can we all agree that Valverde's 30.38 postseason ERA is the best part of these playoffs?

doublem23
10-29-2012, 11:32 AM
When the White Sox had five off days before the 2005 World Series, they didn't complain about the layoff. They also swept the Astros. It did, however, take five games for the Whtie Sox to beat the Angels after three off days heading into the ALCS. I actually read a couple of national columns in 2005 that diminished the 11-1 accomplishment of the White Sox because they had the benefit of long layoffs.

The White Sox were also significantly better than the Astros. But come on, the Tigers went from scoring 4 RPG in the ALDS and ALCS to going on a 20-inning shut out streak in the World Series? If you want to believe the Giants were just that dominant on the mound, that's fine, but I think it's pretty clear the lay-off hurt Detroit. Anyone who would argue that a week-long layoff in a sport of such routine like baseball is just completely out of their mind.

I thought while watching division and league championship series in both leagues that the National League teams were clearly better than the American League teams. Having seen the Yankees play against the Tigers, I believe the third-best team in the National League would have beaten the best team in the American League this year. I also believe the foruth-best team in the National League would have beaten the best team in the American League if they hadn't lost the NLCS after being up three games to one.

That's fine, except that a baseball season is longer than a week. Sure, it's great that the Cardinals and Giants looked nice last week. There were a couple of weeks this summer when the Sox looked like legitimate contenders in the American League. Unfortunately, a baseball season is a 6-month marathon. It's pretty clear that the Rangers and Yankees were probably the best teams in baseball that just couldn't finish this year; Texas because their injury problems and getting caught by a red hot A's team and the Yankees because they probably ran out of gas from that crazy pennant chase in the East. But that's just baseball, rarely does the best team in the league win the World Series. I think you could replay the 2012 season 100 times and you'd probably end up with at least 5-10 different teams who could win a championship and probably most would win more often than the Giants. Lucky for them this was their year.

I think it's silly to proclaim the era of AL dominance is over when the AL continues to wipe the floor with the NL over the course of interleague play (which may come to an end now that they're giving us their worst team) just because two middle of the road teams in each league played and the one from the NL happened to win the series. Using that logic, you can argue the 55-win Astros were better than the 85-win White Sox because Houston took 2 of 3 from them this year.

doublem23
10-29-2012, 11:34 AM
Can we all agree that Valverde's 30.38 postseason ERA is the best part of these playoffs?

That's 1(b) to Tiger fans whining about Romo's little dance on the mound. How's it taste, mother****ers?

harwar
10-29-2012, 12:16 PM
The tigers sure didn't put up much of a fight .. i am definitely going to start watching more NL ball again like i used to .. i forgot how much fun it can be ..

Rocky Soprano
10-29-2012, 12:42 PM
A funny aside: Tigers fans on their board are dogging Sergio Romo for his antics on the mound.

Umm, they do know who their closer was for the last couple of years, right? Tigers fans have absolutely zero reason to dog another team for having a closer who hot-dogs a bit.

Share the link, I would love to read that.

TDog
10-29-2012, 12:46 PM
The White Sox were also significantly better than the Astros. But come on, the Tigers went from scoring 4 RPG in the ALDS and ALCS to going on a 20-inning shut out streak in the World Series? If you want to believe the Giants were just that dominant on the mound, that's fine, but I think it's pretty clear the lay-off hurt Detroit. Anyone who would argue that a week-long layoff in a sport of such routine like baseball is just completely out of their mind.



That's fine, except that a baseball season is longer than a week. Sure, it's great that the Cardinals and Giants looked nice last week. There were a couple of weeks this summer when the Sox looked like legitimate contenders in the American League. Unfortunately, a baseball season is a 6-month marathon. It's pretty clear that the Rangers and Yankees were probably the best teams in baseball that just couldn't finish this year; Texas because their injury problems and getting caught by a red hot A's team and the Yankees because they probably ran out of gas from that crazy pennant chase in the East. But that's just baseball, rarely does the best team in the league win the World Series. I think you could replay the 2012 season 100 times and you'd probably end up with at least 5-10 different teams who could win a championship and probably most would win more often than the Giants. Lucky for them this was their year.

I think it's silly to proclaim the era of AL dominance is over when the AL continues to wipe the floor with the NL over the course of interleague play (which may come to an end now that they're giving us their worst team) just because two middle of the road teams in each league played and the one from the NL happened to win the series. Using that logic, you can argue the 55-win Astros were better than the 85-win White Sox because Houston took 2 of 3 from them this year.

I believe the Giants were significantly better than the Tigers. I belived that in late August. I believed it in September when the Tigers sadly were barely good enough to beat out the White Sox. I also believed the Tigers were clearly better than the Yankees. Two years ago, I thought the difference between the Giants and the Rangers was closer, but the Giants won that series 4-1, and the Rangers didn't have a long-layoff excuse.

I don't believe there is a big difference between leagues right now in that I don't believe the AL is domant over the NL or the NL has acheived dominamce over the AL. The AL held an edge over the NL in interleague play, but seven of the 14 AL teams were no better than .500 against the NL with a wildly unbalanced interleague schedule.

One difference between the leagues is that I see the top teams in the National League being tougher than the top teams in the American League, although the bottom teams in the American League are far more competitive than the bottom teams in the National League. Granted, the Nationals needed more pitching in the postseason, but the NL postseason had a stronger group of teams. But when I look at the Twins, Indians, Red Sox and Blue Jays, I think they were clearly better this year than the than the Astros, Cubs, Rockies and Marlins.

It isn't that the AL is the major of the two major leagues, as it may have seemed in the middle of the last decade. It's that there are more very good teams in the AL and a much smaller difference between top and bottom, which may be mitigated net year by the NL sending their worst team to the AL's most competitive division.

It is also true that good teams grow during the season. The Giants weren't just a hot team as the Cardinals would have been if they made it to the World Series. The Giants were a team that came together in August, a first-place team that kicked it into high gear when they lost the NL's leading hitter, who was having an outstanding defensive season. If you were following the Giants in April, you would have seen a team with inconsistent pitching that couldn't catch the ball. They committed 25 errors in their first 21 games. But they kept tweaking and improving.

I don't think the Tigers' layoff made any difference. It allowed them to set up their rotation and establish what everyone believed to be superior pitching matchups. And it provided them with an excuse.

Hitmen77
10-29-2012, 01:14 PM
The Giants franchise is now tied with the Red Sox for 4th most WS titles (seven). Ahead of them are the A's with 9 titles (5 in Philly and 4 in Oakland), the Cardinals with 11 titles, and of course the NYY$$$ with 27 titles.

bunkaroo
10-29-2012, 02:13 PM
Can we all agree that Valverde's 30.38 postseason ERA is the best part of these playoffs?

For me, definitely. SO glad to see that horse's ass get what he deserved.

VMSNS
10-29-2012, 02:38 PM
Share the link, I would love to read that.

+1

I'd really like to see that.

...and as far as I'm concerned, the guy just won the World Series for his team by striking out (looking!) the best hitter in the game with a fastball right down the pipe. He has every right to do whatever dance or celebration he wants in that situation.

hawkjt
10-29-2012, 04:55 PM
Well done,Giants!

The Giants did all the little things better than the Tigers,and some big things,like defense and clutch hitting.

Very deserving champion.

I was surprised that the Giants got to Verlander...I think after that game, it was a huge psychological edge for the Giants.
Panda deserved the MVP award ....just for game 1 really...he destroyed the Tigers invincibility in three straight at bats...set the tone,and they kept it going.

Seeya,Tigers!

slavko
10-29-2012, 05:43 PM
Forget that, 10 days until FAs can start signing.

Love the Hot Stove league. Hopefully Hahn is a little more active than Kenny was the last few seasons.

Also, I gotta love that a bunt helped win the Series. Take that haters!

Ha! Spot on. Bunt followed by situational hitting, good. Bunt followed by home run swings, bad.

The Hot Stove League might be more fun than the Bulls this year.

Zakath
10-29-2012, 06:50 PM
It looks like the AL dominance is over. The NL has now won the World Series 3 years in a row. Certainly the importance of good pitching over hitting showed this year.

The NL has won 4 of the last 5 and 5 of the last 7. AL "dominance" pretty much ended after 2005, and even then, the NL won in 1995, 1997, 2001, and 2003, going back to the strike-cancelled series of 1994.

Zakath
10-29-2012, 07:07 PM
The Giants franchise is now tied with the Red Sox for 4th most WS titles (seven). Ahead of them are the A's with 9 titles (5 in Philly and 4 in Oakland), the Cardinals with 11 titles, and of course the NYY$$$ with 27 titles.

It's rather telling that the Yankees have actually lost more World Series (13) than anyone else has won, and they didn't appear in their first World Series until 1921. Their longest stretch of consecutive World Series was 5, which they did twice (1949-53, where they won all 5, and 1960-1964, where they went 2-3). From 1936-64 (29 series), they appeared in all but 7 of them (1940, 1944-46, 1948, 1954, 1959).

Their longest drought was 15 years (1981-1996).

In a span of 92 years (91 series), the Yankees appeared 40 times.

DumpJerry
10-29-2012, 08:17 PM
A funny aside: Tigers fans on their board are dogging Sergio Romo for his antics on the mound.

Umm, they do know who their closer was for the last couple of years, right? Tigers fans have absolutely zero reason to dog another team for having a closer who hot-dogs a bit.
Love is blind.

Brian26
10-29-2012, 09:32 PM
I believe the Giants were significantly better than the Tigers.

The Giants were the better team. They were the best team. Pitching and defense win championships. Their four starters were unstoppable. I think a lot of people are having a hard time grasping that they won it because of the lack of big names. They were a fun team to watch though.

palehozenychicty
10-30-2012, 12:55 AM
I believe the Giants were significantly better than the Tigers. I belived that in late August. I believed it in September when the Tigers sadly were barely good enough to beat out the White Sox. I also believed the Tigers were clearly better than the Yankees. Two years ago, I thought the difference between the Giants and the Rangers was closer, but the Giants won that series 4-1, and the Rangers didn't have a long-layoff excuse.

I don't believe there is a big difference between leagues right now in that I don't believe the AL is domant over the NL or the NL has acheived dominamce over the AL. The AL held an edge over the NL in interleague play, but seven of the 14 AL teams were no better than .500 against the NL with a wildly unbalanced interleague schedule.

One difference between the leagues is that I see the top teams in the National League being tougher than the top teams in the American League, although the bottom teams in the American League are far more competitive than the bottom teams in the National League. Granted, the Nationals needed more pitching in the postseason, but the NL postseason had a stronger group of teams. But when I look at the Twins, Indians, Red Sox and Blue Jays, I think they were clearly better this year than the than the Astros, Cubs, Rockies and Marlins.

It isn't that the AL is the major of the two major leagues, as it may have seemed in the middle of the last decade. It's that there are more very good teams in the AL and a much smaller difference between top and bottom, which may be mitigated net year by the NL sending their worst team to the AL's most competitive division.

It is also true that good teams grow during the season. The Giants weren't just a hot team as the Cardinals would have been if they made it to the World Series. The Giants were a team that came together in August, a first-place team that kicked it into high gear when they lost the NL's leading hitter, who was having an outstanding defensive season. If you were following the Giants in April, you would have seen a team with inconsistent pitching that couldn't catch the ball. They committed 25 errors in their first 21 games. But they kept tweaking and improving.

I don't think the Tigers' layoff made any difference. It allowed them to set up their rotation and establish what everyone believed to be superior pitching matchups. And it provided them with an excuse.

Indeed. I also believe that the Tigers' lack of overall depth caught up to them. They took bad approaches at the plate and their fundamental play in the field was deeply flawed. How in the world could you send Prince Fielder home on a rally with no outs? C'mon.

You could see once Verlander got hit hard that they had no chance.

#1swisher
11-01-2012, 09:32 PM
11.1
MLB
TV Giants: SergioRomo54 (https://twitter.com/SergioRomo54) and Barry Zito join JayLeno (https://twitter.com/jayleno) for some #Romobombing (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Romobombing&src=hash) and other shenanigans - http://atmlb.com/QXTy7O (http://t.co/U9J27ZgU)

Golden Sox
11-02-2012, 07:41 AM
After the Tigers stunk up the 2006 World Series, I didn't think they would do the same thing in the 2012 World Series. I was wrong, they were just as bad this year. Lets hope we have seen the last of them in the World Series.

cub killer
11-21-2012, 09:48 PM
The White Sox were also significantly better than the Astros. But come on, the Tigers went from scoring 4 RPG in the ALDS and ALCS to going on a 20-inning shut out streak in the World Series? If you want to believe the Giants were just that dominant on the mound, that's fine, but I think it's pretty clear the lay-off hurt Detroit. Anyone who would argue that a week-long layoff in a sport of such routine like baseball is just completely out of their mind.



That's fine, except that a baseball season is longer than a week. Sure, it's great that the Cardinals and Giants looked nice last week. There were a couple of weeks this summer when the Sox looked like legitimate contenders in the American League. Unfortunately, a baseball season is a 6-month marathon. It's pretty clear that the Rangers and Yankees were probably the best teams in baseball that just couldn't finish this year; Texas because their injury problems and getting caught by a red hot A's team and the Yankees because they probably ran out of gas from that crazy pennant chase in the East. But that's just baseball, rarely does the best team in the league win the World Series. I think you could replay the 2012 season 100 times and you'd probably end up with at least 5-10 different teams who could win a championship and probably most would win more often than the Giants. Lucky for them this was their year.

I think it's silly to proclaim the era of AL dominance is over when the AL continues to wipe the floor with the NL over the course of interleague play (which may come to an end now that they're giving us their worst team) just because two middle of the road teams in each league played and the one from the NL happened to win the series. Using that logic, you can argue the 55-win Astros were better than the 85-win White Sox because Houston took 2 of 3 from them this year.
Apologies to mods for bumping this, but I have to cite a couple of points you make here.

The season is a 7 month marathon, not 6.

I'll just ask this: In a race, let's say the 500 meter... who is the best in that race? Is it the guy who crossed the finish line first? Or is it the guy who led the race for 90% of it, only to run out of gas at the end? After the winner crosses the line and wins the race, should we say, "Congrats, but the guy who led most of the way, and lost, was still better than you."

The MLB season starts at Opening Day, at ends at the last out of the World Series. 30 teams start running. At one point, 20 are dead, and 10 are left to keep running toward that Finish Line. If you run out of gas, you are not the best. No way, no how.

A long layoff is a pitiful excuse for losing. And the AL's superior regular season record against the NL may be outweighed by the NL's recent WS success over the AL.

If an NL fan tells me "Haha, my league has won more WS than your league lately!", I won't respond with "But my league has won more regular season games!!!". That'd be asinine.

The World Series is where it's at. Let NL fans have bragging rights. The AL doesn't dominate the NL.

gosox41
11-22-2012, 09:24 PM
Apologies to mods for bumping this, but I have to cite a couple of points you make here.

The season is a 7 month marathon, not 6.

I'll just ask this: In a race, let's say the 500 meter... who is the best in that race? Is it the guy who crossed the finish line first? Or is it the guy who led the race for 90% of it, only to run out of gas at the end? After the winner crosses the line and wins the race, should we say, "Congrats, but the guy who led most of the way, and lost, was still better than you."

The MLB season starts at Opening Day, at ends at the last out of the World Series. 30 teams start running. At one point, 20 are dead, and 10 are left to keep running toward that Finish Line. If you run out of gas, you are not the best. No way, no how.

A long layoff is a pitiful excuse for losing. And the AL's superior regular season record against the NL may be outweighed by the NL's recent WS success over the AL.

If an NL fan tells me "Haha, my league has won more WS than your league lately!", I won't respond with "But my league has won more regular season games!!!". That'd be asinine.

The World Series is where it's at. Let NL fans have bragging rights. The AL doesn't dominate the NL.

I don't know if the layoff hurt Detroit or not. I do know that if the AL consistently puts up a significanlt better record then the NL in interleague play then they are the more dominant league. I don't know where the 2012 record stood so I'm not claiming that. In previous years, I would claim that.

And while the season is a marathon and the first 20 games needs to be taken as seriously as the last 20 games of a team in a pennant race with a 2 game lead, the reality is the playoffs are a crapshoot. In a short series anything can happen. Bad teams sweep good teams in 3-4 game series during the season. Teams with losing records have dominant records against teams with winning records (not very often). See KC vs Sox in 2012. So if the Sox won the World Series this year, can we still claim KC is the best team in baseball because they dominated the champions during the regular season?
t
To an extent, a short series is like flipping a coin. If it comes up heads 4 times in a row can I assume that heads is the dominant side? Or if an umpire blatantly blows a crucial call, like sale an obvious infield fly rule, and the team with the worse regular season record beats the team with the better record, is it safe to say the team with the worse record is better.

Debate like this is what makes baseball great. It's like the Mike Trout vs Miguel Cabrera argument for MVP.

Bottom line is SF are the champions and the rest of the teams went home as losers.


Bob

cub killer
11-22-2012, 10:17 PM
I don't know if the layoff hurt Detroit or not. I do know that if the AL consistently puts up a significanlt better record then the NL in interleague play then they are the more dominant league. I don't know where the 2012 record stood so I'm not claiming that. In previous years, I would claim that.Well, the WS carries a ton of weight, so I'd say that neither league is dominant.

And while the season is a marathon and the first 20 games needs to be taken as seriously as the last 20 games of a team in a pennant race with a 2 game lead, the reality is the playoffs are a crapshoot. In a short series anything can happen. Bad teams sweep good teams in 3-4 game series during the season.I simply cannot compare having to score more runs than the other team, in a 9 inning span, 4 times before they do the same to you... to flipping a coin. Or rolling dice. It is not the same thing. Baseball is a hard game to win at. You have to have the talent, and most importantly, the mental fortitude. It is simply disingenuous to call the game of baseball a crapshoot or a coin flip. If a "bad team" sweeps a "good team" in the playoffs, that "bad team" is now a good team. Better than the team it swept. You can't discredit playoff success.

Teams with losing records have dominant records against teams with winning records (not very often). See KC vs Sox in 2012. So if the Sox won the World Series this year, can we still claim KC is the best team in baseball because they dominated the champions during the regular season?
Absolutely not.

To an extent, a short series is like flipping a coin.Flipping a coin involves flicking a coin with your fingers into the air. That's it. Winning a playoff series involves good pitching, defense, timely hitting, good managing and individual player decisions. Big difference.

Or if an umpire blatantly blows a crucial call, like sale an obvious infield fly rule, and the team with the worse regular season record beats the team with the better record, is it safe to say the team with the worse record is better.Yes. Umpires can never beat you. They may not help you, but they won't beat you. Bad calls happen to everyone.

The infield fly call in the Atlanta-Stl game was the correct one, btw.

Bottom line is SF are the champions and the rest of the teams went home as losers.


Bob:gulp: to the champs.

Boondock Saint
11-24-2012, 12:33 AM
Well, the WS carries a ton of weight, so I'd say that neither league is dominant.

So seven games between the same two teams carries the same amount of weight to you as the 252 interleague games played by every team in the league during the season. That logic makes zero sense.

Oblong
11-24-2012, 07:11 AM
I'm not sure you can any broad judgements about the standing of the leagues or even the teams involved based on 4 games in which 2 ended 2-0 and a third went into extra innings.

cub killer
11-24-2012, 01:04 PM
So seven games between the same two teams carries the same amount of weight to you as the 252 interleague games played by every team in the league during the season. That logic makes zero sense.
I don't know about same, but enough weight to shut us up about AL being dominant. How can we say we're dominant when the NL has won the holy grail 3 years in a row now?

I'd feel like a fool if I told an NL fan that AL is dominant. We may pitter patter them with jabs all reg season long, but in the WS, they deliver the massive right hook.

Boondock Saint
11-24-2012, 01:45 PM
I don't know about same, but enough weight to shut us up about AL being dominant. How can we say we're dominant when the NL has won the holy grail 3 years in a row now?

I'd feel like a fool if I told an NL fan that AL is dominant. We may pitter patter them with jabs all reg season long, but in the WS, they deliver the massive right hook.

The World Series is played by just two teams. You can't say jack about the makeup of an entire league based on the performance of just one of its teams. It's nonsensical to say that the World Series should carry more weight when considering the quality of the entire league. If you want to make statements about the quality of the entire league, you have to take into account the performance of the entire league.

doublem23
11-24-2012, 02:52 PM
The World Series is played by just two teams. You can't say jack about the makeup of an entire league based on the performance of just one of its teams. It's nonsensical to say that the World Series should carry more weight when considering the quality of the entire league. If you want to make statements about the quality of the entire league, you have to take into account the performance of the entire league.

Yeah, the 3rd best team in the NL beating the 7th best team in the AL in a 7-game series basically proves nothing, but hell if people want to believe the NL is even near the AL, it is their right as an American to be completely wrong.

I mean, for arguments sake, if the Sox got to play in the NL how many games would they have won this season? 100? 110? 120? I'm being conservative.

ComiskeyBrewer
11-24-2012, 04:27 PM
If an NL fan tells me "Haha, my league has won more WS than your league lately!", I won't respond with "But my league has won more regular season games!!!". That'd be asinine.


I will never understand why this is a thing. Unless it's your team winning the WS, who cares? If you(communal sense, not you personally) honestly think it matters what league is "better" in order to justify your fandom or put yourself above others......well that's just sad IMO. It's like the Ole Miss fans(or any bottom dwelling SEC team of recent) who think they're superior because Alabama won the NC last year. Who cares? Your team sucks out loud, what some better regional team did is irrelevant.

cub killer
11-24-2012, 04:43 PM
The World Series is played by just two teams. You can't say jack about the makeup of an entire league based on the performance of just one of its teams. It's nonsensical to say that the World Series should carry more weight when considering the quality of the entire league. If you want to make statements about the quality of the entire league, you have to take into account the performance of the entire league.
Those 2 teams reflect on the rest of us, because the rest of us were unable to prevent those 2 teams from getting there. Thus, the WS carries a lot of weight.

Yes, we have to take into account the performance of the entire league, with considerable weight given to the World Series. What does it say about our league if our best gets thumped by their best? Enough to negate a lot of the reg season accomplishments.

The NL has claimed baseball's top prize 4 of the past 5 seasons. AL has done well in the reg season, but can't claim dominance without more WS trophies.


And it's extremely disingenuous to call the pennant winners 3rd and 7th best. They had the 3rd and 7th best regular season records. That's it. But then they claimed the prize that the rest of us were clamoring for. They were better.

doublem23
11-24-2012, 04:50 PM
And it's extremely disingenuous to call the pennant winners 3rd and 7th best. They had the 3rd and 7th best regular season records. That's it. But then they claimed the prize that the rest of us were clamoring for. They were better.

This entire post is full of illogical crazy, but this really takes the cake. You're actually arguing a 2-week tournament of luck negates a 6-month full season?

:rolling:

By this logic, the Astros were better than the Sox since they best them that one series

cub killer
11-24-2012, 05:51 PM
This entire post is full of illogical crazy, but this really takes the cake. You're actually arguing a 2-week tournament of luck negates a 6-month full season?

:rolling:

By this logic, the Astros were better than the Sox since they best them that one series
Um no, there's a big difference between the playoffs and regular season games. HUGE difference. How long have you been following this sport?

The playoffs are not about luck, they are about mettle, and they're not "just a tourney", they define MLB for that given year.

Really, you're gonna compare a Astros-Sox regular season series to a playoff series? Do you follow sports at all?

Read the race analogy, that's usually told to newcomers to the game.

Boondock Saint
11-24-2012, 07:20 PM
Um no, there's a big difference between the playoffs and regular season games. HUGE difference. How long have you been following this sport?

The playoffs are not about luck, they are about mettle, and they're not "just a tourney", they define MLB for that given year.

Really, you're gonna compare a Astros-Sox regular season series to a playoff series? Do you follow sports at all?

Read the race analogy, that's usually told to newcomers to the game.

This is just math and science here, really. You do not get a more accurate result or come to a more clear conclusion in seven or fewer tests than you do with 252 tests. Just because the Giants and Tigers "got there" does not automatically make them better than everybody else, and negate the entire six months that preceded the World Series. The simple fact is that the best team doesn't always win the championship, and the the team that wins the championship isn't the best by default. You can't just say "It's the postseason, it's different, and the better team always does better in the postseason" and expect it to fly.

In 2005, the Cardinals were far superior to the Astros, but they lost in the NLCS. The 8 seed Warriors beat the 1 seed Mavs in the first round of the 2007 playoffs. The Mavs beat the Heat in the finals two years ago despite Miami being the team of the future with three all stars in their prime, and the Mavs being too old, only having one star, and having a reputation as a choker in the postseason. In 2011, the 102 win Phillies, who had a dream team rotation of Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels and Roy Oswalt, got beat in five games by the Cards who had to rely on Kyle Lohse, Edwin Jackson and Jaime Garcia after Chris Carpenter, not to mention that the Phillies had a lineup that featured Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Shane Victorino and Raul Ibanez, while the Cards could only counter that with Albert Pujols, Rafael Furcal, Yadier Molina and Lance Berkman. Upsets happen all the time. It's not because the underdog was just better after all, and we just didn't know it, it's just that the underdog happened to win that time.

It's not that playoff baseball is different. It's that baseball in itself is crazy, and nobody can say for certain who's going to win on any given day. That's why you have to take the entire season into consideration when you say who's best.

cub killer
11-24-2012, 08:23 PM
This is just math and science here, really. You do not get a more accurate result or come to a more clear conclusion in seven or fewer tests than you do with 252 tests. It's not either/or, it's a combination of the 2, which was already said. If you can't follow, then we can't continue the discussion.

The explanation for the WS's weight in the comparison, was already explained. It's not just 7 vs 252 or 7 + 252.

Just because the Giants and Tigers "got there" does not automatically make them better than everybody else, and negate the entire six months that preceded the World Series. The simple fact is that the best team doesn't always win the championship, and the the team that wins the championship isn't the best by default. You can't just say "It's the postseason, it's different, and the better team always does better in the postseason" and expect it to fly.

In 2005, the Cardinals were far superior to the Astros, but they lost in the NLCS. The 8 seed Warriors beat the 1 seed Mavs in the first round of the 2007 playoffs. The Mavs beat the Heat in the finals two years ago despite Miami being the team of the future with three all stars in their prime, and the Mavs being too old, only having one star, and having a reputation as a choker in the postseason. In 2011, the 102 win Phillies, who had a dream team rotation of Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels and Roy Oswalt, got beat in five games by the Cards who had to rely on Kyle Lohse, Edwin Jackson and Jaime Garcia after Chris Carpenter, not to mention that the Phillies had a lineup that featured Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Shane Victorino and Raul Ibanez, while the Cards could only counter that with Albert Pujols, Rafael Furcal, Yadier Molina and Lance Berkman. Upsets happen all the time. It's not because the underdog was just better after all, and we just didn't know it, it's just that the underdog happened to win that time.

It's not that playoff baseball is different. It's that baseball in itself is crazy, and nobody can say for certain who's going to win on any given day. That's why you have to take the entire season into consideration when you say who's best.
The purpose of the playoffs is to determine who is the best team among the playoff teams, and thus, best, period. I don't care how great the 05 Cards, 07 Mavs and 11 Phils looked in the playoff-qualifying round (regular season). None of those teams have a single excuse for failing when it really mattered.

The purpose of the reg season is to qualify for the playoffs. That is it. It is not, nor will it ever be, to determine the best team, or order of who is best.

Again, if a runner is ahead during most of a race, it doesn't mean he is best unless he is ahead at the end of that race.

Playoffs are that last stretch of a race. If a team eliminates you, they leapfrogged you.

72-10 don't mean a thing without a ring. And neither does 162-0.

TDog
11-24-2012, 10:19 PM
Yeah, the 3rd best team in the NL beating the 7th best team in the AL in a 7-game series basically proves nothing, but hell if people want to believe the NL is even near the AL, it is their right as an American to be completely wrong.

I mean, for arguments sake, if the Sox got to play in the NL how many games would they have won this season? 100? 110? 120? I'm being conservative.

You are being ridiculous. The White Sox had a .500 record against NL teams in 2012. So maybe they would have won only 81 games had they played in the NL. That is without considering what impact the lack of a DH would have on the White Sox offense. For that matter, only half of the AL teams this year had a winning record against the AL in 2012.

Your argument only works in the vacuum of rhetoric and it falls apart when you consider the implication that the the best team in the AL would have been able to handle the third best team in the NL. The best team in AL, according to the standards that define the Tigers as the seventh best in the league, was totally outclassed by the Tigers in the ALCS, which was totally outclassed by the Giants in the World Series.

The baseball postseason isn't just a tournament, the results of which you can dismiss if the results run counter to your prejudices. You watched the World Series, no doubt, and you saw that the Tigers were totally outclassed by a team that looked a heck of a lot better. Two years ago the Giants totally outclassed the Rangers. Just as seven years ago the White Sox totally outclassed the Astros.

To make the assumption that the NL is the lessor league because the AL held the edge in interleague play ignores the fact that the interleague games were played before the All-Star break with teams playing wildly different interleague schedules. The best teams grow as the season progresses, even the wire-to-wire championsip teams. Interleague play for the Giants ended with the A's hitting a game-ending two-out, two-strike three-run homer against a closer who wasn't closing when the Giants season ended with Miguel Cabrera looking at strike three.

The AL probably is (was, when it had just 14 teams) the overall the better league. The bottom teams in the AL in 2012 were better than the bottom teams in the NL. The difference between the top and bottom teams in the AL wasn't as great, and I think the AL had more balance. I think that was apparent in the division races. The NL races weren't close. While the AL races were still undecided in the last couple of weeks, everything in the NL was decided but for the second wild card.

But I thought all of the teams that made the NL postseason were clearly better than all of the teams that made the AL postseason.

Tragg
11-24-2012, 10:33 PM
The Astros won 1 road series before September: at the Cell.
I think the AL is a lot better and consider our 12-12 record in effect a losing record and a reason we lost the division.

Boondock Saint
11-25-2012, 01:40 PM
It's not either/or, it's a combination of the 2, which was already said. If you can't follow, then we can't continue the discussion.

The purpose of the playoffs is to determine who is the best team among the playoff teams, and thus, best, period.

Just because that's the purpose of the playoffs doesn't mean that it succeeds at it. "Best" is a subjective term. There will never be a way to determine who is best. All I'm saying is that the postseason is no be-all, end-all litmus test. It determines who the champion is. It can't determine who's best. I would rather rely on the regular season to say who the best is, rather than accept that for some reason, playoff baseball is different from regular season baseball, and that whatever happens in the postseason carries more weight because of "pressure".

Also, dial back the attitude some. There's no reason to let a debate devolve into "You disagree with me, you must be stupid".

cub killer
11-25-2012, 02:40 PM
Just because that's the purpose of the playoffs doesn't mean that it succeeds at it. "Best" is a subjective term. There will never be a way to determine who is best. All I'm saying is that the postseason is no be-all, end-all litmus test. It determines who the champion is. It can't determine who's best. I would rather rely on the regular season to say who the best is, rather than accept that for some reason, playoff baseball is different from regular season baseball, and that whatever happens in the postseason carries more weight because of "pressure".

Also, dial back the attitude some. There's no reason to let a debate devolve into "You disagree with me, you must be stupid".
Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.

The thing is, as someone who lives and breathes sports, and has since the 1980s... it's impossible for me to not consider the postseason to be the be-all, end-all litmus test. That theme is central to pro sports fandom. It is reinforced all the time by the media, players and coaches every single year.

Day in, day out, the goal is to get to the playoffs, not to gain the best reg season record. When the playoffs arrive, there is an atmosphere that is diametrically different than reg season. Hell, some Sox WS tickets were selling for thousands. It is incomparable. The pressure is palpable, and exists for the reasons that I keep mentioning.

I don't know how old you are, but if you watch sports as much as I do, you will eventually agree one day. The playoffs=endallbeall theme is inescapable. It's central to pro sports, kind of like a Prime Directive.

TDog
11-25-2012, 04:30 PM
Just because that's the purpose of the playoffs doesn't mean that it succeeds at it. "Best" is a subjective term. There will never be a way to determine who is best. All I'm saying is that the postseason is no be-all, end-all litmus test. It determines who the champion is. It can't determine who's best. I would rather rely on the regular season to say who the best is, rather than accept that for some reason, playoff baseball is different from regular season baseball, and that whatever happens in the postseason carries more weight because of "pressure".

Also, dial back the attitude some. There's no reason to let a debate devolve into "You disagree with me, you must be stupid".

Major league baseball does a better job of finding the best team in its championship playoff system than any other team sport.

I find the idea (not necessarily yours) that a team that swept another team four games in a best-of-seven World Series, beating the American League champion who swept the team with the best record in the American league in a best-of-seven series is just the third-best team in the inferior league to be ridiculous and sounding like the ramblings of a sore loser.

doublem23
11-25-2012, 09:58 PM
Um no, there's a big difference between the playoffs and regular season games. HUGE difference. How long have you been following this sport?

The playoffs are not about luck, they are about mettle, and they're not "just a tourney", they define MLB for that given year.

Really, you're gonna compare a Astros-Sox regular season series to a playoff series? Do you follow sports at all?

Read the race analogy, that's usually told to newcomers to the game.

:rolling:

Yes, they're still just baseball games. And yes, there is A LOT of luck in a 5 or 7 game series

cub killer
11-25-2012, 10:53 PM
:rolling:

Yes, they're still just baseball games. And yes, there is A LOT of luck in a 5 or 7 game seriesWhat's wrong with you, man? "just baseball games"? Luck?

You're obviously just a casual fan. You'll need to immerse yourself in the sport in order to understand.

If there is a such thing as luck (and I know that many of my fellow Chicagoans here were raised by the mantra that there's no such thing as luck, or you make your own), then it goes both ways and balances itself out, leaving talent as the deciding factor.

Follow the sport intently, then get back to me in a coupla years. You won't be saying "just baseball games" or "luck" anymore.

doublem23
11-26-2012, 08:19 AM
What's wrong with you, man? "just baseball games"? Luck?

You're obviously just a casual fan. You'll need to immerse yourself in the sport in order to understand.

If there is a such thing as luck (and I know that many of my fellow Chicagoans here were raised by the mantra that there's no such thing as luck, or you make your own), then it goes both ways and balances itself out, leaving talent as the deciding factor.

Follow the sport intently, then get back to me in a coupla years. You won't be saying "just baseball games" or "luck" anymore.

There is very little luck over the course of a 162-game season. The individual variances over the course of a game get ironed out over a 6-month marathon so the cream generally rises to the top.

But yeah, in a 7-game series, luck is a huge factor, if for nothing else the way you're able to line your pitchers up. But in the game play, what's the difference between a HR and a weak pop out to RF? We're talking millimeters on the bat or milliseconds, distances and times essentially imperceivable to the human eye. In terms of the actual gameplay, yes, there is a lot of luck in baseball.

You can rally your bull**** "rah rah" winners make their own luck! buzzword garbage all you like, I suspect at this point you're just goofing around because there is absolutely no way anyone could have watched the American League in 2012 and at any point of the year declared the inept, underperforming Tigers the legitimate team to represent the league in the championship series. They were awful for most of the season, barely finished in the top half of the league, and really, only did so because they play in such a god damn awful division that somebody had to be the least bad in.

So no, the idea that the World Series in which the AL was represented by a horrendously mediocre Detroit team that barely had any business being in the postseason at all paints a picture representative for the league as a whole is a completely asinine opinion. I'd be willing to give the Series more credibility if it truly was a champion vs. champion affair, but the watered down playoffs have made that all but impossible. I honestly can't think of the last time the World Series was really a matchup of the league's two best teams. 1998?

TDog
11-26-2012, 01:58 PM
... So no, the idea that the World Series in which the AL was represented by a horrendously mediocre Detroit team that barely had any business being in the postseason at all paints a picture representative for the league as a whole is a completely asinine opinion. I'd be willing to give the Series more credibility if it truly was a champion vs. champion affair, but the watered down playoffs have made that all but impossible. I honestly can't think of the last time the World Series was really a matchup of the league's two best teams. 1998?

Really, it was a champion-vs.-champion affair. The Giants were clearly the best team in the West and emerged from two hard-fought postseason rounds. The Tigers won the Central and were were less mediocre than the Yankees, who had the best record in the AL despite being a horrendously mediocre team, which lost its season series to the White Sox. The Tigers were even less mediocre than the A's, who split their season series with the White Sox. The A's were less mediocre than the Orioles, which finished behind the Yankees. And all of those teams were less mediocre than Texas, Tampa Bay and the White Sox. That is why the Tigers got to the World Series. The mediocrity of the top teams in the AL was why the divisional races were so tight. It is why the White Sox contended. The top teams in the American League were mediocre compared to the top teams in the National League, where the divisional races were sett;ed much earlier. Whichever team was going to win the National League title was likely going to win the World Series.

Concluding that the top teams in the American League are better than the top teams in the National League because the American league held an interleague edge is flawed logic. Even if you believe that a seven-game series is ruled by luck that evens out over a 162-game schedule (although such statistical logic would have to naturally include a margin of error in the standings), interleague campetition was a succession of three (and home-and-home six) game series. Only half of the American League teams had a winning record against National League teams. The AL didn't dominate, and it wasn't a challenge with teams going up against teams positioned similarly in the standings.

Only the Rangers, Yankees and Angels won more than 11 games. The Rangers won five of six from the last-place Astros and swept the Padres in a three-game series. They beat the Giants two out of three in early June and also won two of three from the the Diamondbacks and last-place Rockies. The Yankees swept the Nationals in a three-game series in June, missing Strasburg (as every team did in the postseason, allowing the wild card to get past the first round), but they lost two of three to the Reds. Their 13 wins were aided by winning five of six from the Mets. The 12-interleague-win Angels were swept by the last-place Rockies. The Tigers were one of three AL teams with 11 interleague wins, splitting six with the Pirates and taking two of three from four other teams, including the Cubs. A three-game series in June is more vulnerable to luck because teams you can miss the other team's best pitchers or hit a Sunday where the other team is resting regulars because they are headed out on a roadtrip against league rivals.

Luck had nothing to do with the Tigers beating/sweeping the Yankees in the ALCS. You would have seen that when you watched the series. The Tigers certainly had more business representing the AL in the World Series than they Yankees. Luck had nothing to do with the Giants beating/sweeping the Tigers. If you want to argue that the Mariners and Twins were better than the Astros and Cubs, I won't argue. I think the AL is stronger overall, weaker at the top and stronger at the bottom. But that is different from labeling a team unworthy after it spent six months overcoming the challenges of a baseball season, emerging as the best team in the NL West, battling to win six elimination games to go to the World Series before sweeping it.

But when you watched the World Series, you saw the better team win and win easily, not because they were lucky, but because they played superior baseball. Arguing otherwise reeks of denial.

doublem23
11-26-2012, 03:15 PM
But when you watched the World Series, you saw the better team win and win easily, not because they were lucky, but because they played superior baseball. Arguing otherwise reeks of denial.

Who is making the argument the Giants weren't better than the Tigers? The argument is whether or not the Tigers were an appopriate representative of the American League in the World Series, which I would assume anyone who paid any attention to the AL all season long would know they were not. They were a ****ing miserable team for most of the year who were lucky enough to play in such a miserably bad division that they weren't essentially eliminated by August. They finished #7 in wins in the AL but spent the majority of the season around #8 or #9. They were essentially a second division AL team for almost the entire season who happened to get moderately hot at the end of the year and win their pathetically bad divison and displacing two far better entrants to the postseason (TBR and LAA) on the pure luck of geography. Bully for them.

And yes, they got lucky that baseball's new, even more watered down play-off system meant better teams in better divisions, like the Yankees and Rangers, had to exhaust themselves in wild divisional chases while a miserable underachieving **** team like the Tigers gets to sneak in to the playoffs and run those teams over because they spent essentially 5 1/2 months not having to try. The system itself is flawed in choosing a champion, the Tigers were better than the Yankees for 1 week in the middle of October, but for basically April-September, the Yankees were clearly the better team. Clearly. If you had actually paid attention to the season as it progressed, you'd have clearly seen this.

If the Rangers slapped around the Brewers in the World Series, nobody would be trying to paint broad outcomes of that, as everyone would be in agreement that the Rangers were a good AL team for most of the year while the Brewers were terrible to awful. It'd be expected.

If the Giants played a good AL team and beat them, that would be something to note. Beating a team that had no business in the postseason? Meh. Good for the Giants, they deserved to win, but hardly qualifies as anything extraordinary.

TDog
11-26-2012, 04:39 PM
Who is making the argument the Giants weren't better than the Tigers? The argument is whether or not the Tigers were an appopriate representative of the American League in the World Series, which I would assume anyone who paid any attention to the AL all season long would know they were not. They were a ****ing miserable team for most of the year who were lucky enough to play in such a miserably bad division that they weren't essentially eliminated by August. They finished #7 in wins in the AL but spent the majority of the season around #8 or #9. They were essentially a second division AL team for almost the entire season who happened to get moderately hot at the end of the year and win their pathetically bad divison and displacing two far better entrants to the postseason (TBR and LAA) on the pure luck of geography. Bully for them.

And yes, they got lucky that baseball's new, even more watered down play-off system meant better teams in better divisions, like the Yankees and Rangers, had to exhaust themselves in wild divisional chases while a miserable underachieving **** team like the Tigers gets to sneak in to the playoffs and run those teams over because they spent essentially 5 1/2 months not having to try. The system itself is flawed in choosing a champion, the Tigers were better than the Yankees for 1 week in the middle of October, but for basically April-September, the Yankees were clearly the better team. Clearly. If you had actually paid attention to the season as it progressed, you'd have clearly seen this.

If the Rangers slapped around the Brewers in the World Series, nobody would be trying to paint broad outcomes of that, as everyone would be in agreement that the Rangers were a good AL team for most of the year while the Brewers were terrible to awful. It'd be expected.

If the Giants played a good AL team and beat them, that would be something to note. Beating a team that had no business in the postseason? Meh. Good for the Giants, they deserved to win, but hardly qualifies as anything extraordinary.

The Tigers were lucky that the Yankees were a mediocre team, by Yankees standards and by division-winning standards. If the Tigers had no business being in the postseason, neither did the Yankees because the Tigers beat the crap out of them.

If the Yankees had made it tot he World Series, the Giants would have beaten them, just as they beat the Tigers. The top teams in the National League are better than the top teams in the American League. No matter how the league division series would have worked out, you would have had an elite NL team against an overmatched American League team.

Major league baseball isn't nearly as inclusive in its postseason as the NBA or NHL. With the exception of a play-in game for the wild card, it isn't single elimination as is the NFL. Baseball teams in different divisions play wildly different schedules. If you want to go by regular-season records, the White Sox had a very strong record against the AL West and played only .500 in interleague play. The White Sox had a clear winning record against the Rangers and a dismal record against the Tigers , so maybe they would have had a better record in the West if the travel hadn't taken its toll.

I paid attention to the season. I watched how it played out. I was not at all surprised that the Tigers beat the Yankees having watched the way the season played out. If the Rangers had made it to the World Series after their historic collapse, they would have been slapped around by the Giants -- again. Look at how much better the NL postseason teams were at all-around aspects of baseball than the AL teams. Maybe the Rangers would have slapped around the Brewers, but the Brewers didn't make it to the postseason.

But last year the NL wild card beat the Rangers, even if it wasn't what you expected. You obviously haven't been paying attention.

cub killer
11-26-2012, 07:42 PM
There is very little luck over the course of a 162-game season. The individual variances over the course of a game get ironed out over a 6-month marathon so the cream generally rises to the top.
Yes, and that cream gets to sort itself out in the playoffs.


But yeah, in a 7-game series, luck is a huge factor, if for nothing else the way you're able to line your pitchers up. But in the game play, what's the difference between a HR and a weak pop out to RF? We're talking millimeters on the bat or milliseconds, distances and times essentially imperceivable to the human eye. In terms of the actual gameplay, yes, there is a lot of luck in baseball. Well, for one thing, these hitters are trained to hit so that they don't pop it up. They're not just swinging at the ball like T-ballers. There's a lot of nuance involved. More often than not, it's their own fault that they popped it up rather than gotten a hit.

Yes, there are factors such as wind, field condition, a fan in the stands reaching his hands out, etc. But as I said, it usually balances out and affects both teams. I haven't seen a series where there were so many "lucky" occurrences happening to the same team that it nullifies their series victory. That definitely did not happen this year.

As for the pitching match-ups... yeah, there are instances where a team can't set up their rotation the way they want because they had a tougher previous series, or a tougher division to qualify from. And their opponent had ample time to set up their rotation. But the thing is, the same people who will complain about "bad luck" would say the same thing if their team was the one with ample time, except this time the excuse will be "we had too long of a lay-off!"

So which excuse is acceptable? I say neither. Sometimes teams still win despite tougher qualifying, tougher previous series, injuries, etc. The excuses are unacceptable, unless there's an extremely serious circumstance, in which case I'm sure MLB would step in and delay the series so that there wouldn't be so much of a disadvantage.

You can rally your bull**** "rah rah" winners make their own luck! buzzword garbage all you like, I suspect at this point you're just goofing around because there is absolutely no way anyone could have watched the American League in 2012 and at any point of the year declared the inept, underperforming Tigers the legitimate team to represent the league in the championship series. They were awful for most of the season, barely finished in the top half of the league, and really, only did so because they play in such a god damn awful division that somebody had to be the least bad in.

So no, the idea that the World Series in which the AL was represented by a horrendously mediocre Detroit team that barely had any business being in the postseason at all paints a picture representative for the league as a whole is a completely asinine opinion. I'd be willing to give the Series more credibility if it truly was a champion vs. champion affair, but the watered down playoffs have made that all but impossible. I honestly can't think of the last time the World Series was really a matchup of the league's two best teams. 1998?
Sometimes there are 2010 Seattle Seahawks situations. But divisions are necessary, travelling isn't free or quick. The Tigers deserved to be there, they were the best of the Central. Then they proved they were best in the league.

You may say the poor Yankees were so worn out from having to qualify out of the East. Those poor babies. Ditto for the A's and West. I say bollox. Suck it up and fight on, you'll have 3.5 months to rest after that.

So yes, the Kitties were representative of us. Not as much as pre-1969 pennant winners, but representative nonetheless.

If you think that 1998 was the last time the 2 leagues' best faced off, then you might as well stop watching. Nobody's thinking of the reg season anymore in October. Put it out of your head, not just so that you'll enjoy the playoffs again, but because in October, the reg season truly now is ancient history. If I had a dime for every time a player/coach/broadcaster said that... But they say it because it is true.

M. Jeff & Co. said it much better than any poster here could, back in 1996. They even made hats and shirts to pronounce pro sports' Prime Directive.

The Tigers' crappy reg season didn't mean a thing, because they got that pennant ring.

doublem23
11-26-2012, 11:05 PM
But last year the NL wild card beat the Rangers, even if it wasn't what you expected. You obviously haven't been paying attention.

Yes, THAT'S THE ****ING POINT I'm making, nobody in their right mind could have looked at the 2011 Cardinals and thought they even deserved to be on the same field as the Rangers, but in the baseball playoffs, **** HAPPENS and they happened to win 4 games before Texas did. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. There is absolutely no rhythm or logic to the MLB Play-offs. Plenty of well paid, knowledgeable baseball men agree the point is to just make the postseason and just see what happens. It's almost a guarantee that a worse team will beat a better team 2-3 times in the postseason. There's just too much variance in the day-to-day, game-to-game routine of baseball. It's how the AL Pennant winners can get swept, at home, in a doubleheader to the worst team in the league in the middle of a September pennant race. Does that mean the Twins were better than the Tigers for the whole 2012 season? No, of course not, they just happened to be better that one day. It's baseball.

You can go ahead and pat yourself on the back for "calling the World Series" (a real gutsy call a month after it occurred), but I would suspect anyone who actually does pay some attention to the game knows deep in their gut that the playoffs rarely, if ever, match up the two best teams in the league for the World Series. It's almost always just two teams that just happen to still be standing.

doublem23
11-26-2012, 11:10 PM
If you think that 1998 was the last time the 2 leagues' best faced off, then you might as well stop watching. Nobody's thinking of the reg season anymore in October. Put it out of your head, not just so that you'll enjoy the playoffs again, but because in October, the reg season truly now is ancient history. If I had a dime for every time a player/coach/broadcaster said that... But they say it because it is true.


And if you think the best two teams always play in the World Series you're completely out of your mind. The regular season doesn't matter in terms of who advances and who doesn't, but (and this is like... 2nd grade math here) only a complete lunatic would take 7 or 8 data points over 162. Again, I'm not saying the Tigers didn't deserve to be in the World Series because they met the criteria to be there, they just weren't the best team in the AL last year. I'm quite certain by now your stance is just a big joke because it's unraveling to such absurdity I'm laughing as I type this, but anyone who would argue that the Tigers were the best team in the AL in 2012 (again, different from being the team that should be in the World Series) is just a nutcase.

TDog
11-27-2012, 12:47 PM
And if you think the best two teams always play in the World Series you're completely out of your mind. The regular season doesn't matter in terms of who advances and who doesn't, but (and this is like... 2nd grade math here) only a complete lunatic would take 7 or 8 data points over 162. Again, I'm not saying the Tigers didn't deserve to be in the World Series because they met the criteria to be there, they just weren't the best team in the AL last year. I'm quite certain by now your stance is just a big joke because it's unraveling to such absurdity I'm laughing as I type this, but anyone who would argue that the Tigers were the best team in the AL in 2012 (again, different from being the team that should be in the World Series) is just a nutcase.

That's irrelevant. If you are going to demand the best teams play for the championship, and you determine that the regular season record determines who is the best team, everyone plays the same schedule and rosters are frozen. The Red Sox and Marlins can't trade players mid season. The White Sox visited Boston when Red Sox when they were at their strongest roster-wise, placing them at a disadvantage in the race. For that matter, NL teams that played the Red Sox didn't deal with the same Red Sox that teams faced at the end of the season. The Yankees benefited from the collapse of the Red Sox and Blue Jays. The Giants had to deal with an infusion of talent on the Dodgers.

Baseball doesn't exist in a vacuum where all wins are created equal. Teams play know it is a six-month season where the goal is to win the division, with a very limited wild card possibility as a consolation. They sometimes lose some games because they rest some players, taking the chance because they believe that it will help them win more and more important games later. Teams mature during the long season. Some players improve. Some wear out. The baseball season is about parallel divisional races, each with their own dynmaics. The Tigers or White Sox might have had a better record if they had played in a different division. (The White Sox were 37-35 against Central teams and 20-12 against the West.) The baseball season is messy.

At the end of the 2012 season, the Tigers were better than the A's, who lost the deciding game at home. The Tigers were much better than the Yankees, who similarly went the distance in beating the league's wild card team. The Tigers were the best chance the American League had to win the World Series because the Yankees had nothing left. The National League side was more of a contest. It might have gone differently if Strasburg hadn't been shut down, but the team decided he was going to be no longer part of the pitching staff before October rolled around. I could do without the wild card, but otherwise, any team making the NL postseason could have been considered the league's best.

It is less of a joke than if you eliminated the divisions and invited second- or lower-place teams to complete for the championship. It is far less a joke than the NFL, which determines championships with teams playing different schedules and has a single-elimination playoff system. It is less of a joke than the NBA or NHL where the regular season determines seeding for the championship tournament. It is less of a joke than the NCAA Division 1 men's basketball tournament where teams that don't win their conferences, sometimes teams that finish fourth or fifth, play in the single-elimination tournament to determine a champion, as if the conference tournaments that precede the national tournament didn't exist.

If you are going to have playoffs to determine a champion, you are going to have fans complaining of inequities. More legitimate, is the contention in Curt Flood's autobiography that the World Series (he played in it in 1964, 1967 and 1968, the year before division play was introduced) is a joke because the players are too tired. I asked him about it a couple of years before his death, and it was something he continue to believed in strongly, although I have never heard any other player voice the same concern. But calling the World Series a joke because it doesn't determine a true champion, though, ignores the point of competition.

And this year, the Tigers, far from being the sevemth-best team in the league, emerged as the best chance the American League had to compete in the World Series with the stronger National League postseason teams, saving the Yankees the embarrassment.

Get over it.

doublem23
11-27-2012, 01:31 PM
It is less of a joke than the NCAA Division 1 men's basketball tournament where teams that don't win their conferences, sometimes teams that finish fourth or fifth, play in the single-elimination tournament to determine a champion, as if the conference tournaments that precede the national tournament didn't exist.

Your core hypothesis is basically ridiculous, but I had to pull this nugget of complete absurdity out. How is the baseball system any less of a joke than the Div 1 basketball playoff? How can you, on one hand, defend the MLB season and it's playoff system by stating "the goal is to get to the postseason" and then attack Div 1. basketball when the exact same parameters are here. If the goal is simply to get to the tournament, what difference does it make if that teams finishes 3rd or 4th in conference but plays well in the NCAA Tournament? It's absolutely no more ludicrous than defending a **** team like Detroit, who would have been realistically eliminated from the playoffs in 5 of the 6 divisions, backs into the playoffs, catches a hot streak and suddenly their representing the league as its champion? ****ing ridiculous.

Your argument is so utterly fradulent and self-serving. The fact that you can cherry pick "bla bla bla wins from the regular season that contradict my argument are irrelevant" but "dur dur dur wins in the playoffs that support my argument... TOTALLY relevant." The Tigers were a better team than the Yankees (and probably the A's, too) for precisely 1 week. Bully for them it just happened to be the week they got to play them in the playoffs. Does that make them automatically better? No, it just makes them lucky bastards.

This is the same kind of ****ty arguments my brother pulls from his Cub-fan blogs and emails to me so we can laugh at them together.

TDog
11-27-2012, 07:58 PM
Your core hypothesis is basically ridiculous, but I had to pull this nugget of complete absurdity out. How is the baseball system any less of a joke than the Div 1 basketball playoff? How can you, on one hand, defend the MLB season and it's playoff system by stating "the goal is to get to the postseason" and then attack Div 1. basketball when the exact same parameters are here. If the goal is simply to get to the tournament, what difference does it make if that teams finishes 3rd or 4th in conference but plays well in the NCAA Tournament? It's absolutely no more ludicrous than defending a **** team like Detroit, who would have been realistically eliminated from the playoffs in 5 of the 6 divisions, backs into the playoffs, catches a hot streak and suddenly their representing the league as its champion? ****ing ridiculous.

Your argument is so utterly fradulent and self-serving. The fact that you can cherry pick "bla bla bla wins from the regular season that contradict my argument are irrelevant" but "dur dur dur wins in the playoffs that support my argument... TOTALLY relevant." The Tigers were a better team than the Yankees (and probably the A's, too) for precisely 1 week. Bully for them it just happened to be the week they got to play them in the playoffs. Does that make them automatically better? No, it just makes them lucky bastards.

This is the same kind of ****ty arguments my brother pulls from his Cub-fan blogs and emails to me so we can laugh at them together.

Detroit was the best team in the American League at the end of the season. This should have been obvious to anyone who watched them destroy the Yankees. They weren't lucky. They were better. The Yankees regular season record and how it was achieved was irrelevant. That is why you have a playoff system. Baseball's postseason is better than any other playoff system there is.

My NCAA point is an extrapolation of your logical argument. The point is to get to the tournament, except it's not a matter of achievement, but often a ridiculous matter of opinion. And then you face a single elimination tournament. Even if you made it more legitimate by limiting the tournament to winners of conference tournaments, it would still be single elimination. And you no matter how good your division is, you can't play in MLB championship tournament if you are the fifth best team in your division. By contrast, the College World Series is the best method of determining an NCAA champion despite recent concessions.

If you are going to complain that the World Series is a joke, you could at least be consistent and condemn all major sports champships. Otherwise, you're just triggering the language filter without a consistent argument.

The baseball postseason isn't perfect, but it is better at determining an overall champion than any other major team sport.

cub killer
11-28-2012, 01:08 AM
And if you think the best two teams always play in the World Series you're completely out of your mind. The regular season doesn't matter in terms of who advances and who doesn't, but (and this is like... 2nd grade math here) only a complete lunatic would take 7 or 8 data points over 162. Again, I'm not saying the Tigers didn't deserve to be in the World Series because they met the criteria to be there, they just weren't the best team in the AL last year. I'm quite certain by now your stance is just a big joke because it's unraveling to such absurdity I'm laughing as I type this, but anyone who would argue that the Tigers were the best team in the AL in 2012 (again, different from being the team that should be in the World Series) is just a nutcase.
Dude, it is not 7 data points vs 162. You're not understanding. TDog explained it to you very coherently and thoroughly, but I'll still add a little in.

FORGET THE REGULAR SEASON WHEN THE PLAYOFFS BEGIN. MLB hits the reset button. The reg season is done. Out of the way. In the garbage can. Burned to a crisp. Vaporized. No more. Kaput.

The announcers, players and coaches tell us this every freaking year. TBS and ESPN's opening lines to their initial playoff broadcasts will usually reiterate this. "It's time for the postseason, where we begin anew!" "It's time to find who is the best in Major League Baseball!"

When players/coaches from higher seeded teams are interviewed, they'll usually say "Well, the regular season is ancient history now, and now we have to focus on this playoff series." And/or "This is what it all comes down to."

Do you even watch baseball at all?

When the White Sox clinched the best record in the AL in 2005, how many here said, "Well, there ya go! We're the best in the AL no matter what happens now!"? No one did. No one celebrated. We were all on pins and needles for the playoffs. Don't you think if our record clinched AL supremacy, we'd have celebrated? But no champagne was popped. There wasn't even a light applause. We were nervous as all ****.

The regular season is 162 data points to determine who goes to the main part of the season: the playoffs. Then we start anew, in a decent format, IMO, to decide the champ. They can't play best-of-20, which I'm sure you'd prefer. Best of 7 is fine for me. Best of 5 is meh, but oh well, it doesn't nullify the supremacy test. Neither does the WC game, those teams had their chance to avoid that 1-off.

If Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt finished last among those who qualified to the Olympics, are they no longer the best? While they celebrate their gold, will you walk up to the podium and say "Look guys, they came in last among the qualified. They aren't the best, Joe Schmo and Duncan Mo, who didn't even medal, are the best. They qualified head and shoulders above the rest. Data points, guys!!! Data points!!!"?

doublem23
11-28-2012, 08:01 AM
The announcers, players and coaches tell us this every freaking year. TBS and ESPN's opening lines to their initial playoff broadcasts will usually reiterate this. "It's time for the postseason, where we begin anew!" "It's time to find who is the best in Major League Baseball!"

:rolling:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Are you ****ing kidding me? You're trying to prove your point with the wit and wisdom of people like Chris Berman, Skip Bayless, and Tim McCarver? This is seriously a joke right? I must be on Candid Message Board at this point, no?

What POSSIBLE reason could talking chuckleheads who draw their paychecks from media outlets who sell ad time during broadcasts have to church up the World Series into something that it's not? Hmmmmmmmmm... What's your next brilliant argument going to be, the ShamWow is the best towel ever AND I TOTALLY KNOW THIS because Vince, the guy who sells them on TV at 3 AM, told me it's true!!!

You dare question MY fanhood and then when pressed for your own opinion, you take the sides of ESPN and TNT? Give. Me. A. ****ing. Break.

Detroit was the best team in the American League at the end of the season. This should have been obvious to anyone who watched them destroy the Yankees. They weren't lucky. They were better. The Yankees regular season record and how it was achieved was irrelevant. That is why you have a playoff system. Baseball's postseason is better than any other playoff system there is.

My NCAA point is an extrapolation of your logical argument. The point is to get to the tournament, except it's not a matter of achievement, but often a ridiculous matter of opinion. And then you face a single elimination tournament. Even if you made it more legitimate by limiting the tournament to winners of conference tournaments, it would still be single elimination. And you no matter how good your division is, you can't play in MLB championship tournament if you are the fifth best team in your division. By contrast, the College World Series is the best method of determining an NCAA champion despite recent concessions.

If you are going to complain that the World Series is a joke, you could at least be consistent and condemn all major sports champships. Otherwise, you're just triggering the language filter without a consistent argument.

The baseball postseason isn't perfect, but it is better at determining an overall champion than any other major team sport.

I'm not even going to bother arguing over what playoff system is better or worse because you've demonstrated plenty of times on these forums a proud ignorance of pretty much every other major sport so to sit here and try to make any argument would be a complete waste of both of our time. Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment that baseball's play-off system is the best among the major sports at determing which team was the season's best. I personally can't imagine how anyone who calls themselves a baseball fan could not be insulted to see a team like the Tigers, who were under .500 until July, who qualified for the postseason based purely on the luck of geography (luckily for the Tigers, Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac founded Fort Pontchartrain du Detroit in Michigan and not say, in Buffalo, NY where the Tigers would have surely ended up in the AL East and they would have finished a dismal 4th place) can come within a breath of the World Title. It absolutely enrages me that the playoff system is set up so that the games I watch from April to September, that I live and die with every night are rendered completely and utterly meaningless by such a sham system that rewards complete and utter mediocrity. This is not what baseball is supposed to be about. It's not what made the game great a generation ago. It only exists to line the owners' pockets with faux-drama fueled TV revenue at the cost of the historic integrity of the game.

The irony is that the original point of this thread was to determine why the World Series has lost so much of it's luster, why don't kids sneak radios into their bedrooms and hang on the call of every pitch, why don't all Americans gather round their TVs and watch any more??? You know why? Because Americans aren't a bunch of stupid, gullible morons. They're smart enough to see that Bud and the owners are trying to sell them prime rib (THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF BASE BALL!!!) but it's really just a polished turd (here's a sack of **** team that had a losing record to the Indians).

You also seem to think my argument is born of some kind of sore loser mentality? I thought my dislike and genuine disgust over the Tigers' playoff run was pretty evident, but apparently I need to simplify it even more... I AM HAPPY THE GIANTS WON. They were the better team. You think I'm mad now, that we had a sham AL pennant winner? Bad enough Detroit snuck out of Oakland and then got to play a decimated and exhausted Yankees team, but to win the World Series? They would have been the biggest frauds since the Cardinals in 2006. I'm very content that San Francisco won. My anger is only born from the fact that MLB basically stuck a giant middle finger out to any fan who fancies to pay attention to the season for more than 4 weeks in October.

DSpivack
11-28-2012, 10:20 AM
I'm not even going to bother arguing over what playoff system is better or worse because you've demonstrated plenty of times on these forums a proud ignorance of pretty much every other major sport so to sit here and try to make any argument would be a complete waste of both of our time. Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment that baseball's play-off system is the best among the major sports at determing which team was the season's best. I personally can't imagine how anyone who calls themselves a baseball fan could not be insulted to see a team like the Tigers, who were under .500 until July, who qualified for the postseason based purely on the luck of geography (luckily for the Tigers, Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac founded Fort Pontchartrain du Detroit in Michigan and not say, in Buffalo, NY where the Tigers would have surely ended up in the AL East and they would have finished a dismal 4th place) can come within a breath of the World Title. It absolutely enrages me that the playoff system is set up so that the games I watch from April to September, that I live and die with every night are rendered completely and utterly meaningless by such a sham system that rewards complete and utter mediocrity. This is not what baseball is supposed to be about. It's not what made the game great a generation ago. It only exists to line the owners' pockets with faux-drama fueled TV revenue at the cost of the historic integrity of the game.

The irony is that the original point of this thread was to determine why the World Series has lost so much of it's luster, why don't kids sneak radios into their bedrooms and hang on the call of every pitch, why don't all Americans gather round their TVs and watch any more??? You know why? Because Americans aren't a bunch of stupid, gullible morons. They're smart enough to see that Bud and the owners are trying to sell them prime rib (THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF BASE BALL!!!) but it's really just a polished turd (here's a sack of **** team that had a losing record to the Indians).

You also seem to think my argument is born of some kind of sore loser mentality? I thought my dislike and genuine disgust over the Tigers' playoff run was pretty evident, but apparently I need to simplify it even more... I AM HAPPY THE GIANTS WON. They were the better team. You think I'm mad now, that we had a sham AL pennant winner? Bad enough Detroit snuck out of Oakland and then got to play a decimated and exhausted Yankees team, but to win the World Series? They would have been the biggest frauds since the Cardinals in 2006. I'm very content that San Francisco won. My anger is only born from the fact that MLB basically stuck a giant middle finger out to any fan who fancies to pay attention to the season for more than 4 weeks in October.

By this argument, perhaps most soccer leagues around the world determine a champion in the best way. There are no playoffs, you have home-and-road games against the other teams in the league for a perfectly balanced schedule, and the team with the best record at the end is the champion.

SephClone89
11-28-2012, 10:22 AM
By this argument, perhaps most soccer leagues around the world determine a champion in the best way. There are no playoffs, you have home-and-road games against the other teams in the league for a perfectly balanced schedule, and the team with the best record at the end is the champion.

Bingo. The best team ends up with the title.

SephClone89
11-28-2012, 10:25 AM
Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment that baseball's play-off system is the best among the major sports at determing which team was the season's best. I personally can't imagine how anyone who calls themselves a baseball fan could not be insulted to see a team like the Tigers, who were under .500 until July, who qualified for the postseason based purely on the luck of geography (luckily for the Tigers, Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac founded Fort Pontchartrain du Detroit in Michigan and not say, in Buffalo, NY where the Tigers would have surely ended up in the AL East and they would have finished a dismal 4th place) can come within a breath of the World Title. It absolutely enrages me that the playoff system is set up so that the games I watch from April to September, that I live and die with every night are rendered completely and utterly meaningless by such a sham system that rewards complete and utter mediocrity. This is not what baseball is supposed to be about. It's not what made the game great a generation ago. It only exists to line the owners' pockets with faux-drama fueled TV revenue at the cost of the historic integrity of the game.

To be fair, doesn't this exact situation play out (often to a greater degree) in the other sports?

I suppose there is less of a reliance on division (and therefore geography) in the NBA, for example, which might be your point.

TDog
11-28-2012, 01:29 PM
...
I'm not even going to bother arguing over what playoff system is better or worse because you've demonstrated plenty of times on these forums a proud ignorance of pretty much every other major sport so to sit here and try to make any argument would be a complete waste of both of our time. ... The irony is that the original point of this thread was to determine why the World Series has lost so much of it's luster, why don't kids sneak radios into their bedrooms and hang on the call of every pitch, why don't all Americans gather round their TVs and watch any more??? You know why? Because Americans aren't a bunch of stupid, gullible morons. They're smart enough to see that Bud and the owners are trying to sell them prime rib (THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF BASE BALL!!!) but it's really just a polished turd (here's a sack of **** team that had a losing record to the Indians).

You also seem to think my argument is born of some kind of sore loser mentality? I thought my dislike and genuine disgust over the Tigers' playoff run was pretty evident, but apparently I need to simplify it even more... I AM HAPPY THE GIANTS WON. They were the better team. You think I'm mad now, that we had a sham AL pennant winner? Bad enough Detroit snuck out of Oakland and then got to play a decimated and exhausted Yankees team, but to win the World Series? They would have been the biggest frauds since the Cardinals in 2006. I'm very content that San Francisco won. My anger is only born from the fact that MLB basically stuck a giant middle finger out to any fan who fancies to pay attention to the season for more than 4 weeks in October.

I don't know that I've demonstrated an ignorance of evey sport other than baseball, but I do ignore sports other than baseball and have stated as much. There is a difference. I was forced to play football when I was younger and would be healthier today if I hadn't. I had a hockey rink in my back yard, actually covered college basketball when I was in college and Indiana University basketball was a huge deal and you pretty much had to win your conference, be an elite second-place team or be Notre Dame to get into the NCAA tournamnet, although I haven't paid any attention to college basketball since leaving college. I also fenced in college, and it's the only Olympic sport that I can stand to watch. I don't pay attention to other sports, which isn't the same as asserting expertise on other sports in an Internet forum.

But you don't have to know the finer points of other sports to see the logical problems with your argument about people not caring about the World Series because it is a joke that would allow the Tigers to get in. I don't know and I don't care who played in the Super Bowl this year. But I am guessing that it wasn't the two teams with the best regular-season records. I don't know if one team was the equivalent of the Detroit Tigers, winning its division with a record dwarfed by a team that didn't make it through the playoffs, but if you have playoffs, it is bound to happen sometimes. If this is true, I also will assume that you didn't post post-Super Bowl that the Super Bowl was a joke, that the reason no one cares is that the best teams aren't playing for the championship. If I missed the thread where you did that, I apologize for assigning a loser mentality to your argument, which could only be inferred if you weren't complaining about the playoff systems in the other sports you follow at least as vehemently.

You don't need to follow other sports to look at their playoff formats to see that baseball does the best job of determining a champion, limiting the number of non-first-place teams, playing series rather than single-elmination and playing 162 games to determine division championships. and that point really addresses the core of your argument that baseball's playoff system is hurting the popularity of the World Series.

Following the logic of your argument, if the Tigers playing in the World Series is a big reason why the World Series has lost its luster, the Super Bowl loses its luster if you don't have the two best regular season teams competing. I am guessing whent that happens, ratings don't plummet.

You are attacking the baseball postseason. If the way that baseball determines a champion is the issue, then it would be a universal issue. Of course it isn't, because the point is not being the best team at midseason or spending the most days with the best record in the league, regardless of how unbalanced your schedule might be. The point is being the best team at the end of the season.

If you are going to have playoffs among teams that have had different degrees of success in the regular season playing to determine who is the champion for the season, you are going to have teams with weaker records playing for the championship. Baseball has a higher bar of regular-season success than any other sport. If you want the two teams with the best record to face for the championship, you don't have playoffs to determine who will play for the championship.