World Series

[palehozenychicty]

Originally Posted by TDog

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]

11.1
MLB
TV Giants: SergioRomo54 and Barry Zito join JayLeno for some #Romobombing and other shenanigans - http://atmlb.com/QXTy7O

[Golden Sox]

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]

Originally Posted by doublem23

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]

Originally Posted by cub killer

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]

Originally Posted by gosox41

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

to the champs.

[Boondock Saint]

Originally Posted by cub killer

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

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]

Originally Posted by cub killer

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]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

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]

Originally Posted by cub killer

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]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

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]

Originally Posted by cub killer

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?



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

[cub killer]

Originally Posted by doublem23

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?



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.