Jump to content

Welcome to mygnrforum.com Guns N' Roses Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Major League Baseball Thread 2K14


  • Please log in to reply
4731 replies to this topic

#16
LightningBolt

LightningBolt

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,996 posts
  • 12-December 08

Hockey and the nba......stupid. How in the world do u justify a playoff system where teams with losing records make the playoffs?????

I haven't been watching hockey too long, but how often do teams with losing records make the playoffs in hockey? Don't think it's happened in the last few years, at least.

#17
bt88

bt88

    DEMI-GOD

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts
  • 21-February 06


Hockey and the nba......stupid. How in the world do u justify a playoff system where teams with losing records make the playoffs?????

I haven't been watching hockey too long, but how often do teams with losing records make the playoffs in hockey? Don't think it's happened in the last few years, at least.


It has happened in hockey only a handful of times. And its been years since it has. Look at the stats over the last 10 years, it has not happened in that span. The 8th seed has played to the stanley cup finals before, game 7s in fact. Its made for compelling stories.

I mean look at Baseball's playoffs anyways. Its not always the top teams in terms of season records in the world series and thats a damn good thing. I dont wanna watch Yankees vs Phillies every year. Baseball is now the type of sport where the team thats hot at the right time wins. The Cards, the Giants, etc. How is that any different from recent super bowls? Last year the Packers almost lost in their first playoff game and came in as a wild card. Super Bowl. Remember the Giants superbowl win, what is known as the best superbowl in years? Wild card team that got hot at the right time. and dont give me the "below .500 teams making the playoffs" argument. The NFL lets 8-8 teams in and that isnt much better. Look at the Seahawks last year. Upset the Saints. Tell me that fanbase didnt love that when they had little reason to cheer.

Part of the appeal of sports is the belief that the improbable can happen. Why is there so much reverence over the NCAA tournament when Cinderella stories happen? A blue jays fan now has more reason to be engaged with the MLB season longer. Good for the business side of the MLB and good for the fans. Again, is sports not supposed to be for the fans?

Edited by bt88, 22 November 2011 - 09:25 AM.


#18
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • Supporters
  • 11,008 posts
  • 15-July 03
Again, just a difference of opinion and difference of philosophy on how sports (and life) should work.

You enjoy the underdog making history. You say it's compelling to watch a lower seed win games.
I don't.
What you enjoy totally makes the regular season irrelevant. In your world, a 162 game six month season really means nothing....as you enjoy watching a .500 team just get "hot" at the right time. I will never understand that.

So a team goes 82-80 over a six month period. Another team goes 112-50. But one team has an off couple of days and the other gets hot at the right time.......and the 82-80 team advances? How is that concievable "good" in your view? The 112 win team was the better team over a six month period. Your team was the better team for a weekend.

So at the end of the day, the 82 team win advances. But the 112 win team was clearly the better team for 95% of the year. I don't understand how that is exciting or good for a sport?

It is unfair to the teams that accomplish something during the regular season. A team that wins 82 games should NOT have the same opoprtunities that a 112 win team does in a post season. If they do........then your regular season is a joke. Why keep records at all if they don't matter?

You say you get tired of watching the same teams play for the title. Why????? Why wouldn't you want to watch the BEST teams each year battle it out for a championship? Why in the hell would you rather watch a team that wins 82 games play for a championship over two teams that won 100-plus games apiece?

A championship tournament should be for the BEST teams. That's what I will pay extra money to watch. Why would you want to watch a tournament that features average teams play? Makes no sense to me.

As for NHL.
Teams with losing records or that were the bottom seed have won the championship. More teams make the playoffs than don't make the playoffs (rendering the regular season to be a bit of a joke).

Think about it. Which team plays harder? Which team plays in more meaningful games? Which teams puts forth more effort to win?
"Fellas, we need to finish in 8th place this year. If we can come in 8th place, and win 40 out of 80 games....we will make the playoffs."
compared to:
"Fellas, we need to finish in the top 4 this year. If we can win 50 games, we should make the playoffs."

Your way is to reward mediocrity. My way is to reward success.
Your way gives an average team an opporunity to get hot for a week - instead of having to do it over a FULL SEASON.

Your examples prove my point. Sure, it was exciting for Seattle to see that upset. But what good was it for the playoffs? I'd have much rather saw New Orleans play again, rather than Seattle get smacked around.

You find excitement watching the 16th best team in a 30 team league play???????? I'd much rather see the top team play the 4th best team, than watching the 15th and 16th best teams play.

Lowering the bar and letting worse teams in does not make for a better playoff. It weakens the playoff pool.

You used college basketball as an example. So you'd rather watch two teams with .500 records battle it out, rather than watching a 28-5 team play a 31-2 team? Or in boxing, you'd rather watch two average boxers, not even ranked in the top 10 box....rather than watching the champion match up against the number one contender?

The regular season should determine who the best teams are. The BEST teams should advance to the playoffs. If half the teams in the league make the playoffs, then your regular season is a joke and means nothing.

You believe in rewarding the poor teams, by giving them one last chance.
I believe in rewarding the teams that prove their worth over a 162 game season.

#19
bt88

bt88

    DEMI-GOD

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts
  • 21-February 06
The good teams get their rewards, they get home field advantage (Except in the world series with their awful all star game rule, and the super bowl). In some cases they even get a bye.

So I guess the one question remains: with any of the current playoff systems, why AREN'T the best teams always winning? You say you'd like to watch similar teams every year, thats fine thats your opinion. But why doesnt the 110 win team beat the 83 win team? Why doesn't the #1 seed in college basketball win every year? Why have so many wildcard teams in baseball won recently? Couldnt you argue that the best team in the regular season should be winning the championship because, after all they are the "best team." yet at the end of the year, they arent holding the cup/trophy.

So if the best teams are not winning, then that would imply some sort of flaw in all playoff systems. Would you prefer a BCS style computer match up in every sport? That causes enough problems as it is.

and not to nitpick one small thing, but a sub .500 team has not made it to an NHL championship since 1991, and they got smacked in the cup finals. (Minnesota North Stars)

Also keep in mind with the new MLB playoff format, the wild card teams will have to burn their ace starting pitchers in the one game playoff just to get to the next round. So they start at a disadvantage, thus penalizing them for not finishing higher.

Edited by bt88, 22 November 2011 - 04:11 PM.


#20
LightningBolt

LightningBolt

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,996 posts
  • 12-December 08



Hockey and the nba......stupid. How in the world do u justify a playoff system where teams with losing records make the playoffs?????

I haven't been watching hockey too long, but how often do teams with losing records make the playoffs in hockey? Don't think it's happened in the last few years, at least.


It has happened in hockey only a handful of times. And its been years since it has. Look at the stats over the last 10 years, it has not happened in that span. The 8th seed has played to the stanley cup finals before, game 7s in fact. Its made for compelling stories.

Yeah, one of my favorite hockey moments was the Flyers making it to the playoffs in the last game of the season and making it to the Stanley Cup finals. Shame we lost but whatever. :P

#21
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • Supporters
  • 11,008 posts
  • 15-July 03
I would love for all major sports to follow the guidelines of the NCAA tournament (since you bring that up).
There are 364 teams playing D1 basketball. Only 65 of them make the tournament. That's roughly 17%.
I'd love for only the best 20% to make the playoffs in mlb, nfl, nba and nhl.
In the NHL, over half the teams make the playoffs. That is a waterdowned playoff. A team that finishes in 16th place in a league of 30 teams has NO business making a playoffs and as a fan, I can't believe anybody would want to see that happen anyway.



BT - you've already answered your own question. Why don't the best teams win?
Because on any give sunday......

Buster Douglas can knockout Mike Tyson.
Villanova can beat Georgetown.
Giants can beat New England.

You go 13-3, but your QB has an off day and a couple unlucky bounces happen and an 8-8 team plays the game of their lives, and you have a huge upset. It happens. Even though that 13-3 team would beat the 8-8 team 9 out of 10 times.

You enjoy seeing mediocre teams get a chance to win the title. I don't.
Your thinking renders the regular season as a joke.

Hell, your playing harder theory doesn't hold water either.
The energy a team puts out to finish in first place is usually MORE than the team that finishes as the 16the best team. That first place team puts forth 100% every night, because winning is important to them.
The team that finishes in 16th place in a 30 team league? They can rest their star players, they don't have to put forth 100% effort every game. Because they just want to finish .500 and make the playoffs. They don't care if they lose a few games, so they don't have to put forth their best performance every game.

Again, we are debating two different things here.

You like having more teams involved in a playoff. Which minimizes the regular season down to almost nothing.
I like only having the best teams play in championship playoff. I think the regular season should mean something.

Being the best over 162 games should mean more than just home field advantage.
A team that skates into the playoffs by finishing 16th out of 30 teams.......they don't deserve to have a say in who wins the championship.
For seven months and 162 games, they were mediocre. Now they just have to get hot for a few weeks and they are the champions?????

I think championship tournaments should be reserved for the teams that proved their worth over the entire season.
You think average teams should get in.
I believe the regular season should mean something, you believe it shouldn't.

Do you think we should even keep regular season records? Why not just play for fun, and then let all the teams make the tournament?

Baseball is going to add one more wild card team? And it's a one-game playoff? I can go for that.
But to add anymore teams would be heart-breaking.

Expanding any playoff is just making it easier for the bad teams. I don't know why anybody would think that is a good thing. Lets make it easier for bad teams to make the playoffs. Let's reward the bad teams, instead of the good teams. WTF????

I also grew up in the days before wild card. And those playoffs were amazing. You had the absolute best of the best competing against each other. The best teams from the last 162 games battling it out.
Now? You can have a team that was mediocre for 162 games but got hot for two weeks.
I hate watering down anything. Doesn't make it better - it just gives bad teams more of a chance to compete.

#22
bt88

bt88

    DEMI-GOD

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts
  • 21-February 06
My one question is this Groghan: have you watched a full hockey playoffs series? I think watching an entire playoff unfold might make you see where I'm coming from. It's not a watered down product. You said in the NFL thread you're more of an "eye test" guy than actual numbers or stats. In this case, just watching the playoffs is compelling from start to finish. Eye test. If you have and you still feel the way you feel, then we're at an impasse.

The one thing with baseball specifically is i'm not quite sure the extra team will water anything down. Last year, here would have been the second wild card teams under the new format:
AL: Boston 90-72
NL: Atlanta 89-73.

Both good teams. No one was getting in at .500 or below. I realize allowing extra teams increasing the likelihood of a bad team getting in, but every system has it's flaws and drawbacks as we're learning. Woulda been very interesting to see Boston vs. Tampa in a one game playoff (that almost happened anyways) and Atlanta vs St Louis duke it out for the right to move on.

I also dont think any team ever has rested starters or not tried with the mentality of "well we just need to get in at the 8th seed" For one, the 8th seed is an undesirable spot to find your team in. The 8th seed statistically does not move on a lot. It happens sometimes but the odds are against you. Remember when Golden State won as the 8th seed? In the NBA thats much more of an anomaly than common practice. I think we can agree that at least the OCCASIONAL cinderella story can make sports compelling.

Edited by bt88, 22 November 2011 - 09:05 PM.


#23
LightningBolt

LightningBolt

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,996 posts
  • 12-December 08
Do you really think teams are going to half-ass it and aim for a low seed? Because that's what you're implying. And, quite frankly, I find that pretty absurd.

#24
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • Supporters
  • 11,008 posts
  • 15-July 03
You guys ignore my points and just pick little bits and pieces of others and apply them to things I dont even say. Funny.

Mlb has the best playoff of all the major sports. I never claimed it was bad. Mlb has the fewest teams. You have to be an elite team to make it, which is the way it should be. Playoffs should be the best of the best. Not sure about your Texas jab. Are you saying I was wrong by thinking they were a good team? Back-to-back world series, even afterosing cliff lee. I would say they were pretty good.

More teams make the playoffs than don't in the nhl. That is a watered down system. When the 16th best team out of 30 makes the playoffs......

GB went 11-5 the year before, and a very misleading 10-6 last year, followed by 10-0 this year .....I don't think they are considered an underdog. As a Packer fan you should know that. Of their six losses, two were in overtime, and one and I think two were with Rodgers hurt and not playing. AND, they outscored Chicago by like 50 point and held their opponents to 50 less points than Chicago did. With AROD healthy this was a 12-4 team and if they win the OT games, this was a 14-2 team.
You could easily argue that GB has been the best team in football the last three years.31-11 is pretty good.
So not sure why you think that they won the super bowl by beating teams on their off days.

As for the overall point.
You guys think a .500 team making the playoffs is a good thing. I think playoffs should be reserved for the best. You guys like the 16th best team out of 30 having a say is a good think. I don't. You guys think the regular season shouldn't matter, I think it should.

#25
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • Supporters
  • 11,008 posts
  • 15-July 03

Do you really think teams are going to half-ass it and aim for a low seed? Because that's what you're implying. And, quite frankly, I find that pretty absurd.

You are twisting my statement around a bit but that's ok.
Have u ever coached or played on a team? If so, you would agree that going undefeated or being the top team all year is much harder on a team than being middle of the pack. Unless u are just so much more talented that you kill everybody.
Why do u think people say its better to lose a game than to go undefeated in the NFL?????

Playing at an elite level takes more out of you than playing "just" to make the playoffs. For the NFL team going undefeated or the nba or nhl team going for an all times win record, EVERY game is like a playoff game. Trying to win 70 games, trying to go 16-0, trying to win your division.....every game is a must-win. Every game you are playing 110% to win. Players can't coast or take a game off.
But an nhl or nba team sitting at 30-22, a loss isn't that big of a deal. You can rest a star player. You can let your stud sit 5-6 extra minutes a game. Trying to win is a lot different than a must win situation.

And, not to mention that if you are the number one team, then every team is going to play their best to try and beat you. You think teams get as hyped up to beat the rams or browns as they do when playing the patriots or packers?

This isn't my opinion Lighting, its pretty common knowledge in the sports world.

#26
LightningBolt

LightningBolt

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,996 posts
  • 12-December 08


Do you really think teams are going to half-ass it and aim for a low seed? Because that's what you're implying. And, quite frankly, I find that pretty absurd.

You are twisting my statement around a bit but that's ok.
Have u ever coached or played on a team? If so, you would agree that going undefeated or being the top team all year is much harder on a team than being middle of the pack. Unless u are just so much more talented that you kill everybody.
Why do u think people say its better to lose a game than to go undefeated in the NFL?????

Playing at an elite level takes more out of you than playing "just" to make the playoffs. For the NFL team going undefeated or the nba or nhl team going for an all times win record, EVERY game is like a playoff game. Trying to win 70 games, trying to go 16-0, trying to win your division.....every game is a must-win. Every game you are playing 110% to win. Players can't coast or take a game off.
But an nhl or nba team sitting at 30-22, a loss isn't that big of a deal. You can rest a star player. You can let your stud sit 5-6 extra minutes a game. Trying to win is a lot different than a must win situation.

And, not to mention that if you are the number one team, then every team is going to play their best to try and beat you. You think teams get as hyped up to beat the rams or browns as they do when playing the patriots or packers?

This isn't my opinion Lighting, its pretty common knowledge in the sports world.

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that there's probably more pressure on the undefeated team. The Packers right now probably have a lot of pressure than most teams in the league to finish 16-0. But at the same time, you don't think there's a lot of pressure on teams like the Jets, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, and others, who are in the middle of tight races to make the playoffs? You think these teams weren't putting in their all? The major flaw in the logic of a team half-assing it because they're aiming at a lower seed is that there are a lot of other teams also in the race for that last playoff seed, which creates a hell of a lot of pressure. You don't think these teams I listed feel that they need to win every game? I'd argue they have more pressure than a team like the 49ers, who are 9-1 and look to have pretty much locked up their division already. Sure, there's pressure on that team (they don't want to "fall back down to earth" or whatever, which I'm sure is hanging over their heads), but you're acting like teams in these tight races for wild card spots don't have a lot of pressure on them. If the Packers lose a single game, a lot of that pressure disappears. They're suddenly 10-1 and are more-or-less guaranteed a playoff spot at this point. The pressure doesn't disappear for the wild card teams. You seem to think that wild card teams have it easy and can half-ass their way into the playoffs, which, like I said, is pretty absurd. I'm not sure there's a single team in sports that doesn't play to go undefeated. I'm sure that all of them play to win every single game they play. Also, good teams rest their players all the time, FYI. The 2009 Colts. The 2009 Saints. The 2011 Phillies. They all rested their "star players".

And mentioning the Rams and Browns is stupid. Neither are even close to being playoff teams so they don't make sense in your example.

#27
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • Supporters
  • 11,008 posts
  • 15-July 03
"If you honestly assess both of our seasons individually I think his numbers are probably better than mine, and I just feel fortunate to have been on the better team," Braun said.

They got this award wrong.
Kemp had better offense numbers.......and won the gold glove as the better defensive player.
Ridiculous.

Is it the Most Valuable Player award or not?

#28
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • Supporters
  • 11,008 posts
  • 15-July 03
The problem with message boards and forums, where you are not talking back-and-forth instantly, but instead posting long rants in reply to people is that ALL of us tend to pick out bits and pieces of what people say and take examples they make to the extreme. I know I do it and have done it in this topic. And so have some of you. Then we go off on tangents for things we strongly agree or disagree with. Half the time people end up arguing about something that they actually agree with.

So I'm going to start over.

Adding one playoff team to the MLB playoffs is not that big of a deal. MLB has the best system now, as they have the least amount of teams making it. Which is how it should be.
As long as it is just ONE team. If the creep effect happens, I will not be supportive. This year we had one......in 2014 we add another.....then we have to make it even, so in 2015 we had two more.....

NHL and NBA playoffs are ridiculous. When half or more of the teams make it - that's a waterdowned playoff pool. I don't know how you guys can debate that.
Some of you enjoy watching the 16th best team make a run in the playoffs. I don't feel like they earned their way there, and allowing so many teams makes the regular season somewhat of a joke. Whatever your preference is, you cannot argue that the more teams that make a playoff, the less meaningful regular season games are.
YES - you get some drama when two teams are battling it out for the 16th seed..........but again, what do you prefer? I'd rather watch the 4th and 5th best team battling it out for the final spot, as compared to watching the very mediocre 16th and 17th best teams battling it out.
The two 15 year old kids in my neighborhood might have a fist fight that is highly evenly matched, very competitive and may last 20 minutes long. Or, Manny P is boxing Floyd M......which would you rather watch? Exactly. If I am paying money to watch a game, I'd rather see the best and not the average.

Weird that I had more faith in your Packers than you did. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing with me about.
They were 11-5 the year before, so it's not like the Packers were some team that nobody put value in.
They were only 8-6 because of two losses WITHOUT their best player and QB. And they had two OT losses. And the most telling stat to me, was comparing them to first place Chicago. GB averaged 3 more points a game than Chicago, and gave up 3 less points a game than the Bears. On paper, GB was a better team than Chicago, even tho the bears had one more win.
A win is a win and a loss is a loss....but now your arueing with me about the value of a player? So in your world, nobody is allowed to say that Indy would be much better if Manning was playing??????? No. Anybody with a brain would caveat Indy's season because of the loss of Manning. Just like it's perfectly OK to say that GB would not have been 8-6 if AROD hadn't been injured. And OT games often are dictated by the luck of the coin flip and by the luck of one play, or one bad bounce. That's the nature of the game. We are talking about HOW GOOD THE PACKERS WERE.......to you they were an 8-6 team. To me, they were a team that easily could have been 12-2 at that point, minus a couple unlucky breaks. Sometimes the overall win-loss record doesn't tell you everything.

Finally, nobody is talking about the NCAA basketball tournament anymore!!!!! People were bringing up that as being what tournaments should be about!!!!
I agree. 17% of the teams make the tournament. I'd much rather have that in every sport, instead of the NHL where over half the teams make it.
If the NCAA followed the NHL and NBA tournament format, instead of 65 teams playing in the Big Dance, you'd have trhilling games featuring the 160th best team!!!!

Finally, I apologize if I didn't hit anybody's exact points they make.

(Oh, Lighting.......I know Classic gets mad if I bring up anything personal, but in this case it fits. I've been coaching youth sports for more than 20 years. And the most stressful team I ever coached, the one that caused me and my players the most stress - physically and mentally - was a 6th grade basketball team that went undefeated. Every game people wanted to knock off the best. Parents, players and other coaches started to hate us. We even stopped getting calls from referrees. By tournament time, there would be 200 people in the gym. 20 fans (parents of our team) rooting for us, and 180 people rooting for the other team. We went undefeated, won the championship, but at the end we all were glad it was over.

I'm not saying middle of the pack teams are purposely losing. But they are not putting forth as much effort in every game as the teams on top. Your examples really don't make sense.
There is a difference between being 13-2 and resting guys in the last game of the season compared to being 15-0 and trying to finish undefeated.

What you bring up is actually a huge debate in all sports, for decades. (and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about). If you wrap up your division, should you rest your guys at the end to keep them fresh for the playoffs? That has nothing to do with what I've been saying, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

#29
LightningBolt

LightningBolt

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,996 posts
  • 12-December 08
Yeah, the Saints and Colts examples aren't too good, but the Phillies one still stands. They rested some of their batters throughout the year (though I suspect this is common practice in baseball, but it goes against the "teams just aiming for the lower seeds will rest their guys" thing because everyone does it). I just think it's unfair to say the middle-of-the-pack teams aren't putting forth as much effort. It crosses a very iffy line trying to distinguish teams that don't put forth as much effort and teams that just aren't as good. Who's to say the Cardinals didn't put forth as much effort as the Phillies in the regular season?

I'm actually not arguing against your point that more teams waters down the playoffs. I'm not against more teams joining like you are, but I understand why you think that. I just completely disagree with the idea that there are teams that purposefully aim for lower seeds and don't put forth as much effort in the regular season and that wild-card teams aren't as pressured. I fail to see how the Falcons and Jets, who are currently desperately trying to contend for a wild card spot, aren't under as much pressure as teams performing very well. I would argue they're under as much pressure - if not more - more than the Packers are. I think the Packers realize that if they lose a game or two, they're still a #1 or 2 seed in the NFC and they're incredibly likely to make the playoffs at this point. I think the Falcons and Jets realize that if they lose a game or two for the rest of the year, they may not even get that far. I think the "middle-of-the-pack" teams are playing their asses off and they're under tremendous pressure right now.

#30
Groghan

Groghan

    FRONTMAN

  • Supporters
  • 11,008 posts
  • 15-July 03

Weird that I had more faith in your Packers than you did. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing with me about.
They were 11-5 the year before, so it's not like the Packers were some team that nobody put value in.
They were only 8-6 because of two losses WITHOUT their best player and QB. And they had two OT losses. And the most telling stat to me, was comparing them to first place Chicago. GB averaged 3 more points a game than Chicago, and gave up 3 less points a game than the Bears. On paper, GB was a better team than Chicago, even tho the bears had one more win.
A win is a win and a loss is a loss....but now your arueing with me about the value of a player? So in your world, nobody is allowed to say that Indy would be much better if Manning was playing??????? No. Anybody with a brain would caveat Indy's season because of the loss of Manning. Just like it's perfectly OK to say that GB would not have been 8-6 if AROD hadn't been injured. And OT games often are dictated by the luck of the coin flip and by the luck of one play, or one bad bounce. That's the nature of the game. We are talking about HOW GOOD THE PACKERS WERE.......to you they were an 8-6 team. To me, they were a team that easily could have been 12-2 at that point, minus a couple unlucky breaks. Sometimes the overall win-loss record doesn't tell you everything.


Sure they could have won more games if they got some favorable bounces and didn't have the most players on IR in the league but injuries are part of the game mate and the team that has depth can overcome injuries but you could say that about any team..... I am sure if I picked apart a lot of the better teams games in the NFL I could find games they could have won and speculated about how injured players impacted their season.

Nobody is arguing with you that the NHL/NBA is watered down mate so you are arguing against yourself...You are the one who came into this thread complaining about Baseball adding a playoff team and I am just responding. You like to play the purist so how many playoff teams are too many for you?

And you bringing up your coaching past or writing a sports coulmn does not make me mad but you tend to throw it out there as if it makes your opinion more qualified. I played baseball my whole life until shoulder surgery at 38 years old got me into Golf and I helped coach youth base ball teams and umpired Little League so does that make me any more expert talking about MLB with other sports fans? No I don't think so............

Give yourself more credit. Coaching, umpiring and playing baseball your entire life most certainly gives you more specific knowledge about the game than somebody who hasn't. Without a doubt! Simply by the fact you have been involved in more aspects of it than somebody sitting at home watching on TV. You understand the little nuances and what goes on in the clubhouse, whereas others don't.

I've only umpired a few games and I hated it. So if I had an umpiring question.....should I ask you, or some guy who has never umpired, but has watched games on tv?

So if you were in a debate in a forum about a kidney surgery your mother had last year, would you value the opinion more of an actual DOCTOR over a guy who is a post man, but has watched ER and other medical shows for the last decade??? Having an extensive background in baseball, most certainly makes your opinion hold more water than the casual fan's opinion.

A perfect example is the Wilt Chamberlin - Bill Russell debate.
The casual fan will see that Wilt scored 100 points in a game, averaged 50 points a game one season, led the league in assists and rebounds........and then will look at Russell's stats.........and then will proclaim that Wilt is the greatest player ever. Because his stats dominate Russell's. The casual fan views this is a legitmate debate.
But if you polled every player and coach from when the two played, as well as every NBA coach since then, 95% of them would take Russell over Wilt.
Why? Because those actually involved in the game, know that Wilt was a stat hound and cared more about stats than winning. Russell would kill his own grandma to win a game. Wilt would get mad at the coach and not play......while Russell would hide a broken leg if it meant he could play.

"Oh, Wilt never fouled out of a game"............well, that's because he didn't play defense. And if he got a few fouls on him, then his defense came to an absolute halt. The average fan will look at the streak like it is a good thing, when in reality, it is a bad thing.


As for the mlb playoffs........I like them how they are now. And no more!!! I want to see the best of the best play. The regular season weeds out the "good" teams from the great teams.

You might have missed this, but I suggested a loser-out type tournament for the wild card. That might be fun. Have your division winners. And then have the remaining top 4 teams play in a single-out, double-header tournament.
So if the Dodgers are the top team next year, the wild card tournament would be held in LA.
If the season ended on Thursday.....Friday would be an off day.........The four teams would play in LA on Saturday at 11 am and 3 pm.....then the two winners would play at 8 pm. Sunday, the normal playoff rounds would start. LA would play the wild-card tournament winner.

I would go for something wacky like that to add some spice to the wildcard race.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users