The High Heat Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Please. Anything but this! Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I can't imagine Massachusetts electing someone as conservative as Curt Schilling to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share Posted September 3, 2009 Joe Nathan blew a save today. Damn.And he was booed! Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 And he was booed!That's not right. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'm a sucker for Pedro Martinez, and as such I loved reading this:Pedro Martinez tossed seven impressive innings to outpitch Tim Lincecum as the Phillies beat the San Francisco Giants, 2-1, last night in Philadelphia.Martinez (3-0) struck out a season-high nine in his fifth start since signing with the Phillies during the All-Star break, allowing one run and five hits. He didn't walk a batter and threw just 87 pitches in his longest outing since August 21 last year with the New York Mets. Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I'm a sucker for Pedro Martinez, and as such I loved reading this: I watched that game. pedro looked very good. but so did brad penny. i am convinced that the national league is a joke this year, which makes the cubs' struggles that much more painful. Link to post Share on other sites
blrssp Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I watched that game. pedro looked very good. but so did brad penny. i am convinced that the national league is a joke this year, which makes the cubs' struggles that much more painful. This year? The National League has been a lot weaker than the A.L. for a number of years now. Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 This year? The National League has been a lot weaker than the A.L. for a number of years now. i am focused on this year. the phillies did win the world series last year. Link to post Share on other sites
blrssp Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 i am focused on this year. the phillies did win the world series last year. It's not about who wins world series -- any team can win a 7 game series over any other team -- but the AL has cleaned the NL's clock in interleague for several years now. The great success that broken-down A.L. pitchers have when they switch leagues is also ample evidence of the pretty wide gap in talent that exists right now between the two leagues. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 It's not about who wins world seriesactually, it is. Link to post Share on other sites
blrssp Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 actually, it is. I guess nobody ever explained the difference between a large and small sample size to you. You think that the fate of two teams from each league in a 7 game series is indicative of which league is better? That's pretty staggeringly ignorant. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I think what the gentleman from Pulp Fiction is trying to get across is: how important are interleague play records when it comes to winning the World Series (assuming that winning the World Series is the point of a team's existence)? Link to post Share on other sites
blrssp Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I think what the gentleman from Pulp Fiction is trying to get across is: how important are interleague play records when it comes to winning the World Series (assuming that winning the World Series is the point of a team's existence)? The issue is which league is better, not the predictive value of the world series winner upon determining which league is better. Any team can win a 7 game series against any other team. Who wins the WS is basically a coin flip and is largely determined by luck. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 The issue is which league is better, not the predictive value of the world series winner upon determining which league is better. Any team can win a 7 game series against any other team. Who wins the WS is basically a coin flip and is largely determined by luck. I was with you until that last sentence. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I guess nobody ever explained the difference between a large and small sample size to you. You think that the fate of two teams from each league in a 7 game series is indicative of which league is better? That's pretty staggeringly ignorant.what happened? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I was with you until that last sentence. He's pretty much right. The best team doesn't win the World Series every time. Case in point, the Marlins were not a better team than the Yankees in 2003; they gave away way too many outs with small ball and their outfield defense was pretty crappy. But they won because they got hot and were probably more well suited to winning a short series than the Yankees, and at least part of it has to do with one of their great flaws (giving away outs). Small ball is bad baseball in the long term (giving away outs limits your ability to score runs in bunches), but in a short, close series, you are increasing your chances of scoring 1 run, which is more important in that situation. I don't think it's necessarily a coin flip, but the better team doesn't generally win every time, which is as it should be. Some teams are better, but just aren't suited to winning in the post season or just flat out run into a hot team or just don't have a couple of bounces go their way. People have no problem accepting that in the regular season, in a 3 game series, the worst team in baseball is fully capable of beating the best team. But when you imply that when the elite teams meet up luck and chance are more important than who is better, people refuse to allow that possibility. Either way, I don't know who this fellow is, but I like him. Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 HOF broadcaster Ernie Harwell has inoperable cancer. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 He said it doesn't matter who wins the World Series, and I say it does. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 All I'm saying is no matter how "weak" the NL is, they have a team in the World Series every year. That's pretty impressive!! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 All I'm saying is no matter how "weak" the NL is, they have a team in the World Series every year. That's pretty impressive!!Totally! Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 He said it doesn't matter who wins the World Series, and I say it does. He said when determining the relative strength of the league's as a whole, the winner of the world series doesn't really matter. If Pedro and Brad Penny and John Smoltz had to face the Phillies every game they wouldn't like pitching in the NL. The Phillies are probably as good an offense as any in baseball. They aren't representative of the league as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 You're saying a foot massage doesn't mean nothing, and I'm saying it does. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 He's pretty much right. The best team doesn't win the World Series every time. Case in point, the Marlins were not a better team than the Yankees in 2003; they gave away way too many outs with small ball and their outfield defense was pretty crappy. But they won because they got hot and were probably more well suited to winning a short series than the Yankees, and at least part of it has to do with one of their great flaws (giving away outs). Small ball is bad baseball in the long term (giving away outs limits your ability to score runs in bunches), but in a short, close series, you are increasing your chances of scoring 1 run, which is more important in that situation. I don't think it's necessarily a coin flip, but the better team doesn't generally win every time, which is as it should be. Some teams are better, but just aren't suited to winning in the post season or just flat out run into a hot team or just don't have a couple of bounces go their way. People have no problem accepting that in the regular season, in a 3 game series, the worst team in baseball is fully capable of beating the best team. But when you imply that when the elite teams meet up luck and chance are more important than who is better, people refuse to allow that possibility. Either way, I don't know who this fellow is, but I like him. Your explanation of the 2003 Marlins proves my point. It's not a coin flip and luck does not play the largest role. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 What happens in The Natural - does he swing at a ball four intentional walk pitch? Or is that another movie? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Your explanation of the 2003 Marlins proves my point. It's not a coin flip and luck does not play the largest role. I think his point is that the best team doesn't win the world series all of the time. It's essentially a coin flip on a windy day. Outside factors can change the outcome, but chance is probably more important than anything else. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts