DanTown
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 31, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,446
- Liked Posts:
- 509
Yeah, great pitching always wins in the playoffs, that's why the Braves won so many WS with three HOF pitchers in the prime of their careers in their rotation.
Yeah, great pitching always wins in the playoffs, that's why the Braves won so many WS with three HOF pitchers in the prime of their careers in their rotation.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,846
- Liked Posts:
- 9,041
Thats not true in baseball. Seatlle Mariners are considered one of the best teams ever and they lost in ALCS. They won 116 games. People always talk about how great that team was that year. The 98 Yankees won the ship, so they are talked about but it was there 114 win season that makes it one of the greatest. The Indians in 1950 something are talked about as one of the greatest by historians and they lost in the playoffs. Baseball is a fickle game. Basketball is top heavy. Football is a one and done thing. Giants being such under dogs and the catch is why that '07 Patriots seem to be forgotten. USC lost to Texas but people still talk about how that is one of the best college football teams ever.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,846
- Liked Posts:
- 9,041
Yea, its def. who is hot and who gets the crucial hits. 82 win Cardinals won the ship with a pitching staff led by the remarkable Jeff Weaver.
TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
The pitching trope is overstated as Dan Town and SilenceS have pointed out. That said there are times when a great staff shuts everyone down. That 2005 White Sox staff was ridiculous but those guys were mostly just en fuego for the playoffs, not great pitchers. Giants pitching in 2014 was pretty dicey at best except for Bumgarner who singlehandedly won them the World Series.
Of course the regular season in baseball is an entirely different best than the playoffs. The long grind tends to even out streaks and highlight talent over a larger sample size. The playoffs are an exercise in who's hot and who's not as evidenced by how many WC teams have been to and often won the World Series. This could be a historic team in terms of the regular season, if they World Series they'll be historic for entirely different reasons.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Well not sure why you're being a dick about it but I basically said the same thing you did. My point was it's pointless to say x team has y amount of hall of famers so they are the best. With 16 teams in the league at 25 players a pop that meant there's 400 players in the league during that era. Today there's 750 players in the league. The chance that any one player is a HoF player is quite a bit smaller.
As I said before, if you want to compare era's run differential largely covers the differing circumstances on a team perspective and would have been a far better argument for Ommy to make. As for being intellectually lazy, I don't agree. If you're not playing the game by the same rules you're not comparing similar things. Pre-FA years are entirely different with regard to keeping a team together. Pre-latin explosion and black integration meant that a few great players could carry a team. It also meant there were a lot more shitty players in the league. Just look at the list of triple crown winners. There's been 10 in AL history 1901 Nap Lajoie, 1909 Ty Cobb, 1933 Jimmie Foxx, 1934 Lou Gehrig, 1942 Ted Williams, 1947 Ted Williams, 1956 Mickey Mantle, 1966 Frank Robinson, 1967 Carl Yastrzemski, and 2012 Miguel Cabrera. In NL history there's been 6 with 1878 Paul Hines, 1894 Hugh Duffy, 1922 Rogers Hornsby, 1925 Rogers Hornsby, 1933 Chuck Klein, and 1937 Joe Medwick. Is it any coincidence that out of the 16 triple crown winners 11 came before the integration of blacks(12 if you count 47 with Williams since only a handful were in) and another 3 came before the expansions in 1969?
Ultimately, all of these things have made the game much flatter in terms of overall talent. In the Pre-47 era you could feasibly have 6 of the top 20 hitters like that 39 team did and if you found good players they weren't going anywhere. The 2016 cubs are the best team in the league by a country mile and they only have 3 hitters in the top 20. So I fail to see the point in comparing the two. I get you're suggesting looking at the teams vs the teams they played but as I've said, the overall talent level is flatter. It's a lot harder to dominate when that's the case. In 1939, the Browns were -293 run diff. The A's were -304. Last year the worst team in the league overall(not just AL) was -183 and played 10 more games. The Yankees played each of those two teams 22 times. Against those two teams, the yankees were +196 runs. They were +411 overall meaning the other games 108 games they were +215. The most any team plays any other team now is 19 games.
If you want to debate this then by all means have at it. I just think the game is far to different to compare.
DanTown
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 31, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,446
- Liked Posts:
- 509
One of the HOF was a 36 year old Lou Gehrig who hit .143/.273/.143 in 36 PA.
HOF level production right there.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
You're oh so pleasant to have around. Clearly I just need to go around insulting people's intelligence instead.
Washington
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts:
- 3,924
- Liked Posts:
- 2,942
Depends on how well the great pitchers pitch in crunch time. For example, after the Pit play-in game last year, Arrieta was not stellar the rest of the way. I'd still take deep pitching over deep hitting.
Agreed - solidifies my point. When pitchers pitch to their potential, those teams win more often than not. The Mets pitching dominating our superior hitting last year come playoff time after I believe we swept them during the season.
Washington
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts:
- 3,924
- Liked Posts:
- 2,942
I don't consider that Mariners team with 116 wins one of the best teams in baseball. I consider them to be chokers. If you don't win it all, you have no bragging rights. It comes down to championships IMO. Close does not count. I guess it all depends on how one defines Great.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,846
- Liked Posts:
- 9,041
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,846
- Liked Posts:
- 9,041
A lot of baseball people and historians will disagree with you.
Washington
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
- Posts:
- 3,924
- Liked Posts:
- 2,942
Cool. And vice versa.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,846
- Liked Posts:
- 9,041
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,661
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
This thread blows. Homers vs naysayers.
All they did is get their feet wet last year and got off to hot start. Everyone is now drinking the kool-aid over it.
The way I look at is they have not been dominate sense the start. The two teams that matter SF AND WAS have both caught up and have played them well. Add to it both rosters are more battle tested.
So turn off the homerism. I would by no imagination believe they will walk in.
Remember every year SF has gotten into the play offs under Botchy they have won it. That team scares me in a series as they have done it. More so than any other team.
All they did is get their feet wet last year and got off to hot start. Everyone is now drinking the kool-aid over it.
The way I look at is they have not been dominate sense the start. The two teams that matter SF AND WAS have both caught up and have played them well. Add to it both rosters are more battle tested.
So turn off the homerism. I would by no imagination believe they will walk in.
Remember every year SF has gotten into the play offs under Botchy they have won it. That team scares me in a series as they have done it. More so than any other team.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,846
- Liked Posts:
- 9,041
I would really say they caught up. The Cubs are still 7 games over .500 over the next best teams. This team has a long way to go in the season, but they do have the chance to play .700 ball and that will put them up there with some of the best teams ever. No guarantee and probably unlikely, but they have the shot.
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,661
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
That is true. But you have to look at the series match ups more. IMO one of the big reasons for promoting Conteras early is because of the lack of fire power at catcher. Get him ready over the season for the play offs.
This team has holes. No need to gloss it. BP KC is better. Rotation you can argue it. Closer Rondon is a shut down type but getting to him needs to be worked on. Bench has to be one of the bests. O has been hot and cold any I hope Heyward picks it up in the 2nd half.
To. be honest. This team is a mix up that any other manager would be hard pressed to get these results out of. I would give 10 wins this year to Joe alone. How he mixes it up and manages the whole aspect of the game makes him a major factor.
But that is regular season. Play offs are another animal. I see it as moments and match up more than anything that dictates a series.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 27,619
- Liked Posts:
- 12,616
My favorite teams
Why do I think that even if we win 112 games that this place will freak out during the playoffs
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Not sure I'd go that far. They scored 136 runs in April, 139 in May and 69 in June. They gave up 57 in April, 90 in May and 38 in June. They played 22, 28 and 14 games in the respective months. They scored 6.18 r/g in april, 4.96 r/g in May and 2.7 r/g now. They've given up 2.59 r/g, 3.21 r/g and 2.72 r/g respectively. So sure they aren't scoring as well right now but they basically have been the same pitching wise. NL average right now is 4.34 runs a game. So, their pitching has been dominant but their offense has tailed off a bit. However, it's also worth considering who they have played in june. They've had 2 vs LA, 3 vs WAS, AZ, PHI, and ATL and 9 of 14 on the road. WAS and LA are good teams. Philly is a bit below average but not horrid. Atlanta is horrid. Arizona despite their record is pretty averagish at -34 run diff.
Also, the offense has had a number of injuries. Schwarber going down hurt a ton. Soler went down recently after starting to come around. La Stella has gone down. Montero has gone down. Szczur has gone down. You're going to have those during the season obviously but they do explain a lot of the cubs issues scoring lately. Thing is they did a lot early just with Fowler Bryant and Zobrist. Rizzo has been good but he can hit better than .260. Russell started well but has cool and is hitting .237. Heyward is finally starting to come around(.348/.400/.609 last 7, .262/.340/.476 last 14, .250/.318/.438 last 28 days).
supra8795
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,404
- Liked Posts:
- 743
This board was a lot better when he wasn't around.
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,661
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
Fowler was a big reason why they started off hot. His cooling off has caused the O to studder more. Why I mentioned Heyward is because he is in a OBA spot also and he would help stabilize run production by heating up. No one expected Fowler to keep that pace but Heyward has to pick the slack.
Middle: Zo has been the man. He hits for contact and it has been plus and counters Rizzo and Bryant's strike out potential. After that has been in flux. Mix and match with Russell as the main stay. Not bad but this is where Maddon impacts the line up.