quote:Originally posted by whizzbangnyc: It's interesting and reassuring to hear your point of view National.
That's great to hear. Here's something else: The Boston Red Sox has never won its division after being behind the Yankees by 5 1/2 games at *any* time during *any* season. That's not going to change this year. The only question is: Which NL team will they embarrass when the World Series gets here?
--National
After watching the Yanks come from behind tonight to beat the Jays I get the feeling like they are fighting harder to win than in previous years. It shows too. None of them quit, and they're playing really well. I just wish that Chamberlain would get his control back to normal. We'll need him to carry the middle of the rotation. If they embarrass any NL team in the World Series, I hope it's the Dodgers (my apologies to Salvy_Mic), so that they can stick it to Torre for his managerial decisions the past few years with the Yanks and for that stinkin' book he wrote. Make that 2 NL teams. They won't be in the postseason but it'll be fun to watch the Mets sulk for putting everyone in NY through the past 2-3 seasons.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where the hell did all this Yankees nuthugging from National come from? I swear to God, it's like it came out of nowhere.
Oh, and the Dodgers just put a 9-1 ass-whooping on the Giants in Whack Bell Park. I think the worst of this Dodgers slump is past, and thankfully, the slump that every team goes through during the season came now rather than later. Everything should even out, and even with as badly as the Dodgers had been playing, and as well as the Yankees were playing, it ain't like they've pulled that far ahead of the pack. I mean, hell, we've got 69 wins.
Whatever though, if it goes to Dodgers/Yankees in the WS, I like our chances very much. When our pitching is on form, it's damn near unhittable, and unlike the Yankees, we're able to generate a ton of offense without relying on the home run. This Dodger team reminds a quite a bit of the '96 Yankees, actually. A core of young, talented guys (Kemp, Ethier, Loney, Martin, Billingsley, Kershaw, Broxton) complimented by a contingent of very good veterans (Ramirez, Blake, Furcal, Hudson, Pierre).
War Dodgers!!! Blue Crew in your mo'fuckin' ass!!!!!
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by National: Lookie here, The Yankees are first to 70 wins!
Well, duh! Certainly you didn't expect another team to reach that plateau before the Yanks, did you? Of course not.
The reason I said the above was because when the Dodgers were the first to reach 60 wins, you were quick to rub that fact on the face of anyone who opposes the Dodgers. You said:
quote:Originally posted by Salvy_Mic: What's this, there's only one team in baseball so far with 60 wins? And they have the best run differential in the majors? You mean, it's the Dodgers?
Of course it is. Go Blue.
No one said a word about that. But you cry foul when I say that the Yanks are the first to reach 70 wins? And it wasn't like the Dodgers pulled out of the pack either because when they reached 60 wins, the Yankees had the second-best record with 56 wins. Why was it fair for you to boast about the Dodgers, but not fair for me to say that about the Yanks? Can a guy be enthusiastic about a team he thinks will win the World Championship? If the Dodgers are the first to 80 or 90 wins, then you have all the rights to get back at me.
Don't worry, the Dodgers will be just fine. And should NY and LA meet in the World Series, it won't matter if NY wins by relying on three-run shots or if the Dodgers intentionally lose the series. What will matter is that NY wins it. The Yanks average 5.56 runs per game as of today, while we allow 4.72 a game. The Dodgers average 4.93, virtually identical to that 4.72 NY allows, meaning we can take a few hits. It also means that the 4.93 is *more* than enough to hold off whatever bats LA has in their lineup. You've got offense? We do, too.
But of course, all of that can be meaningless when the playoffs get here because the weirdest turn of events can happen. For example, Philadelphia can meet Anaheim.
----
War Dodgers? Good. That's music to my ears. I'm glad you feel that way because NY declares war, too! The Yankees are like Africa -- people talk about it, but they don't really want to go there. In due time, the Dodgers will regret having went.
Now that we revealed our cards, it's ON!
It's now time for war.
--National
[ August 13, 2009, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: National ]
posted
Forget LA and NY, I think you should pay attention to Pujols and the Cardinals who I believe took 3 of 4 fro LA two weeks ago and are 4.5 up on the Cubbies.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it wasn't fair for a Yankee fan to boast, but I didn't figure you for one at all until all this came out just now. I've never seen you mention at all, which is why my bandwagon sensors went up. If you're a real Yankee fan, my apologies. I just doubted it. Especially when you made a post in some other thread about how you call yourself National because you're such an NL afficionado. So you being a Yankee fan didn't register until all this came out the last week or so.
Seriously, at least I've been consistent. Where were you when the Yankees weren't doing much this season?
Dodger fan for life since I was 7. And you?
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
But of course, all of that can be meaningless when the playoffs get here because the weirdest turn of events can happen. For example, Philadelphia can meet Anaheim.
--National
For reasons stated previously, DON'T mention the possibility of Anaheim in the postseason! I've been trying curse their entire team with arthritis and would be perfectly satisfied to see them miss the postseason entirely. Go Yanks!
Posts: 44 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I call myself National because the NL is what started professional baseball and how I prefer their style of play and all that good stuff. If I were to change my name on this forum it will NOT have the word American in it so that I don't make reference to the league.
Here's the thing: Normally, I would pick an NL club to win the World Series. Since I feel very strongly that the Yanks will win everything, I'm rooting for them, especially since I was born and raised in NYC. I never hated the Yanks. That's the ONLY American League club I pay extensive attention to and root for. I will root for them to win a world championship UNLESS the team they are facing is the Atlanta Braves. The Braves are my favorite team. There has never been (and will never be) a time where I have rooted for the Yanks over the Braves. If I picked the Braves to make the World Series, I'll pick them to win, regardless of the AL team they're up against. If I pick any NL team OTHER than the Braves to go to the World Series, I will pick that team UNLESS the opposing team is the Yankees.
What about the Mets? Fuck them. I ALWAYS go for the Yanks over the Mets. The only time you'll find me rooting for the Mets is when someone has a gun to my head or a knife to my throat. Other than those, there will never be a circumstance in which I will pick the Mets. There is a member on this forum who I know personally who can testify that what I said about the Mets is accurate because he's a Met fan and even during the last few years where they felt that they were on top of the world, I always remind him of how much I despise them. Even if I were not a Brave fan I'll still hate the Mets. Like I, he, too, is a National Leaguer. However, his second-favorite team is Oakland. If the A's ever find themselves in the World Series, he will root for them UNLESS the team in the other dugout is the Mets.
The question asked was which teams do you think will make the World Series? For very selfish reasons, I would've picked the Braves, but the question did not ask what your favorite team was. I picked the Yanks because I honestly feel they will take it (and being a New Yorker myself certainly played a role in that choice), but for the National League I picked the Cubs. I picked the Cubs not because they are my new favorite team or because I've decided to stop rooting for the Braves. At the time the question was asked, I really felt the Cubs would make it that far this year and that the Braves will finish third in the East. If the Cubs make the playoffs, I will still stick with that choice. Now I'm not sure if the Cubs will make it to the playoffs, as Atlanta is playing better than I thought they would all year. If I picked the Dodgers (or any other NL club that's not the Mets, for that matter) to appear in the Series, I will pick that team regardless of how weak they are compared to the AL club. Again, the exceptions are that if the Yanks are the other team, I'll pick New York OR if the NL team is the Braves, I'll pick them even if they face the Yankees.
The question that started this topic did not ask the people to make their picks based on wishful thinking, but more on who you honestly believe will make it that far (explaining why I didn't pick the Braves before the season started).
Since I'm from NY and since I'm so sure that the Yanks are going win (and since I'm so sure that the Braves won't, as much as it pains me to say that part) I guess it's only natural that I defend them. If I was so sure about another AL team winning the world championship, I'll acknowledge that they'll win BUT they won't have my support.
----
Salvy, sine this thread started, I've always dropped little hints as to give you reasonable doubt why the Dodgers are not who they say they are and why the Yanks can actually pull this off. In return, you've always given me reasonable doubt why the Yanks are not who they say *they* are -- going on that alone, I thought you knew that something was up from the beginning. The thing was I just never came out and became bold or cocky about the Yanks. It wasn't until recently in where my comments were more "out there." But before that the little hints were there.
If I wasn't from NY, I wouldn't have boasted like this about the Yanks. Here's the funny part: I don't like Jeter. Many Yankee fans don't like A-Rod, I don't like Jeter. Professionally, he's great. Personally, I don't want to hang out with him.
----
Here's another time in where I won't root for the Yankees: The All-Star Game. I ALWAYS -- *ALWAYS* -- go for the National League even if I feel they're not going to win. When the game was at the Stadium last year, I rooted NL. Do I root for the Mets in the All-Star Game? Since it's not the entire Met team that's playing, I'll root for the individual. But I NEVER want a Met to do well enough where he wins MVP honors.
----
If I was given the opportunity to watch as many MLB games on TV at once, I'll pick a lot of NL games (except the Mets, unless they're playing the Braves), but the Yankees will be the ONLY American League game I'll choose as part of the package.
----
If you're keeping score, the Yanks are the only AL team that's worth my time. The other 13 AL clubs I could care less about. In the NL, seeing the Braves in the World Series would be nice. Seeing the Mets there would not be nice. So that leaves me with 15 NL clubs I wouldn't mind seeing there because I will watch the World Series regardless of teams that are in it. 15 (of 16) NL clubs that I don't mind making the WS to 13 (of 14) AL clubs that I *DO* mind seeing there = overall National Leaguer.
----
I started watching baseball later than a lot of people. I started watching it sometime after the '96 All-Star game (I'm 28 now).
--National
[ August 14, 2009, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: National ]
But of course, all of that can be meaningless when the playoffs get here because the weirdest turn of events can happen. For example, Philadelphia can meet Anaheim.
--National
For reasons stated previously, DON'T mention the possibility of Anaheim in the postseason! I've been trying curse their entire team with arthritis and would be perfectly satisfied to see them miss the postseason entirely. Go Yanks!
Don't worry, my friend. I have it on good authority that Anaheim won't get past NY in the playoffs.
posted
See, if I make a pick about who I think is gonna win a title, unless that team is a team I love (the Dodgers), I don't go out of my way to make it sound like I'm their biggest fan or anything. That's what bothered me. I'll keep upping the Dodgers regardless if they'll go far or not. Fuck the stats. The stats dictated the Yankees would go far in the playoffs in '02, '05, '06, and '07. Clearly, they didn't.
I honestly believe the Dodgers can win this bitch. Seriously, that's not just blind fan devotion, but we've got what it takes. So if we do get eliminated, the first post I make on this thread is a giant Dodger-hugging post, regardless. That's my team.
I just hate seeing these type of hugging posts from a guy who doesn't even support that team as his main team, let alone one who's only trying to stay on course with his pick at the beginning of the season.
And you know what? The unbiased pick from me, all allegiances aside, that I had made at the beginning of the season, though not in this thread, was that I thought the Yankees should win it all. They're coming on strong now. My Dodgers are struggling. I don't care. At this point, I think the Dodgers are gonna win. Fuck an unbiased pick. I'm going with heart here.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since Atlanta is my favorite team, the only other team I enjoy watching is the Yankees, especially so since I live in New York City.
You mentioned how the stats weren't correct on the Yankees chances in the years you highlighted. What about all of the other years in which they won the World Series? Clearly, they did.
But overall, I understand what you're trying to say about how stats can oftentimes backfire to conventional wisdom when it comes to postseason play, explaining why these things are called predictions in the first place. To show that I understand how stats can be wrong, I'll provide the link to a thread I posted about how teams can be successful in the playoffs (It's going to take more than five minutes to read the whole thing):
Things can go haywire and, as a result, what seemed like a strong team going into the postseason can fade pretty quickly.
----
You are really positive the Dodgers are going to take it all this year. I'm really certain that the Park Avenue and the Wall Street of professional baseball (The Yankees) will win the World Series this year. Well, somebody is going to get disappointed.
...And it ain't gonna be NY.
-- National
P.S. Like I said, Salvy: Don't worry about the Dodgers' struggles. They'll be just fine. It's in the postseason where things get nerve-wrecking.
posted
I didn't need stats to tell me the Yankees would win those three in a row back in the late '90s. Nobody had better pitching than they did, and nobody had more clutch pitchers at the time either. Stats don't mean much of a damn thing, honestly. Stats would have had the Mets winning the whole thing, and after that, Detroit beating St. Louis in '06. And it sure as hell wasn't stats that had Boston beat Colorado the next year. That was talent and experience. Not only that, it's who catches on fire at the right time. Which team is gonna play their best ball in October? With the exception of Jeter, Rivera, and an aging Pettite, the Yankees haven't shown to be much of an October team as of late. And even then, that sort of fire down the stretch can get extinguished by the team that's more experienced and more talented, and most importantly to me, is pitching better.
Anyway, fuck a Park Avenue and Wall Street. Figueroa and Sunset are riding this bitch all the way.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salvy_Mic: I didn't need stats to tell me the Yankees would win those three in a row back in the late '90s. Nobody had better pitching than they did, and nobody had more clutch pitchers at the time either.
Nobody had better pitching than they did and nobody had more clutch pitchers at the time either? And how were you able to know that? The stats must've did it. You can't say all of that unless the stats back you up.
At times stats can play a role and, as you said, the stats cannot be carried over into the playoffs following the regular season, showing that it can be meaningless. I acknowledge all of that because at the start of the playoffs, every team is 0-0. In the playoffs you no longer pick on the little teams. Every team is bunched together in ability and every team is competitive. In the playoffs, it's time to see if we can pick on someone our own size. That means anything can happen. In fact if you read the link I provided in my last post, here's a snippet of what I said that served me as a reminder of what you said about talent and experience getting a team all the way to the championship:
"The final section is reserved for testing some commonly held precepts about the playoffs. Finishing the year hot does NOT matter (unless you're the 2007 Colorado Rockies). In fact, there is a slight inverse relationship between W-L record from September 1 onward and the playoff success. This may be because the best teams can afford to rest their starters late in the season, while merely good teams will be scratching and clawing for every victory and many come into the postseason tired. Playing well in 1-run games, meanwhile, has NO particular effect on how a team faces in the postseason.
I also looked at two measures of experience: chronological age and the average number of postseason at-bats or innings pitched for the players on the roster. Although age made no difference, there was a slight relationship between playoff experience and PSP (Playoff Success Points). A good deal of that relationship was the result of the Yankees dynasty not too long ago, a team that was both very experienced (especially in its last couple of years) and very successful. Although I don't think the "experience counts" hypothesis can be dismissed out of hand, the relationship is not statistically significant, especially if it's considered that those who have accumulated a lot of postseason experience *tend* to be better players."
Catching on fire at the right time, talent and experience? Maybe.
However, the entire article shows support of some of the other things you said, so I get it. Here are a couple of more things I said that can serve as a no-brainer:
-- Since 1972, there have been twenty-seven teams that made the postseason in spite of having below-average offenses. Of these, seven won the World Series: the 1985 Royals, 1987 Twins, 1990 Reds, 1995 Braves, 1996 Yankees, 2000 Yankees, and 2005 White Sox. All of these teams (except for the 1987 Twins) had excellent pitching staffs; it's hard to make the playoffs with a below-average offense *unless* you have an excellent pitching staff.
-- Conversely, twenty team made the postseason with below-average defense. *None* of them won the World Series, and only two (the 1982 Brewers and 1993 Phillies) even played for the championship. Sixteen of those twenty lost the first playoff series in which they played.
Like you said, pitching better is a real hot commodity when it comes to the playoffs.
----
quote:Originally posted by Salvy_Mic: With the exception of Jeter, Rivera, and an aging Pettite, the Yankees haven't shown to be much of an October team as of late.
If you're talking about how the Yankees did in the last several of Octobers, then you're right. But then again, neither have the Dodgers.
If you're talking about how the Yankees are doing during this season, then I don't see the connection. NY is the best in the AL while LA is the best in the NL. Both are showing to be much of October teams as of late.
----
quote:Originally posted by Salvy_Mic: Anyway, fuck a Park Avenue and Wall Street. Figueroa and Sunset are riding this bitch all the way.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
