Wait a sec, what’s the correct terminology? 1-game play-in or playoff?
Bal won nyy won and oak is up 3-1 going into the 7th.
Just imagine if the 1 game wildcard is between tex-nyy imagine how nutty that would be
Dempster has been absolute garbage today. Given a 5-1 lead and coughed it up in the fourth and now out of the game. I never thought at the beginning of the month that the rangers would be playing in the wild card game,but that’s definitely a good possibility. Could be against the Yankess too depending on what happens later today.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Bal won nyy won and oak is up 3-1 going into the 7th.
Just imagine if the 1 game wildcard is between tex-nyy imagine how nutty that would be[/quote]
haha just saw this. That would be a hell of a 1-game playoff, Darvish vs. Sabbathia. I would have to give the Yankees the edge.
I was against this second wild card, but now i see how much of a disadvantage it is. It makes wining the division so much more important.
This is great, Dodgers got eliminated yesterday and now the A’s look like they are actually going to pull it off.
Oakland A’s: AL west champs!
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Bal won nyy won and oak is up 3-1 going into the 7th.
Just imagine if the 1 game wildcard is between tex-nyy imagine how nutty that would be[/quote]
haha just saw this. That would be a hell of a 1-game playoff, Darvish vs. Sabbathia. I would have to give the Yankees the edge.
I was against this second wild card, but now i see how much of a disadvantage it is. It makes wining the division so much more important. [/quote]
I heard Nolan wanted darvish and wash wanted Harrison to start
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I’m pretty much ready to move off this topic, really think it will be impossible to convince you and you’ll have a tough time convincing me on Cabrera.
I’m not overly interested in this topic anyhow, no blue jay candidate this year.
Can’t wait to talk post season though. There may still be 1 game playoffs to determine wildcard if certain teams win/lose.[/quote]
No offence Raj but I’m sick of “Money Ball” statisticians like you constantly using numbers to invalidate widely held sentiment.
When did baseball stop being about having fun and the joy of seeing things you don’t usually see? Are we supposed to undermine guys who achieve great things because their numbers aren’t the best?
Miguel Cabrera IS THE MVP.
Fuck what the baseball statisticians say.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You know there are instances in the past when a Triple Crown winner did not receieve the MVP right?
Ted Williams for instance.
[/quote]
Ofcoarse. I do think Ted Williams should have won it that year, which shouldn’t suprise you. Also, The triple crown was not as rare back then as it is now, which in my mind make it a more remarkable feat today. I think this will make it incredibly difficult for a voter, especially the old school ones, not to vote for Miggy.
Looks like the Rangers will be playing the O’s barring a big comeback by the Red Sox. A relief not having to see them face the yankees for one game. The way their playing it probably doesn’t matter though.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think I’m pretty much ready to move off this topic, really think it will be impossible to convince you and you’ll have a tough time convincing me on Cabrera.
I’m not overly interested in this topic anyhow, no blue jay candidate this year.
Can’t wait to talk post season though. There may still be 1 game playoffs to determine wildcard if certain teams win/lose.[/quote]
No offence Raj but I’m sick of “Money Ball” statisticians like you constantly using numbers to invalidate widely held sentiment.
When did baseball stop being about having fun and the joy of seeing things you don’t usually see? Are we supposed to undermine guys who achieve great things because their numbers aren’t the best?
Miguel Cabrera IS THE MVP.
Fuck what the baseball statisticians say.[/quote]
All Cabrera did was get lucky this year in that his stats were good enough to lead the league in three categories. The truth is that there are a few players in both leagues almost every year who put up comparable numbers but just don’t do it in a season in which they would have led the league in the Triple Crown categories. Pujols put up comparable seasons to Cabrera several times without winning the MVP.
But what Trout has done is a much more rare accomplishment, namely the production in all aspects of the game and the regular display of all five tools in each game he played in. There just aren’t talents like him who actually put together a season the way he has very often. What Cabrera has done is much more common. The Triple Crown is not, but again, winning it is partially skill, but it’s also heavily dependent on luck. It’s an artificial accomplishment with no tangible effect on whether a team wins or not. Fuck, Ted Williams hit .400 in 1941 and didn’t even win the MVP because Dimaggio had the 56-game streak that year. So it’s pointless to say that when a player hits some artificially-contrived milestone or whatever that he automatically wins the MVP. Forget about the Triple Crown and just look at his stats compared to Trout’s. Hell, like you said, watch the fucking games and there simply isn’t any argument for Cabrera over Trout. Trout had a DYNAMIC impact on his team that Cabrera simply has not had, no matter how good his year has been. Impact on a team is not the final arbiter in the MVP, and there really isn’t any final arbiter or overriding tiebreaker, but when you add up Trout and Cabrera’s seasons, Trout was better, hands down. He’s a better ballplayer than Cabrera is, plain and simple, and the award goes to the Most Valuable PLAYER, not hitter.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You want to support Miggy? Fine, but I have yet to see a justifiable reason to do so.
[/quote]
He is on the cusp of doing something that none of us have seen in our lifetime. Weve seen exellent rookie campaigns, from McGuires 49 hrs to Pujols exellent rookie year. But the triple crown is something that happens once in a lifetime.
I think they are both deserving, however. Especially with Trout missing a month and still compiling exellent numbers like DB said. I just thought it was a good time to get you riled up being that this thread was on the second page and the playoffs are about to begin.
[/quote]
You know there are instances in the past when a Triple Crown winner did not receieve the MVP right?
Ted Williams for instance.
[/quote]
No, there are not instances where a Triple Crown winner did not win the MVP. Williams hit .406 that year, or .405 maybe, I can’t remember, but he didn’t lead the league in RBIs that year (1941) Dimaggio did and Dimaggio also hit in 56 straight games.
edit: never mind. I didn’t realize that Williams not only won it 1942 AND 1947 but that he lost out both years in the MVP race. Lou Gehrig also won the Triple Crown back in 1934 without winning the MVP. The year prior, Chuck Klein won the Triple Crown but lost out in the MVP race to Carl Hubbell, who was a pitcher and who didn’t win the pitching Triple Crown that year. There’s been 9 Triple Crown winners since the MVP award was created in 1931. The MVP was also handed out from 1922-1929 but that wasn’t voted on by the Baseball Writer’s Association, which is who still votes on the MVP award today. But even prior to the current MVP award, there was another Triple Crown winner who didn’t win the MVP. Rogers Hornsby in 1922 didn’t win the MVP, although there was none in 1922 in the NL.
The point is that it won’t be the first time that the Triple Crown winner has not won the MVP, so it’s been viewed as a bit overrated since long before the explosion in reliance on sabermetrics. Nine Triple Crown winners since 1930 and only five of them won the MVP award.
Anybody see the Balfour Rage during the A’s game? One of the funniest things I have seen. Looks like so much fun.
It’s funny you posted that, strungoutboy. I saw an interview with him on the field shortly after the game today and I’d never really heard him talk before. At least not that I can remember. Anyways, the fucking Aussie just SOUNDS like he’s the type who’s definitely going to take about 15 of those 24oz. Foster’s to his face tonight. Based on these videos it’s confirmed in my mind that this is definitely a guy I would drink with, and I don’t even drink anymore.
Getinitdone: What DB said.
Bobby Valentine has been canned.
Okay, time for postseason predictions.
play-in game: Braves over Cardinals; Rangers over Orioles
NL round one: Giants over Reds; Braves over Nationals
AL round one: A’s over Tigers; Yankees over Rangers
NLCS: Giants over Braves
ALCS: A’s over Yankees
World Series: Giants over A’s in 7
Yep, I’m predicting another Bay Bridge Series, with the Giants coming out on top this time. I’m not sure if there are two teams playing better ball going into the postseason right now and it seems like the best team is also the hottest team many times so I’m going with them.
Terry Francona could hardly contain his glee over Valentine’s firing on SportsCenter this morning. He was all over Bobby V and quite frankly, I think this is yet another attempt by ESPN to manufacture controversy. How do they put it on Bayless’ circle-jerk show? Oh yeah, embrace debate.
Maybe I’m wrong, but if there was one guy they should probably try to avoid having do a ten-minute segment about Valentine’s managing if they even give a fuck about objective reporting, it’s the guy who was fired by the Red Sox and replaced by Valentine. This was worse than that embarrassing interview with Liam Neeson the other day where they tried to make it look like he was a Jets fan because he happened to go to the game and of course they want to talk about Tebow and Neeson actually says “oh shit” on the air and then admits that he has no clue about football, doesn’t know the rules or the players and had absolutely no opinion about Tebow. What was the next question about? The Jets.
Ill go:
NLWC: Braves over Cards
ALWC: Rangers over O’s
NLDS: Reds over Giants, Nats over Braves
ALDS: Yankess over Rangers(I hope i’m wrong), Tigers over A’s
NLCS: Nats over Reds
ALCS: Tigers over Yanks
WS: Nats over Tigers
I hope the rangers win it all, but since that is not looking possible at this point i’m going to have to go Nats all the way. Sorry Strasburg you’re going to miss out on a wild ride! Atleast you’ll have good seats.
Based on how the last couple of post season’s went, I’m going to go against my instincts this year. O’s-Reds World Series!
Fuck it, it’s October, random chance month.
I’ll throw up full predictions when I get home from work.
Really disappointed in the Rangers. They are just playing too tight. They are far too talented a team to fall apart now. I thought they were going to clinch the division comfortably with about 5 games to spare not too long ago.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Really disappointed in the Rangers. They are just playing too tight. They are far too talented a team to fall apart now. I thought they were going to clinch the division comfortably with about 5 games to spare not too long ago.[/quote]
I agree, but they ain’t dead yet…