Master Index of Archived Threads


Yanx/Sawx

Frayed Knot Aug 07 2011 10:13 PM

Sox just tied it up in bottom 9 against Mariano: 2B (Scutaro) - Sac Bunt - Sac Fly But here's the problem: It's a 2-2 game just entering the 10th ... and it's taken them [u:2h316xrg]A Full Four Hours[/u:2h316xrg] to get to this point. If they want to contract a couple of team I'd start with these two.

Gwreck Aug 07 2011 11:13 PM Re: Yanx/Sawx

The not-quite-as-bad-guys prevail, 3-2 in the bottom of the 10th and retain first place. Season ends today, they will get Detroit rather than Texas/Los Angeles in the first round.

Edgy DC Aug 08 2011 05:20 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Which gets to the crux of the problem with Wild Card spots. What should be an epic battle for first for the ages becomes a curiosity about who matches up with whom in the first round.

Ceetar Aug 08 2011 05:46 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Edgy DC wrote: Which gets to the crux of the problem with Wild Card spots. What should be an epic battle for first for the ages becomes a curiosity about who matches up with whom in the first round. I'd rather blame that on the crappy AL than on the Wild Card structure.

MFS62 Aug 08 2011 06:55 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Couldn't pin the loss on Mariano, but that's ok. They still lost. And a few kudos for ex-Met Marco Scuttaro, who went 4-4. Later

Frayed Knot Aug 08 2011 07:22 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

4 hours 15 minutes was the final running time for a 10-inning game featuring the not exactly stunning total of 5 runs, 19 hits, and 9 walks. I only caught a few innings here and there but it definitely wasn't a game that only slowed up at the end, they were moving at a snails pace from the very beginning. It was like some pre-game arrangement was made where everyone conspired to move in slow motion. And Posada wasn't even catching so you can't blame it on him and his standard 6 trips/inning to the mound. The Sox comeback last night salvaged the weekend for them after they failed to take advantage of facing both Bartolo Colon and Freddie Garcia and then basically did shit against most of the Yanqui pen. Turns out the only guys they really hit all weekend were Sabathia & Rivera (plus one inning of some guy whose name is apparently Hector Noesi)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 08 2011 07:22 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Papers today all about Girardi officially benching Dumbo, a crime against the (capitalized in the Snooze) Core Four.

Ceetar Aug 08 2011 07:27 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Papers today all about Girardi officially benching Dumbo, a crime against the (capitalized in the Snooze) Core Four. I always assumed "Core Four" was a steroid, and a proper noun, and that's why it was capitalized.

Edgy DC Aug 08 2011 07:29 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Which gets to the crux of the problem with Wild Card spots. What should be an epic battle for first for the ages becomes a curiosity about who matches up with whom in the first round. I'd rather blame that on the crappy AL than on the Wild Card structure. It pretty much happens every year.

Ceetar Aug 08 2011 07:35 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Edgy DC wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Which gets to the crux of the problem with Wild Card spots. What should be an epic battle for first for the ages becomes a curiosity about who matches up with whom in the first round. I'd rather blame that on the crappy AL than on the Wild Card structure. It pretty much happens every year. Sure, somewhat, but it's hard to argue either team doesn't deserve the playoffs either. But it also seems to me the AL often lacks any real depth of quality teams to make it interesting in a wild card race.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 08 2011 07:54 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Which gets to the crux of the problem with Wild Card spots. What should be an epic battle for first for the ages becomes a curiosity about who matches up with whom in the first round. I'd rather blame that on the crappy AL than on the Wild Card structure. It pretty much happens every year. Sure, somewhat, but it's hard to argue either team doesn't deserve the playoffs either. But it also seems to me the AL often lacks any real depth of quality teams to make it interesting in a wild card race. The point, I think, is that both teams might reasonably win 100 games, and if they were pitted against each other in a zero sum game only-one team-gets-in setup, their battle for first place might be, as Edgy wrote, "an epic battle for first for the ages". There are too many fans, and I'm one of them, that abhor the Wild Card races and unless their favorite team is involved, view the whole spectacle as one more Selig gimmick that enables the owners to enrich themselves even more but by sacrificing the game's quality.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 08 2011 07:57 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Ceetar wrote: But it also seems to me the AL often lacks any real depth of quality teams to make it interesting in a wild card race. This was my point: that the Wild Card races are generally, uninteresting. What do you mean by "lack of real depth"? Do you expect that the AL should have five teams instead of two that are on pace to win about 100 games?

Ceetar Aug 08 2011 08:00 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Which gets to the crux of the problem with Wild Card spots. What should be an epic battle for first for the ages becomes a curiosity about who matches up with whom in the first round. I'd rather blame that on the crappy AL than on the Wild Card structure. It pretty much happens every year. Sure, somewhat, but it's hard to argue either team doesn't deserve the playoffs either. But it also seems to me the AL often lacks any real depth of quality teams to make it interesting in a wild card race. The point, I think, is that both teams might reasonably win 100 games, and if they were pitted against each other in a zero sum game only-one team-gets-in setup, their battle for first place might be, as Edgy wrote, "an epic battle for first for the ages". There are too many fans, and I'm one of them, that abhor the Wild Card races and unless their favorite team is involved, view the whole spectacle as one more Selig gimmick that enables the owners to enrich themselves even more but by sacrificing the game's quality. I don't really think it sacrifices any quality and often the last weeks, if not month, of the season would be virtually worthless for almsot every team if they switched back to a two division format. in terms of depth, I've always felt like the AL team beyond the top tier are just not very good. There often isn't any wild card race (as there isn't this year) because the league lacks a 5th 'good' team.

Frayed Knot Aug 08 2011 08:07 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

The AL has seemed to have their teams more spread out as compared to the NL over the last 20 years or so. Frequently they'd have one or two teams way up there in the Wins column (lately the Yanx & Sawx but others before that) at the same time as they had more bottom feeders. The NL, on the other hand, usually had their teams more accordian-ed together; fewer 95+ win teams but also fewer 95+ loss clubs as well*. The complaint from some about the proposed double-WC system is that it would pit the better WC team (currently the Yanx) up against some club which could be 10 or more games behind them in a real short (maybe one game) series. In my mind though that's not a drawback but rather a great incentive to win the division in the first place and it would put tons of added importance to a series like the one this weekend. * Just as an example, no NL team in the last quarter century has come close to the .667 record of the '86 Mets (Atlanta '93 with 104 wins is next I think). But in less than a 10-year span, three separate AL clubs crushed that that mark: '95 Indians, 98 Yanx, '01 Mariners

Ceetar Aug 08 2011 08:13 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Frayed Knot wrote: The AL has seemed to have their teams more spread out as compared to the NL over the last 20 years or so. Frequently they'd have one or two teams way up there in the Wins column (lately the Yanx & Sawx but others before that) at the same time as they had more bottom feeders. The NL, on the other hand, usually had their teams more accordian-ed together; fewer 95+ win teams but also fewer 95+ loss clubs as well*. The complaint from some about the proposed double-WC system is that it would pit the better WC team (currently the Yanx) up against some club which could be 10 or more games behind them in a real short (maybe one game) series. In my mind though that's not a drawback but rather a great incentive to win the division in the first place and it would put tons of added importance to a series like the one this weekend. * Just as an example, no NL team in the last quarter century has come close to the .667 record of the '86 Mets (Atlanta '93 with 104 wins is next I think). But in less than a 10-year span, three separate AL clubs crushed that that mark: '95 Indians, 98 Yanx, '01 Mariners Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I imagine having two less teams factors in somehow, as does the innate interleague advantage.

Frayed Knot Aug 08 2011 08:38 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Except that the AL results were like that even before this recent six year stretch where the AL was winning the majority of IL contests. I'm not sure if the smaller number of teams enters into it or not, but there's definitely been a long trend of the AL final standings being a lot more spread out than the NL.

Willets Point Aug 08 2011 10:13 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Satire of the typical reactionary Yankees fan? Or the real thing?

Edgy DC Aug 08 2011 10:49 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Ceetar wrote: Sure, somewhat, but it's hard to argue either team doesn't deserve the playoffs either. Well, I'd dispute that any particularly good team deserves anything. Good teams go home every year. Excellent ones, too. And one is left standing. It's the way of things. Multiple tiers of playoffs just slows down the process and gives teams second lives that aren't logically necessary and may be logically unjust. If team A isn't shown to be better than team B by their achievements over 162 games (including 18 head-to-head), then another five or seven shouldn't get us a better answer.

Frayed Knot Aug 08 2011 11:02 AM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Willets Point wrote: Satire of the typical reactionary Yankees fan? Or the real thing? Is there a difference?

Willets Point Aug 08 2011 02:12 PM Re: Yanx/Sawx

Frayed Knot wrote: Willets Point wrote: Satire of the typical reactionary Yankees fan? Or the real thing? Is there a difference? Hard to tell.