2013 MLB postseason running thread

[Steak Snabler]

Matt Latos' wife - a solid 6 - claims she was assaulted by Pirates fans Tuesday night.

I doubt some - not all, but some - of her claims.

http://thebiglead.com/2013/10/02/dallas-latos-tweets-pirates-fans-attacked-her-at-pnc-park-tuesday-night/

Strange. Usually it's fans of the winning team that get beat up.

 

[Songbird]

Well, at least he's honest.

And you can still like narratives and not force inaccurate narratives when the numbers don't match up with what your eyes want to believe.

Am curious about examples of this.

 

[YankeeFan]

I haven't been a fan of that franchise in over 20 years for reasons I have stated many times on this site.

This is something you think you've repeated many times?

I have no idea why, and I'm almost curious.

 

[deskslave]

Your initial point was that nobody had any room to question what baseball did

Um, what?

I think the champagne is going to your head.

Please do a better job keeping up before you comment next time. Somebody said that teams shouldn't work all season to make the playoffs then have it come down to one playoff game. Rick argued against that by basically saying those teams should win a division or STFU.

What champagne are you talking about? The Pirates? It's nice that my hometown, and many of my friends and family have something to celebrate? I haven't been a fan of that franchise in over 20 years for reasons I have stated many times on this site. I tried to drum up some excitement about this season, but I'm just not the bandwagon jumping type.

I saw Rick saying he liked the wild-card format and that there's a way around it for teams that feel like they're getting screwed. I did not see Rick attempting to ban all dissent about the wild-card format.

You are a feisty one late at night. Were you the one who was just in front of me in line at the grocery store buying nothing but a case of Red Bull?

I disagree with your interpretation of Rick's post. I read it as far more argumentative than you did.

And no, I don't drink Red Bull.

Shocking.

 

[RickStain]

Simple enough for you now or would bar graphs and pie charts help?

I'm still not sure on *why* you think "things used to be different" is some sort of argument against "the way it is now is good."

 

[Michael_ Gee]

The one-game playoff is not a good idea. But it's a better idea than the three-division and wild card idea was.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Quite possibly the first time a .180 hitting outfielder has ever been on the cover of SI.

 

[TigerVols]

Quite possibly the first time a .180 hitting outfielder has ever been on the cover of SI.

Oh, ****, don't tell IJAG but that cover makes me love that sexy, thin, gorgeous Kate Upton in ways that will lead to many dead kittens.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Speaking of .180 ... Dan Uggla, also not hitting Kate's weight, might not make the postseason roster.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/9757813/2013-mlb-playoffs-dan-uggla-left-atlanta-braves-nlds-roster

 

[outofplace]

Simple enough for you now or would bar graphs and pie charts help?

I'm still not sure on *why* you think "things used to be different" is some sort of argument against "the way it is now is good."

Despite some childish, golly-gee posts directed at me, your first response on the subject had a certain amount of snark to it, as if anybody who doesn't think the one-game format is fair to the wild card teams. The fact that those teams are not getting the same reward for earning a wild card that past teams had is one valid argument against your point of view. It is not the only one I presented, but of course you left the better one out. The more important reason is that often wild card teams are better than one or more of the division winners. They might have a better record while playing a tougher schedule.

Your point is based on the idea that division winners are more deserving of their place in the post-season than wild cards and that just isn't always true.

 

[outofplace]

I haven't been a fan of that franchise in over 20 years for reasons I have stated many times on this site.

This is something you think you've repeated many times?

I have no idea why, and I'm almost curious.

You brought it up, so you are curious. If you're going to take a dig at me, at least try to be honest next time. And yes, I have explained my reasons many times.

And yes, I do repeat points as I deem necessary on this site. Unfortunately, with some of you, it becomes necessary far more often than I would like.

 

[RickStain]

Despite some childish, golly-gee posts directed at me, your first response on the subject had a certain amount of snark to it, as if anybody who doesn't think the one-game format is fair to the wild card teams.

Sure. I'm not complaining about being snarked back. I'm just genuinely befuddled why you think that is an interesting or relevant argument.

The fact that those teams are not getting the same reward for earning a wild card that past teams had is one valid argument against your point of view. It is not the only one I presented, but of course you left the better one out. The more important reason is that often wild card teams are better than one or more of the division winners. They might have a better record while playing a tougher schedule.

That is certainly a better argument.

Your point is based on the idea that division winners are more deserving of their place in the post-season than wild cards and that just isn't always true.

The only perfectly fair setup would be a 30-team round robin with equal numbers of home and away games against every other team, with the best record winning.

Once you've bastardized that with divisions and a playoff, you have to accept a certain amount of unfairness in the name of entertainment. One-game playoffs expand the entertainment and mitigate the unfairness by giving teams a reasonable opportunity to bypass them. It's the smartest thing baseball has done since instituting the DH.

 

[outofplace]

So a team earns a certain reward for an accomplishment for years, then that reward is diminished and that is not relevant at all? Yeah, that's a comprehension issue on your part.

One-game playoffs are certainly entertaining, but to my thinking, competitive fairness should come first. Then again, it's baseball, so we know that often is not the priority.

First you argued the one-game playoff was better because it is more fair to division winners. Now you are admitting it is unfair, but it is more entertaining. Please try to be more consistent.

Smartest thing since the DH is an interesting comparison given that the DH was an excellent addition to the game, but MLB botched the execution by having different stets of rules for each league. Given that error, saying it is the smartest thing since the institution of the DH is faint praise at best.

 

[RickStain]

So a team earns a certain reward for an accomplishment for years, then that reward is diminished and that is not relevant at all? Yeah, that's a comprehension issue on your part.

Yes. What you got in 1903, 1933, 1953, 1993, or 2003 has nothing to do with what you get in 2013 for the same result.

One-game playoffs are certainly entertaining, but to my thinking, competitive fairness should come first. Then again, it's baseball, so we know that often is not the priority.

If competitive fairness comes first, round-robin.

First you argued the one-game playoff was better because it is more fair to division winners. Now you are admitting it is unfair, but it is more entertaining. Please try to be more consistent.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. It's more fair than putting second-place teams and division winners on equal footing, less fair than having no divisions at all.

Smartest thing since the DH is an interesting comparison given that the DH was an excellent addition to the game, but MLB botched the execution by having different stets of rules for each league. Given that error, saying it is the smartest thing since the institution of the DH is faint praise at best.

I was just trying to pick more fights. I assumed that'd get some howls from somebody.

 

[Songbird]

Gotta pick and choose your howls.

But I'll leave it at this: You pitch, you hit.

 

[Steak Snabler]

35 years ago today:

 

[Michael_ Gee]

I was there. Pretty good game.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Dan Uggla officially not on the Braves' NLDS roster. Neither are Paul Maholm or Scott Downs.

Royals castoff Elliot Johnson will be the Braves' 2B vs the Dodgers. David Hale, who has pitched in two major-league games (albeit very well), is also on the roster.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Matt Latos' wife - a solid 6 - claims she was assaulted by Pirates fans Tuesday night.

I doubt some - not all, but some - of her claims.

http://thebiglead.com/2013/10/02/dallas-latos-tweets-pirates-fans-attacked-her-at-pnc-park-tuesday-night/

Strange. Usually it's fans of the winning team that get beat up.

No charges. Many fans were ejected, including two of the women Dallas Latos was with but not Latos.

With that first name, can she and Mat have met anywhere but a strip club? She gots the Anna Benson crayzee.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/sports-mlb/20131002/Latos_.Wife-Attack/

 

[qtlaw]

Atlanta pines for Brooks Conrad.

Whatever the merits of a one game playoff for the wild card, I got chills seeing PNC Park last night; very cool