Weak NL Central? 3 years in a row to the WS

[Faceman]

I also think we are seeing what happens to teams with no expectations vs the favorites. .

 

Yanks continually choke. 100 win Cards teams haven't gotten it done. Being the underdog is definitely the role to be in.

 

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them.

 

There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it.

 

The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams.

 

Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges.

 

The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't.

The World Series - yes they were.

 

If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include:

 

A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets.

 

5 of 6 series.

 

Last year underdog wins:

 

Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks

 

3 out of 7 series

 

2 years ago underdog wins:

 

RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves

 

3 out of 7 series

 

The 2003 Marlins

2002 Angels and Giants

 

SHould I keep going?

[Faceman]

Who are the 2, Mulder and Isringhausen? Both of them were bad this year, nowhere near the loss of Pedro and El Duque.

 

Why don't you compare them to what they were last year, and expected / needed to be this year. A solid #2 to Carp and an good but not great closer.

 

Just because the Cards have been living without those 2 for longer, doesn't mean they weren't huge losses. Pedro wasn't lighting anything up this year either.

[goonys evil twin]

I also think we are seeing what happens to teams with no expectations vs the favorites. .

 

Yanks continually choke. 100 win Cards teams haven't gotten it done. Being the underdog is definitely the role to be in.

 

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them.

 

There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it.

 

The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams.

 

Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges.

 

The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't.

The World Series - yes they were.

 

If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include:

 

A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets.

 

5 of 6 series.

 

Last year underdog wins:

 

Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks

 

3 out of 7 series

 

2 years ago underdog wins:

 

RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves

 

3 out of 7 series

 

The 2003 Marlins

2002 Angels and Giants

 

SHould I keep going?

 

So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs?

 

This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage.

[Faceman]

I also think we are seeing what happens to teams with no expectations vs the favorites. .

 

Yanks continually choke. 100 win Cards teams haven't gotten it done. Being the underdog is definitely the role to be in.

 

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them.

 

There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it.

 

The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams.

 

Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges.

 

The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't.

The World Series - yes they were.

 

If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include:

 

A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets.

 

5 of 6 series.

 

Last year underdog wins:

 

Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks

 

3 out of 7 series

 

2 years ago underdog wins:

 

RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves

 

3 out of 7 series

 

The 2003 Marlins

2002 Angels and Giants

 

SHould I keep going?

 

So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs?

 

This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage.

 

Wow - if that's what you read, then I guess I can save my fingers from typing anymore. . :roll: I didn't say either statement. Read much?

 

My point is that the teams that are heavy favorites are not winning very often as one would expect. I'm talking about the teams with tremendous lineups - whether hired guns or not. Cards lineup in 2004. Mets this year. Yanks this year.

 

You countered by saying the Yankees won 4 of 5 - last being 6 seasons ago before their team became as loaded as it is today.

 

Those teams were good but not the runaway favorites each year - only 1998.

 

You are the one who brought up the Yanks. They won those series when they weren't the obvious favorite - except for 1998.

 

I am only making the distinction that the late 90s Yanks were not as talented and favored as todays Yankee teams because you brought them up as a rebuttal.

 

Got it ?

[goonys evil twin]

I also think we are seeing what happens to teams with no expectations vs the favorites. .

 

Yanks continually choke. 100 win Cards teams haven't gotten it done. Being the underdog is definitely the role to be in.

 

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them.

 

There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it.

 

The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams.

 

Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges.

 

The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't.

The World Series - yes they were.

 

If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include:

 

A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets.

 

5 of 6 series.

 

Last year underdog wins:

 

Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks

 

3 out of 7 series

 

2 years ago underdog wins:

 

RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves

 

3 out of 7 series

 

The 2003 Marlins

2002 Angels and Giants

 

SHould I keep going?

 

So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs?

 

This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage.

 

Wow - if that's what you read, then I guess I can save my fingers from typing anymore. . :roll: I didn't say either statement. Read much?

 

My point is that the teams that are heavy favorites are not winning very often as one would expect. I'm talking about the teams with tremendous lineups - whether hired guns or not. Cards lineup in 2004. Mets this year. Yanks this year.

 

You countered by saying the Yankees won 4 of 5 - last being 6 seasons ago before their team became as loaded as it is today.

 

Those teams were good but not the runaway favorites each year - only 1998.

 

You are the one who brought up the Yanks. They won those series when they weren't the obvious favorite - except for 1998.

 

I am only making the distinction that the late 90s Yanks were not as talented and favored as todays Yankee teams because you brought them up as a rebuttal.

 

Got it ?

 

You don't get it. If you claim being the underdog is definitely the role to be in, you are claiming it is an advantage. Read your own words.

[Backtobanks]

The NL Central sucks. That doesn't mean that in a short series they can't fluke out a win or four.

 

Damn Cardinals.

 

That's why I can stay somewhat optimistic. If you can win your division and get into the playoffs, anything can happen so you don't have to build the best team in baseball, just the best team in your division and hope somebody on your team gets hot at the right time.

 

Not "having" to build the best team in baseball is no excuse to not try to build the best team in baseball. Setting your sights simply on winning your division is a good way to miss your goal. Set your goal at best team in baseball, then if you miss, you can still be in the playoffs. Andy had 12 years of "contend within the division" and it took this team nowhere.

 

This is evidence that the Cubs can win next year. They aren't years from contending. But, they cannot simply say, "well, we could have won 84 games if healthy, maybe with a little luck and another arm, we could win 89". Sometimes 90 isn't even enough. You don't know when you go into the season. Baseball is all about increasing your odds. The better you are, the better you chances of making the playoffs, which is the only way you have a chance to win in the playoffs.

 

Build the best team you can afford without bankrupting the future.

 

Of course you try to build the best team in baseball, but when your up against the Yankees who have no payroll limit, it is almost impossible. So in reality, you build the best team possible given the constraints (usually money) that are imposed on you by ownership. Hopefully that assembled team is good enough to get into the playoffs within their division and from there you pray for health and someone getting hot at the right time.

[Guest]

oddly, there was a BP column about this just a few days ago. I don't remember exact numbers, but it was something to the effect that the favorites won 58 percent of the time.

[Faceman]

I also think we are seeing what happens to teams with no expectations vs the favorites. .

 

Yanks continually choke. 100 win Cards teams haven't gotten it done. Being the underdog is definitely the role to be in.

 

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them.

 

There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it.

 

The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams.

 

Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges.

 

The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't.

The World Series - yes they were.

 

If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include:

 

A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets.

 

5 of 6 series.

 

Last year underdog wins:

 

Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks

 

3 out of 7 series

 

2 years ago underdog wins:

 

RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves

 

3 out of 7 series

 

The 2003 Marlins

2002 Angels and Giants

 

SHould I keep going?

 

So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs?

 

This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage.

 

Wow - if that's what you read, then I guess I can save my fingers from typing anymore. . :roll: I didn't say either statement. Read much?

 

My point is that the teams that are heavy favorites are not winning very often as one would expect. I'm talking about the teams with tremendous lineups - whether hired guns or not. Cards lineup in 2004. Mets this year. Yanks this year.

 

You countered by saying the Yankees won 4 of 5 - last being 6 seasons ago before their team became as loaded as it is today.

 

Those teams were good but not the runaway favorites each year - only 1998.

 

You are the one who brought up the Yanks. They won those series when they weren't the obvious favorite - except for 1998.

 

I am only making the distinction that the late 90s Yanks were not as talented and favored as todays Yankee teams because you brought them up as a rebuttal.

 

Got it ?

 

You don't get it. If you claim being the underdog is definitely the role to be in, you are claiming it is an advantage. Read your own words.

 

OK - let me rephrase. You are reading this a little too literally, no?

 

The advantage in being the underdog is in the pressure or expectation, or lack of it.

 

The underdog role is not an advantage if you are a significantly lesser team. I believe the differences in teams are exaggerated in the postseason, where one pitcher or hitter can get hot and carry a team.

 

When you take a team like the Mets, who weren't as dominating as everyone made them out to be, and pit them against the Cards, whose record should have been better than 83-78 - not great but better than that - you have a huge mismatch on paper. When in reality the two teams weren't 14 games different. Yet the expectation and pressure was there for the Mets, not for the Cards.

 

If you don't see a benefit to having no expectations - and thus no pressure - we'll I just can't believe a Cub fan wouldn't see that. Check the Cubs in 2003 vs 2004. Cards fans understand it also. There is a benefit to no expectation / pressure. Do you disagree with that?

[FergieJ31]

Faceman, I think the position you're taking is difficult because it's hard to separate subjective feelings about being an underdog vs objective facts.

 

Subjectively, I think most people would rather be the underdog in almost any competitive situation, all other things being equal, for many of the reasons you state (reduced pressure, more to prove, etc). I know I would. But objectively, the underdog is almost by definition the less talented team, and over time that willl manifest itself statistically as a disadvantage.

 

There are always going to be short-term flukes and streaks. I'm not sure if the recent spate of upsets in the playoffs you cited is significant. But I am confident that if we pulled a long history of WL record in MLB postseason play, the underdog will underperform the favorite by at least 10% (somewhere between 40% and 45% winnng pct over the favorite) in the long run.

[Master Shake]

WHat's really sad is that StL had the worst record of all the NL playoff teams. The wildcard team was even better! I mean, come ON! 83-78? THat's IMHO, pathetic!

 

People talk about getting rid of the wildcard format... I think this last season is a great argument against that.

[Faceman]

Faceman, I think the position you're taking is difficult because it's hard to separate subjective feelings about being an underdog vs objective facts.

 

Subjectively, I think most people would rather be the underdog in almost any competitive situation, all other things being equal, for many of the reasons you state (reduced pressure, more to prove, etc). I know I would. But objectively, the underdog is almost by definition the less talented team, and over time that willl manifest itself statistically as a disadvantage.

 

There are always going to be short-term flukes and streaks. I'm not sure if the recent spate of upsets in the playoffs you cited is significant. But I am confident that if we pulled a long history of WL record in MLB postseason play, the underdog will underperform the favorite by at least 10% (somewhere between 40% and 45% winnng pct over the favorite) in the long run.

 

Well stated - I agree 100%. The only question I would have is - is 10% underperforming enough? I would say no, it should be more than 60/40 favorite. But I have no basis for that I suppose. . JMO.

[Soul]

It's not just a weak NL Central.

 

It's a weak MLB baseball period. None of these ballclubs would have sniffed the playoffs most years.

 

I mean come on, WS game 1 features two rookie pitchers on two ballclubs that both limped to the playoffs on massive losing Septembers. This is just terrible. I watched college football tonight.