6/3 Mega Cubs (Marquis) @ Padres (Ledezma) 9:05 CSN

[BCVM22]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080604/capt.ae87069d0a804b49b3ce8fcd066e7035.cubs_padres_baseball_cali115.jpg

 

Three-headed outfield monster.

[Jon]

I didn't expect to see a 9-6 final after going to bed when it was 2-1. Especially after seeing Soto's shot die just shy of the wall.

 

I'd imagine the Cubs regard the marine layer similar to the citizens of Springfield after walking out of the town hall meeting to discuss the comet. Except this time the bridge out of town will remain intact.

[bukie]

The '89 team didn't really kick it into gear until August, and even then they were never really the best team in the league (The A's were completely unstoppable wire-to-wire that year). The '84 team was unbelievable after the Sutcliffe trade, and were the best team in the NL by a decent bit, but got robbed of HFA because Wrigley didn't have lights. However, the Tigers were completely unstoppable that year. So, this is probably the first time in about 40 years where the Cubs were arguably the best team in the league this late in the year.

 

The lights thing is a myth. HFA alternated between West and East back then. I wanna say 85 was the first year they switched to best record.

 

Not true. '84 was the East's year for HFA, but they didn't let the Cubs have it because they couldn't have any night games. '89 was still alternating, and that year was the West's turn (The Cubs finished 93-69, while the Giants finished 92-70, but the Giants got HFA).

[bukie]

.500 the rest of the way and the team gets 98 wins.

 

That does not compute.

 

.500 the rest of the way and the team gets 89-90 wins. Maintain their season pace, and the team gets 104 wins, which is an absurd sounding number to me.

[SouthSideRyan]

The '89 team didn't really kick it into gear until August, and even then they were never really the best team in the league (The A's were completely unstoppable wire-to-wire that year). The '84 team was unbelievable after the Sutcliffe trade, and were the best team in the NL by a decent bit, but got robbed of HFA because Wrigley didn't have lights. However, the Tigers were completely unstoppable that year. So, this is probably the first time in about 40 years where the Cubs were arguably the best team in the league this late in the year.

 

The lights thing is a myth. HFA alternated between West and East back then. I wanna say 85 was the first year they switched to best record.

 

Not true. '84 was the East's year for HFA, but they didn't let the Cubs have it because they couldn't have any night games. '89 was still alternating, and that year was the West's turn (The Cubs finished 93-69, while the Giants finished 92-70, but the Giants got HFA).

 

Wrong on both accounts. '82's NLCS went 2 in St. Louis, then 1 in Atlanta(setup was 2-3). '83's went 2 in LA, then 2 in Philly(again 2-3).

 

'89 went 2 in Chicago, 3 in San Francisco(set up was 2-3-2)

 

I can't really figure out how HFA was determine after '84 as the West had it in '85 and '86, both years with inferior overall records. Head to head maybe?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The '89 team didn't really kick it into gear until August, and even then they were never really the best team in the league (The A's were completely unstoppable wire-to-wire that year). The '84 team was unbelievable after the Sutcliffe trade, and were the best team in the NL by a decent bit, but got robbed of HFA because Wrigley didn't have lights. However, the Tigers were completely unstoppable that year. So, this is probably the first time in about 40 years where the Cubs were arguably the best team in the league this late in the year.

 

The lights thing is a myth. HFA alternated between West and East back then. I wanna say 85 was the first year they switched to best record.

 

Not true. '84 was the East's year for HFA, but they didn't let the Cubs have it because they couldn't have any night games. '89 was still alternating, and that year was the West's turn (The Cubs finished 93-69, while the Giants finished 92-70, but the Giants got HFA).

 

 

That's an urban legend and not true. The commissioner threatened to take away the Cubs' home-field advantage in the 1984 WS should they get there, but the Cubs were *not* scheduled for home-field in the 1984 NLCS. It was the NL West's turn. Then, the next season, it was announced the Cubs would have to play all postseason games away from Wrigley if they couldn't find lights.

 

If you google something like "1984 Cubs Wrigley home-field myth" you'll find multiple sources backing this up. The lost home game of the '84 NLCS is a myth.

[UMFan83]

What doesn't make sense is why the Cubs didn't get HFA in 89 then.

 

84 - West

85 - East

86 - West

87 - East

88 - West

89 - East

[bukie]

The '89 team didn't really kick it into gear until August, and even then they were never really the best team in the league (The A's were completely unstoppable wire-to-wire that year). The '84 team was unbelievable after the Sutcliffe trade, and were the best team in the NL by a decent bit, but got robbed of HFA because Wrigley didn't have lights. However, the Tigers were completely unstoppable that year. So, this is probably the first time in about 40 years where the Cubs were arguably the best team in the league this late in the year.

 

The lights thing is a myth. HFA alternated between West and East back then. I wanna say 85 was the first year they switched to best record.

 

Not true. '84 was the East's year for HFA, but they didn't let the Cubs have it because they couldn't have any night games. '89 was still alternating, and that year was the West's turn (The Cubs finished 93-69, while the Giants finished 92-70, but the Giants got HFA).

 

Wrong on both accounts. '82's NLCS went 2 in St. Louis, then 1 in Atlanta(setup was 2-3). '83's went 2 in LA, then 2 in Philly(again 2-3).

 

'89 went 2 in Chicago, 3 in San Francisco(set up was 2-3-2)

 

I can't really figure out how HFA was determine after '84 as the West had it in '85 and '86, both years with inferior overall records. Head to head maybe?

 

It was still alternating up until the wildcard was added (switch to three divisions) in '95 (well, '94, but '94 didn't have playoffs). I forgot about the 2-3-2 format, I just remembered the clincher was in SF, and apparently am just too familiar with the NBA style 7-game format. Even years gave the West HFA, odd years gave the East HFA.

[SouthSideRyan]

What doesn't make sense is why the Cubs didn't get HFA in 89 then.

 

84 - West

85 - East

86 - West

87 - East

88 - West

89 - East

 

As I mentioned earlier the West had HFA in '85 as well.

[bukie]

What doesn't make sense is why the Cubs didn't get HFA in 89 then.

 

84 - West

85 - East

86 - West

87 - East

88 - West

89 - East

 

As I mentioned earlier the West had HFA in '85 as well.

 

'85 was an oddball year for some reason. That was the first year the CS was 7 games, so perhaps it had something to do with that.

[Derwood]

MLB's absolute insistence that HFA doesn't just go to the team with the best record is mind-numbing in its stupidity

[SouthSideRyan]

MLB's absolute insistence that HFA doesn't just go to the team with the best record is mind-numbing in its stupidity

 

It was somewhat explainable for the world series cause the teams played a different set of opponents all year.

[bukie]

MLB's absolute insistence that HFA doesn't just go to the team with the best record is mind-numbing in its stupidity

 

It was somewhat explainable for the world series cause the teams played a different set of opponents all year.

 

That's the same scenario in every sport, though. Record-based HFA makes a lot more sense than "winner of the All-Star game" HFA. Only the NFL does things differently, because it's a single game at a neutral site. Now, if baseball decided on a seven-game series all at a neutral site, then maybe it'd be acceptable.

[Derwood]

MLB's absolute insistence that HFA doesn't just go to the team with the best record is mind-numbing in its stupidity

 

It was somewhat explainable for the world series cause the teams played a different set of opponents all year.

 

That's the same scenario in every sport, though. Record-based HFA makes a lot more sense than "winner of the All-Star game" HFA. Only the NFL does things differently, because it's a single game at a neutral site. Now, if baseball decided on a seven-game series all at a neutral site, then maybe it'd be acceptable.

 

exactly. No one is taking HFA away from the Celtics because they play in a weaker conference (they killed the West, I know, but the point stands)

 

it seems like baseball often goes to great lengths to avoid doing the obvious

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm not arguing in favor of THIS TIME IT COUNTS, just saying that there is some sort of basis behind it unlike NHL and NBA where every team plays every other team(A guess on NHL) Sure it's unbalanced, but at least there's some competition.

 

Personally, I think if they're not going to do it by overall record, that league interleague record might be a better call.

[bukie]

I'm not arguing in favor of THIS TIME IT COUNTS, just saying that there is some sort of basis behind it unlike NHL and NBA where every team plays every other team(A guess on NHL) Sure it's unbalanced, but at least there's some competition.

 

Personally, I think if they're not going to do it by overall record, that league interleague record might be a better call.

 

Next year every NHL team will play every other NHL team. This year wasn't the case (and many, many people complained about it). Even in the NBA, though, the schedules are hardly balanced.

 

Even funnier than the schedule argument is Selig's argument of "Well, it's nice to know ahead of time where to reserve hotels and such for the World Series, and that's why we can't just let whichever team that has the best record get HFA" that he tried to pull a couple years ago.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm not arguing in favor of THIS TIME IT COUNTS, just saying that there is some sort of basis behind it unlike NHL and NBA where every team plays every other team(A guess on NHL) Sure it's unbalanced, but at least there's some competition.

 

Personally, I think if they're not going to do it by overall record, that league interleague record might be a better call.

 

Next year every NHL team will play every other NHL team. This year wasn't the case (and many, many people complained about it). Even in the NBA, though, the schedules are hardly balanced.

 

Even funnier than the schedule argument is Selig's argument of "Well, it's nice to know ahead of time where to reserve hotels and such for the World Series, and that's why we can't just let whichever team that has the best record get HFA" that he tried to pull a couple years ago.

 

That excuse was just mind-numbing. It was even worse that several media idiots ran with it as true. It takes about 3 seconds of thinking to realize how wrong he is on that.

[Guest]

I'm not arguing in favor of THIS TIME IT COUNTS, just saying that there is some sort of basis behind it unlike NHL and NBA where every team plays every other team(A guess on NHL) Sure it's unbalanced, but at least there's some competition.

 

Personally, I think if they're not going to do it by overall record, that league interleague record might be a better call.

 

Next year every NHL team will play every other NHL team. This year wasn't the case (and many, many people complained about it). Even in the NBA, though, the schedules are hardly balanced.

 

Even funnier than the schedule argument is Selig's argument of "Well, it's nice to know ahead of time where to reserve hotels and such for the World Series, and that's why we can't just let whichever team that has the best record get HFA" that he tried to pull a couple years ago.

 

That excuse was just mind-numbing. It was even worse that several media idiots ran with it as true. It takes about 3 seconds of thinking to realize how wrong he is on that.

 

Especially when you consider that if they just alternated it every year, you would be in the same boat in terms of when you know where the Series games are going to be.

[Brian707]

The '84 team was unbelievable after the Sutcliffe trade, and were the best team in the NL by a decent bit, but got robbed of HFA because Wrigley didn't have lights. .

 

Untrue.

 

Back then they rotated each year from NL West to East. West had homefield in even years and East in odd.

[Brian707]

What doesn't make sense is why the Cubs didn't get HFA in 89 then.

 

84 - West

85 - East

86 - West

87 - East

88 - West

89 - East

 

 

They did but they lost 4-1

 

The last two games would have been here