2013 Playoffs Game Thread

[illiniguy]

No, baseball made it better.

 

And "because it's always been that way" is a silly justification.

Yeah, I didn't mean to argue that. But, I can't help but think about how pissed I would be as a player if my team won 100 games and was forced to play an 80 win team in a one game takes all format. I just do not like it at all.

[illiniguy]

It's not a tiebreaker.

Then why is it also setup just like the tie breaker that the Rays and Rangers played?

 

What?

 

Lots of things are "setup" the same and aren't the same thing.

 

Why is it set up the same as every single individual regular season game? It's not a regular season game.

The loser's season is done after every single game?

[SouthSideRyan]

It's not set up the exact same way, the Rangers game allowed full 40 man rosters, the playoff game did not.

[Guest]

It's not a tiebreaker.

Then why is it also setup just like the tie breaker that the Rays and Rangers played?

 

What?

 

Lots of things are "setup" the same and aren't the same thing.

 

Why is it set up the same as every single individual regular season game? It's not a regular season game.

The loser's season is done after every single game?

 

OK, why is it set up the same way as the last regular season game between a playoff team that beats a non-playoff team.

 

Must be the same.

[Guest]

It's not set up the exact same way, the Rangers game allowed full 40 man rosters, the playoff game did not.

 

Even if it were, his point would mean absolutely nothing.

[illiniguy]

It's not set up the exact same way, the Rangers game allowed full 40 man rosters, the playoff game did not.

Ok, I did not know that.

[illiniguy]

It's not set up the exact same way, the Rangers game allowed full 40 man rosters, the playoff game did not.

 

Even if it were, his point would mean absolutely nothing.

Lol, yes it being the same as a tie breaker would very much apply.

[Guest]

No, baseball made it better.

 

And "because it's always been that way" is a silly justification.

Yeah, I didn't mean to argue that. But, I can't help but think about how pissed I would be as a player if my team won 100 games and was forced to play an 80 win team in a one game takes all format. I just do not like it at all.

 

The math says even 5 games is, for practical purposes, barely less susceptible to variance. So who cares?

[Guest]

It's not set up the exact same way, the Rangers game allowed full 40 man rosters, the playoff game did not.

 

Even if it were, his point would mean absolutely nothing.

Lol, yes it being the same as a tie breaker would very much apply.

 

No, it really wouldn't. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that. Yes, a tiebreaker and the wild card round are both single elimination games. That doesn't make them the same thing.

[illiniguy]

No, baseball made it better.

 

And "because it's always been that way" is a silly justification.

Yeah, I didn't mean to argue that. But, I can't help but think about how pissed I would be as a player if my team won 100 games and was forced to play an 80 win team in a one game takes all format. I just do not like it at all.

 

The math says even 5 games is, for practical purposes, barely less susceptible to variance. So who cares?

I do, and maybe it doesn't make a difference, but at least it feels like it's different from a single game crap shoot to me.

[jersey cubs fan]

No, baseball made it better.

 

And "because it's always been that way" is a silly justification.

Yeah, I didn't mean to argue that. But, I can't help but think about how pissed I would be as a player if my team won 100 games and was forced to play an 80 win team in a one game takes all format. I just do not like it at all.

 

I don't see why it matters if players get pissed. The system is setup to making winning your division matter. Previously, it did not matter.

[illiniguy]

No, baseball made it better.

 

And "because it's always been that way" is a silly justification.

Yeah, I didn't mean to argue that. But, I can't help but think about how pissed I would be as a player if my team won 100 games and was forced to play an 80 win team in a one game takes all format. I just do not like it at all.

 

I don't see why it matters if players get pissed. The system is setup to making winning your division matter. Previously, it did not matter.

I see that and understand that they have to try and reward the division winners, but I just can't stand the way they are going about it.

 

I really wish they'd make the bottom records be the ones that have to play in the wild card round, and reward the best teams.

[Guest]

No, baseball made it better.

 

And "because it's always been that way" is a silly justification.

Yeah, I didn't mean to argue that. But, I can't help but think about how pissed I would be as a player if my team won 100 games and was forced to play an 80 win team in a one game takes all format. I just do not like it at all.

 

I don't see why it matters if players get pissed. The system is setup to making winning your division matter. Previously, it did not matter.

I see that and understand that they have to try and reward the division winners, but I just can't stand the way they are going about it.

 

I really wish they'd make the bottom records be the ones that have to play in the wild card round, and reward the best teams.

 

Well, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that...but this is still better than it used to be.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because the playoff rounds in baseball have always been at least best of 5.

 

 

And now there's a round that's best-of-1.

[jersey cubs fan]

I see that and understand that they have to try and reward the division winners, but I just can't stand the way they are going about it.

 

It boggles my mind why people "can't stand" the way they are doing it.

[Sammys Boombox]

I see that and understand that they have to try and reward the division winners, but I just can't stand the way they are going about it.

 

It boggles my mind why people "can't stand" the way they are doing it.

 

Why? As discussed before there are pros and cons to every system. In the minds of many people a major con with the one-game WC potentially gives a team that finished 5, 10, 15+ games behind one team in a 162-game season the chance to take that team's postseason spot just by beating them once. This is a sport where the worst team in the league probably has a better than 25% chance (yeah, that number is just a guess, but you get the idea) of beating the best team in the league on any given day, especially when the starting pitcher is a huge variable that changes game-to-game.

 

I think we have established that that con is not a big deal to you, and that the pro of the excitement of a sudden death game and making the division races matter outweighs this con.

 

Other people do not feel that way, and it's not that hard to understand why.

[Schwarber Fan]

Dick Stockton called Pete Kozma, "Dave".

 

LOL

[Careless]

Pirates are going to be swept. [expletive] cardinals.

[UMFan83]

At least it was aging but miraculously good and healthy Beltran and not some out of nowhere .600 OPS scrub.

[Careless]

Not going to watch any more of that.

[SouthSideRyan]

Dick Stockton called Pete Kozma, "Dave".

 

LOL

 

Has he committed any errras?

[SouthSideRyan]

Yes, Dick, the Cardinals are not content with a 7 run lead, because they have a 6 run lead. You remember you just called the home run to make it 7-1 last inning.

[SouthSideRyan]

"David Freese is a great person" Any chance Stockton has ever actually met Freese??

 

Morneau has to pick that.

[illiniguy]

"David Freese is a great person" Any chance Stockton has ever actually met Freese??

 

Morneau has to pick that.

Every cardinal is a great guy, this is well known.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm only still watching this so I can hopefully see Matt Adams have a heart attack on the field.