So who we wanna play?

[Sammy Sofa]

By that mindset it will be impossible to avoid them since they are apparently the best team and you're talking like the best team must win.

 

That seems like a bit of a stretch based on what I said. The thread is about which team we would rather play to maximize our chances of winning, not which unstoppable force is going to take down the Cubs

 

Suuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrre it is.

[UMFan83]

By that mindset it will be impossible to avoid them since they are apparently the best team and you're talking like the best team must win.

 

That seems like a bit of a stretch based on what I said. The thread is about which team we would rather play to maximize our chances of winning, not which unstoppable force is going to take down the Cubs

 

Suuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrre it is.

 

*sigh*

[Sammy Sofa]

At this point you're going to be facing nothing but good teams (with the exception of the Cardinals) in tiny sample size servings who can get hot at the drop of a hat, so what does it really matter? Why are the Mets any more likely to be tougher than team X because they technically had a better record for arbitrary X amount of games at the end of the season? It would be one thing if we're talking about bad teams who somehow ass-backwarded their way into due to a terrible division or something, but we're not.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

At this point you're going to be facing nothing but good teams (with the exception of the Cardinals) in tiny sample size servings who can get hot at the drop of a hat, so what does it really matter? Why are the Mets any more likely to be tougher than team X because they technically had a better record for arbitrary X amount of games at the end of the season? It would be one thing if we're talking about bad teams who somehow ass-backwarded their way into due to a terrible division or something, but we're not.

 

The argument for the Mets is that they've been so ravaged by injuries(Harvey, Matz, DeGrom, Walker, Wright) that the playoff version of them is definitely a lesser team than their record. I'm okay with spiting the Mets by having them lose the WC game, but I get the logic.

[Sammy Sofa]

At this point you're going to be facing nothing but good teams (with the exception of the Cardinals) in tiny sample size servings who can get hot at the drop of a hat, so what does it really matter? Why are the Mets any more likely to be tougher than team X because they technically had a better record for arbitrary X amount of games at the end of the season? It would be one thing if we're talking about bad teams who somehow ass-backwarded their way into due to a terrible division or something, but we're not.

 

The argument for the Mets is that they've been so ravaged by injuries(Harvey, Matz, DeGrom, Walker, Wright) that the playoff version of them is definitely a lesser team than their record. I'm okay with spiting the Mets by having them lose the WC game, but I get the logic.

 

Yeah, but his point is that he's relatively worried about facing the Mets because they've been "hot" to end the season; I agree with you that they're a stank playoff team, though I look at them all as just varying levels of stankness.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Oh I somehow missed that was a continuation of a conversation, yeah wanting to play or avoid some team on the concept of who's hot is not much of an argument.

[David]

Someone resell me on wanting the Mets. Regardless of relative talent you never want to face the hottest team and the Mets are probably that team, on a 27-12 stretch during which they've allowed the least runs in baseball and have 2 scorching hot hitters in Cabrera and Granderson.

 

I know the schedule has been light but they are playing very good baseball and probably have a ton of confidence.

 

when are you going to stop believing that hot is a thing (at least in the way that you use it)?

 

especially a thing that will carry into games almost a week away

[NOLA]

Someone resell me on wanting the Mets. Regardless of relative talent you never want to face the hottest team and the Mets are probably that team, on a 27-12 stretch during which they've allowed the least runs in baseball and have 2 scorching hot hitters in Cabrera and Granderson.

 

I know the schedule has been light but they are playing very good baseball and probably have a ton of confidence.

 

when are you going to stop believing that hot is a thing (at least in the way that you use it)?

 

especially a thing that will carry into games almost a week away

Isn't hitters seeing the ball well or having a great sense of the strike zone a thing?

[UMFan83]

Someone resell me on wanting the Mets. Regardless of relative talent you never want to face the hottest team and the Mets are probably that team, on a 27-12 stretch during which they've allowed the least runs in baseball and have 2 scorching hot hitters in Cabrera and Granderson.

 

I know the schedule has been light but they are playing very good baseball and probably have a ton of confidence.

 

when are you going to stop believing that hot is a thing (at least in the way that you use it)?

 

especially a thing that will carry into games almost a week away

Isn't hitters seeing the ball well or having a great sense of the strike zone a thing?

 

Yes, the way I see it individual players fluctuate between somewhat better than their talent level and somewhat worse. If enough of them are peaking at the right time, they will play above their collective talent level

[David]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

the cardinals being lame ass creep bill lumbergh is so fitting

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, the way I see it individual players fluctuate between somewhat better than their talent level and somewhat worse. If enough of them are peaking at the right time, they will play above their collective talent level

 

http://i.giphy.com/VwwKdq5NV0nwQ.gif

[UMFan83]

No umfan. Don't do it. No stop you know it's a- aghhhh

 

What did I say that wasn't true other than a very simplistic ELI5 explanation? Does Bryant hit .291 every week? No there are some weeks he's roping liners everywhere, somewhere he's very good and others where he makes a bunch of soft contact.

 

I'll await the sarcastic post followed by sarcastic post with a gif followed by one that pretends like you are having a conversation with yourself and then if I'm lucky a serious reply which is why we all love mojo unless he's pointing his gun at you.

[David]

No umfan. Don't do it. No stop you know it's a- aghhhh

 

What did I say that wasn't true other than a very simplistic ELI5 explanation? Does Bryant hit .291 every week? No there are some weeks he's roping liners everywhere, somewhere he's very good and others where he makes a bunch of soft contact.

 

no horsefeathers. and there's no telling when either is going to happen and a week or two or three of one doesn't mean more is more likely (or less likely) to come.

[UMFan83]

You're gonna regret hitting send

 

[UMFan83]

No umfan. Don't do it. No stop you know it's a- aghhhh

 

What did I say that wasn't true other than a very simplistic ELI5 explanation? Does Bryant hit .291 every week? No there are some weeks he's roping liners everywhere, somewhere he's very good and others where he makes a bunch of soft contact.

 

no horsefeathers. and there's no telling when either is going to happen and a week or two or three of one doesn't mean more is more likely (or less likely) to come.

 

No you don't but there are plenty of teams that got hot in September and then continued to rake in the playoffs. And some that didn't. The whole point was that I'm wondering if I should reevaluate my order of teams that I desire to play based on the fact that the Mets have been playing well and have multiple hot hitters over a team like the Giants who have a poor offense an injured cueto and only one bumgarner start. These opinions aren't static they can change depending on various factors.

[Sammy Sofa]

No you don't but there are plenty of teams that got hot in September and then continued to rake in the playoffs. And some that didn't.

 

Just stop right there. That's literally the only point anyone can actually make with this.

[David]

this is a lot like the gambler's fallacy thing. a hot craps table isn't a thing, no matter what gamblers will try to tell you. a roulette table isn't any more likely to go either red or black just because there's a streak of 8 reds in a row.

 

yes, there are human beings involved so the analogy isn't perfect, and stuff like confidence and good feelings probably have some minor level of impact, but for the most part it's just a confluence of factors that really don't mean anything in any predictive way.

 

the fact is the mets are a pretty mediocre team and their staff is being held together by bubble gum and toothpicks. if you can face them while only facing thor once, that's not a draw i'm unhappy with, as far as playoff opponents go.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also:

 

http://i.giphy.com/Kvo77prALFiX6.gif

[UMFan83]

W - Sammy Sofa (20-6) L - UMFan83 (6-17) S - David (20)

[TruffleShuffle]

jake arrieta weighs in:

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Aaron_Kennelly]

jake arrieta weighs in:

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

yes!

[UMFan83]

Partially conceded yesterday based on the Sofa/David logic train (once you cut through the snark :)). But went to solidify it with numbers and found a bunch of articles that show that in the WC era the colder September teams basically fared better than the hottest september teams in the playoffs.

 

Here's one of the articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/sports/baseball/hot-teams-know-titles-are-won-in-october-not-september.html?smid=tw-nytsports&smtyp=cur&_r=0

 

I concede!

[Sammy Sofa]

[Cubswin11]

jake arrieta weighs in:

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWeVbKwrdGs