illiniguy

In before sneakypower makes his really funny joke again about me liking Mat Gamel when he was a prospect. Then him disappearing when I bring up his love for Francis Beltran, who might be dead.

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

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.

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.

Even if it were, his point would mean absolutely nothing. Lol, yes it being the same as a tie breaker would very much apply.

Ok, I did not know that.

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?

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.

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

Why not just have a single elimination tournament at the end? Everyone will have a shot and it'll be so exciting they'll all be game 7s, forced game 7s. Because that would be dumb. Right, but forcing a tie breaker between two teams that didn't tie, that's smart. Why are you calling it a tie breaker? It's a playoff round that is one game long for two teams that didn't win their division. Because the playoff rounds in baseball have always been at least best of 5. I think it was awesome the way it was and baseball made it worse by trying to forcefully recreate the magic it had in 2011.

Why not just have a single elimination tournament at the end? Everyone will have a shot and it'll be so exciting they'll all be game 7s, forced game 7s. Because that would be dumb. Right, but forcing a tie breaker between two teams that didn't tie, that's smart.

Why not just have a single elimination tournament at the end? Everyone will have a shot and it'll be so exciting they'll all be game 7s, forced game 7s.

Yeah, it's not 'getting boned' when Dusty predictably refused to adjust his lineup for the fact that he was facing a dude who eats lefthanded batters for lunch. Because baseball is meant to be a "best team over a long season or series, not whoever happens to have a great matchup in 1 game" type of sport. Yeah, Dusty is an idiot, but there shouldn't be anything besides a tiebreaker that is 1 game. I love rewarding the division winner, but with so much randomness in baseball, 1 game is just dumb. wrong Because it is your opinion?

Didn't Pete Maravich wear "pistol" on his thirty years ago?

Joe Kelly hitting 97 on the black. Yep.

I guess, I don't like how the whole thing is set up. I think it should be the two worst records at the least playing in it. Not the two wild cards teams if they have better records.

much better. there hasn't been a strike or lockout in 20 years and the game is more profitable and popular than it was when he took over. expanded postseason has been a roaring success as well. baseball - which was already a strong and well-developed industry when he began - has seen its revenue grow by 600 percent in less than 20 years. if a ceo oversaw that kind of growth, he'd be regarded as a genius. the attempted contraction of the twins and expos was probably the biggest black mark on his record. still, maybe the best mlb commissioner in history and should be in cooperstown soon. The first expansion was good, the second one is a forced tie breaker between teams that might not tie. I'd list that as a failure.

Yeah and although he has said he would like to stay, they are going to struggle retaining him. But, back to the topic. Sorry for the derail.

He got the Brewers in a position to a succeed and the team floundered in the playoff stretch and got released. He literally just got the Royals a winning record a few days ago and people are already calling for his head. He's also likely leading them to the best record he's had as a manager. The Royals winning % each month this season: April: .583 May: .286 (results in hitting coach being fired) June: .593 July: .600 August: .516 September: .609 With the exception of May, which they pinned the results on the hitting coach and judging from their results afterwards appeared to be a contributing factor, the Royals have been pretty damn good. Their average winning % outside of may was .580. .579 since May. Had they sustained a % on average with the rest of their season in the month of May, they'd be the 6th best team in baseball. Let the man have another full year with this rejuvenated team to see what he can accomplish. If the team regresses next season, then can him. But if they want to fire him now because he apparently has mismanaged a bullpen that has a 2.57 ERA, okay, whatever. They are playing for next year though. Next year is the last year they have James Shields under control, next year is the reason they made the deal they did. If you stick with Ned, he better be the guy to get you to the playoffs. Otherwise I think Dayton Moore is fired as well.

Royals are putting together the best bullpen ERA season since 1990 or something. The fans are calling for Ned Yost's head because of his management of the bullpen but not for his "NL style managing," aka, bunting every chance he gets. That and the playing Chris Getz in an everyday role for a huge chunk of the season. http://i.imgur.com/FkXyqbT.png Kind of like what happened to him with the brewers?

The first wild card was pretty successful. But, yes the money side of things is what he has to hang his hat on.

I don't care for him, I think he's done a lot of both good and bad for the game. I'm glad to see him go.

Royals are putting together the best bullpen ERA season since 1990 or something. The fans are calling for Ned Yost's head because of his management of the bullpen but not for his "NL style managing," aka, bunting every chance he gets. That and the playing Chris Getz in an everyday role for a huge chunk of the season.

If Josh Frreeman is your qb, you had better be throwing the ball 45 to 50 times a week. :banghead:

Amazing.