CubmanPi

Great, bulletin board material already Yea, I really don't like the idea of the Cubs leaving any room at all to question any other team's entry to the playoffs.

order a pizza and tell her the Cubs are more important, seems flawless to me. I think she already thinks that I love the Cubs more, and that only partially true. I just love them more during playoffs I started dating my girlfriend toward the beginning of the season, and I made sure to train her right. Her birthday started on June 22nd, and hindsight afforded me the opportunity to point out that the Cubs decided to start a 7-game winning streak for her birthday, thanks to me being able to follow all those games for her. So she gave up and decided to develop crushes on Riot and Howry instead.

yes and you do have to return the tickets. Do we have to physically take them in, or can they be mailed? Does it have to be specifically to the Wrigley Field box office, or are there other ticket outlets that can issue refunds?

The better team usually wins a series, but regardless of the winner, experience will have nothing to do with it. Production is the result of skill, talent, and luck, and experience (edit - especially playoff experience) plays a negligible role in those factors.

Yep. I still maintain the Cubs are more talented and that the DBacks are a statistical anomoly, but the fact that the Cubs don't perform well against strangers and that the DBacks always seem to win could very well be a big problem. Nothing about these five games needs to make statistical sense, and the Cubs are good at being the wrong kind of exception.

Cubs are a lock to reach the WS !! \:D/ \:D/ \:D/

No, they shouldn't have gotten screwed and they did deserve the right call. The whole reason I brought up the argument about sample size was because for how infrequently a single inaccurately called play alters the outcome of the entire game, and for how small one game is in the grand scheme of a 162-game schedule, the benefit does not justify the cost. First, as mentioned earlier in the thread, they would need more cameras, and more people to operate those cameras. Even if it were only used for homeruns, which I am rather agreeable to, the only way to guarantee having a definitive angle would be to operate way more cameras in that corner than even Fox would pay to operate during a game. Then, where do you put the replay booth? Do you even use one? Or do you just hire an extra umpire who sits in the press box and has radio comms with the crew chief? How do you determine what circumstances warrant a replay, even if it were used for homeruns only? Do you require all four IF umps and the two down the line to all deliberate first? Do you implement a challenge system? How many challenges does a team get? Should there be a penalty for a challenge that doesn't get overturned, like in football? Since there's no clock, what should that penalty be? For how infrequently a single reviewable call carries game-altering impact, and for how infrequently the umps get it wrong when the replay shows conclusive evidence, and for how small each game is among a 162-game season, the cost-benefit comparison just doesn't support instant replay.

I honestly didn't know that basketball or hockey used instant replay? What are the circumstances those two sports use it for? In basketball, the only play I can imagine needing instant replay for is determining whether or not a player got the shot off before time on either the shot clock or game clock expired. I'm curious to know for those two sports, because I know all about it in football, and I firmly believe that there are enough fundamental differences between football and baseball to justify keeping it in football and not having it in baseball. My main reason for not having it wouldn't be because of the human element or the sake of the history. I think those reasons are pretty stupid. My opinion is that there are so few games whose outcome would be definitively changed (I can't think of a Cubs game all year long where a single blown call on a reviewable play would have turned a loss into a win or a win into a loss), and there are so many games in a season, that the ultimate benefit of instant replay would be negligible at best. Last night's one play would change one Padres loss into a tie game with two outs in the bottom of the 13th with bases empty, giving them a very good chance of surviving until at least the 14th inning. It turned what should have been a 50/50 shot into a loss. Given the timing, it's easy to say that the one blown call cost the Padres their season, but they only have themselves to blame for giving up the 3 consecutive extra base hits, and they only have themselves to blame for losing 73 other games this season and being in that playoff to begin with. The sample size of a baseball season, and even a post-season series, is large enough that instant replay is not necessary to make sure that teams get their fair shake. Baseball has 162 games per season, football has 16. If you compare time spent on the field in one game compared to the entire season, a game of baseball roughly equates to six minutes on the football field. yet football is only allowed two challenges per game. Should baseball teams only be allowed one challenge per week? Per five games? Or should football teams be allowed one challenge per six minutes?

This is pretty much the conclusion I've reached as well.

There's nothing like a fresh dose of perspective.

Angels over BoSox in 4 Indians over Yankees in 5 Cubs over DBacks in 4 Rockies of Phillies in 5 Angels over Indians in 6 Cubs over Rockies in 7 Angels over Cubs in 5, because the Cubs will have gotten one monkey off the organization's back just by getting there, and we're not lucky enough that both would go away at once, but they'll have the courtesy to get thoroughly outplayed, a la Colts-Bears SB, rather than to do it in some heart-breaking fashion that will only add another outrageous story to the 'curse.'

If the Cubs get screwed, then there will be an hour or two that day for which I will be in full support of instant replay. However, in tonight's game, I think the two angles only provided probable, as opposed to conclusive, evidence that the call was inaccurate, so I think that even if there were an NFL-like replay system, that McClellan's call would have stood. I also think that a replay on the Bartman play would not have resulted in a reversal, which would just piss me off even more. If the Cubs were in the Padres shoes tonight, I'd certainly be pissed, but there were 73 other games the Padres lost. I'm pissed about Bartman, but it was only strike two. Cubs had to lose entire games started by Z, Prior, and Wood. I'd be pissed the same way that losing those three games to the Marlins in September was that much more frustrating and catastrophic than losing the ones in May was. People tend to place more emphasis on one than the other due to timing in the season, but they're both three losses. Single plays in baseball simply don't carry enough weight in the grand scheme of a season or a post-season to warrant the cost and the pain in the rump that instant replay would bring.

that is a very good point sir...i like to test drive things before i lay down the dough I am currently a premium member thru next August, and I probably never would have shelled out the cash had it not been for winning Vance's premium lottery and getting a month test drive. I think a free period is a great idea, and it should last longer than a weekend. Make it last a week or ten days, and make it happen so that its end coincides with the end of spring training, or make it start the day of the regular season. Restrict unregistered guests to regular, and allow all people who have an account to access the premium interface. (Unless blanket access would be logistically simpler.) The main idea is, don't just let people see what they're missing, give them a little time to be spoiled by it.

In the instant replay thread, it was originally posted as a conversation starter about instant replay. It was then edited (by a mod, I'm assuming) into being a poll question, and not too long afterward, was moved into the polls forum. A quick glance at the polls forum, and most of the topics are of a subject matter discussed at length in other forums, and the polls thread is simply so people have a numeric guage of opinion as well, and none are locked as being duplicate threads. Unfortunately this feedback isn't very good in that I don't really have a recommendation, other than to examine the reasons for the changes to the thread. Sure, I believe it belongs in baseball discussions, but it's worth highlighting the fact that the polls forum is viewed much less frequently and is frought with duplicate topics. I have no issue with the polls forum, but being what it is, I wouldn't have put anywhere near the amount of time into my replies to the thread in question had it been located in the polls forum at the time.

I haven't seen anything definitive about this around here or in any press releases concerning the sale of playoff tickets, but what is the process for refunding tickets? Do they also refund the shipping or convenience charge? Can we send tickets in the mail with a self-addressed stamped envelope somewhere and expect said envelope to return to our homes with refund check enclosed? P.S. Any answer accompanied with applicable link would be extra appreciated.

Yep - Tulowitsky came through bigtime. Clutch performance, bigtime stage, going to the post-season. Granted, none of this should matter in the scheme of who the best rookie is across a 162-game span*, but it will. * Remark refers to factors listed, not who is more deserving

Such a long time... :willynilly: :willynilly: :willynilly: I'm going to lose my mind waiting around for this thing to start. No kidding. At least I have class all day tomorrow and Wednesday to help ease some of the tension. You're lucky. Seven hours of foreign language class each of the next two days actually had me rooting for day games to keep me occupied during the afternoons. Wednesday night feels a week away.

Such a long time... :willynilly: :willynilly: :willynilly: I'm going to lose my mind waiting around for this thing to start.

I thought the same thing, though this possibility looks a lot more plausible in the angle from down the left field line than in the angle from above home plate. OTOH, home plate was awfully clean. If his hand got through, I think it would have brought at least a little dirt through, and I think we had a clear and close enough shot that it wouldn't take much dirt to show up on our view.

I went ahead and voted no, and basically it amounts to the same argument I brought up when people starting quoting the sour grapes that dude started spouting over at the Brewers board. Baseball has 162 games. 162. Regardless of breaks, I firmly believe that a crew of umpires calling games to the best of their ability and privately being held accountable for bad calls will allow the best and worst teams to reach their fair and deserved spots in the standings come playoff time. Yes, San Diego got screwed on that final play, but it's their own fault they were playing in a 1-game playoff, and it's their own fault that the 2-run lead they gained in the top of the 13th disappeared. As for the part of the original post which suggested limited replay and possibly for post-season only, it sounds great in theory and is a concept with which I whole-heartedly agree, but it's not a very logical solution. First, the replay system would need a full season of use in order to get the kinks worked out for the post season - something like that wouldn't just appear and immediately start working with optimum efficiency or without any technical difficulties. Second, for the number of post-season games played, the number of infamous blown calls from the umpire is relatively small. Yes, I believe it would be fair if there were replay reversing the homerun call in the NYY-Bal game or the play at first in the 80's WS (between the Royals and Cards, I believe, but I could be mistaken), but I also believe that such plays are infrequent enough that, even given the magnitude and impact associated with these plays, the cost and headache that comes with instant replay doesn't make sense. (Bartman play intentionally left out - I don't think it would deserve a replay, even if the system were already instituted and perfected by then.) Also, in football, one reason replay makes sense is because of the amount of action. With all the penalties that crew has to look for in middle of 22 people on a play which could develop any way at any pace, it's easy for someone to miss something. In baseball, if there's no ball, there's no play. (Exception: plays such as the interference play on Uribe, which defers both to the frequency argument and to the fact that the umpires got that play exactly right following deliberation.) The added benefit simply does not outweigh the cost.

Only some of the garbage I expected, like Bartman and the pointless mention of Z's fight with Barrett. To their credit, they said it was attrition that got the Cubs to the playoffs and not $300 million, but saying they "withstood four losses in their final six games" is a little unfair in that one of the losses didn't matter, and it was their ridiculous stretch of winning 10 of 12 leading up to those three losses that allowed them to withstand the slide, not the poor play of the Brewers, who played above .500 baseball during that same stretch of time. Also to their credit was giving due respect to Geovany Soto in a side note of the unlikely hero section.

I don't know. I'm just asking hypothetically if replay would be a good idea. In all honesty, the logistics of the issue and whether or not the process could be good and streamlined carry a lot of weight as far as my opinion goes. I don't think it's a bad idea, but everywhere within the barrier between the field and the fans is in play, and dugouts are no place for an umpire. Placing the review behind the screen might make sense, and standing so close to the fans would be encouragement for the umps to keep it quick, but I don't know how baseball would pull it off logistically. Another point to consider is, do you require the umps to get together and deliberate before resorting to replay? What are the circumstances? And on the Barrett play when no conference is required since it is solely the call of one ump, what's the threshold? An NFL-like challenge system? Would there be a penalty for losing challenges or some other way to discourage frivolous challenges? What would that be? Conceptually I think it's a good idea, but baseball is fundamentally different enough from the only sport which currently uses instant replay that, if I were a deciding official on the matter, I'd have to see a solid and efficient plan for it.

Where would the replay booth be? How should it be decided when to go check it or how often?