Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MLB 2009 Season

gfish31 said:
i don't know why everybodys gettin all mad. nobody in the nation wanted to see the yankees in the world series. theyre just gonna lose quickly and horribly. this is slated to be the lowest rated world series ever, even worse than last year. so thanks yanks, for taking the fall classic and forcing people to watch the beginning of the nba season.
Click to expand...

Well what do you know rocket scientist...

Wednesday's airing of the event was the highest-rated Game 1 in the past five years. It gave Fox the highest ratings for the night. The game was watched by 19.5 million viewers. That's 31% higher rating than last year.

Just read that Swisher is benched.

"Jerry Hairston Jr. will be in right field and batting seventh for Thursday night’s game against Philadelphia. Hairston is 10 for 27 in his career against Phillies starter Pedro Martinez. Swisher went 0 for 3 in New York’s 6-1 loss in Wednesday night’s World Series opener. He is batting .114, with no homers and 12 strikeouts in the postseason."
 
Good. Swisher has been a guaranteed out pretty much during the whole postseason. While Tex hasn't done much better, as he proved with his 11th inning HR in the ALDS and 3 run double in the ALCS, he is still dangerous. Unlike Swisher......
 
63dot said:
Statistically, those are the exceptions or outliers, or outside of three standard deviations. While not as unlikely as getting hit by lightning, your odds of doing well on a scratcher and paying rent with those proceedings are better. :)
Click to expand...

How are they outliers? A quick cruise on over to www.baseball-reference.com reveals that in the last 25 years, only five times was the World Series champion also the team with the best regular season record in all of MLB. (They are the '07 Red Sox, '98 Yankees, '89 A's, '86 Mets, and '84 Tigers.) That suggests that the team with the best record at the end of the season isn't much more likely to win it all than the other playoff teams. In fact, twice in the 14 seasons of the wild card era (in which there are eight playoff teams each year) is barely more often than pulling one of the eight names out of a hat.


63dot said:
The Mariners huge season will also be referred to forever. Records, or statistical outliers, could also notable for all time in bad ways lest we forget the Yankees losing their grip on a trip to the WS in the ALCS against Boston (when the Red Sox broke the Babe Ruth curse). This was the ultimate choke for the Yankees, or perhaps any team in baseball history.
Click to expand...

The Mariners huge season will be referred to forever....as one with a disappointing finish. It will always be called the single-season wins record....BUT didn't end with a World Series win. The 1954 Indians are referred to the same way. How is the Mariners' finish in 2001 not also a choke job?
 
aloofman said:
How are they outliers? A quick cruise on over to www.baseball-reference.com reveals that in the last 25 years, only five times was the World Series champion also the team with the best regular season record in all of MLB. (They are the '07 Red Sox, '98 Yankees, '89 A's, '86 Mets, and '84 Tigers.) That suggests that the team with the best record at the end of the season isn't much more likely to win it all than the other playoff teams. In fact, twice in the 14 seasons of the wild card era (in which there are eight playoff teams each year) is barely more often than pulling one of the eight names out of a hat.




The Mariners huge season will be referred to forever....as one with a disappointing finish. It will always be called the single-season wins record....BUT didn't end with a World Series win. The 1954 Indians are referred to the same way. How is the Mariners' finish in 2001 not also a choke job?
Click to expand...

With stats, you can't be selective with a such small sample. I can say how from 2001 until now, the Yankees are so-so. But I could also say from 1996 until now, the Yankees have won four WS rings. I can also say from 1996-2000, they won the WS four years out of five and dominated baseball in both the second half of that decade, or basically were the team of the 90s. Baseball has been around for more than 25 years. Your odds when you win 110+ plus games (or even approach 100+ games) in the regular season is much greater at winning a WS as opposed to a team who won in the 80s.

There will be 100+ winners, 90+ winners, and 80+ winners in the WS into infinity, but there's a reason, for instance, that it's a bigger deal when out of eight teams going into the playoffs, the team the poorest record (or close to it) wins a WS.

It's less of news story when you have the best, or next best record and win the WS.

The Mariners: I don't call a huge winning season for any team, 100+ wins, a failure. The WS is not the only benchmark for a fan. I am thrilled anytime the SF Giants make it to the playoffs.

Same goes with how I feel about the 49ers, and my standards of being happy is even lower in that sport. When the Niners go 8-8 or better, I consider that a success. For a long time in the 80s an 90s some of the Niners fans got spoiled thinking the wins had to be in the double digits in the regular season. If the Niners go 9-7 this season, whether they make the playoffs or not, I chalk that season up as a winning season, and yes, a good season. If any team in football goes 9-7 following a dismal season, then that team had a great season.

Win or lose, the Phillies had a great season, at least getting to the WS and being there to defend their title. Even for people with very high standards for their team, if the Phillies win this one, it will be a big deal. Back to Back WS is very nice and not always seen, especially like somebody like the Phillies. Back when I was in high school, the Phillies had no WS wins and were very much a laughing stock in baseball. How times have changed.

Main point: The better your regular season, the better your chances of a good postseason. Also, the better the players, the better your chances at a successful season and postseason. If your team wins 87 games, I wouldn't bet on them being a power house through the postseason. Yes, it could happen, but I will put my money on the team that went 100+ plus wins.
 
Did the announcers just call Burnett, Becket?

So far AJ is pitching pretty well. A blooper that was just fair ended up costing him, but he is pitching well.
 
63dot said:
With stats, you can't be selective with a such small sample. I can say how from 2001 until now, the Yankees are so-so. But I could also say from 1996 until now, the Yankees have won four WS rings. I can also say from 1996-2000, they won the WS four years out of five and dominated baseball in both the second half of that decade, or basically were the team of the 90s. Baseball has been around for more than 25 years. Your odds when you win 110+ plus games (or even approach 100+ games) in the regular season is much greater at winning a WS as opposed to a team who won in the 80s.
Click to expand...

Instead of going with what sounds intuitively true (that the more regular-season wins you have, the more likely you are to win the WS), why not take a look at what's actually happened?

Since 1969 -- when the postseason was expanded to more than two teams -- there have been 36 times that a team has won 100+ games. (19 in the AL, 17 in the NL.) Only eight of those won the World Series the same year, less than one-fourth of the time. Even before the wild card came along, that would still be a random chance because there were four playoff teams each year.

Since the wild card expanded the playoffs to eight teams, only the '98 Yankees have won over 100 games and won the WS that season. Bobby Cox's Braves have won 100 games a whopping six times in the '90s and '00s and didn't win it all any of those times. The Cardinals did it twice in the '00s and didn't win the WS either time. The Yankees won over 100 three straight years from 2002-04 and didn't win it any of those years. They only even won one pennant in that span.

The vast majority of World Series champs in the LCS era have had win totals in the 90s, not the 100s. (In the 80s is extremely rare, since it's unusual to make the playoffs with so few wins.) Once the playoffs start, it's essentially random; whomever can play well enough to win three playoff series wins it. A team may feel better about their chances because they had the better record, but it doesn't seem to help them win more in the postseason.
 
aloofman said:
Once the playoffs start, it's essentially random; whomever can play well enough to win three playoff series wins it. A team may feel better about their chances because they had the better record, but it doesn't seem to help them win more in the postseason.
Click to expand...

What? Random?

While there is no law of the universe that says you have to have a strong, winning team with league best hitting and/or pitching and/or coaching, I would never use the term random. Why aren't the Twins in the WS? Is that random? How about a team that has a record of 90 wins vs. a team with 95 or 99 wins? I would tend to go with the team with 99 wins over the one with 90 over a long period of time, season after season.

A hundred years from now, assuming baseball is still here, which I hope it will be, you will see a curve develop where teams with better regular season records tend to do better, or have a better chance at or in the postseason. If you have a terrible season, and lose more than you win, you just won't go to the postseason. Winning percentage is just one indicator, but not a good one to overlook.


But when you say random, it's more appropriate to flipping coins:

Let's take an example of flipping a coin.

With one toss, one side will come up and the other one won't so one side will be given a value of 100 and the other a 0.

Let's say you toss again and it comes up the same side (let's call it heads), heads still retains coming up 100 percent while tails comes up zero percent.

Flip the coin six times. With that, chances are you won't get one side six times but it can happen.

Flip the coin six hundred times, then it's less likely to come up all heads or all tails.

Flip the coin six million times, and then it becomes highly improbable, though not impossible, to come up on one side every time.

But stretch that number out to infinity, and then you will have a value of 50 for heads and a value of 50 for tails. It won't even be 51-49, or 49-51, rounded out, over the course near infinity. At infinity, it will be literally 50-50.

Certain things have happened in baseball, and will continue to happen season after season, but over the very long haul, let's say 200 years of the sport, and more so in 300 years in the sport, the WS winner will more likely be the one with the better record and/or pitching and/or hitting and/or coaching, or a combination of those attributes.

But:

That being said, I hope the team that's in the WS who had the lesser record wins this one. :) It's the fifth and it's 1-1. Hang in there, Philly! Though I tend to go with numbers, I hope that both teams are essentially, randomly equal (which they aren't) and Philly comes up heads.
 
great game so far Loved the Who's your Daddy chants earlier wonder if that got to pedro but whoo 2-1 Yankees lets do this :)
 
Nice to see the umps back in normal form.:rolleyes:

That would make a great drinking game, every time the umps **** up take a shot.
 
So we have another missed call, but Howard's glove did block the umps view of the ball and didn't see the short hop.
 
MacNut said:
Nice to see the umps back in normal form.:rolleyes:

That would make a great drinking game, every time the umps **** up take a shot.
Click to expand...

and wtf is up with no meeting ? they did for the philleies but not tonight these umps need to be fired or removed from playoffs next year.
 
macfan881 said:
and wtf is up with no meeting ? they did for the philleies but not tonight these umps need to be fired or removed from playoffs next year.
Click to expand...
I guess they met but when you have 6 blind umps its hard for them to see the correct call.:rolleyes:
 
macfan881 said:
and wtf is up with no meeting ? they did for the philleies but not tonight these umps need to be fired or removed from playoffs next year.
Click to expand...

MacNut said:
I guess they met but when you have 6 blind umps its hard for them to see the correct call.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The announcers just said they met.

But, come on. The ball was hit hard and could not tell it hit the ground in real time. You could only see the ball hop in slow motion. It wasn't obvious like the other ump screw ups.
 
quagmire said:
The announcers just said they met.

But, come on. The ball was hit hard and could not tell it hit the ground in real time. You could only see the ball hop in slow motion. It wasn't obvious like the other ump screw ups.
Click to expand...
Well if Bud wants them to get the calls correct he needs to install instant replay. No reason for a World Series to be decided on **** calls.

Woooo double play.
 
omg Joe and tim make me wanna punch a wall now they complain bout the Double play god they suck i dont know whose worse them or John Miller and Joe Morgan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back