PDA

View Full Version : How do the Giants do it?



nokomismod
10-25-2012, 09:24 AM
Two World Series appearance in three years. When I look at their roster, it does not look that impressive. They seem to be the ultimate clutch hitting, solid defense, and good pitching team. Their outfield plays really good defense, but does not bring power to the plate. I think it's a pretty great story.

johnnydakota
10-25-2012, 09:48 AM
looking at the giants , the As and baltimore and you ask yourself , why not the twins?
the reason why not the twins,no pitching and no defense....these are all direct results of the 3 stooges...
other then pitching and defense the biggest disapointment last year was getting a runner on 2nd or 3rd with no outs and failing to score 1 run
the notorius small ball is lacking , what was once the pride of minnesota is now there demise...under tom kelly(who i didnt like) the twins way was solid d , and well rounded players not 1 dimentional players,now under gardy the twins way is to lose 95+ games a year...sad but true

Seth Stohs
10-25-2012, 09:48 AM
Playoff Baseball = Crap Shoot...

Winston Smith
10-25-2012, 10:37 AM
Playoff Baseball = Crap Shoot...

Imo, it's not a crap shoot at all. The teams that win nearly always have the best pitching. Pitching for the most part doesn't slump. Like we saw with the Yankees even very good hitting teams can slump in a short series. Unless you have very good pitching getting to the world series takes a lot of luck. With 3 series instead of two now I think luck will have a much harder time holding up.

In 87 the Twins were lucky. They got the Tigers after they had a draining season ending run to make it. Then they got the Cards with several injuries to key guys. 91 they were a very good team and had very good starting pitching in Morris, Erickson and Tapani.

biggentleben
10-25-2012, 11:12 AM
Playoff Baseball = Crap Shoot...

Imo, it's not a crap shoot at all. The teams that win nearly always have the best pitching. Pitching for the most part doesn't slump. Like we saw with the Yankees even very good hitting teams can slump in a short series. Unless you have very good pitching getting to the world series takes a lot of luck. With 3 series instead of two now I think luck will have a much harder time holding up.

In 87 the Twins were lucky. They got the Tigers after they had a draining season ending run to make it. Then they got the Cards with several injuries to key guys. 91 they were a very good team and had very good starting pitching in Morris, Erickson and Tapani.

If pitching were your answer, the Braves would have a half dozen World Championships or more with Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Avery/Neagle/Ashby/Millwood. In the wild card system, it truly is a crap shoot. A team can get hot for a short period of time. A bullpen can dominate a series (and the Giants have one of the best in the game right now). One hitter can swing a whole series. In general, it's rare to see 8 runs in a postseason game even in the height of offensive era in the early 2000s because teams with great pitching were the ones that could endure the regular season, but pitching streaks just like hitting. If you were going on pure talent in the rotation and bullpen, the Braves should have gone farther this year and the Nationals would be in the World Series. A one-game play in game and a five-game series make anything possible with one or two poor starts in a rotation turn.

nicksaviking
10-25-2012, 11:13 AM
San Francisco pitchers struck out 1,237 batters this year. The Minnesota pitchers struck out 943. The next lowest total was Cleveland who still had 143 more K's than the Twins. So even when the Twins record an out, the other team's are much more likely to score on sacrifice hits and move runners over and that's beside the fact that even poorly hit balls in play can find a hole, or give the fielders a chance to make an error. With about 300 fewer batters putting the ball in play against the Giants, they are allowing a lot fewer baserunners.

The Twins team 5.9 K/9 rate is embarassing, and the front office better recognize this. Any thought of signing a Joe Saunders or Brandon McCarthy for the front of the rotation better be squashed ASAP.

ThePuck
10-25-2012, 11:17 AM
we must be horrible at crap shoots, cause we haven't won a playoff game in our last 12 playoff games. 0-12 crap shoot? Who is The Cooler?

glanzer
10-25-2012, 11:44 AM
Was thinking the same thing about that Giants roster. It's not like they just got hot in the playoffs, they won all year long with a roster full of mediocre hitters. They hit less than 30 HR at home this season. Is Buster Posey that good?

YourHouseIsMyHouse
10-25-2012, 11:58 AM
They have a great pitching squad. That's what does it in the playoffs. Cain, Vogelsong, and Bumgartner are all elite pitchers.

B Richard
10-25-2012, 12:29 PM
Pitching "slumps" far, far less than hitting. Good pitching never goes out of style. Play-in games aside, the playoffs are far from a crap shoot.

biggentleben
10-25-2012, 04:23 PM
It is a crap shoot. If you really believe the best team is the one that wins the World Series, you're simply missing baseball. For that to be true, the Angels would be in the playoffs this year while the Tigers were watching. Instead, the Tigers are in the World Series while the Angels weren't even in the playoffs. The correlation prior to divisional play to the best record in the league to the World Series winner was high, and now it's virtually nil. The best team by record virtually never wins the World Series anymore. Now you can say that unbalanced schedule influences record or other such things, but we've seen more wild card teams win the World Series since 1995 than teams with the MLB's best record. If that isn't a crap shoot, I'm not sure what you consider a crap shoot to be.

Bark's Lounge
10-25-2012, 04:42 PM
If the theoretical "Best Team" won the Big Kahuna every year - I think most would lose interest and tune out by June 1st (even the "Best Team's" fans). I like the fact that a powerhouse team can smash through the summer months, play okay in September, and get beat by a lesser talented team that has found their mojo in the dusk of the baseball season. This is what baseball has always been for the most part.

San Fran has a very, very good team, and if you told me 2 months ago they would be in the WS, I would not have been surprised. Where they lack in hitting, they make up in the pitching department and it's not as if they don't have any impact offensive players. I just hope they beat the living excrement out of the Tigers!

Viva San Francisco!!!!

TheLeviathan
10-25-2012, 05:07 PM
Yeah, it's a crapshoot. Last I checked the Nats and the Reds were the best teams this season in team ERA. The Braves were ahead of the Giants too. So where does all this crap about best pitching staff come from?

The truth is, all it takes is a fluke or two to dramatically shift a series and a playoff structure. As Twins fans, we should all be very familiar with that. In the regular season those flukes balance out, in a 10 days worth of games they make the results much more of a coin flip.

wavedog
10-25-2012, 05:09 PM
I don't want to classify it quite as a crapshoot. The pressure increases in the playoffs, each play becomes more important - the game does change in the playoffs versus what we see in the regular season. For example going from 5-man starting rotations to 4-man or 3-man, quicker hooks for pitchers, different roles for some players, more pinch-hitting, players trying to be heroes and swinging for the fences, etc..Some teams/managers handle that better than others. The Twins of the past decade have not handled it well.

mike wants wins
10-25-2012, 05:43 PM
The playoffs are, but getting to them is not. They got to the playoffs 2 of the last three years due to pitching.

mnfireman
10-25-2012, 05:44 PM
Pitching may not slump, but it does have bad games (see Verlander, Jason; Sabathia, CC; Carpenter, Chris X2; Zimmerman, Jordan).

biggentleben
10-25-2012, 06:17 PM
If the theoretical "Best Team" won the Big Kahuna every year - I think most would lose interest and tune out by June 1st (even the "Best Team's" fans). I like the fact that a powerhouse team can smash through the summer months, play okay in September, and get beat by a lesser talented team that has found their mojo in the dusk of the baseball season. This is what baseball has always been for the most part.

San Fran has a very, very good team, and if you told me 2 months ago they would be in the WS, I would not have been surprised. Where they lack in hitting, they make up in the pitching department and it's not as if they don't have any impact offensive players. I just hope they beat the living excrement out of the Tigers!

Viva San Francisco!!!!

Yes and no. Do I think the best team every year should win the series? No. I do think that calling it "the best team in baseball" is a misnomer in today's playoff set up because of the lack of correlation between regular season record and World Series appearances, let alone wins. I do think San Fran is a very solid team, and their regular season record shows that as well. They arguably had the best trade deadline of any team, in spite of Pence's performance. Their defense is top notch as well.

greengoblinrulz
10-25-2012, 07:05 PM
San Fran has a great manager/pitching coach for one . San Fran starting 5 had 161starts in regular season & they get treated like glass & are allowed to pitch deep into games.....thereby not blowing out their bullpen.
Management has sculpted the team according to the park....no power hitters but solid situational hitters.
Their star player also actually plays the position he's supposed to.

old nurse
10-25-2012, 08:03 PM
Yeah, it's a crapshoot. Last I checked the Nats and the Reds were the best teams this season in team ERA. The Braves were ahead of the Giants too. So where does all this crap about best pitching staff come from?

The truth is, all it takes is a fluke or two to dramatically shift a series and a playoff structure. As Twins fans, we should all be very familiar with that. In the regular season those flukes balance out, in a 10 days worth of games they make the results much more of a coin flip.

The statistics of your fifth starter, long reliever, and last two guys in the bullpen should be meaningless for the playoffs. Team stats are meaningless. The utility guy's stats should be meaningless. You probably did not get there with a third sting catcher.

TheLeviathan
10-25-2012, 09:05 PM
The statistics of your fifth starter, long reliever, and last two guys in the bullpen should be meaningless for the playoffs. Team stats are meaningless. The utility guy's stats should be meaningless. You probably did not get there with a third sting catcher.

Did you even look at anything before you posted this? Talk about meaningless:

Cueto has a chance to be the NL Cy Young. (Which he did, BTW, in a much worse home park for pitching than anyone on SF) Latos and Bailey were pretty comparable with Vogelsong and Bumgartner too.

Zimmerman and Gio are both outstanding pitchers.

The Cincy bullpen was ridiculous in the regular season.

All that and the fact that SF's fifth starter most of the season (Barry Zito) has pitched well in two key games. I could keep going with this post but I've put more time, effort, and thought into than you earned with that retort. Yeesh.

one_eyed_jack
10-25-2012, 09:16 PM
I think saying the playoffs are a crap shoot is oversimplifying it, but I agree with the basic idea that success in the playoffs is dependent on a number of factors beyond your control. thing

Detroit is extremely fortunate to be where they are. First of all, it's not often you can get to the playoffs with the 7th-best record in your league. And when you do, chances are slim that most of the teams better than you will fold, leaving you with a clear path to the World Series.

Yes, the Twins have a long post-season losing streak. But a lot of those games were really close, and had a couple of things gone the Twins way, the results may have been very differently. The margin between victory and defeat is so small once you get to the playoffs in any sport.

Look at Tom Brady. They guy is thought of as one of the best postseason quarterbacks of all time. But when you look closely, he's a Tuck Rule and a couple of missed FG's by Vinatieri away from being the guy who couldn't win the big one.

nicksaviking
10-25-2012, 09:46 PM
The best team in baseball changes on a weekly basis. Or are we considering the best team to be the one that ended the season with the most wins? Kind of like how surely everyone considers the best pitcher to be the one with the most wins?

If anyone had ever thought the best team in baseball was the one with the most wins, then there would be no need for a post season.

nokomismod
10-26-2012, 09:43 AM
And they did it again last night with a soft throwing left hander and good outfield defense. Maybe we need more Scott Diamonds?
I still notice how great it is to watch baseball on HD. The slow motion replays of Romo's pitches breaking into the bottom corner of the strike zone, or the replay of Pence's bat shattering while the bat hits the ball 3 times, have been great to see.

biggentleben
10-26-2012, 11:51 AM
The best team in baseball changes on a weekly basis. Or are we considering the best team to be the one that ended the season with the most wins? Kind of like how surely everyone considers the best pitcher to be the one with the most wins?

If anyone had ever thought the best team in baseball was the one with the most wins, then there would be no need for a post season.

1) Comparing pitcher wins and team wins does not work. At all.

2) No one is saying that it is always true that the best record = best team, but it is pretty alarming the change in correlation from pre-divisional play in the 60s and since. The best team by record before 1961 tended to win the World Series an awful lot. Now, with each added round of playoffs, the correlation is much, much lower. The fact that more wild card teams have appeared in the World Series since 1995 than teams with the best regular season record is also fairly indicative that a WS win is not truly indicative of being the best team in baseball in that particular season. It's winning a postseason tournament. The team that won 106 games but got beat by the team that won 86 and got hot in October had to endure all the ups and downs of the same 162 game season and won 20 games more, yet they're bypassed in the eyes of many who have a distorted view of the value of the World Series by that team who had 20 less wins. I'm not sure how to truly measure the "best team" in the game, but the assumption that it's the World Series winner every year is just not true.

jtrinaldi
10-26-2012, 01:23 PM
The Giants are one of the smartest organizations in all of baseball. They get it, to win you have to develop top pitching prospects. They drafted pitching in the first round for consecutive years Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, Mad Bum, (3 out of 4 years) and when they drafted a hitter, they drafted Buster Posey as well. They traded Wheeler for Beltran, but that would be a sick rotation if Wheeler was in it. The Giants decided to sign Barry Zito because he would put them over the top, he was been terrible up until now, but now he is starting to earn some of the money the giants paid him. Minor League Free agents and waiver wire trades How many of the guys on the team have you herd of, or were on the Giants at the beginning of the year? They pulled a big move to get hunter pence (who is not just a rental, he will contribute in their future) and gave up a top catching spect, compared to giving up a future ace. By the time the Twins pick the 2 top pitchers will be off the board (manaea,Appel) so they will be stuck choosing between stanek or Meadows, and they ultimately will have to go pitcher just because of th slack of the depth they have in the system.

old nurse
10-26-2012, 01:41 PM
The bad part about your analysis is Cain was in the late first round (think the Twins would trade the player they drafted ahead of Cain that year straight up now?) nor was he taken in consecutive years with the other 3. Many other pitchers were picked before Linecum and Bumgarner, it does come down to scouting. As good as the scouting has been for Tampa, do you think they would take Beckham over Posey again?

Fire Dan Gladden
10-26-2012, 01:56 PM
Did anybody listen to Mike and Mike on ESPN radio this morning? Everybody is forgetting one simple thing: luck. Like it or not, once you get into a short series, luck can have an awful lot to do with whether you make it through or not. Greenberg called it "the team of destiny" and "the baseball gods", but a feak play at the right/wrong time can change everything

flpmagikat
10-26-2012, 03:10 PM
The statistics of your fifth starter, long reliever, and last two guys in the bullpen should be meaningless for the playoffs. Team stats are meaningless. The utility guy's stats should be meaningless. You probably did not get there with a third sting catcher.

Did you even look at anything before you posted this? Talk about meaningless:

Cueto has a chance to be the NL Cy Young. (Which he did, BTW, in a much worse home park for pitching than anyone on SF) Latos and Bailey were pretty comparable with Vogelsong and Bumgartner too.

Zimmerman and Gio are both outstanding pitchers.

The Cincy bullpen was ridiculous in the regular season.

All that and the fact that SF's fifth starter most of the season (Barry Zito) has pitched well in two key games. I could keep going with this post but I've put more time, effort, and thought into than you earned with that retort. Yeesh.

How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

biggentleben
10-26-2012, 03:13 PM
The Giants are one of the smartest organizations in all of baseball. They get it, to win you have to develop top pitching prospects. They drafted pitching in the first round for consecutive years Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, Mad Bum, (3 out of 4 years) and when they drafted a hitter, they drafted Buster Posey as well. They traded Wheeler for Beltran, but that would be a sick rotation if Wheeler was in it. The Giants decided to sign Barry Zito because he would put them over the top, he was been terrible up until now, but now he is starting to earn some of the money the giants paid him. Minor League Free agents and waiver wire trades How many of the guys on the team have you herd of, or were on the Giants at the beginning of the year? They pulled a big move to get hunter pence (who is not just a rental, he will contribute in their future) and gave up a top catching spect, compared to giving up a future ace. By the time the Twins pick the 2 top pitchers will be off the board (manaea,Appel) so they will be stuck choosing between stanek or Meadows, and they ultimately will have to go pitcher just because of th slack of the depth they have in the system.

Um, it's not like they're doing this with unknowns. They have employed guys for their strengths, and their roster is full of guys who have been miscast by previous teams, but they are certainly not unknown commodities.

biggentleben
10-26-2012, 03:17 PM
The statistics of your fifth starter, long reliever, and last two guys in the bullpen should be meaningless for the playoffs. Team stats are meaningless. The utility guy's stats should be meaningless. You probably did not get there with a third sting catcher.

Did you even look at anything before you posted this? Talk about meaningless:

Cueto has a chance to be the NL Cy Young. (Which he did, BTW, in a much worse home park for pitching than anyone on SF) Latos and Bailey were pretty comparable with Vogelsong and Bumgartner too.

Zimmerman and Gio are both outstanding pitchers.

The Cincy bullpen was ridiculous in the regular season.

All that and the fact that SF's fifth starter most of the season (Barry Zito) has pitched well in two key games. I could keep going with this post but I've put more time, effort, and thought into than you earned with that retort. Yeesh.

How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

He never mentioned Strasburg. He mentioned Gio and Zimmerman from the Nats, both guys who made 32 starts. Neither completed 200 innings, but both were over 190. Cueto led the league in starts this year and threw nearly 220 innings, but he was injured in the postseason. Lincecum also never left the rotation, tying Cueto for the lead league in games started, though he only tossed 186 innings in the same amount of starts. Just some facts for your argument, some you stated correctly, some not.

TheLeviathan
10-26-2012, 04:37 PM
How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

Stras was shut down and Cueto had an untimely injury.....your point? The point I was annoyed by was the suggestion that team stats don't matter because only your top guys pitch in the postseason and SF has clearly the best top guys. 1) Their top guys are comparable with two teams that were eliminated earlier than them. If not teams eliminated earlier were better and 2) Not just your top guys pitch as Barry Zito has demonstrated this postseason. So it's a ridiculous argument that none of your points do anything to support.

flpmagikat
10-26-2012, 04:53 PM
How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

Stras was shut down and Cueto had an untimely injury.....your point? The point I was annoyed by was the suggestion that team stats don't matter because only your top guys pitch in the postseason and SF has clearly the best top guys. 1) Their top guys are comparable with two teams that were eliminated earlier than them. If not teams eliminated earlier were better and 2) Not just your top guys pitch as Barry Zito has demonstrated this postseason. So it's a ridiculous argument that none of your points do anything to support.

Well I guess my point is that while they all have great rotations, both of the Reds and Nats best starters didn't pitch in the playoffs. When you take those guys out of the picture, I'd say SF probably does have the best rotation in the playoffs. So of course team stats matter, and the effect a guy like Cueto or Strasburg has on those stats is substantial and worth noting. Are you saying that because guys like Zimmerman, Gio, Latos, are all good pitchers as well that losing their top starters doesn't matter?

flpmagikat
10-26-2012, 05:00 PM
The statistics of your fifth starter, long reliever, and last two guys in the bullpen should be meaningless for the playoffs. Team stats are meaningless. The utility guy's stats should be meaningless. You probably did not get there with a third sting catcher.

Did you even look at anything before you posted this? Talk about meaningless:

Cueto has a chance to be the NL Cy Young. (Which he did, BTW, in a much worse home park for pitching than anyone on SF) Latos and Bailey were pretty comparable with Vogelsong and Bumgartner too.

Zimmerman and Gio are both outstanding pitchers.

The Cincy bullpen was ridiculous in the regular season.

All that and the fact that SF's fifth starter most of the season (Barry Zito) has pitched well in two key games. I could keep going with this post but I've put more time, effort, and thought into than you earned with that retort. Yeesh.

How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

He never mentioned Strasburg. He mentioned Gio and Zimmerman from the Nats, both guys who made 32 starts. Neither completed 200 innings, but both were over 190. Cueto led the league in starts this year and threw nearly 220 innings, but he was injured in the postseason. Lincecum also never left the rotation, tying Cueto for the lead league in games started, though he only tossed 186 innings in the same amount of starts. Just some facts for your argument, some you stated correctly, some not.

Right he didn't mention him, but when discussing the cumulative stats of those three teams, the top guys figure pretty heavily. Washington "lost" Strasburg, Cincinnati lost Cueto, SF didn't lose Cain. I guess my point was that I agree that luck is a big factor, and SF is lucky that their starters remained healthy and active(and that Zito has continued to pitch well in the postseason)

mnfireman
10-26-2012, 06:07 PM
The bad part about your analysis is Cain was in the late first round (think the Twins would trade the player they drafted ahead of Cain that year straight up now?) nor was he taken in consecutive years with the other 3. Many other pitchers were picked before Linecum and Bumgarner, it does come down to scouting. As good as the scouting has been for Tampa, do you think they would take Beckham over Posey again?
The Twins picked Denard Span with the 20th pick that year, Cain was chosen 25th.

TheLeviathan
10-26-2012, 06:22 PM
Well I guess my point is that while they all have great rotations, both of the Reds and Nats best starters didn't pitch in the playoffs. When you take those guys out of the picture, I'd say SF probably does have the best rotation in the playoffs. So of course team stats matter, and the effect a guy like Cueto or Strasburg has on those stats is substantial and worth noting. Are you saying that because guys like Zimmerman, Gio, Latos, are all good pitchers as well that losing their top starters doesn't matter?

Except that Cincy BEAT the Giants top starters. It was the backend of the rotation that helped lead them saving that series and then Cain finished it off.

I'm saying it's not as simple as saying "best pitching wins", because that clearly isn't how it plays out. And dismissing team stats as a way to maintain that argument makes no sense. Stl beat a team with better pitching. Hell, they beat another team in the wildcard with better team starting pitching. (Again, a case were the top rotation guys did not pitch the key games)

flpmagikat
10-26-2012, 09:59 PM
Well I guess my point is that while they all have great rotations, both of the Reds and Nats best starters didn't pitch in the playoffs. When you take those guys out of the picture, I'd say SF probably does have the best rotation in the playoffs. So of course team stats matter, and the effect a guy like Cueto or Strasburg has on those stats is substantial and worth noting. Are you saying that because guys like Zimmerman, Gio, Latos, are all good pitchers as well that losing their top starters doesn't matter?

Except that Cincy BEAT the Giants top starters. It was the backend of the rotation that helped lead them saving that series and then Cain finished it off.

I'm saying it's not as simple as saying "best pitching wins", because that clearly isn't how it plays out. And dismissing team stats as a way to maintain that argument makes no sense. Stl beat a team with better pitching. Hell, they beat another team in the wildcard with better team starting pitching. (Again, a case were the top rotation guys did not pitch the key games)

Fair enough. I guess when I look at the team pitching stats for the regular season, the giants would be fourth out of the 5 nl teams in the post season. Atlanta lost, and the reds and nats lost their top starters. I guess my only point was the team with the best pitching overall is having the most sucess. Some luck, but I dont think thats a fluke(not that you implied that)

biggentleben
10-26-2012, 11:23 PM
Fair enough. I guess when I look at the team pitching stats for the regular season, the giants would be fourth out of the 5 nl teams in the post season. Atlanta lost, and the reds and nats lost their top starters. I guess my only point was the team with the best pitching overall is having the most sucess. Some luck, but I dont think thats a fluke(not that you implied that)

When you look at overall pitching staff for the regular season, you miss a lot. Brandon Beachy wasn't walking onto the Braves roster, Strasburg wasn't walking onto the Nats roster. In playoff rosters, the Giants had the best combination of starters and bullpen arms of any team in the NL. What's stepped up drastically for the Giants was their defense once they got Belt in at first and Blanco in left.

old nurse
10-27-2012, 01:13 AM
The statistics of your fifth starter, long reliever, and last two guys in the bullpen should be meaningless for the playoffs. Team stats are meaningless. The utility guy's stats should be meaningless. You probably did not get there with a third sting catcher.

Did you even look at anything before you posted this? Talk about meaningless:

Cueto has a chance to be the NL Cy Young. (Which he did, BTW, in a much worse home park for pitching than anyone on SF) Latos and Bailey were pretty comparable with Vogelsong and Bumgartner too.

Zimmerman and Gio are both outstanding pitchers.

The Cincy bullpen was ridiculous in the regular season.

All that and the fact that SF's fifth starter most of the season (Barry Zito) has pitched well in two key games. I could keep going with this post but I've put more time, effort, and thought into than you earned with that retort. Yeesh.

How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

He never mentioned Strasburg. He mentioned Gio and Zimmerman from the Nats, both guys who made 32 starts. Neither completed 200 innings, but both were over 190. Cueto led the league in starts this year and threw nearly 220 innings, but he was injured in the postseason. Lincecum also never left the rotation, tying Cueto for the lead league in games started, though he only tossed 186 innings in the same amount of starts. Just some facts for your argument, some you stated correctly, some not.

Cueto, Gio and Zimmerman were not fifth starters. If you are using your long relief guy in the playoffs you are probably out of the game unless the starter got injured. What winning team was using their last guys on the bench of the bullpen. The 5th starter throughout the season is meaningful, in the playoffs not so. The 4/5 guys in the bullpen can be meaningful during the season (note Jeff Gray did post 6 wins). Are you really going to be using them in the playoffs if the game is in doubt? The San Fransisco starting rotation is the anomaly in baseball, not the norm.

TheLeviathan
10-27-2012, 08:58 AM
Cueto, Gio and Zimmerman were not fifth starters. If you are using your long relief guy in the playoffs you are probably out of the game unless the starter got injured. What winning team was using their last guys on the bench of the bullpen. The 5th starter throughout the season is meaningful, in the playoffs not so. The 4/5 guys in the bullpen can be meaningful during the season (note Jeff Gray did post 6 wins). Are you really going to be using them in the playoffs if the game is in doubt? The San Fransisco starting rotation is the anomaly in baseball, not the norm.

So....you're going to continue this absurd notion? And to do it you cite the number of wins Jeff friggin Gray had? The Twins team ERA with Gray: 4.77. Team ERA without Gray: 4.73. Give me a frickin break.

Fifth starters and mop-up guys aren't dramatically affecting season team stats any more than they are in the playoffs. The fact is, Cincy's key bullpen guys and best starters were as good (and I would argue better) than San Fran. Washington was better than St. Louis in both of these departments as well and lost.

And we're only using this year, if you want to open up the last 5-10 years I could further bury this notion. SF is here for the same reason STL has won several titles the last few years with inferior overall talent to other playoff teams - they've had some guys catch fire, they've caught some enormous breaks, and they have some nice talent guiding them. But the idea that "best pitching staff = world series" is just stupid. Nothing about Barry Zito winning two huge games, a guy in Vogelsong that no one around here would call an "ace" has been dominant this postseason, and that their inept offense would score enough to help them win against good pitching has anything to do with how good you think Matt Cain and Bum are.

TheLeviathan
10-27-2012, 09:01 AM
When you look at overall pitching staff for the regular season, you miss a lot. Brandon Beachy wasn't walking onto the Braves roster, Strasburg wasn't walking onto the Nats roster. In playoff rosters, the Giants had the best combination of starters and bullpen arms of any team in the NL. What's stepped up drastically for the Giants was their defense once they got Belt in at first and Blanco in left.

Cincy had the best combination. They had the league's best bullpen and comparable starters. Cueto-Latos-Bailey were absolutely comparable to Cain-Bum-Vogelsong. And the bullpen was a clear Cincy advantage. When Cueto went down it hurt, but what might have happened if St. Louis didn't beat a superior Washington pitching staff? I could easily point to multiple teams from the last few years that won over superior pitching teams. Not to mention your Atlanta example back when they used to say "pitching gets you to the postseason, hitting wins it"

old nurse
10-27-2012, 12:24 PM
How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

Stras was shut down and Cueto had an untimely injury.....your point? The point I was annoyed by was the suggestion that team stats don't matter because only your top guys pitch in the postseason and SF has clearly the best top guys. 1) Their top guys are comparable with two teams that were eliminated earlier than them. If not teams eliminated earlier were better and 2) Not just your top guys pitch as Barry Zito has demonstrated this postseason. So it's a ridiculous argument that none of your points do anything to support.

You may be bothered by the comment that team stats don't matter but how many fifth starters pitch in the playoffs? How much are you using your relief players? Not much. Be bothered by that fact all you want but the use of these players in the regular season versus the post season is significantly different. Comparing team stats when your rosters is used differently thus is not an accurate way to portray the team in an attempt to compare them. Nothing you have posted disproves that.

TheLeviathan
10-27-2012, 01:00 PM
[You may be bothered by the comment

I'm bothered by your insistence on a stupid premise to back up an erroneous theory. Care to throw Jeff Gray around some more or did that one little bit hit home at least?


that team stats don't matter but how many fifth starters pitch in the playoffs?

Who is the Giants fifth pitcher? Lincecum? Zito? or Vogelsong? If you put an iota of thought into your next post you'll probably say Lincecum, who, for many people would not have been teh fifth starter most of the season. Either way it doesn't change the fact that SF's best pitcher this postseason was their number 3 starter. And their number 4 has been better than 2. Next stupid assertion please....


How much are you using your relief players? Not much.

The Giants are averaging 3.5 innings per game from their bullpen. That's compared to 2.87 innings per game in the regular season. Do you even try to look up the nonsense you're spouting?


Be bothered by that fact all you want but the use of these players in the regular season versus the post season is significantly different.

Significantly different than you how apparently perceive it....yes.

Could you at least try and fact check your nonsense?

old nurse
10-27-2012, 03:23 PM
Yeah, it's a crapshoot. Last I checked the Nats and the Reds were the best teams this season in team ERA. The Braves were ahead of the Giants too. So where does all this crap about best pitching staff come from?

The truth is, all it takes is a fluke or two to dramatically shift a series and a playoff structure. As Twins fans, we should all be very familiar with that. In the regular season those flukes balance out, in a 10 days worth of games they make the results much more of a coin flip.

That was your initial premise. My initial premise was that you are erroneous to equate best team ERA in the season to better team in the playoff. First off, due to injury and roster shuffling not all pitchers used during the season are on the playoff roster. With the goal of winning, the net effect of the mop up crew of the bullpen is meaningless towards 4 wins. It is rare (rare does not mean never) to use a fifth starter in the playoffs. In search of accuracy of winning baseball then one should compare what is used in winning situations, your top 4 starters and top three to four relievers. That is what is used in winning games.
In terms of complaining of lack of research, are there not better metrics than ERA to determine better pitching? You would appear to be the one being lazy

Jeff Grey comment was to jerk your chain.
Where is there any flukey plays that caused the Giants to win a game?

TheLeviathan
10-27-2012, 03:49 PM
In terms of complaining of lack of research, are there not better metrics than ERA to determine better pitching? You would appear to be the one being lazy

By all means - let's see the basis upon which you have determined the Giants are the best pitching team. Mind you, this also means it should work for last year. The year before. Etc. I look forward to you actually putting in some thought.


Jeff Grey comment was to jerk your chain. Where is there any flukey plays that caused the Giants to win a game?

Jerk my chain? Was the bullpen comment the same? You're posting unresearched stupidity and getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. I'm basing the assessment of "best" pitching staff on statistics gleaned from the best sample size we have (the regular season). What are you basing it off of?

(Cute also, now that it's being pointed out, that 3rd and 4th starters count too. Care to imagine what percentage of regular season team stats is compromised by your top four starters and top four bullpen arms? Which, to help you with the math, is 8 out of likely 11 or 12 spots? Perhaps you should study your careless Jeff Gray remark before you keep arguing that regular season team stats don't matter when you've included those that do matter as being your top four starter and top four bullpen arms. Here's a hint:

Team top 8 ERA 3.30 Total: 3.68
Team top 8 ERA 3.17 Total 3.34
Team top 8 ERA 2.99 Total 3.33

Only one of those three teams had a real disparity. In fact, your Giants (even with pulling the filler out), were still not as good in ERA. But by all means, put up or shut up. And don't bring Jeff Gray wins stats into this please. Pretty amusing for you to get haughty about better metrics when you cited the number of wins for Jeff gray in this conversation.

flpmagikat
10-27-2012, 03:59 PM
In terms of complaining of lack of research, are there not better metrics than ERA to determine better pitching? You would appear to be the one being lazy

By all means - let's see the basis upon which you have determined the Giants are the best pitching team. Mind you, this also means it should work for last year. The year before. Etc. I look forward to you actually putting in some thought.


Jeff Grey comment was to jerk your chain. Where is there any flukey plays that caused the Giants to win a game?

Jerk my chain? Was the bullpen comment the same? You're posting unresearched stupidity and getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. I'm basing the assessment of "best" pitching staff on statistics gleaned from the best sample size we have (the regular season). What are you basing it off of?

(Cute also, now that it's being pointed out, that 3rd and 4th starters count too. Care to imagine what percentage of regular season team stats is compromised by your top four starters and top four bullpen arms? Which, to help you with the math, is 8 out of likely 11 or 12 spots? Perhaps you should study your careless Jeff Gray remark before you keep arguing that regular season team stats don't matter when you've included those that do matter as being your top four starter and top four bullpen arms. Here's a hint:

Team top 8 ERA 3.30 Total: 3.68
Team top 8 ERA 3.17 Total 3.34
Team top 8 ERA 2.99 Total 3.33

Only one of those three teams had a real disparity. In fact, your Giants (even with pulling the filler out), were still not as good in ERA. But by all means, put up or shut up. And don't bring Jeff Gray wins stats into this please. Pretty amusing for you to get haughty about better metrics when you cited the number of wins for Jeff gray in this conversation.

What do the reds and nats team eras look like when you take out cueto and stras numbers? Honest question, im on my phone and not that clever. I imagine that .3 gap looks a bit different.

TheLeviathan
10-27-2012, 04:11 PM
What do the reds and nats team eras look like when you take out cueto and stras numbers? Honest question, im on my phone and not that clever. I imagine that .3 gap looks a bit different.

To be fair, I didn't do that because I also removed Timmy Lincecum's numbers. Which I think is being more than fair to the Giants considering he was a full-time starter for them. But if you pulled Stras out of Washington they are probably more like a 3.33 ERA team, which is still as good as the SF top 8!!! None of the regular season stats show SF as a clearly better pitching staff. And that's despite SF having the second best pitcher's park in all of baseball compared to Cincy as the 8th worst and Wash in the middle of the pack.

The point I'm making is that there isn't much of a gap between the top 8 and the team ERA because even in the regular season you tend to use your best players most often. The contention that the playoffs is more starters, less pen and none of the lesser guys are relevant therefore eliminating regular season team stats is foolish. The lesser guys pitch less innings in the regular season and their actual impact on team stats is far more minimal than people think. Lincecum is the prime suspect for SF's gap, not their scrubs. Team stats are a perfectly valid way to compare pitching talent.

By pretty much every measure I've seen, SF was not the best pitching staff going in and it certainly wasn't clear that they were. And even if the theory of "best pitching staff wins" - why is Washington sitting out while St. Louis advances? Better yet, someone please explain to me the 2011 St. Louis Cardinals.

biggentleben
10-27-2012, 04:36 PM
When you look at overall pitching staff for the regular season, you miss a lot. Brandon Beachy wasn't walking onto the Braves roster, Strasburg wasn't walking onto the Nats roster. In playoff rosters, the Giants had the best combination of starters and bullpen arms of any team in the NL. What's stepped up drastically for the Giants was their defense once they got Belt in at first and Blanco in left.

Cincy had the best combination. They had the league's best bullpen and comparable starters. Cueto-Latos-Bailey were absolutely comparable to Cain-Bum-Vogelsong. And the bullpen was a clear Cincy advantage. When Cueto went down it hurt, but what might have happened if St. Louis didn't beat a superior Washington pitching staff? I could easily point to multiple teams from the last few years that won over superior pitching teams. Not to mention your Atlanta example back when they used to say "pitching gets you to the postseason, hitting wins it"

By pure pitchers, Cincy was better, but Bochy is an exceptional bullpen manager, which to me overcomes the minimal difference in talent between the two.

TheLeviathan
10-27-2012, 05:22 PM
y pure pitchers, Cincy was better, but Bochy is an exceptional bullpen manager, which to me overcomes the minimal difference in talent between the two.

That's a fair analysis, it's more a gut thing for you then which I don't have a problem with. The two are pretty close and we both seem to agree that it isn't purely the quality of the pitching staff that gets you there. It sure as hell helps but it isn't as simple as some here are making it. So I can respect that opinion.

YourHouseIsMyHouse
10-27-2012, 08:21 PM
The best teams generally have the best pitching. There is really no way around it.
Team ERA Leaders (1-10):
1 Tampa Bay (90-72) 2 LA Dodgers (86-76) 3 Washington (98-64) 4 Cincinnati (97-65) 5 Atlanta (94-68)
6 Oakland (94-68) 7 San Francisco (94-68) 8 St. Louis (88-74) 9 Detroit (88-74) 10 Seattle (75-87)

Seattle is the only team that isn't good and they are 10th anyway. The Yankees (12th), Baltimore (14th), Texas (16th), and Angels (18th) are all good teams, but they at least have average pitching. I think an argument can be made that pitching is a lot more important to team success in the NL than the AL.


Nearly every team in the postseason has a great staff and because of this the illusion becomes that the 'best' one will win every year. My opinion is that you have to be very lucky or have a good 1-3 to reach the WS (not necessarily the best). Both teams this season have excellent pitchers and that's a good example and support for this.

old nurse
10-28-2012, 12:09 AM
[QUOTE=TheLeviathan;6
By all means - let's see the basis upon which you have determined the Giants are the best pitching team.

I Never claimed the Giants were the best pitching team in the playoff. I claimed your logic in determining what was the best team in the playoffs was fatally flawed. And to further show your reading ability I have never claimed to like the Giants. The regular season stats of those players not on the roster and not going to play make a difference. You used three unnamed teams in an attempt to discredit me. There were 10 teams in the playoffs.

Single factor analysis. Is ERA the best determinant of best pitching. Individually there is not even a close 1:1 relationship to the Cy Young award and ERA leader. If the individual with the best ERA is not voted the best pitcher, why should the team with the best ERA be considered the best pitching team. Your analysis of declaring the top pitching team is simplistic at best. I never declared any team to be the top pitching team. I found your analysis simplistic and called you as such.

Where are the flukes wild claiming person that determine who wins the WS. I want your BS answer.

TheLeviathan
10-28-2012, 12:23 AM
Not working that way. You claimed season team ERA was flawed - name another. You got caught with your embarrassingly stupid Jeff Gray and bullpen reasoning and still have yet to provide an unrefuted reason. I have posted stats and analysis to consistent shoot down your stupidity. Name what you use to assess the teams instead. Just make sure its better than Jeff Grays win total so you recover some face here. Hell I'm annoyed with you and still fell bad for how ignorant you have looked.

So let's hear it and I will be happy to answer. I've put plenty of effort in (in clear contrast to your laughable attempts) so no need to worry. This was an amusing attempt to use a fallacy to wiggle out though. Nice try, no dice.

TheLeviathan
10-28-2012, 12:32 AM
Nice edit - I repeat - name another. This changes nothing - take any stat you want. Fact is all stats are subject to the same flaws so your distinction is meaningless. We can do this anyway you want and your arguments are still nonsense. So post your analysis tool - it isnt hard.

old nurse
10-28-2012, 09:24 AM
Not working that way. You claimed season team ERA was flawed - name another. You got caught with your embarrassingly stupid Jeff Gray and bullpen reasoning and still have yet to provide an unrefuted reason. I have posted stats and analysis to consistent shoot down your stupidity. Name what you use to assess the teams instead. Just make sure its better than Jeff Grays win total so you recover some face here. Hell I'm annoyed with you and still fell bad for how ignorant you have looked.

So let's hear it and I will be happy to answer. I've put plenty of effort in (in clear contrast to your laughable attempts) so no need to worry. This was an amusing attempt to use a fallacy to wiggle out though. Nice try, no dice.



Using your standard of regular season team statistics and single factor analysis to determine best pitching staff one can get different results. WAR by team pitching shows the Tigers have the best pitching staff followed by the Rangers and Rays. XFIP says it is the Rays, Cardinals then Phillies. Gee, lets go by team strikeouts. That is one statistic independent of the rest of the team. Brewers win, Phillies, then Rays. Using three different methods, three different answers who was the top team for pitching. The litmus test for validity? All three of the measures I used have the Twins at the bottom. The Rockies and the Indians have worse team ERA than the Twins.

Now for the third time, you claim that it is flukes that win the WS. Care top expound on your BS claim?

TheLeviathan
10-28-2012, 09:49 AM
Using your standard of regular season team statistics and single factor analysis to determine best pitching staff one can get different results.

Actually, I've compared players specifically as well. I never claimed team ERA was the end-all, be-all. Go back and (since you finally, 6 posts in demonstrated the ability to research the BS you throw on the screen) and see - it's just what I chose to use because it has a strong sample size and is comparable. No stat is perfect, but all of your charges against it (fifth starters, backend bullpen, Jeff Gray's win total) were stupid and unfounded.


WAR by team pitching shows the Tigers have the best pitching staff followed by the Rangers and Rays. XFIP says it is the Rays, Cardinals then Phillies. Gee, lets go by team strikeouts. That is one statistic independent of the rest of the team. Brewers win, Phillies, then Rays. Using three different methods, three different answers who was the top team for pitching. The litmus test for validity? All three of the measures I used have the Twins at the bottom. The Rockies and the Indians have worse team ERA than the Twins.

So your easily explained pre-disposition as a Twins fan to see them as the worst vindicates your choice of statistic? Well, you didn't top Jeff Gray, but good effort. I have no problem using those stats too. To me it doesn't matter what the stat is, there isn't one that shows the Giants are clearly the best. I picked team ERA (because, for the fun of it, let's just say my litmus test was the Rockies were baseball's worst pitching team. Subjectivity is fun!) because it represents the runs the team allowed with some independence from poor defense. Not as much as other stats, but a simple go-to stat. Team ERA could certainly be criticized based on park factors, FIP, and a few others but because of fifth starters, unresearched bullpen assertions, and Jeff Gray's win total? No, that's stupid.


Now for the third time, you claim that it is flukes that win the WS. Care top expound on your BS claim?

Absolutely. Luck plays in on a number of factors. The Giants are lucky to have had their entire starting rotation the entire season. They had a grand total of 2 starts by guys not planned to be in their rotation. That is flukey and lucky. Having your first round opponent (a superior team IMO) lose it's best starter and possible Cy Young winner in the first inning of Game 1 was lucky. Bochy and Blanco have both credited "god" for breaks this postseason. It happens in baseball that flukes and things tend to just go your way (broken bat hits, funny hops, etc.) - denying this can play a role in the postseason is silly.

Seth Stohs
10-28-2012, 11:31 AM
Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams. I believe that, in the playoffs, bullpens paly a huge role, but it obviously starts with starting pitching. The Twins have no starting ptiching, so I don't know if there is any Twins discussion in this thread (regarding good, playoff teams). The question of, "Can the Twins get there?" is legit... The answer? Sure, if they can find a couple of strong #2s, Gibson and Hendriks take a step forward, and they find a diamond in the rough, like Vogelsong. And that's certainly not predictable.

old nurse
10-28-2012, 01:06 PM
When your hitting falls apart like the Yankees vs Detroit, and currently Detroit, the pitching doesn't matter. Does your whole team play well under the pressure of the playoffs. The Giants have enough players playing their best at the right time. That has kept them coming back in the earlier rounds. Carrying that thought towards the Twins, will the pieces added on offense to the Twins be able to come through. Span played well in his two times in the playoffs. Mauer and Morneau have had highs and lows. Vogelsong kicked around the majors and the minors for a long time before something clicked. The Twins attempt in 2012 was PJ Walters, in 09 it was RA Dickey. There will be somebody signed that they take a chance on.

old nurse
10-28-2012, 01:27 PM
@Leviathan. The game 4 starter for the Reds did not lose the game for them, the bullpen did. It might or might not have mattered if Cueto was available. Broken bat hits, funny hops happen in any game and on a regular basis. That is part of the game. Things like letting the ball dribble through your legs is a flukey thing. Someone like Drew Butera with an OPS of 800 through the playoffs would be a flukey thing.

TheLeviathan
10-28-2012, 01:48 PM
@Leviathan. The game 4 starter for the Reds did not lose the game for them, the bullpen did. It might or might not have mattered if Cueto was available. Broken bat hits, funny hops happen in any game and on a regular basis. That is part of the game. Things like letting the ball dribble through your legs is a flukey thing. Someone like Drew Butera with an OPS of 800 through the playoffs would be a flukey thing.

Getting to a world series involves a lot. But first let me again point out the fact that you didn't do your research. Mike Leake started Game 4....do you know why? Probably not since once again you posted nonsense without fact-checking. When Cueto went down Matt Latos (the would be Game 2 starter) pitched 4 innings. Which forced Game 3 starter Bronson Arroyo up. Which then forced Cincy's 5th starter Leake to pitch in a situation that would have been Arroyo with Cueto going in a do or die Game 5. If you don't think that kind of adjustments were an advantage for the Giants and a big stroke of luck....well I'll keep my current opinion of your mental fortitude to myself.

Between the Giants lack of pitching injuries, gifts from "god" (Giants players themselves admitting to getting lucky breaks), and severe injuries to their regular season and postseason opponents - they've had plenty of good fortune.

Good to know though that dribbling grounders through your legs are flukes but broken bats and funny hops "happen in any game." I'd ask where that difference is, but I'm really just hoping you realize how embarrassing this has been for you and just move on.

biggentleben
10-28-2012, 02:52 PM
Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams.

This. I think when I make the comment that the winners of the World Series are a tournament winner and not the "best" team in baseball, there are those that think I'm saying they're unworthy winners. That's not the case at all. There is a lot of luck/goofy hops/short series stuff that can mean one team gets breaks that another doesn't. What I've been saying all along here is simply winning in the postseason does not determine who is the better overall team.

clutterheart
10-28-2012, 05:19 PM
How did they do it?
They have payroll of 129 mm. They have drafted front line pitching talent and good sisters while surrounding them with veteran role players.

They use strong revenues from the best ballpark in baseball to invest in their team

old nurse
10-28-2012, 06:02 PM
Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams.

This. I think when I make the comment that the winners of the World Series are a tournament winner and not the "best" team in baseball, there are those that think I'm saying they're unworthy winners. That's not the case at all. There is a lot of luck/goofy hops/short series stuff that can mean one team gets breaks that another doesn't. What I've been saying all along here is simply winning in the postseason does not determine who is the better overall team.

There is not a balanced schedule within baseball. The team that wins the most games in just the team that won the most games. There will never be a way to determine what team is the best as no roster is static. A team adds to through trades and player development, they lose through injury and fatigue. You can find excuses for losing in the post season and say your team was the better team, but it does not change the fact your team for a week was not the better team.

biggentleben
10-28-2012, 07:00 PM
Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams.

This. I think when I make the comment that the winners of the World Series are a tournament winner and not the "best" team in baseball, there are those that think I'm saying they're unworthy winners. That's not the case at all. There is a lot of luck/goofy hops/short series stuff that can mean one team gets breaks that another doesn't. What I've been saying all along here is simply winning in the postseason does not determine who is the better overall team.

There is not a balanced schedule within baseball. The team that wins the most games in just the team that won the most games. There will never be a way to determine what team is the best as no roster is static. A team adds to through trades and player development, they lose through injury and fatigue. You can find excuses for losing in the post season and say your team was the better team, but it does not change the fact your team for a week was not the better team.

So I suppose you would say that the Tigers didn't underachieve this year?

Based on preseason expected wins, the Tigers were about 15 games worse than predicted, yet they're in the world series. Two teams had better records while playing in tougher divisions and missed the playoffs, so your "balanced schedule" argument holds no weight there. I would say that the Reds had a better season relative to expectations than the Tigers, yet they didn't get out of the first round of the playoffs.

Regardless, you're once again completely missing my point and hanging on one or two words. Not worth taking any further.

old nurse
10-29-2012, 06:16 AM
So I suppose you would say that the Tigers didn't underachieve this year?

Based on preseason expected wins, the Tigers were about 15 games worse than predicted, yet they're in the world series. Two teams had better records while playing in tougher divisions and missed the playoffs, so your "balanced schedule" argument holds no weight there. I would say that the Reds had a better season relative to expectations than the Tigers, yet they didn't get out of the first round of the playoffs.

Regardless, you're once again completely missing my point and hanging on one or two words. Not worth taking any further.

You can suppose what I would say all you want and be wrong.

What is the best team? Purely an opinion. It is a fine thing to have an opinion. The reasons given for an assumed better team losing is all the calls going against them, the lucky breaks, didn't have home field advantage, etc. That could be true for the one game play in, but are there any statistics that show your point? No. It is subjective. The point of the regular season is to get into the playoffs, not be the subjective best team. If a team plays up to their full potential for 12 games in late October, then they proved they are the best team. They overcame the flukes and excuses.

Most teams had a better year relative to expectations than the Tigers. Any none 90 loss team did. In the end the Tigers bats went collectively cold again. In regards to best season in regards to expectations I would think that would fall to the Nationals. They did not even expect to be where they were or they would have used Strasburg differently.