Jump to content

2010 MLB Season


Recommended Posts

Hey, Bumgarner showed up in a BIG way. Fullest kudos and props to a young man who was impressive as hell.

Tomorrow...I just asked my son what he wanted to do if the Rangers lost tomorrow night and he didn't hesitate in saying that he wanted to stick around for the post-game ceremonies because, "how often do you get to be in the stadium when a World Series champ gets crowned?"

Right answer!

Cool indeed, but I'm betting you won't be witnessing it. I think Lee will pitch a masterpiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Either way, David - something to be thankful for.

I'm like Al, no matter the outcome of the series, the Rangers have given their fans so much to be thankful for. This is a tough sports town (as I suspect most are...) with everybody "loving" a winner and ditching a "loser" like yesterday's kleenex, and l sense a fading fadom amongst the "fandom". In the wake of the Cowboys' & Mavericks' failures, a lot of people just wanted to latch on to a winner no matter what. To them, I say get a life of your own. Be your own winner, raise a son who understands that being a Ranger fan is a subset of being a baseball fan, not the other way around.

Much love here for my boy, and much love for the 2010 Texas Rangers. And if/when they do it, much love - and props - for the 2010 MLB Champion San Francisco Giants.

Of course, I do reserve the right to believe in miracles and to alter "MLB" to "NL" should one perchance occur.

Just in case... :g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanded Playoffs??

Me no likey. Not one bit.

Ugh, me neither. He won't consider expanded replay but he's all eager to expand the playoffs? :blink:

Why is Selig such a douche?

Hey, Bumgarner showed up in a BIG way. Fullest kudos and props to a young man who was impressive as hell.

Tomorrow...I just asked my son what he wanted to do if the Rangers lost tomorrow night and he didn't hesitate in saying that he wanted to stick around for the post-game ceremonies because, "how often do you get to be in the stadium when a World Series champ gets crowned?"

Right answer!

Sounds like you're raising him right! :tup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, David - something to be thankful for.

I'm like Al, no matter the outcome of the series, the Rangers have given their fans so much to be thankful for. This is a tough sports town (as I suspect most are...) with everybody "loving" a winner and ditching a "loser" like yesterday's kleenex, and l sense a fading fadom amongst the "fandom". In the wake of the Cowboys' & Mavericks' failures, a lot of people just wanted to latch on to a winner no matter what. To them, I say get a life of your own. Be your own winner, raise a son who understands that being a Ranger fan is a subset of being a baseball fan, not the other way around.

Much love here for my boy, and much love for the 2010 Texas Rangers. And if/when they do it, much love - and props - for the 2010 MLB Champion San Francisco Giants.

Of course, I do reserve the right to believe in miracles and to alter "MLB" to "NL" should one perchance occur.

Just in case... :g

Amen to that!!!

Edited by Big Al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not crazy about expanding the playoffs, although as the system stands now there's no tough penalty for being a wild card. If they did it 2 out of 3 for the wild cards followed by the winner always facing the team with the best record (rather than best record unless that team is in your division) it might actually be a better system. And get rid of some of the weird off days that certain divisional series have where there's a day off between game 1 & 2. The other thing would be tighten up the days between the wild card playoff and the xLDS so the wild card team would not be throwing it's ace in game 1. That'd be another penalty for not winning the division.

The major drawback of expanding the playoffs is that while sometimes the wild card is the 2nd best team in the league my guess is that the 2nd wild card team is likely the 5th best team. Or maybe 4th. So it just increases the odds that a not very good team becomes champ. We already have March Madness for that trip.

*Oh yeah. Very happy to see how our Ranger fans are handling this. That was just one hell of a pitching performance tonight. What can you do? Come back and try your best to send in back to SF, but if not, another city of suffering fans will finally get a title. It's not over yet though. '79 Pirates... ;)

Edited by Quincy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, either way a good ending, AFAIC. :)

ON an unrelated note, did anyone see Laura Bush yawning during the ninth inning last night? That cracked me up!

On a related note, the following is a transcript from this weekend's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" (the NPR news quiz) about this series. Mods, feel free to delete if you think this crosses the political line. This is being offered, FWIW, with no other agenda than to make folks laugh as I did when I first heard it:

SAGAL: Your last quote is an unusual rallying cry never heard before in the world of sports.

KASELL: Fear the beard.

SAGAL: That's a team slogan, it is.

(Soundbite of booing)

Ms. DICKINSON: Whoa.

SAGAL: Oh I'm sorry, it seems like our entire audience had stomach trouble at one. I don't know why. (edit: they were broadcasting from Philadelphia)

(Soundbite of laughter)

SAGAL: That is a team slogan, referring to the distinct facial hair of one particular player who is participating in this year's what?

Mr. MEHLHORN: World Series.

SAGAL: Yes, indeed.

(Soundbite of bell)

Mr. MEHLHORN: Of baseball.

SAGAL: Exactly.

(Soundbite of laughter)

SAGAL: Let me just say to our audience here in Philadelphia that it's a relatively unimportant contest.

(Soundbite of laughter)

SAGAL: The World Series got underway this week in San Francisco. Most sportswriters have predicted that once again, an American team will take home the trophy.

(Soundbite of laughter)

SAGAL: This year, there's actually slightly more interest than usual because one of the teams has never been in the World Series. That's the Texas Rangers, a team once owned...

(Soundbite of cheering)

SAGAL: All right, all right, see your loyalty. A team once owned by George W. Bush, who sold them back in 1998. So America, now we know it takes about 12 years to recover from George Bush.

(Soundbite of laughter)

(Soundbite of applause)

SAGAL: The Series started in San Francisco and then is going to go to Dallas, marking the first time 40 San Franciscans ever voluntarily went to Texas.

(Soundbite of laughter)

SAGAL: The two communities have made the usual friendly wager. If the Rangers win, Texas gets to secede from the Union.

(Soundbite of laughter)

SAGAL: If the Giants win, Texas has to secede from the Union.

(Soundbite of laughter)

(Soundbite of applause)

:lol:

Edited by Big Al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way an expanded playoffs work is if they avoid going deep into November by starting the season a week earlier. Most players complain about the length of spring training anyway, and they could always move it up a bit - especially for the purpose of stretching out starters. Then I wouldn't have a terrible problem with the idea - but if they keep the start date and insist on 162 games (which I am not actually in favor of reducing) then it becomes ridiculous.

One other problem is the idea of a "bye" for any team. Baseball isn't like football where teams can use the extra time to get healthy and prepare for their opponent. Pitchers need regular work and if anything, minimal extra rest. I think the best option would be a play-in series between the top two teams that don't win a division crown. Three games only, for the right to face off against the top team in the league regardless of division, as Quincy mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way an expanded playoffs work is if they avoid going deep into November by starting the season a week earlier. Most players complain about the length of spring training anyway, and they could always move it up a bit - especially for the purpose of stretching out starters. Then I wouldn't have a terrible problem with the idea - but if they keep the start date and insist on 162 games (which I am not actually in favor of reducing) then it becomes ridiculous.

One other problem is the idea of a "bye" for any team. Baseball isn't like football where teams can use the extra time to get healthy and prepare for their opponent. Pitchers need regular work and if anything, minimal extra rest. I think the best option would be a play-in series between the top two teams that don't win a division crown. Three games only, for the right to face off against the top team in the league regardless of division, as Quincy mentioned.

Baseball in March??? Oh yeah that will work so well in say, ahh.. Boston. Or New York. Or Chicago. Philly. Cleveland. Pittsburgh. Oh and Minnesota.

I don't want any more teams in playoffs because then you're risking becoming the NHL were so many teams qualify for the post season that the regular season has become irrelevant. Don't water down the competition. Additionally how lame would it be if an team w/ a losing record made the postseason and, God forbid, won it all?? If you can't win at least 82 games you have no business playing in October. Period.

And like you said there's the problem w/ the "bye" week. The bye week isn't just bad for pitchers, it's bad for hitters. Totally throws off their timing.

I don't think it will happen because the player's union will be against it. The players won't be earning any extra money and the pitchers will just have to add more innings to their already tired arms. Plus their winter vacation is going to be shortened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never saw Baumgarner before. His motion must be tough on batters, particularly lefthanders.

Other than Game 1, the Giants pitching has done a great job shutting down the Rangers bats. Even in Game 3, you take away those homers and...not much else really happened. No sustained rallies. At first I thought that the bats had gone cold, but there reality has sunk in that the Giants' staff right now is just pretty damn awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way an expanded playoffs work is if they avoid going deep into November by starting the season a week earlier. Most players complain about the length of spring training anyway, and they could always move it up a bit - especially for the purpose of stretching out starters. Then I wouldn't have a terrible problem with the idea - but if they keep the start date and insist on 162 games (which I am not actually in favor of reducing) then it becomes ridiculous.

One other problem is the idea of a "bye" for any team. Baseball isn't like football where teams can use the extra time to get healthy and prepare for their opponent. Pitchers need regular work and if anything, minimal extra rest. I think the best option would be a play-in series between the top two teams that don't win a division crown. Three games only, for the right to face off against the top team in the league regardless of division, as Quincy mentioned.

Baseball in March??? Oh yeah that will work so well in say, ahh.. Boston. Or New York. Or Chicago. Philly. Cleveland. Pittsburgh. Oh and Minnesota.

I don't want any more teams in playoffs because then you're risking becoming the NHL were so many teams qualify for the post season that the regular season has become irrelevant. Don't water down the competition. Additionally how lame would it be if an team w/ a losing record made the postseason and, God forbid, won it all?? If you can't win at least 82 games you have no business playing in October. Period.

And like you said there's the problem w/ the "bye" week. The bye week isn't just bad for pitchers, it's bad for hitters. Totally throws off their timing.

I don't think it will happen because the player's union will be against it. The players won't be earning any extra money and the pitchers will just have to add more innings to their already tired arms. Plus their winter vacation is going to be shortened.

Show me where the second-best second place team has ever had a below .500 record.

Obviously its never happened - and there is no chance of an expansion any greater than one additional team so the comparison to the NHL is meaningless.

As for March baseball, first of all, its happened before - pretty sure we've had, in this century, start dates of March 30 or 31. Starting April 7 is a problem though. And what is the material difference between late March and early April games anyway? They should simply be smarter and have fair-weather teams always start at home, and teams like Minnesota & Boston and a few others always start on the road. What's the problem with a slightly longer road trip at the start of the season?

I think its an open question about the player's union. They agreed to the wild card - did the owners give anything up to get that agreement? Players may in fact support it out of their often-professed desire to "win it all" - more teams in means more chance to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way an expanded playoffs work is if they avoid going deep into November by starting the season a week earlier. Most players complain about the length of spring training anyway, and they could always move it up a bit - especially for the purpose of stretching out starters. Then I wouldn't have a terrible problem with the idea - but if they keep the start date and insist on 162 games (which I am not actually in favor of reducing) then it becomes ridiculous.

One other problem is the idea of a "bye" for any team. Baseball isn't like football where teams can use the extra time to get healthy and prepare for their opponent. Pitchers need regular work and if anything, minimal extra rest. I think the best option would be a play-in series between the top two teams that don't win a division crown. Three games only, for the right to face off against the top team in the league regardless of division, as Quincy mentioned.

Baseball in March??? Oh yeah that will work so well in say, ahh.. Boston. Or New York. Or Chicago. Philly. Cleveland. Pittsburgh. Oh and Minnesota.

I don't want any more teams in playoffs because then you're risking becoming the NHL were so many teams qualify for the post season that the regular season has become irrelevant. Don't water down the competition. Additionally how lame would it be if an team w/ a losing record made the postseason and, God forbid, won it all?? If you can't win at least 82 games you have no business playing in October. Period.

And like you said there's the problem w/ the "bye" week. The bye week isn't just bad for pitchers, it's bad for hitters. Totally throws off their timing.

I don't think it will happen because the player's union will be against it. The players won't be earning any extra money and the pitchers will just have to add more innings to their already tired arms. Plus their winter vacation is going to be shortened.

Show me where the second-best second place team has ever had a below .500 record.

Obviously its never happened - and there is no chance of an expansion any greater than one additional team so the comparison to the NHL is meaningless.

No it probably won't happen w/ 10 teams but you know Selig isn't going to stop there. At some point he'll expand it again to 12, 14, or 16 teams and we'll have baseball at Thanksgiving. You know that's where he's going because this is all about money and more playoff games mean more $$$ in the owner's pockets. So if you had the top 8 teams in each league that would mean the Cleveland Indians w/ a losing record(81-81)would qualify for the playoffs this season. Alright let's say they added just one WC team. This year that would have been Boston. So in the AL you would have had 3 of the 5 playoff teams from one division. Obviously if you're a Red Sox fan you want this because it takes a little(some might say "a lot") of pressure off your team knowing that you don't have to beat the Yankees every year to make it into the post season. But what does that do to the other playoff races when you know that you don't have to be great but just merely good to make the playoffs? I think that would cheapen the whole playoff race experience and make the regular season all the less interesting. YMMV.

As for March baseball, first of all, its happened before - pretty sure we've had, in this century, start dates of March 30 or 31. Starting April 7 is a problem though. And what is the material difference between late March and early April games anyway? They should simply be smarter and have fair-weather teams always start at home, and teams like Minnesota & Boston and a few others always start on the road. What's the problem with a slightly longer road trip at the start of the season?

Of course the weather won't be that big of the difference - it will be shitty - but that's not the point. The point is that now you'll have another week of baseball w/ crappy weather which will result in smaller attendance and more rain(SNOW)outs, which means more make up doubleheaders which are tougher on pitchers and catchers. If you're one of the teams that has to start every season on the road w/ a longer road trip than usual that puts you at a serious disadvantage. How do you make up for that? Have those "cold" teams have an extra long home stand to end the season or to start the 2nd half?? Then you're penalizing the "warm" teams.

I think its an open question about the player's union. They agreed to the wild card - did the owners give anything up to get that agreement? Players may in fact support it out of their often-professed desire to "win it all" - more teams in means more chance to win.

More chances to win or more chances to lose? If you're a team that won your division then it's more chances to lose. How is it fair to the division winners to make them play another round???

EDIT:

Well WTF???

MLB union open to expanding playoffs

Edited by J.H. Deeley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your arguments are now nonsensical.

You seriously think there is interest or support for eight or ten playoff teams per league? What the fuck are you smoking? Five or seven wild card teams plus three division winners? And note that you have to bring in a ludicrous scenario like five WC teams to find a situation where an under .500 team would get in.

Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking?

Beyond the fact that there is no interest in whatsoever in such a system, do the math: there would be baseball in fucking December under your ludicrous scenario.

And furthermore, no one knows when they'll be the division winner or the team that sneaks in and gets on a hot streak. So no one, not even the Yankees, would oppose an additional opportunity to get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your arguments are now nonsensical.

You seriously think there is interest or support for eight or ten playoff teams per league? What the fuck are you smoking? Five or seven wild card teams plus three division winners? And note that you have to bring in a ludicrous scenario like five WC teams to find a situation where an under .500 team would get in.

Seriously, what the fuck are you smoking?

Beyond the fact that there is no interest in whatsoever in such a system, do the math: there would be baseball in fucking December under your ludicrous scenario.

And furthermore, no one knows when they'll be the division winner or the team that sneaks in and gets on a hot streak. So no one, not even the Yankees, would oppose an additional opportunity to get in.

Look if something isn't clear to you, you should ask for some clarification before you get all squirrelly. Nowhere did I say that they should have 10 teams per league. I meant 10 teams combined, which is what it appears that Selig is endorsing for 2012, per the article in the link. I however don't think he'll stop there and, if he sticks around, will advocate for more teams being in the playoffs a la the the NBA/NHL. Sorry if that was confusing for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, a great World Series win for you Giants fans--what a cool, likable team you have. And what a great ride for the Rangers this year... I don't think they've finished speaking their piece in terms of postseason appearances. J.H., excellent point about the Giants knocking off some of the game's top pitchers on their way to taking it all; of course, they were in the position to do that because of their own outstanding staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great win for the Giants! Lincecum pitched outstanding, better than Cliff Lee (though he was good also), I also questioned pitching to Rentaria with first base open, and Arron Rowand (having a terrible night at the plate) coming up. I'll tell you one guy who was very happy they pitched to Edgar -- Pat Burrell, what a miserable Series he had, you could just tell he thought he blew it big-time when he stuck out in the 7th. Now only the Chicago Cubs & Cleveland Indians have major droughts going. It was a fun year watching the Giants play, the only down note to the whole thing -- no baseball until February, I really enjoyed this year of baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...