9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Shutout against the Rays...what a bummer.

[Sportsforever]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Braves win again...one win away from that critical 63rd victory. Matt Kemp hit two homers and drove in 3 more...guy has hit in the .360s for nearly the last month. Amazing that we got him for Hector Olivera...

[areobee401]

9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Good stuff, Red Sox. *high fives air*

[TripleCrown9]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

4 game sweep, part II.

Scored 5 runs exactly in all 4 games.

For the first time since 1968, the Sox have played two consecutive 4-game series' and won all 8 games. For the first time ever it was against 2 division opponents.

First team in MLB history to score 5 runs in 5 consecutive games and win.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Braves win again...one win away from that critical 63rd victory. Matt Kemp hit two homers and drove in 3 more...guy has hit in the .360s for nearly the last month. Amazing that we got him for Hector Olivera...

Almost like the second coming of Gary Sheffield for you guys. Now you just need to find your next Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Mark Wohlers, Chipper Jones, Rafael Furcal, Javy Lopez, and Andruw Jones and you're well on your way back! :wink:

[franch1se]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Hunter Renfroe is 2-2 in his MLB debut.

Padres starting all 4 of Margot, Renfroe, Hedges and Asuaje tonight

[Sportsforever]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Almost like the second coming of Gary Sheffield for you guys. Now you just need to find your next Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Mark Wohlers, Chipper Jones, Rafael Furcal, Javy Lopez, and Andruw Jones and you're well on your way back! :wink:

We have them coming...except this time they are named Kolby Allard, Sean Newcomb, Joey Wentz, Iain Anderson, Dansby Swanson, Kevin Maitan, and Mallex Smith. They will be back...for a long time.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

No matter what the format is, people will always be upset at it. A year like this, the #1WC team might not even hit 90 wins. In past years, the 2nd WC team would've had 90+ wins had it existed. And people still weren't happy with it last year too, how a top 3 team in the MLB would be eliminated due to the 1 game WC. Had only 1 WC even existed, a 97 win Cubs team wouldn't even be in the playoffs, and people would be complaining there's not enough WC teams.

That's why I proposed an adaptable (4- or 5-team) WC round depending on the strength of potential WC teams in any given season. If you have a 97-game winner that's the 3rd best team in its own division like the Cubs last year, there would be a 5-team playoff (2 WC spots). If you have a bunch of 86-win mediocre teams like we have this year, why bother with an extra WC spot? This seems to be rewarding mediocrity with a second chance to beat teams that have obviously been superior over the course of a full season.

This would never happen due to the scheduling issues let alone where to set the threshold. Is 89 wins right? 90 wins? 87 wins? Nobody would agree on something like that. I do like it on principle though because it preserves some of the 'sanctity' of the 162-game regular season grind. It makes that marathon race and winning your division matter.

Well we've seen some teams in the past (even in the era of the LCS) where teams have severely backed their way into the postseason only to win it all.

You never know what can happen in sports. This year doesn't seem like the greatest in terms of caliber of Wild Card teams but I bet one of them will make a crap ton of noise.

Sure, but if it's just about which team can make the most noise in a short series, why even bother with playing 162 games to begin with? The problem with the playoffs in general is that it crowns the team that's playing best at the moment instead of the one that's been consistently better all year. In some ways, having playoffs makes this unavoidable, but just like where having division winners with losing records in the NFL playoffs is ridiculous, continuing to let weak regular season teams into the MLB playoffs is imo against the spirit of the long grind of a baseball season. That's why, in principle, I'd be in favor of a minimum win threshold to qualify as a WC (89 wins or something). There are too many details that could never be agreed on so this is not a realistic possibility (what about strength-of-schedule? where would the threshold be set? to name just a couple of deal breakers).

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

We have them coming...except this time they are named Kolby Allard, Sean Newcomb, Joey Wentz, Iain Anderson, Dansby Swanson, Kevin Maitan, and Mallex Smith. They will be back...for a long time.

Well, it looks like you have at least one player on that list. Swanson looks really good. We'll see how the others pan out.

[jvalverde88]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Asdrubal Cabrera has to be one of the best offseason acquisitions this year, no?

[BleacherBum2310]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Asdrubal Cabrera has to be one of the best offseason acquisitions this year, no?

probably but he's below Daniel Murphy...

[franch1se]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Padres rookie Ryan Schimpf has 19HRS on the year and 17 Singles...such an odd stat.

Further breaking it down.

56 hits
19 HR
17 singles
15 Doubles
5 Triples

[jvalverde88]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

probably but he's below Daniel Murphy...

Ugh I forgot.

[redsox4evur]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

Ugh I forgot.

And Ian Desmond.

[Redacted01]

Re: 9/19 - 10/2 Game Discussion Thread

That's why I proposed an adaptable (4- or 5-team) WC round depending on the strength of potential WC teams in any given season. If you have a 97-game winner that's the 3rd best team in its own division like the Cubs last year, there would be a 5-team playoff (2 WC spots). If you have a bunch of 86-win mediocre teams like we have this year, why bother with an extra WC spot? This seems to be rewarding mediocrity with a second chance to beat teams that have obviously been superior over the course of a full season.

This would never happen due to the scheduling issues let alone where to set the threshold. Is 89 wins right? 90 wins? 87 wins? Nobody would agree on something like that. I do like it on principle though because it preserves some of the 'sanctity' of the 162-game regular season grind. It makes that marathon race and winning your division matter.



Sure, but if it's just about which team can make the most noise in a short series, why even bother with playing 162 games to begin with? The problem with the playoffs in general is that it crowns the team that's playing best at the moment instead of the one that's been consistently better all year. In some ways, having playoffs makes this unavoidable, but just like where having division winners with losing records in the NFL playoffs is ridiculous, continuing to let weak regular season teams into the MLB playoffs is imo against the spirit of the long grind of a baseball season. That's why, in principle, I'd be in favor of a minimum win threshold to qualify as a WC (89 wins or something). There are too many details that could never be agreed on so this is not a realistic possibility (what about strength-of-schedule? where would the threshold be set? to name just a couple of deal breakers).

I was going to say something, but you counter-pointed yourself in all the right places, so, good work! You said exactly what is true. You can't pick and choose each year because there's no standard way to define what makes medicore. If it's like 2006 when the Cards won the Central with 83 wins, are you allowed to call an 86-win wildcard team mediocre? What if the league in general is down and no wildcard team meets your requirement? Too many things go wrong.

And same thing on the playoffs. If you get in, you get in. You can't blame the team that was hot the last half of the year like the year the Giants won the Super Bowl at 9-7. They got in fairly. Not their fault the "better" teams couldn't play up to their season ability.