SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

[X*Cell]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

Playoffs:
AL:
Red Sox over White Sox
Angels over Yankees
Red Sox over Angels

NL:
Dodgers over Braves
Padres over Cardinals
Dodgers over Padres

World Series:
Red Sox in 5

AL:
Yankees over Twins
Red Sox over Angels

Yankees over Red Sox

NL:
Marlins over Cubs
Cardinals over Padres

Cardinals over Marlins


World Series:
Yankees 4, Cardinals 2

[DuffysCliff]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

I've got no problem with the Red Sox. I was rooting for them big time in the ALCS and WS. I do have a problem with homers that try to make idiotic points about another team's postseason success, when their team just won their first series in 86 years. I'd ask him/you to look at the following:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/03/luck_of_the_dra_1.php

It shows that neither the Red Sox nor the Braves are as bad in the postseason as a few other teams, or as bad as some people seem to think.

Besides, I'll take one world series win and 13 straight division titles and playoff appearances any day. It's certainly better than not having the chance. Like the old saying goes, "it's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all." Same thing applies.

Getting to the playoffs is the tough part, the playoffs itself is more of a crapshoot, so what the Braves have done is pretty incredible, but yeah, like I said before, I disagree with BigTim. My main point is, idiotic point or not, it shouldn't matter what team he roots for, unless it's been made pretty clear that he's a huge homer and is grasping at straws. I don't think his comment shows he is though, because he wasn't talking about the Red Sox, or even the Yankees for that matter. Plus he may already think that what the Red Sox did is pretty pitiful. I'll let him argue that though, but I'm just saying.

[DuffysCliff]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

I've got no problem with the Red Sox. I was rooting for them big time in the ALCS and WS. I do have a problem with homers that try to make idiotic points about another team's postseason success, when their team just won their first series in 86 years. I'd ask him/you to look at the following:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/03/luck_of_the_dra_1.php

It shows that neither the Red Sox nor the Braves are as bad in the postseason as a few other teams, or as bad as some people seem to think.

Besides, I'll take one world series win and 13 straight division titles and playoff appearances any day. It's certainly better than not having the chance. Like the old saying goes, "it's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all." Same thing applies.

Getting to the playoffs is the tough part, the playoffs itself is more of a crapshoot, so what the Braves have done is pretty incredible, but yeah, like I said before, I disagree with BigTim. My main point is, idiotic point or not, it shouldn't matter what team he roots for, unless it's been made pretty clear that he's a huge homer and is grasping at straws. I don't think his comment shows he is though, because he wasn't talking about the Red Sox, or even the Yankees for that matter. Plus he may already think that what the Red Sox did is pretty pitiful. I'll let him argue that though, but I'm just saying.

[BigTim]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

Interesting you say that. People say that last year's Braves team had no business winning their division. I guess that would make them overacheivers now wouldn't it? You think the '91 team could have possibly overacheived a bit as well?

Then again, I would consider a team not winning one WS in 86 years underacheivers. That's just me though.

The Red Sox had to get into the playoffs each of those years, which was tough seeing as the Yankees were the best team in baseball. Also, remember 2 teams, no playoffs, just the WS.

The Braves on the other hand, have gotten into the playoffs 13-14 times, and won once.

Relativity. Learn it.

edit, to add to this argument, let me say that I am a big Braves fan(not as much as the Sox though) due to liking baseball and having no close team to root for while living in FL. I went to their WS against the Twins and Jays, and at least one game of each NLCS they made it to.

[BigTim]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

Interesting you say that. People say that last year's Braves team had no business winning their division. I guess that would make them overacheivers now wouldn't it? You think the '91 team could have possibly overacheived a bit as well?

Then again, I would consider a team not winning one WS in 86 years underacheivers. That's just me though.

The Red Sox had to get into the playoffs each of those years, which was tough seeing as the Yankees were the best team in baseball. Also, remember 2 teams, no playoffs, just the WS.

The Braves on the other hand, have gotten into the playoffs 13-14 times, and won once.

Relativity. Learn it.

edit, to add to this argument, let me say that I am a big Braves fan(not as much as the Sox though) due to liking baseball and having no close team to root for while living in FL. I went to their WS against the Twins and Jays, and at least one game of each NLCS they made it to.

[SportsTop]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

The Red Sox had to get into the playoffs each of those years, which was tough seeing as the Yankees were the best team in baseball. Also, remember 2 teams, no playoffs, just the WS.

The Braves on the other hand, have gotten into the playoffs 13-14 times, and won once.

Relativity. Learn it.

edit, to add to this argument, let me say that I am a big Braves fan(not as much as the Sox though) due to liking baseball and having no close team to root for while living in FL. I went to their WS against the Twins and Jays, and at least one game of each NLCS they made it to.

I fail to see any merit in your argument. The Sox had 10 postseason appearances since 1918 and finally won it on their 11th attempt.

Baseball history. Learn it.

[SportsTop]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

The Red Sox had to get into the playoffs each of those years, which was tough seeing as the Yankees were the best team in baseball. Also, remember 2 teams, no playoffs, just the WS.

The Braves on the other hand, have gotten into the playoffs 13-14 times, and won once.

Relativity. Learn it.

edit, to add to this argument, let me say that I am a big Braves fan(not as much as the Sox though) due to liking baseball and having no close team to root for while living in FL. I went to their WS against the Twins and Jays, and at least one game of each NLCS they made it to.

I fail to see any merit in your argument. The Sox had 10 postseason appearances since 1918 and finally won it on their 11th attempt.

Baseball history. Learn it.

[BigTim]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

I fail to see any merit in your argument. The Sox had 10 postseason appearances since 1918 and finally won it on their 11th attempt.

Baseball history. Learn it.

Totally different argument you are trying to bring.

The Braves totally dominated the NL for 15 years. They faced different teams each year they made it(Twins, BJs, Yankees, Cleveland), which means there was a lot of turnover in the AL. They were a tight group of players, without much tunover.

see what im getting at now?

Each time the Sox made it, they had a different team, and happened to overachieve that year.

To get into the playoffs 14-15 years in a row, with the team staying basically the same, is nowhere near close to making it 11 times over the course of 86 years.

[BigTim]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

I fail to see any merit in your argument. The Sox had 10 postseason appearances since 1918 and finally won it on their 11th attempt.

Baseball history. Learn it.

Totally different argument you are trying to bring.

The Braves totally dominated the NL for 15 years. They faced different teams each year they made it(Twins, BJs, Yankees, Cleveland), which means there was a lot of turnover in the AL. They were a tight group of players, without much tunover.

see what im getting at now?

Each time the Sox made it, they had a different team, and happened to overachieve that year.

To get into the playoffs 14-15 years in a row, with the team staying basically the same, is nowhere near close to making it 11 times over the course of 86 years.

[SportsTop]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

Totally different argument you are trying to bring.

The Braves totally dominated the NL for 15 years. They faced different teams each year they made it(Twins, BJs, Yankees, Cleveland), which means there was a lot of turnover in the AL. They were a tight group of players, without much tunover.

see what im getting at now?

Each time the Sox made it, they had a different team, and happened to overachieve that year.

To get into the playoffs 14-15 years in a row, with the team staying basically the same, is nowhere near close to making it 11 times over the course of 86 years.

The turnover on the Braves roster in their 14 year run has been greater than you think. And I'm not talking from '91 to '04. If you look at the difference in their roster from '91 to '96 you'll see that the only real core group that remained was Glavine, Smoltz, Lemke, and Maddux (who came in '93).

1B. Bream-McGriff-Galarraga-Brogna-Fick-Franco
2B. Lemke-Veras-Boone-Giles
3B. Pendleton-Jones-Castilla

You get the idea.

While the Red Sox of the late '80's and early '90's had a tremendous core of players and were failed to win the WS.

[SportsTop]

Re: SI: Yanks over Braves in WS

Totally different argument you are trying to bring.

The Braves totally dominated the NL for 15 years. They faced different teams each year they made it(Twins, BJs, Yankees, Cleveland), which means there was a lot of turnover in the AL. They were a tight group of players, without much tunover.

see what im getting at now?

Each time the Sox made it, they had a different team, and happened to overachieve that year.

To get into the playoffs 14-15 years in a row, with the team staying basically the same, is nowhere near close to making it 11 times over the course of 86 years.

The turnover on the Braves roster in their 14 year run has been greater than you think. And I'm not talking from '91 to '04. If you look at the difference in their roster from '91 to '96 you'll see that the only real core group that remained was Glavine, Smoltz, Lemke, and Maddux (who came in '93).

1B. Bream-McGriff-Galarraga-Brogna-Fick-Franco
2B. Lemke-Veras-Boone-Giles
3B. Pendleton-Jones-Castilla

You get the idea.

While the Red Sox of the late '80's and early '90's had a tremendous core of players and were failed to win the WS.