CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Oct 2, 2014 12:55:36 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I'm not sorry to all of my Nats fan friends... LET'S GO GIANTS!!!
P.S. On July 31, the day of the Cespedes trade, the A's were 66-41. Since that trade, they were 22-34 if you include the Wild Card game loss to the Royals. I don't know how any sane person could conclude that this was a good deal. Especially when you consider that Cespedes was arguably the young face of the A's franchise. That trade shocked me then, and it still shocks me now. For A's fans, this was supposed to be the year. I'd be crushed.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 2, 2014 13:09:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I'm not sorry to all of my Nats fan friends... LET'S GO GIANTS!!! Guess we'll find out, starting Friday! Glad you had to burn your ace to get in. Go NATS!!!
|
|
Thomas
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by Thomas on Oct 3, 2014 21:51:21 GMT -5
Either way, A's lose huge on this deal. Probably won't make a movie about this chapter in the boy genius' career. Even when Billy Beane introduced the Moneyball concept in the early 2000's(or whenever that was), I didn't like the 'Playoffs Are Just A Crapshoot' lines from him. Is his logic that winning in the regular season is more difficult than winning in the playoffs??? In the playoffs, you're facing a very good team every time out and must play at an elite level to win. In the regular season, that's not always the case. I can't believe a large number of people accept B.Beane's line of thinking there. I mean, we've seen tonight with Clayton Kershaw, who just made history by being the first pitcher to allow 7+ earned runs in back to back postseason starts, that talent can only take you so far in the postseason, " but what do you have between your legs, that's going to take you real far", as Tim Hudson put it when talking about the Nationals. I know the A's have a horrific record in playoff close out games under Billy Beane.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 3, 2014 22:03:48 GMT -5
Either way, A's lose huge on this deal. Probably won't make a movie about this chapter in the boy genius' career. Even when Billy Beane introduced the Moneyball concept in the early 2000's(or whenever that was), I didn't like the 'Playoffs Are Just A Crapshoot' lines from him. Is his logic that winning in the regular season is more difficult than winning in the playoffs??? In the playoffs, you're facing a very good team every time out and must play at an elite level to win. In the regular season, that's not always the case. I can't believe a large number of people accept B.Beane's line of thinking there. I mean, we've seen tonight with Clayton Kershaw, who just made history by being the first pitcher to allow 7+ earned runs in back to back postseason starts, that talent can only take you so far in the postseason, " but what do you have between your legs, that's going to take you real far", as Tim Hudson put it when talking about the Nationals. I know the A's have a horrific record in playoff close out games under Billy Beane. It's a similar concept to the NCAA Tournament being somewhat of a crapshoot. The best baseball teams win around 60% of their games. When they play only a few games against each, there's simply not a lot of time to separate the very good teams from the best team. Lucky bounces, a random hot player, a bad call, can turn an entire series. It's not to say the winning team doesn't deserve it, it's simply that if you immediately ran back the series again, and again, and again, the team that would win a Best of 1,00 doesn't always win a best of 1, 5 or 7. Think about that sixty percent. What if the BEST college basketball teams went somewhere from 17-13 to 18-12 during the regular season. When one of them won the tournament, how confident would you be that if you ran the tournament back, they'd win it again?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 3, 2014 22:04:46 GMT -5
Oh, and Billy Beane definitely didn't introduce "The Moneyball" concept. And when he said "My doesn't work in the playoffs" he wasn't defending himself at all.
|
|
Thomas
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by Thomas on Oct 4, 2014 0:32:49 GMT -5
Even when Billy Beane introduced the Moneyball concept in the early 2000's(or whenever that was), I didn't like the 'Playoffs Are Just A Crapshoot' lines from him. Is his logic that winning in the regular season is more difficult than winning in the playoffs??? In the playoffs, you're facing a very good team every time out and must play at an elite level to win. In the regular season, that's not always the case. I can't believe a large number of people accept B.Beane's line of thinking there. I mean, we've seen tonight with Clayton Kershaw, who just made history by being the first pitcher to allow 7+ earned runs in back to back postseason starts, that talent can only take you so far in the postseason, " but what do you have between your legs, that's going to take you real far", as Tim Hudson put it when talking about the Nationals. I know the A's have a horrific record in playoff close out games under Billy Beane. It's a similar concept to the NCAA Tournament being somewhat of a crapshoot. The best baseball teams win around 60% of their games. When they play only a few games against each, there's simply not a lot of time to separate the very good teams from the best team. Lucky bounces, a random hot player, a bad call, can turn an entire series. It's not to say the winning team doesn't deserve it, it's simply that if you immediately ran back the series again, and again, and again, the team that would win a Best of 1,00 doesn't always win a best of 1, 5 or 7. Think about that sixty percent. What if the BEST college basketball teams went somewhere from 17-13 to 18-12 during the regular season. When one of them won the tournament, how confident would you be that if you ran the tournament back, they'd win it again? Yeah, I understand that unpredictable things like lucky bounces, a bad call and a random hot player can change an entire series, but we've seen great teams or players constantly struggle in the postseason, on the other hand we see teams like St.Louis, San Francisco and Boston(when they make the playoffs) always come through in clutch situations. In a 162 game regular season, you could be facing a lot of average and below average teams in which you do not need to be at your best to win. For example the Nationals went 96-66, but every team in their division finished below .500. I believe teams play 18 games against their division, so that would add up to 72 games against sub 500 teams. So teams like the Nationals and Pirates could be a bit overwhelmed when they get to the playoffs and face San Francisco who has won 2 of the last 4 World Series. If you look at Clayton Kershaw, he had a historic regular season, but I pulled up the standings and saw that just 6 of the 15 National League teams had a winning record. I'm too lazy(HA!) to look at his numbers against the sub 500 teams versus teams above 500, but I'll assume he dominated the bad teams, including 2 teams in his division that each finished 30 games under 500. The point in both instances is that certain teams and players can somewhat coast through a lot of the regular season because the competition is lacking, but in the postseason that's not happening. You're not going to feast on the Padres, Diamondbacks, Mets, Cubs, Marlins, etc. in the playoffs, and some teams or players can't handle that.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 4, 2014 10:15:03 GMT -5
The baseball teams with losing records are not terrible. They win about 45% of their games. They all have a couple of good starters, a couple of live bullpen arms and a few dangerous hitters.
The main difference in the postseason is you face a team's best pitchers almost every inning of a series and you don't get to beat up on any weak 4th and 5th starters and middle relievers.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 4, 2014 12:52:57 GMT -5
It's a similar concept to the NCAA Tournament being somewhat of a crapshoot. The best baseball teams win around 60% of their games. When they play only a few games against each, there's simply not a lot of time to separate the very good teams from the best team. Lucky bounces, a random hot player, a bad call, can turn an entire series. It's not to say the winning team doesn't deserve it, it's simply that if you immediately ran back the series again, and again, and again, the team that would win a Best of 1,00 doesn't always win a best of 1, 5 or 7. Think about that sixty percent. What if the BEST college basketball teams went somewhere from 17-13 to 18-12 during the regular season. When one of them won the tournament, how confident would you be that if you ran the tournament back, they'd win it again? Yeah, I understand that unpredictable things like lucky bounces, a bad call and a random hot player can change an entire series, but we've seen great teams or players constantly struggle in the postseason, on the other hand we see teams like St.Louis, San Francisco and Boston(when they make the playoffs) always come through in clutch situations. In a 162 game regular season, you could be facing a lot of average and below average teams in which you do not need to be at your best to win. For example the Nationals went 96-66, but every team in their division finished below .500. I believe teams play 18 games against their division, so that would add up to 72 games against sub 500 teams. So teams like the Nationals and Pirates could be a bit overwhelmed when they get to the playoffs and face San Francisco who has won 2 of the last 4 World Series. If you look at Clayton Kershaw, he had a historic regular season, but I pulled up the standings and saw that just 6 of the 15 National League teams had a winning record. I'm too lazy(HA!) to look at his numbers against the sub 500 teams versus teams above 500, but I'll assume he dominated the bad teams, including 2 teams in his division that each finished 30 games under 500. The point in both instances is that certain teams and players can somewhat coast through a lot of the regular season because the competition is lacking, but in the postseason that's not happening. You're not going to feast on the Padres, Diamondbacks, Mets, Cubs, Marlins, etc. in the playoffs, and some teams or players can't handle that. Yeah, I see what you are saying, and it's not illogical...it's just turns out it really isn't not true. St. Louis, San Francisco and Boston don't always come through in the playoffs, and there's been a number of studies showing that there really aren't many players who hit good pitchers better but don't also beat up on the crap for example. It's not a bad theory, but it actually doesn't play out. There's some guys who do well versus better pitching and some profiles -- think Tony Gwynn -- but Scott Brosius or David Freese wasn't some hidden elite stud that just didn't beat up on regular season pitching. (And Brandon Moss was supposed to be the type of flawed mistake-hitter who would be exposed... two home runs later ... no one will remember because they lost). Oddly, the distribution of performance is very similar to almost any 5 or 7 game run you'd see in the regular season. When a team wins in the playoffs, it's out-executing the opposing team on a very small sample. It's fun, it's exciting and the winning team deserves to win. But it's not necessarily the same thing as the best team. It was just the best team over that short stretch. (As for the A's, they lost to the Royals this year because their catcher got hurt, the Royals got a few extra bloop hits and their bullpen sucked. It had nothing to do with the hitters not being able to hit playoff pitching. And their bullpen has been blowing games all second half to a lot of crappy teams.)
|
|
Thomas
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by Thomas on Oct 4, 2014 17:16:54 GMT -5
bmartin, I agree with everything you said, you did a better job of breaking down what I was saying. The only thing I will add to it is, sometimes when you are facing bad teams that have 1 or 2 very good pitchers, you may not end up going against those pitchers. An example will be all those years Felix Hernandez pitched on bad Seattle teams. You'd feel fortunate if you played Seattle and you didn't have to face him because he just pitched. The same thing probably applied to Twins pitcher Phil Hughes this year.
SFHoya99, I brought up teams like San Francisco, Boston and St.Louis because in recent years they seem to have a core of players who always come through in the postseason. Eventually, there will be some new teams that replace them, but it hasn't happened yet. I mean, doesn't San Francisco have like a 10-game postseason winning streak?? Look what St.Louis has done to Clayton Kershaw the last 2 times they've faced him in the playoffs. Look how they overcame a 6-0 deficit in the 8th inning to beat the Nationals 2 years ago in Game 5 of the NLDS. To me, it takes a certain level of "clutchness"(I hate use that word, but I couldn't think of anything else) that a lot of players and teams do not have to pull off those things.
Another reason Billy Beane's "Postseason Is A Crapshoot" line of thinking annoyed me is because I heard some local guys on the radio using it when defending those Washington Capitals teams of a few years ago that would have the best regular season record in the NHL and get upset in the playoffs. I'll give B.Beane the benefit of the doubt because some of you are saying he wasn't using it as an excuse to why he couldn't win in the postseason and he has consistently had the A's in the playoffs, but those radio guys sounded like Homers Making Excuses!!!
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 4, 2014 19:28:00 GMT -5
Well if you call the last few Series winners clutch or marbles or whatever you are just projecting an assumption that that is what wins series. Baseball is streaky and they streaked at the right time. The Giants and Cardinals and Red Sox have had plenty of failures as teams and individually. Every season some team will have a few more balls drop in or get through with runners on and people will say they were clutch but it is just baseball.
|
|
Thomas
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by Thomas on Oct 4, 2014 19:39:07 GMT -5
Well, whatever term you want to use...THE GIANTS HAVE JUST DONE IT AGAIN..UNBELIEVABLE!! Jordan Zimmerman is dominating the Giants hitters, he has 2 outs in the top of the 9th he walks a batter, the next batter gets a hit, then Sandoval drives in the runner from third. Posey probably should've been safe on that play. We are all in agreement that the Giants will win this in extra innings, right???
|
|
AvantGuardHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something."
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by AvantGuardHoya on Oct 4, 2014 21:25:04 GMT -5
We are all in agreement that the Giants will win this in extra innings, right??? In a word.... NO!
|
|
Thomas
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by Thomas on Oct 4, 2014 22:36:15 GMT -5
I thought the Giants would win this one in the 11th or 12th inning, now I'm just wondering how long this game is going to last and how many more pitchers and players that each team has available.
WOW, right as I was typing this Brandon Belt homers in the top of the 18th...That's What The Giants Do!!!
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 5, 2014 0:02:15 GMT -5
The Giants scored 2 runs in 18 innings. That is nothing special or clutch.
The game was won by their pitching and their scouting of the Nats batters. The Nats have a good but not great lineup of guys who hit mistakes but don't hit well-executed pitches. Rendon is really the only Nat who can hit any pitch.
And Williams should have let Zimmermann pitch to Posey in the 9th.
|
|
Thomas
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by Thomas on Oct 5, 2014 0:42:23 GMT -5
bmartin, I've got to slightly disagree, Zimmerman had totally dominated the Giants and was one out away from a complete game shutout. Then there was a Giants walk, Posey got a hit, then Sandoval got a hit that tied the game. It was definitely a clutch/special moment for the Giants. With the win, the Giants set an NL record with 6 straight postseason road wins. Like I wrote in some of my previous posts, we see in every sport that some teams/players play the role of the Giants in the playoffs, and unfortunately others play the role of the Nationals or Billy Beane's A's!! If the Nationals go on to lose this series, Tony Kornheiser may need to break out the CHOKING DOGS label for them. HA! Maybe not yet, but the Nationals need to reverse this trend the next time they make the playoffs. What the HELL are the Nationals going to do with Drew Storen now?
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 5, 2014 10:46:30 GMT -5
Posey and Sandoval knew how Storen would pitch them and he gave them hittable pitches. They got the barrel on the ball and the balls went through/dropped in. They both had other chances to drive in runs and didn't. If they are so clutch why wait to the 9th and 18th to score single runs.
Zimmermann should have pitched to Posey.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 5, 2014 11:00:31 GMT -5
One argument for taking Zimm out: Posey had tattoed a line drive out in his previous at bat. Another: Storen was 10 for 10 since taking over as the closer.
|
|
AvantGuardHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something."
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by AvantGuardHoya on Oct 5, 2014 12:21:38 GMT -5
One argument for taking Zimm out: Posey had tattoed a line drive out in his previous at bat. Another: Storen was 10 for 10 since taking over as the closer. You're being TOO logical. Clearly you know nothing about baseball. Have you ever been to a major league game?
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Oct 5, 2014 13:20:08 GMT -5
Was there for all 6 and a half hours last night. Yeah, I would have given Zimmermann one more batter mostly because I was also there for Game 5 against the Cardinals. I started having immediate flashbacks when I saw Storen come in. But I believe that over 18 innings, the Nationals got one runner to 3rd base (Cabrera after his bloop double and before he scored). It's next to impossible to win one game when your offense is that awful, let alone a series. You can either handle playoff pressure or you can't. After watching Storen, then Cabrera and Williams get themselves thrown out, then 18 innings of guys swinging for the fences on a cold night, the Nationals let everyone know that they can't.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 5, 2014 16:36:16 GMT -5
Lookout. Three in a row, here we come.
|
|