What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***2016 MLB Playoff thread: Cubs win for first time since sliced bread hit market (1 Viewer)

culdeus said:
I'm gonna assume they fire Buck over that, no?
Click to expand...
After 6+ seasons of good to great managing of a team that often had glaring weaknesses I don't know that firing Buck after one extremely poor end of game strategy move is called for.  Buck has done wonders for the team and for certain players by putting them in positions to succeed and by grooming their confidence so that they could put best foot forward during crunch time.  

Buck screwed up big time, no two ways about it, and it may be a difficult climb to get back the confidence of the team but I wouldn't trade him out after this.

 
Looking at it another way, it's time for the team and the organization to have Buck's back after all he's done for this franchise.

 
dutch said:
After 6+ seasons of good to great managing of a team that often had glaring weaknesses I don't know that firing Buck after one extremely poor end of game strategy move is called for.  Buck has done wonders for the team and for certain players by putting them in positions to succeed and by grooming their confidence so that they could put best foot forward during crunch time.  

Buck screwed up big time, no two ways about it, and it may be a difficult climb to get back the confidence of the team but I wouldn't trade him out after this.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was a big mistake and I don't like him but he's done a lot more good than bad. With the Orioles starting rotation, just getting to that game was quite an accomplishment.

 
culdeus said:
I'm gonna assume they fire Buck over that, no?
Click to expand...
Hell no. The reason this team has even been in playoff contention 3 of the last 5 years is because of Buck. We have a horrible rotation and it's been that way for awhile. The offense while potent, is among the streakiest in the league. Defense and the bullpen have been among the most reliable things on this team since Buck took over. Did he make a mistake not brining Britton in? Definitely. But Buck wasn't the reason the offense couldn't put anything together. We had no hits from the 6th inning on last night. And it's not like Toronto's bullpen is anything special. The offense went ice cold at the wrong time, that's not on Buck.

 
Getzlaf15 said:
So he would have brought Ubaldo in for the save later on and got grilled worse after he gave up 3 run hr
Click to expand...
Not if the Orioles scored four runs in the top of the inning.

And in any event he could have played matchups if he got a lead, not simply used Ubaldo as the replacement closer.

This was a no-brainer.

 
Plus he still had Hunter to close out if it called for it.  Will say the O's were down to Britton, Ubaldo, Hunter and Bundy so Ubaldo's turn was coming if the game went another couple of innings.  Still, you manage for today and let tomorrow take care of itself and Buck didn't do that in this game.  

Add in that Ubaldo let his first two guys on and Britton should have sprinted into the game.

 
Moving on to less obvious strategy decisions, here's the rosters for tonight:

Mets

Giants Pitchers Position

Both teams bringing two extra starters, which I guess kinda makes sense in the NL if the game goes 20 innings or something. Still seems like overkill, though. Especially since both teams only have two lefties in the pen, could've added a third.  No Nunez for Giants and no Duda for Mets seems like the other semi-interesting news.

 
I would love to see the Giants win another.  If Mad Bum does what he does Again I'll be thrilled as a baseball fan to know that I got to watch greatness in it's prime.

 
This whole play in game concept is pretty stupid.  It just basically serves to ice the actual playoff teams in pursuit of a tiny money grab. I don't know why they wouldn't want a full slate running Tues-Friday gaining hype while avoiding the football schedule as much as is practical.  

 
Oldest son uses his "own" money to purchase Game 1 tickets for him, brother, and myself to go to game 1 tomorrow of Rangers vs. Blue Jays (don't worry that he bought them at a premium before it was announced that we were going to have day games, and he could by the same seats now for about 25% discount).  

So tomorrow college age son is leaving as soon as baseball practice is over to meet me and youngest (who is getting 1/2 out of school) for a day at the ballpark.  Don't buy things, buy memories.

And 5 minutes ago, HR department calls and says that 2 of our companies tickets behind home plate in row 15 are available for use on Friday.  Oldest has scrimmage in afternoon, so I guess youngest who only has a 1/2 day of school for "teacher in service" now has a full day.

Go Rangers!!!

 
TobiasFunke said:
Moving on to less obvious strategy decisions, here's the rosters for tonight:

Mets

Giants Pitchers Position

Both teams bringing two extra starters, which I guess kinda makes sense in the NL if the game goes 20 innings or something. Still seems like overkill, though. Especially since both teams only have two lefties in the pen, could've added a third.  No Nunez for Giants and no Duda for Mets seems like the other semi-interesting news.
Click to expand...
No real surprises on the Giants side.  Hopefully Nunez' hamstring will be ready if the Giants advance.

The one game format does make for some interesting roster decisions particularly involving starting pitchers.  I trust Bochy and Rags' handling of playoff pitching staffs and I'd much rather see Cueto or Smarj for an inning or two than Peavy or Cain.  I assume Ty Blach would be added for the next round.

 
culdeus said:
This whole play in game concept is pretty stupid.  It just basically serves to ice the actual playoff teams in pursuit of a tiny money grab. I don't know why they wouldn't want a full slate running Tues-Friday gaining hype while avoiding the football schedule as much as is practical.  
Click to expand...
I like it, gives incentive to winning your division and having the best overall record.  The division winners have an advantage by getting their rotation aligned how they want.  The wildcard teams don't have such a luxury.  Then the team with the best overall record benefits.

 
MAC_32 said:
I like it, gives incentive to winning your division and having the best overall record.  The division winners have an advantage by getting their rotation aligned how they want.  The wildcard teams don't have such a luxury.  Then the team with the best overall record benefits.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think its a perfect system

 
MAC_32 said:
I like it, gives incentive to winning your division and having the best overall record.  The division winners have an advantage by getting their rotation aligned how they want.  The wildcard teams don't have such a luxury.  Then the team with the best overall record benefits.
Click to expand...
Since 2012, teams who host a wild card winner are 4-4 in the divisional series.  Small sample but I don't really see this "advantage" you are talking about.

Expand the playoffs.  Give fans more games like last night. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone have an opinion as to whether the Cubs would do better against the Mets or the Giants?

 
chet said:
Anyone have an opinion as to whether the Cubs would do better against the Mets or the Giants?
Click to expand...
Seems pretty easy.

Would you rather have two games vs Cueto plus a game vs Bum

or

one game against Thor and whatever else the Mets have left to throw out there?

 
tjnc09 said:
Since 2012, teams who host a wild card winner are 4-4 in the divisional series.  Small sample but I don't really see this "advantage" you are talking about.

Expand the playoffs.  Give fans more games like last night. 
Click to expand...
You act like repeating this is going to make it a good idea. It's awful.

 
tjnc09 said:
Since 2012, teams who host a wild card winner are 4-4 in their series.  Small sample but I don't really see this "advantage" you are talking about.

Expand the playoffs.  Give fans more games like last night. 
Click to expand...
That's not just a small sample size, it's a completely meaningless sample size.

The beauty of baseball is that the regular season matters. It's the only sport where the teams celebrate winning their division, which is awesome and great and makes things so much more fun for the hard core fans for six months a year. If you let half the league into the postseason you nullify a lot of that just to gin up a little extra excitement from casual fans a couple nights a year. Plus games like last night would be less exciting because the stakes would be comparatively lower; more playoff teams means wild card games aren't for a 1 in 4-ish chance to make the World Series like they are now.

You also create a system where average, unmemorable teams would win the championship on a regular basis. We don't need two NHLs. 

 
tjnc09 said:
Since 2012, teams who host a wild card winner are 4-4 in the divisional series.  Small sample but I don't really see this "advantage" you are talking about.

Expand the playoffs.  Give fans more games like last night. 
Click to expand...
If you were a Texas Rangers fan, what would you have been rooting for Sunday?

A Detroit win and either a Baltimore or Toronto loss would have meant Detroit plays game 162 Monday, needing to use Fulmer that day.  A win and they play Toronto or Baltimore Tuesday.  Whoever it is would have had the benefit of seeing Daniel Norris instead of Michael Fulmer.  Another win and who does Texas get to see on Thursday?  Jordan Zimmerman, Matt Boyd, Anibal Sanchez, or Mike Pelfrey...and they would only be subject to 3 total games from Detroit's two best pitchers (JV games 2 and 5, Fulmer game 3).  If Detroit gets time to reset their rotation?  That hodge podge game 1 isn't necessary, JV and Fulmer get games 1, 2, 4, and 5, and Norris gets 3.

There's absolutely an advantage to having time to reset the rotation whereas your competition does not.  

 
tjnc09 said:
Since 2012, teams who host a wild card winner are 4-4 in the divisional series.  Small sample but I don't really see this "advantage" you are talking about.

Expand the playoffs.  Give fans more games like last night. 
Click to expand...
Even though it hasn't played out in the past 8 divisional series, it's a huge advantage for the home team.  In a 5 game series, I prefer to have my ace going twice.     :shrug:   

 
TobiasFunke said:
That's not just a small sample size, it's a completely meaningless sample size.

The beauty of baseball is that the regular season matters. It's the only sport where the teams celebrate winning their division, which is awesome and great and makes things so much more fun for the hard core fans for six months a year. If you let half the league into the postseason you nullify a lot of that just to gin up a little extra excitement from casual fans a couple nights a year. Plus games like last night would be less exciting because the stakes would be comparatively lower; more playoff teams means wild card games aren't for a 1 in 4-ish chance to make the World Series like they are now.

You also create a system where average, unmemorable teams would win the championship on a regular basis. We don't need two NHLs. 
Click to expand...
 Average, unmemorable teams?  lol.  That happens already.

 
tjnc09 said:
 Average, unmemorable teams?  lol.  That happens already.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but not often. How many teams that won less than 90 games in the regular season have won a World Series in our lifetimes?  I can only remember two (2014 Giants and 2006 Cardinals) plus the 2011 Cardinals won 90.  I might be missing someone but I think everyone else has been more than 20 games over .500 ... and you could argue that the sustained excellence of the Cardinals and Giants in the seasons surrounding those championships makes them kinda memorable/deserving too.


 



 
tjnc09 said:
Right, because a playoff system that has excluded 90 win teams isn't awful :lmao:
Click to expand...
90+ win teams have missed the post-season for over a century.  Some of those pennant races are more memorable than the World Series that followed.

There's a balance between an exciting playoff format and maintaining the integrity of the regular season.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yeah, but not often. How many teams that won less than 90 games in the regular season have won a World Series in our lifetimes?  I can only remember two (2014 Giants and 2006 Cardinals) plus the 2011 Cardinals won 90.  I might be missing someone but I think everyone else has been more than 20 games over .500 ... and you could argue that the sustained excellence of the Cardinals and Giants in the seasons surrounding those championships makes them kinda memorable/deserving too.
Click to expand...
*cough* 87 Twins *cough*

 
Eephus said:
90+ win teams have missed the post-season for over a century.  Some of those pennant races are more memorable than the World Series that followed.

There's a balance between an exciting playoff format and maintaining the integrity of the regular season.
Click to expand...
Pre-playoffs, but how about the 1954 AL pennant:

Cleveland Indians 111-43 .721  --

New York Yankees 103-51 .669 8

Chicago White Sox 94-60 .610 17

 
The Indians vs. Rick Porcello
 

Rick Porcello uses the middle and bottom left quarter of the strike zone with great frequency, especially with the sinker early in the count. The top-middle of the Indians lineup is well suited to handle this type of pitcher. A key for the offense may be looking to be more aggressive to the opposite field early in at bats.

Porcello has had a fantastic season, a Cy Young-caliber one at that, built on a strong walk rate. But Porcello will, in many ways, live and die by contact. For the Indians, the key will be handling the sinker-cutter combo on the outer half of the plate. The offense certainly has the talent to do so but small samples lead to weird outcomes. For the Indians, coupled with Porcello’s arsenal and Boston’s issues with the running game, a Bauer-Porcello matchup appears more favorable than a Bauer-Price matchup. If you’re wondering why Corey Kluber is taking the bump for Game 2, this may be the first place you should look.
Click to expand...

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yeah, but not often. How many teams that won less than 90 games in the regular season have won a World Series in our lifetimes?  I can only remember two (2014 Giants and 2006 Cardinals) plus the 2011 Cardinals won 90.  I might be missing someone but I think everyone else has been more than 20 games over .500 ... and you could argue that the sustained excellence of the Cardinals and Giants in the seasons surrounding those championships makes them kinda memorable/deserving too.


 
Click to expand...
Again, you are putting too much weight in regular season wins.  The postseason schedule with days off between games is completely different than the regular season where you can play many games in a row without days off.  The 2014 Kansas City Royals, for example, with Holland, Herrera, and Davis was sick.  The postseason schedule allowed them to maximize those star players whereas you have to caution their usage over a 162 game season.  A system that would exclude a team like that isn't optimal imo. 

It also goes with their opponents and what starting pitchers they see whether they are stars or AAA call ups.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
0-10 MLB Pool Scoring Thread
2 3 4
Replies
190
Views
9K
Zegras11
Zegras11
Eephus
2018 MLB First Year Player Draft
Replies
43
Views
2K
Capella
Capella
Eephus
2015 MLB Season Win O/U Lines - Pick Three
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
MattFancy
MattFancy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top