Jump to content

baseball3

Tigers: Are they for real or are they really paper Tigers?

Recommended Posts


I agree with those who think the playoffs are largely a crap shoot. The regular season tells us more about which team is best. The playoffs are just a matter of which team gets hot at the right time. The playoffs are a good way to generate fan interest and to make a ton of money for the sport.

That being said, I think the playoffs are a lot of fun to watch and I certainly want the Tigers to win the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BS. Right now, who do YOU think is better?

I would say Philly, but if they lost to the Dbacks in the playoffs, then Arizona would be the better team. Opinions don't matter, mine included, what matters is winning 3 straight series in October when its win or go home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it that some people enjoy the game more if they think certain things like this are super meaningful and prove so much. I prefer to look at the analytical side of the game, because that tells me more than some romantic playoff system that doesn't really prove anything. It's strictly for entertainment purposes.

I think I'll just leave it at that for today. Neither side is going to change their mind on this, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say Philly, but if they lost to the Dbacks in the playoffs, then Arizona would be the better team. Opinions don't matter, mine included, what matters is winning 3 straight series in October when its win or go home.

I would argue that what happens over a larger sample size... say 162 games, tells far more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say Philly, but if they lost to the Dbacks in the playoffs, then Arizona would be the better team. Opinions don't matter, mine included, what matters is winning 3 straight series in October when its win or go home.

So in your opinion, there is no such thing as an upset.

And what if Arizona beats Philly in 5 games in the first round, then gets swept by Milwaukee? Is it still clear cut that Arizona is the better team or could there possibly be even a little bit of luck involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kind of have to admire how T&P Fan doubles down on his notion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Just like Sarah Palin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get it that some people enjoy the game more if they think certain things like this are super meaningful and prove so much.

.

And the more people they can get to believe in its importance, the more money they make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is EXACTLY why only the top teams make the playoffs.

Two counter examples:

1993: San Francisco Giants did not make the playoffs at 103-59. They had the second best record in the league. Instead, the third best team, the Philadelphia Phillies, made it in at 97-65.

2005: Philadelphia Phillies, with the fourth best record in the NL with an 88-74, did not make the playoffs. Instead the San Diego Padres, with the seventh best record at 82-80, did make the playoffs.

Conclusion: your blanket statement is provably false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if USA beat the Russians... it wasn't some miracle. They were just the better team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet there isn't one athlete in the world who would agree with this. That is why they all say "regular season means nothing if we don't win the championship."

And the world series was around long before they were making billions of dollars off of it, that is just a product of having a best team of the year tournament (playoffs).

This is true, back then it made lots of money but it wasn't billions.

Being the champion does not imply you are the best team, it implies that you won the contest. The best tennis player in the world does not win every game they play, or every match. You can be the best tennis player and not be the french open champion. The same is true of any team sport. Being the champion does mean something, it means your the champ. It does not mean you are the best.

The playoffs are not designed to determine the best team (nor could they be, nor should they be), they are designed to crown a champion, nothing more and nothing less.

Players do not say the regular season means nothing because the championship proves they are the best. They say it because the overarching goal of the season is to win the championship (in most American team sports at least. In some sports that is not the case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two counter examples:

1993: San Francisco Giants did not make the playoffs at 103-59. They had the second best record in the league. Instead, the third best team, the Philadelphia Phillies, made it in at 97-65.

2005: Philadelphia Phillies, with the fourth best record in the NL with an 88-74, did not make the playoffs. Instead the San Diego Padres, with the seventh best record at 82-80, did make the playoffs.

Conclusion: your blanket statement is provably false.

It's not provably false if you don't assume that record = team quality. If you define the better team as the team that makes the playoffs, then he's absolutely right. He's using some impressive circular logic, but he's still correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You kind of have to admire how T&P Fan doubles down on his notion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Just like Sarah Palin.

Really, Chuck? REALLY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what if USA beat the Russians... it wasn't some miracle. They were just the better team.

Yes, when it mattered most. I take a lot of heat for using the "clutch" factor or whatever factor. But for me it is real. If you can't win the game when it matters, when you're playing to be the champion, then you aren't as good as your opponent, you're inferior because you could not win when you must win.

And sure, an upset still exists, how wouldn't it? Upsets are just there to show people they were wrong about their opinion. So the Giants beat the Patriots was an upset because everyone thought the Patriots were better, but they were wrong, the Giants were better.

Honestly, out of all the arguments I have had on here this is the most surprising one I have had. I don't know why anyone watches sports or playoffs if they feel it means nothing.

Playoffs a charade? No way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what if USA beat the Russians... it wasn't some miracle. They were just the better team.

Appalachian State was clearly a better football team than Michigan in 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha ha it's not a fact at all. If the Tigers lose a series to the O's or Royals next week, will they have proven that they're better than the Tigers???

Some random series in garbage time is clearly the same as the world series...lol..... clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, out of all the arguments I have had on here this is the most surprising one I have had. I don't know why anyone watches sports or playoffs if they feel it means nothing.

Playoffs a charade? No way.

The fact that any team, even an 83-79 team who backed into the playoffs, could win the World Series. Or a 9-7 football team who got the last spot could win the Super Bowl. That's why people watch sports. Because upsets do happen. Inferior teams beat superior teams. It happens several times every March in college basketball. To say that the better team wins every single time and people just evaluated the teams incorrectly is a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "For real" & "Paper Tigers". If they win it all, they're for real? If they lose in extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series does that prove their "paper"? Who determines the standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the only thing that counts is championships, there is nothing more important.

This is ridiculous what is happening here, you are completely invalidating teams who win championships, as you tack it up to nothing more than luck. Like finding a penny on the ground.

What's ridiculous is that you, once again, are completely impervious to logic. Baseball, a game in which random chance contributes a lot more to the outcome than any other sport, is not so cut and dry that because a team wins 4 out of 7 they are the better team. It simply doesn't work that way. There is a difference between winning and being better. A lot of times, those things go hand in hand, others, they don't. You can ignore what people are saying in this thread if you want, but you cannot tell me that beating someone 4/7 absolutely, 100% proves that they are a better team. They may have been playing better, but it doesn't mean they are better. See, there's no fundamental difference in your logic between the playoffs and the regular season. As you say it, whoever wins a game is the better team. Every time.

I'm tired and I'm probably rambling but your view is overly simplistic.

a 162 game schedule is a far, far better barometer of how good a team is compared to a 5 or 7 game series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any team can win a short series, whether it's 3 games or 7 game. It doesn't prove, in any way, that they're better than the other team. It indicates that they got hot at the right time.

If the Tigers and Cards played a 100 game series, you guys have convinced yourselves that the Cards would win the majority of those games, simply because they "proved" it over a 5 game stretch. That's a lazy way to look at it, IMO.

So when the Tigers had to win a series at the end of the season against the White Sox in 2009, and the White Sox took 2 out of 3, it proved the White Sox are a better team?

Bad teams beat good teams all the time in baseball. I think the Tigers swept the Yankees the season the Yankees won 8363 games. It happens. Anything can happen in a short series.

The irony in this is the Yankees were marginally better than the Tigers in 2006, but the Tigers stole a game in NY and got great pitching from Rogers and Bonderman to advance. The Twins, how had been insanely hot going into the post-seaon, get swept by a solid but unspectacular A's team, who then get swept by somewhat better Detroit team. Detroit moves onto St. Louis, a team that had worse offense and worse pitching than Detroit, but win because Detroit hit 0.180 or some damned thing over 5 games paired with their pitchers committed some uncharacteristic errors at the worst possible time.

Clearly Saint Louis was the best team in baseball in 2006. They just played 0.500 all year leading to the post-season because it didn't matter.

I feel like I have been transported to wacky land. So the team that wins the world series isnt the best team in baseball? Tell that to all the teams that won the world series. I am COMPLETELY dumbfounded how someone could try and make this argument. It is like saying 'they won the game they played, but if they played again they MIGHT lose!'

I mean it is craziness defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, when it mattered most. I take a lot of heat for using the "clutch" factor or whatever factor. But for me it is real. If you can't win the game when it matters, when you're playing to be the champion, then you aren't as good as your opponent, you're inferior because you could not win when you must win.

And sure, an upset still exists, how wouldn't it? Upsets are just there to show people they were wrong about their opinion. So the Giants beat the Patriots was an upset because everyone thought the Patriots were better, but they were wrong, the Giants were better.

Honestly, out of all the arguments I have had on here this is the most surprising one I have had. I don't know why anyone watches sports or playoffs if they feel it means nothing.

Playoffs a charade? No way.

Who has said the playoffs means nothing?

You have a very specific definition of "best." It's pretty clear that it differs from everyone who is arguing with you. That's really all this is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Define "For real" & "Paper Tigers". If they win it all, they're for real? If they lose in extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series does that prove their "paper"? Who determines the standard?

Don't be silly, there's not much difference between winning and losing in game 7. Winning it all vs being swept in the ALDS is the proper comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...