Thread: How do the Giants do it?

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Originally Posted by Seth Stohs

Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams.

This. I think when I make the comment that the winners of the World Series are a tournament winner and not the "best" team in baseball, there are those that think I'm saying they're unworthy winners. That's not the case at all. There is a lot of luck/goofy hops/short series stuff that can mean one team gets breaks that another doesn't. What I've been saying all along here is simply winning in the postseason does not determine who is the better overall team.

There is not a balanced schedule within baseball. The team that wins the most games in just the team that won the most games. There will never be a way to determine what team is the best as no roster is static. A team adds to through trades and player development, they lose through injury and fatigue. You can find excuses for losing in the post season and say your team was the better team, but it does not change the fact your team for a week was not the better team.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Originally Posted by Seth Stohs

Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams.

This. I think when I make the comment that the winners of the World Series are a tournament winner and not the "best" team in baseball, there are those that think I'm saying they're unworthy winners. That's not the case at all. There is a lot of luck/goofy hops/short series stuff that can mean one team gets breaks that another doesn't. What I've been saying all along here is simply winning in the postseason does not determine who is the better overall team.

There is not a balanced schedule within baseball. The team that wins the most games in just the team that won the most games. There will never be a way to determine what team is the best as no roster is static. A team adds to through trades and player development, they lose through injury and fatigue. You can find excuses for losing in the post season and say your team was the better team, but it does not change the fact your team for a week was not the better team.

So I suppose you would say that the Tigers didn't underachieve this year?

Based on preseason expected wins, the Tigers were about 15 games worse than predicted, yet they're in the world series. Two teams had better records while playing in tougher divisions and missed the playoffs, so your "balanced schedule" argument holds no weight there. I would say that the Reds had a better season relative to expectations than the Tigers, yet they didn't get out of the first round of the playoffs.

Regardless, you're once again completely missing my point and hanging on one or two words. Not worth taking any further.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

So I suppose you would say that the Tigers didn't underachieve this year?

Based on preseason expected wins, the Tigers were about 15 games worse than predicted, yet they're in the world series. Two teams had better records while playing in tougher divisions and missed the playoffs, so your "balanced schedule" argument holds no weight there. I would say that the Reds had a better season relative to expectations than the Tigers, yet they didn't get out of the first round of the playoffs.

Regardless, you're once again completely missing my point and hanging on one or two words. Not worth taking any further.

You can suppose what I would say all you want and be wrong.

What is the best team? Purely an opinion. It is a fine thing to have an opinion. The reasons given for an assumed better team losing is all the calls going against them, the lucky breaks, didn't have home field advantage, etc. That could be true for the one game play in, but are there any statistics that show your point? No. It is subjective. The point of the regular season is to get into the playoffs, not be the subjective best team. If a team plays up to their full potential for 12 games in late October, then they proved they are the best team. They overcame the flukes and excuses.

Most teams had a better year relative to expectations than the Tigers. Any none 90 loss team did. In the end the Tigers bats went collectively cold again. In regards to best season in regards to expectations I would think that would fall to the Nationals. They did not even expect to be where they were or they would have used Strasburg differently.