2014 MLB Postseason Thread: WHERE THE HELL IS MY BIG BANG THEORY

[NynJa]

Just remember they had the fewest strikeouts and fewest walks in baseball in the regular season. Working the count isn't exactly their m.o.

Live by the sword...

[Bregor]

Okay so you have like another week to #evenyear it up and then the off-season thread starts and I'm considering infracting for hashtags.

This has been "Shit Mod with Papa Breggy".

[Krandor]

#ModSass

[Melena]

really need to watch a replay of the Alex Gordon single/triple at the end to see how close the play at the plate would have been. still bothering me.

was an incredible game to watch though, every AB is so important. crazy how much more entertaining baseball is when there are actual stakes and not 1/162nd of a season

Here's a twitter picture of Gordon reaching third as the shortstop just gets the ball. Even if we went full bore around the base, he'd have been out by a good 15 feet.

https://twitter.com/WorldofIsaac/sta...760384/photo/1

[Moss]

Yeah saw that picture earlier. He must have been waltzing to first base. If he was running flat out the whole time he probably scores >.>

[Bregor]

Yeah saw that picture earlier. He must have been waltzing to first base. If he was running flat out the whole time he probably scores >.>

From what I saw he was running pretty hard most of the way, even to first. He just seemed slower than normal, I know Gordon has some pretty good wheels. Wonder if he was dinged up.

[Melena]

From what I saw he was running pretty hard most of the way, even to first. He just seemed slower than normal, I know Gordon has some pretty good wheels. Wonder if he was dinged up.

He could have been, he also admitted he stumbled slightly around second looking for the sign.

Okay so you have like another week to #evenyear it up and then the off-season thread starts and I'm considering infracting for hashtags.

This has been "Shit Mod with Papa Breggy".

#Evenyear #Dynasty #.

[NynJa]

I dont think anyone here knows how much energy it takes to full sprint for 380 feet (accounting for players not running on base lines to conserve momentum). I'm sure someones gonna say "professional athlete", yet some of these professional athletes focus on speed and stamina and some focus on power. And if he made the play to go home and was out, this discussion would be the opposite: "what if he stayed, would perez have hit him home"

[Xajii]

yea, there was no chance Gordon scored an ITPHR on an error like that, he's fast but he ain't that fast. Dyson or Gore? Maybe. 100% healthy Cain? MAYBE. But not Gordon. People saying he was "jogging" out of the box are stupid - just watch him. At the end of the day its also game 7 of the world series, dude must have been tired as fuck.

Mostly I'd point to the whole "not getting hits" thing.

[NynJa]

I'd like to think that with all the training teams do, one of the statistical exercises is to see how long it takes each player to tag each base from a hit: Whats their average time to get from home to second? Home to third? home to home?

[pohibaba]

If anyone wants to watch the World Series Parade it's streaming on CSNBayArea.com and ABC7News.com.

#dynasty

[NynJa]

#dynasty

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-f...ynasty-2014-10

Once again, the term refers to teams with constant success, even if it doesnt always amount to a championship. Some articles sugarcoat it by saying "its a new kind of dynasty", for reasons like this

if 3 world series wins in 5 years in the modern era isnt constant success then i dont know what is

But as I've said 10 times before, its not the 3 world series in 5 years, its the other two years where they failed to make the playoffs, this factors in. Its not like they made the playoffs those two other years and just didnt win, they FAILED to make the playoffs. They FAILED to be among the top 8 teams those two years. This matters, a lot.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...104110621.html

"Righetti (Giants pitching coach) doesn't think the current Giants run equals a dynasty."
"If you're a real sports fan, that's what a dynasty is," Righetti said. "I hope this is the start of something big. It’s fun though, and maybe it’s coming."


Get to the WS in 2015, and there wont be any debate on the matter.

[Melena]

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-f...ynasty-2014-10

Once again, the term refers to teams with constant success, even if it doesnt always amount to a championship. Some articles sugarcoat it by saying "its a new kind of dynasty", for reasons like this


But as I've said 10 times before, its not the 3 world series in 5 years, its the other two years where they failed to make the playoffs, this factors in. Its not like they made the playoffs those two other years and just didnt win, they FAILED to make the playoffs. They FAILED to be among the top 8 teams those two years. This matters, a lot.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...104110621.html

"Righetti (Giants pitching coach) doesn't think the current Giants run equals a dynasty."
"If you're a real sports fan, that's what a dynasty is," Righetti said. "I hope this is the start of something big. It’s fun though, and maybe it’s coming."


Get to the WS in 2015, and there wont be any debate on the matter.

Top 4 teams (top 5 now, 4&5 have a one game playoff). This isn't the NHL, NFL, NBA where 50% of the teams make the playoffs. If you count the one game wildcard playin as a playoff game, you have less than a 30% chance to make the playoffs to begin with. Also the Giants are only the third or fourth team in MLB history to win 3+ World Series in 5 years. So yes, Dynasty still applies.

I should clarify it's top 5 in National and American for 10. Not 8/16 in the other leagues.

[pohibaba]

#jelly #dynasty

[NynJa]

Top 4 teams (top 5 now, 4&5 have a one game playoff). This isn't the NHL, NFL, NBA where 50% of the teams make the playoffs. If you count the one game wildcard playin as a playoff game, you have less than a 30% chance to make the playoffs to begin with. Also the Giants are only the third or fourth team in MLB history to win 3+ World Series in 5 years. So yes, Dynasty still applies.

I should clarify it's top 5 in National and American for 10. Not 8/16 in the other leagues.

Either way, the definition of a sports dynasty is a constant string of success, theres a reason most people calling them a dynasty are admittingly bending the rules a bit.

The other two teams that have won 3 in 5 are
St. Louis Cardinals from 1942 to 1946
Won the series in 42, 44, 46, lost the series in 41, and didnt make the series in 45. Bear in mind, there were no playoffs at this time, it was just AL winner vs NL winner, and in 45 the cards finished second with a 95-59 record. The Cubs finished first with 98-56.

New York Yankees from 1996 to 2000
Won the series in 96, 98, 99, 2000. If you want to do 3 in 5, you can say they won in 98 99 2000, and lost in 1997 and 2001. In 1997 they finished second in the AL East, but also finished second in all of the AL. in 2001 they finished first in the AL East, but lost in the series to the D-Backs. The other 4 years they won the series, heres how they finished
1996: first AL East, second in AL, third in entire league
1998: first overall
1999: first in AL, third in entire league
2000: first in AL East, 5th in AL, 9th overall (sneaked into playoffs, but still won WS)

Compare that to the giants run of success
2010: First NL W, second NL, 5th overall (won WS)
2011: Second NL W, 6th NL, T-12th overall (DNQ)
2012: First NL W, third NL, 3way tie for 4th overall (won WS)
2013: Fourth NL W, I'll stop there
2014: Second NL W, T-4th NL, 3 way tie for 8th overall (won WS)

Those years of non contention matter. Consideration for what is and is not a dynasty factors in success AND failures (or rather the lack of failures), which is why I'm saying they need to do something big in 2015. I'm not taking anything away from their wins, yes 3 in 5 is impressive, but its those two years they failed to impress. They cant be ignored.


Someone added the giants to the dynasty entry on wiki...citing fox sports as calling them a dynasty LOL.

[Melena]

How much more fucking constant can you get than 60% of the last 5 championships going to one team. Going by your definition then the Cardinals are a dynasty for winning one world series and 5 playoff appearances over the giants.

[NynJa]

sigh
let me try this again, with pictures



Those top three plot points, impressive, very impressive in modern day sports.
Those bottom two plot points, make the whole dynasty thing up for debate. If even one of those two plot points landed anywhere else on that chart, this discussion comes less for debate. But while you're saying "they won the championship 3 of the past 5 times", at the same time "they failed to make the playoffs twice in the past 5 years". Which is, once again, why I'm saying that they need to do something next season.

Is a team who "2 times in 5 seasons failed to make the playoffs" considered a dynasty? <- this is where the debate stems from. Success AND failures.

Are the Heat considered a dynasty? 2 championships in 4 years, 4 conference titles in 4 years. I mean, by your own definition of "modern day dynasty", they should be one.
Are the Kings considered a dynasty? 2 championships in 3 years, 3rd year they lost in conference finals to eventual winner, yet never finished first in their division.
Are the Hawks considered a dynasty? 2 championships in 5 years, last season pretty much lost the cup finals in the conference finals.

[Melena]

I look at 4-5 years minimum when discussing a dynasty and you keep harping on the lack of playoffs in two years in the game that sends the LEAST amount of teams to the fucking playoffs as a negative? Jesus fucking christ you have got to be one of the most stubborn people in the world. All you harp on is did they make it x years consecutively which going by that, the fucking sharks are a dynasty, as well as the braves 1 world series in 10 playoff appearances. If you capture 3+ titles in a 5 year period, you are pretty much a dynasty for that decade. Just like the A's were a dynasty in the 70's and 80's, like the yankees in 2000, like the Redwings were, bulls, etc. Next your going to say the bulls don't count as their titles had a playoff flameout sandwiched between when Jordan retired before coming back.

[NynJa]

No the sharks are not a dynasty because they havent won, you should know

Spoiler: show

http://38.media.tumblr.com/aee292cf9...goso1_1280.jpg

You're cherry picking certain reasons for a dynasty and applying them to teams that are obviously not dynasties.

Just like the A's were a dynasty in the 70's and 80's

Won in 72-73-74, didnt win in 71 and 75, but still finished first in AL East. They were competitive for the title all 5 years.

like the yankees in 2000

I've covered this, they either won the series, or were heavily competitive for all those years.

Redwings

By your own definition, they arent a dynasty. They only won 2 cups in a 5 year span. They won 6 cups in a 3 year span (97, 98, 02), and in a long as fuck span were almost always finishing first in their division, or atleast were being heavily competitive. In a 14 season span, from 95 to 09:
-4 cups (another 2 finals losses)
-6 presidents trophies
-14 playoff appearances

bulls

6 championships in 9 years, and the other 3 years they got to conference finals


Dynasty:
Wins multiple championships and in years they didnt win, they were still very competitive for the championship.

The sharks HAVE NOT WON multiple championships, they were competitive, but they failed to win, ANY
The Cards have won ONE championship in the past 4 years, and were heavily competitive the others.

The Giants have won THREE championships in the past 5 years, but have also failed to be competitive for the other two. I dont know how many more times I have to fucking say that that second part matters.


They failed to be considered a candidate for the title two times in the past 5 years. If you have to debate whether a team is a dynasty or not, they're probably not.

[Headspace]

Holy shit stop posting