MLB Playoffs

[JWags85]

Were you a Cub fan in 2003?  There was astronomical hype on that team.  Zambrano was super hyped, and in his third season (second full season), unlike Syndergaard who was in his what, third month?

Hendry came to the Cubs from a scouting background.  There was tons of optimism about their farm system.  Not only Patterson, Hee Soep Choi was the next great slugger, and I think Felix Pie got more hype than Bryant.  There were others as well.  Lots and lots of others.   

Oh, and Clement was way better than Hendricks or Hammel.  And for some reason I remember him being fantastic in those playoffs.  I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.

Yes I was a Cubs fan.  And I'm not denying there was hype.  I'm saying there is more results based hype than in 2003.  Patterson, Choi, Pie, none of them contributed to that 2003 team's final run.  Patterson and Choi weren't even on the postseason roster.  I don't know why you bring Pie into it, he was in Single A in 2003.  None of them was ROY.  None of them were key figures on a NLCS team like Bryant, Schwarber, or Russell.  I'm not saying there was no hype, I'm saying the hype now is different.

Clement may have been better, but he was still just a bottom of the rotation starter.  He was like 14-12 in 2003.  And he won Game 4 of the NLCS, but he wasn't great.  He got shelled in the NLDS vs the Braves and pitched fine in Game 4, wasn't a gem.

As for Soler, I like whatever flashes he shows.  He doesn't seem to be hopeless out there, beyond correction, and having a hose that people need to respect out there will not be a bad thing, especially if they bring in a great, rangy CF.

[wadesworld]

What is your definition of best team?  The team that wins?  If that is the case I guess you are always right.  The Mets won in large part because a mediocre 30 year-old second baseman (who they were going to be happy to be rid of before the playoffs started) that has a career high of 14 homers and hit homers in back to back games exactly once in the eight years since he joined the big leagues went on the hottest streak of his life at the best possible time. 

I don't necessarily disagree that the October 2015 Mets are better than the October 2015 Cubs, but I do disagree that the best team at any given time usually wins in baseball.  Despite the 7 games series, I think baseball is a bigger "crapshoot" than football.  I think the best team in the NFL is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in MLB.  And the best team in the NBA is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in the NFL.

I don't know that I really have a definition as to "best team."  I don't think that with uneven schedules you can simply say, "Well, this team won more games than that team in the regular season, so them winning a best of 7 series in the Playoffs is just pure luck."

And I would argue that the Mets' starting pitching had much, much more to do with them winning the series than Daniel Murphy's hot streak.

Any situation where it's "one and done" compared to a series of games, the one and done situation is going to be more of a crapshoot.  I don't think the NFL's best team wins the SB all that often.  Last season I was at the Packers vs. Patriots game that the Pack won, and if either team could've played better it was the Packers.  But the Packers choked away the game against the Seahawks, and then the Seahawks, who in my opinion were better than the Patriots, choked away the game to the Patriots.  Were the Giants really a better team than the Patriots the 2 times they beat them in the SB?  In my opinion, no.  But in a 1 game setting it just takes 1 good game from a team that isn't as good and 1 sub par game from a better team and you're done.

[buckchuckler]

Yes I was a Cubs fan.  And I'm not denying there was hype.  I'm saying there is more results based hype than in 2003.  Patterson, Choi, Pie, none of them contributed to that 2003 team's final run.  Patterson and Choi weren't even on the postseason roster.  I don't know why you bring Pie into it, he was in Single A in 2003.  None of them was ROY.  None of them were key figures on a NLCS team like Bryant, Schwarber, or Russell.  I'm not saying there was no hype, I'm saying the hype now is different.

Clement may have been better, but he was still just a bottom of the rotation starter.  He was like 14-12 in 2003.  And he won Game 4 of the NLCS, but he wasn't great.  He got shelled in the NLDS vs the Braves and pitched fine in Game 4, wasn't a gem.

As for Soler, I like whatever flashes he shows.  He doesn't seem to be hopeless out there, beyond correction, and having a hose that people need to respect out there will not be a bad thing, especially if they bring in a great, rangy CF.

I love that you used Clement's W/L record.  Did you know that Kerry Wood's best record ever was 14-11.  Why do Cub fans not consider him a bottom of the rotation starter I wonder?  Clement threw over 200 innings that year (third time in his career, Hammel has done it well, never).  He was never a top rotation guy, but in my opion he was better and more valuable than Hammel.  But maybe not.

And here is his line from his wasn't great game.  7.2 innings, 5 hits 2 BB, 3 K 3 runs.  Maybe not great, not far from it.  Anytime your starter is getting you into the 8th, that guy deserves a lot of credit.  Especially when you are comparing him to a guy that can't get out of the 2nd. 

I didn't bring up Pie in relation to that team, just in general, in reference to the hype Cub prospects were getting during the reign of Jim Hendry, and the optimism that was surrounding the entire organization. 

[buckchuckler]

Disagree everywhere.  One, the best team does not almost always win in baseball.  It is unusual, for example, for the team with the best record to win the World Series. 

Second, many GMs would prefer young hitters because young pitchers get hurt at a much higher rate.  History says at least one of Harvey, DeGrom and Syndegard will not be a good starting pitcher in 3 years due to injury. 

Anything can happen in baseball.  Last place teams sweep series from first place teams during the season.

Well, the fact that both Harvey and Matz have both already recovered from TJ (and they will get Wheeler back from TJ next season) may skew that in the Mets favor.  They have already endured the injuries.  Doesn't mean it won't happen again, but they've already gotten through it. 

[buckchuckler]

What is your definition of best team?  The team that wins?  If that is the case I guess you are always right.  The Mets won in large part because a mediocre 30 year-old second baseman (who they were going to be happy to be rid of before the playoffs started) that has a career high of 14 homers and hit homers in back to back games exactly once in the eight years since he joined the big leagues went on the hottest streak of his life at the best possible time. 

I don't necessarily disagree that the October 2015 Mets are better than the October 2015 Cubs, but I do disagree that the best team at any given time usually wins in baseball.  Despite the 7 games series, I think baseball is a bigger "crapshoot" than football.  I think the best team in the NFL is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in MLB.  And the best team in the NBA is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in the NFL.

Both the Cubs and Mets had been great in the second half.  To give all the credit to Murphy seems a bit misplaced.  Obviously he was great, but the Mets hit better, played better D, ran the bases better, and pitched better.  They completely outplayed the Cubs in every facet of the game, and even changed their personality a bit to address a weakness the Cubs had (the running game), which suggests the Cubs were also out managed.  After watching that series, there is very little doubt who the better team was. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Both the Cubs and Mets had been great in the second half.  To give all the credit to Murphy seems a bit misplaced.  Obviously he was great, but the Mets hit better, played better D, ran the bases better, and pitched better.  They completely outplayed the Cubs in every facet of the game, and even changed their personality a bit to address a weakness the Cubs had (the running game).  After watching that series, there is very little doubt who the better team was.

The Mets were the better team IN THAT SERIES.  That's it. 

[GGGG]

The "best team" v. "champion" argument is one of the most frustrating in sports.  The goal isn't to be the "best team," but the goal is to be the champion.  In American sports, the only purpose of the regular season is to determine qualification and seeding for the playoffs.  Period.  The champion is determined by whomever performs best in those playoffs.

[wadesworld]

The Mets were the better team IN THAT SERIES.  That's it.

Yeah you're right.  If this series was played starting today rather than starting last week the Cubs sweep.



The Mets are far and away the better baseball team.  It's really that simple.  You don't sweep a team in the Playoffs by getting lucky.

[wadesworld]

The "best team" v. "champion" argument is one of the most frustrating in sports.  The goal isn't to be the "best team," but the goal is to be the champion.  In American sports, the only purpose of the regular season is to determine qualification and seeding for the playoffs.  Period.  The champion is determined by whomever performs best in those playoffs.

Agreed.  The best team doesn't always win the Championship.  But it's far more likely the best team wins the Championship when it's a series of games that determines a winner as opposed to a 1 and done situation.

[buckchuckler]

The Mets were the better team IN THAT SERIES.  That's it.

So you would say the same in terms of the Cubs Cards series right?  And that the Cubs were better than the Pirates in that one game? 

The Mets were a better deeper team.  The Cubs have 2 pitchers.  The Mets have 4-5 or even 6.  The Mets have a lineup that, while not as deep as the Cubs was more versatile.  They didn't have the exploitable weakness the Cubs did. 

If you take off your Cub glasses, the Mets were clearly better.  Or at least explain how the Cubs were better.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Yeah you're right.  If this series was played starting today rather than starting last week the Cubs sweep.



The Mets are far and away the better baseball team.  It's really that simple.  You don't sweep a team in the Playoffs by getting lucky.

I didn't say that they got lucky.  I didn't say the Cubs would sweep them if they played again.  I've stated more than a few times the Cubs were outplayed in every phase.  Anything else you'd like to add that I didn't say?   

And if the teams played again the series could absolutely turn out the other way.  It's not like the Cubs didn't beat Harvey, Syndergaard, or DeGrom (twice) this year.  And I realize that is when both teams were far less than their best offensively. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

So you would say the same in terms of the Cubs Cards series right?  And that the Cubs were better than the Pirates in that one game? 

The Mets were a better deeper team.  The Cubs have 2 pitchers.  The Mets have 4-5 or even 6.  The Mets have a lineup that, while not as deep as the Cubs was more versatile.  They didn't have the exploitable weakness the Cubs did. 

If you take off your Cub glasses, the Mets were clearly better.  Or at least explain how the Cubs were better.

The Cubs were better than the Pirates in one game.  Overall, I think they were both very evenly matched teams and a 5 or 7 games series could have gone either way.  The Cubs scored some runs and had Arrieta at his best that night.  I would have no problem if a Pirates fan thought the Pirates were the better team. 

As for the Cards series, the Cubs were better in that series.  I felt better about a match  up against St. Louis in a series than Pittsburgh as the Cubs had handled St. Louis in two recent series.  I wouldn't hold it against a Cardinals fan who thought they were the better team, although I think at the end of the season the Cubs were playing better. 

I don't have my Cub glasses on.  The Mets were clearly better in the series.  They absolutely have a deeper rotation, which is why I had a slight preference to play the Dodgers.  However, if the teams could hypothetically play again why couldn't Cubs get dominant outings from Arrieta and Lester in the first two games, put a few runs on the board and go up 2-0 heading back to Chicago?  Maybe Anthony Rizzo, a much better player than Daniel Murphy, would be on fire and the Mets offense stone cold.  Anyone who thinks that isn't possible is deluding themselves. 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter as it is all hypothetical.  The Mets played great.  The Cubs played like ass and got swept when it counted.  There's no debating that.  However, anyone who fails to accept that their could be a different outcome if the teams played again doesn't know much about baseball.       

[JWags85]

I love that you used Clement's W/L record.  Did you know that Kerry Wood's best record ever was 14-11.  Why do Cub fans not consider him a bottom of the rotation starter I wonder?  Clement threw over 200 innings that year (third time in his career, Hammel has done it well, never).  He was never a top rotation guy, but in my opion he was better and more valuable than Hammel.  But maybe not.

And here is his line from his wasn't great game.  7.2 innings, 5 hits 2 BB, 3 K 3 runs.  Maybe not great, not far from it.  Anytime your starter is getting you into the 8th, that guy deserves a lot of credit.  Especially when you are comparing him to a guy that can't get out of the 2nd. 

Cause I was trying to show he was average that year.  He had an ERA over 4, other stats weren't great.  And I wasn't saying it wasn't a good start, you just said you remembered him being great and I told you he had one bad start and the other was steady but unspectacular.  That all.  I'm not saying he and Hammel are the same talent, just that neither are studs to get "excited" for the future about that take up lower rotation spots.

[CTWarrior]

Any situation where it's "one and done" compared to a series of games....

My point is that in baseball the random nature of the sport makes it less predictable.  The breaks do not necessarily balance out over even a 7 game series.  Nobody in the history of baseball has pitched as well as Jake Arrieta over the past 4 months.  No reason to expect him to lose, but he did. 

I am confident that, once the regular season ends and before the playoffs begin, "experts" and computer models pick the Super Bowl winner correctly more often than they pick the World Series winner correctly.  And they pick the NBA winner much more often than the Super Bowl winner.  That to me, means the best team wins less often in baseball than in other sports.

[brandx]

Cause I was trying to show he was average that year.  He had an ERA over 4, other stats weren't great.  And I wasn't saying it wasn't a good start, you just said you remembered him being great and I told you he had one bad start and the other was steady but unspectacular.  That all.  I'm not saying he and Hammel are the same talent, just that neither are studs to get "excited" for the future about that take up lower rotation spots.

Gotta remember though, that a 4.00 ERA then is not the same a a 4.00 ERA now. Different era - different game.

[wadesworld]

The Cubs were better than the Pirates in one game.  Overall, I think they were both very evenly matched teams and a 5 or 7 games series could have gone either way.  The Cubs scored some runs and had Arrieta at his best that night.  I would have no problem if a Pirates fan thought the Pirates were the better team. 

As for the Cards series, the Cubs were better in that series.  I felt better about a match  up against St. Louis in a series than Pittsburgh as the Cubs had handled St. Louis in two recent series.  I wouldn't hold it against a Cardinals fan who thought they were the better team, although I think at the end of the season the Cubs were playing better. 

I don't have my Cub glasses on.  The Mets were clearly better in the series.  They absolutely have a deeper rotation, which is why I had a slight preference to play the Dodgers.  However, if the teams could hypothetically play again why couldn't Cubs get dominant outings from Arrieta and Lester in the first two games, put a few runs on the board and go up 2-0 heading back to Chicago?  Maybe Anthony Rizzo, a much better player than Daniel Murphy, would be on fire and the Mets offense stone cold.  Anyone who thinks that isn't possible is deluding themselves. 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter as it is all hypothetical.  The Mets played great.  The Cubs played like ass and got swept when it counted.  There's no debating that.  However, anyone who fails to accept that their could be a different outcome if the teams played again doesn't know much about baseball.       

Sure, and Marquette University High School's JV team could in theory win a series against the Chicago Cubs.  That doesn't mean that if the Cubs and MUHS's JV team played a 7 game series at Merrill Park and MUHS totaled 0 hits, that you can only come to the conclusion that the Cubs were better just for that particular set of 4 games.

[wadesworld]

The Cubs never held a lead in the entire 4 game sweep.  The score wasn't even tied from the 5th inning on in any of the 4 games.  In fact, the only time they were even tied at any point beyond the 1st inning was game 3.

They were completely Big Boyed by the Mets.  But if you want to believe that the Cubs are the better team and they just played them the wrong 4 days it's pretty evident nobody's going to stop you.  I would, however, suggest you stop telling people that they don't know anything about baseball if you're going to preach that the Cubs might be the better team, because it looks pretty silly.

[rocky_warrior]

Sure, and Marquette University High School's JV team could in theory win a series against the Chicago Cubs.  That doesn't mean that if the Cubs and MUHS's JV team played a 7 game series at Merrill Park and MUHS totaled 0 hits, that you can only come to the conclusion that the Cubs were better just for that particular set of 4 games.

Wade's...I'm gonna ask you one question, and then stay out of this thread.  When the Cubs went 7-0 against the Mets in the regular season, would you say the Mets were far and away the better baseball team?  By they way you're arguing, I'd think you have to.

I ask as a Cubs fan that knows that the postseason Mets were different than when the Cubs played them earlier.

[buckchuckler]

Wade's...I'm gonna ask you one question, and then stay out of this thread.  When the Cubs went 7-0 against the Mets in the regular season, would you say the Mets were far and away the better baseball team?  By they way you're arguing, I'd think you have to.

I ask as a Cubs fan that knows that the postseason Mets were different than when the Cubs played them earlier.

I could be wrong here, I don't believe the Cubs faced a Met lineup featuring any of Yoenis Cespedes, Travis D'Arnaud or Michael Conforto. 

[wadesworld]

Wade's...I'm gonna ask you one question, and then stay out of this thread.  When the Cubs went 7-0 against the Mets in the regular season, would you say the Mets were far and away the better baseball team?  By they way you're arguing, I'd think you have to.

I ask as a Cubs fan that knows that the postseason Mets were different than when the Cubs played them earlier.

You realize not 1 of those games came after the Cespedes trade, right?

Seriously, the series wasn't even close.  The Cubs didn't even threaten to take one of the 4 games.  I really don't understand how you can argue that the Mets aren't the better team.  I work with a diehard Cubs fan who said first thing the day after game 4, "The Mets are the better team and are going to win the WS."  I don't get how anybody who watched that series can reasonably think that the Cubs are a better team than the Mets.  Just like back in 2011 when the Brewers won the Central, I don't see how anybody could argue that the Brewers were better than the Cardinals after the NLCS (a series in which the Brewers actually won 2 games).

[wadesworld]

I could be wrong here, I don't believe the Cubs faced a Met lineup featuring any of Yoenis Cespedes, Travis D'Arnaud or Michael Conforto.

You are not wrong.

And once again, those regular season games are completely different than post season games.  That was my favorite talking point heading into the seasons.  "The Cubs are 7-0 against the Mets this year."  Yes, and not 1 of those 7 games mean a single thing.  Completely different teams (both the Cubs and the Mets) by now.

[rocky_warrior]

You realize not 1 of those games came after the Cespedes trade, right?

Seriously, the series wasn't even close.  The Cubs didn't even threaten to take one of the 4 games.  I really don't understand how you can argue that the Mets aren't the better team.  I work with a diehard Cubs fan who said first thing the day after game 4, "The Mets are the better team and are going to win the WS."  I don't get how anybody who watched that series can reasonably think that the Cubs are a better team than the Mets.  Just like back in 2011 when the Brewers won the Central, I don't see how anybody could argue that the Brewers were better than the Cardinals after the NLCS (a series in which the Brewers actually won 2 games).

Yes, I realize.  Could you answer the question?

I don't think  anybody has said the Mets weren't a better team during this series. 

[wadesworld]

Yes, I realize.  Could you answer the question?

I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series going into the series.  And that had absolutely nothing to do with any regular season head to head record.  I thought the Cubs were the better team.  The Mets proved me entirely wrong and I really don't know how it can be argued otherwise.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I could be wrong here, I don't believe the Cubs faced a Met lineup featuring any of Yoenis Cespedes, Travis D'Arnaud or Michael Conforto.

You are correct.  Of course the Mets also faced Cubs lineups that included Mike Baxter, Jonathan Herrera, Matt Szczur, and Chris Denorfia.  Neither was the same team. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series going into the series.  And that had absolutely nothing to do with any regular season head to head record.  I thought the Cubs were the better team.  The Mets proved me entirely wrong and I really don't know how it can be argued otherwise.

And I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to accept that if the teams hypothetically played again that the outcome could be different.  If you think the Mets would dominate again you have every right to but that doesn't make it so.

As a Cubs fan, I could certainly accept that argument that if the Cubs played St. Louis again the result might not have been the same. 

When St. Louis won the World Series as an 83 win wild card team in 2006, beating the 97 win Mets to get there, I'd have a real hard time saying St. Louis was the better team.  Instead they got really hot at the right time behind Jeff Suppan, who you should be familiar with.  All the teams in the playoffs are good but getting hot at the right time can be more important.