MLB Playoffs

[brandx]

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.     

I think it was a bad matchup for the Cubs and the mets would win again.... but one rule to remember is that no team is as good as it looks when it's on a hot streak and no team is as bad as it looks when it is cold.

[buckchuckler]

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.

OK, but who did the Cubs add to the mix to make their team better after that point.  Schwarber?  He is the only one right? 

The Mets made a huge move to get much better since that point.  The Cubs didn't. 

I think we can all agree, those 7 games, by the time the playoffs rolled around, meant nothing. 

[rocky_warrior]

I think we can all agree, those 7 games, by the time the playoffs rolled around, meant nothing.

Well, they did mean 97 wins instead of 90....but...I only brought them up as an example of using a single winning streak to prove which team is better - which is a stupid argument.  That said, I probably should have used some other streak, but it's what I wrote.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.     

I understand the point that you're trying to make and, sure, in a 7 or even 6-game MLB series, it's possible that the better team gets a couple unfortunate breaks and loses. However, when a team gets swept and completely dominated like the Cubs just did, it's nearly impossible to claim that had they played again, the series outcome would be different.

I truly believe that the Cubs were better than the Marlins in 2003 but, in the most important situation in the series, the Cubs came unraveled and the Marlins didn't. As a result, the Marlins have a WS ring and the Cubs still haven't won a pennant in 70 years. Being the "better team" doesn't mean a thing if you don't win.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I think it was a bad matchup for the Cubs and the mets would win again.... but one rule to remember is that no team is as good as it looks when it's on a hot streak and no team is as bad as it looks when it is cold.

And I completely respect that opinion, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.  I think what we saw this series was the Mets playing as well as they could and the Cubs playing about as poorly as they could, although the Mets pitching did dictate some of that. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

OK, but who did the Cubs add to the mix to make their team better after that point.  Schwarber?  He is the only one right? 

The Mets made a huge move to get much better since that point.  The Cubs didn't. 

I think we can all agree, those 7 games, by the time the playoffs rolled around, meant nothing.

Schwarber was the main difference but if you look at the overall lineup composition and how the Cubs performed once he became a regular the last two months of the season the offensive performance was night and day.  The Cubs were fairly mediocre offensively through July. 

And I knew going into the series that those 7 games meant nothing. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I understand the point that you're trying to make and, sure, in a 7 or even 6-game MLB series, it's possible that the better team gets a couple unfortunate breaks and loses. However, when a team gets swept and completely dominated like the Cubs just did, it's nearly impossible to claim that had they played again, the series outcome would be different.

I truly believe that the Cubs were better than the Marlins in 2003 but, in the most important situation in the series, the Cubs came unraveled and the Marlins didn't. As a result, the Marlins have a WS ring and the Cubs still haven't won a pennant in 70 years. Being the "better team" doesn't mean a thing if you don't win.

I understand what you're saying with your first point.  We can agree to disagree there.  The Mets showed up and the Cubs didn't and that's ultimately what matters. 

[naginiF]

As a lifelong Twins fan and a Royals fan for the last 7, I can't tell you how much I enjoy watching Cubs and Sox fans go after each other. 

[wadesworld]

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.     

When you lose 4 straight games, never hold a lead in those 4 games, and only keep the score tied beyond the 1st inning in 1 of those 4 games and never beyond the 4th inning, I have a hard time believing that the result would be significantly different if you play another 7 game series.

The Mets proved to be the fart better team, completely dominating the Cubs from start to finish of the series.

Edit: I didn't get to the last page of the thread before my response.  Merritt's pretty much said what I was thinking.

The Cubs' future is (unfortunately) very bright and they were very good this season.  But the Mets, by the end of the year, were a better baseball team, and they proved it on the field.

[wadesworld]

What a game.

[buckchuckler]

What a game.

Ex brewers galore in that series. 

[naginiF]

Ex brewers galore in that series.

The last two ALCS MVP's - Cain and Escobar - came from the Brewers via the Greinke trade.  So speaking for all of KC...'thank you!'

I love reading that the decision to send Cain from 1st to home on a single wasn't a big risk because Bautista is so predictable in his fielding and always throws to second regardless of who's on first.  Couldn't happen to a better person.

[brandx]

The last two ALCS MVP's - Cain and Escobar - came from the Brewers via the Greinke trade.  So speaking for all of KC...'thank you!'

I love reading that the decision to send Cain from 1st to home on a single wasn't a big risk because Bautista is so predictable in his fielding and always throws to second regardless of who's on first.  Couldn't happen to a better person.

Cain, Brantley, Cruz.... we shipped out some decent OFs.

[buckchuckler]

Wasnt Yost despised by brewer fans as well?

[GGGG]

Wasnt Yost despised by brewer fans as well?

Despised is a strong word.  Yost seems like one of those managers who is a great locker room guy, but his game management skills are a little weak.  He clearly was losing it down the stretch in 2008 and needed to be replaced, but there was no reason to dislike the guy.

[wadesworld]

Despised is a strong word.  Yost seems like one of those managers who is a great locker room guy, but his game management skills are a little weak.  He clearly was losing it down the stretch in 2008 and needed to be replaced, but there was no reason to dislike the guy.

Not that I would know, but I have yet to hear any person in the media who thought he was even close to a pleasant guy to be around or to interview.  But hey, maybe he was just pissed off that the media people were allowed in his locker room but not allowed in women's softball teams' locker rooms.

[naginiF]

Despised is a strong word.  Yost seems like one of those managers who is a great locker room guy, but his game management skills are a little weak.  He clearly was losing it down the stretch in 2008 and needed to be replaced, but there was no reason to dislike the guy.

Prior to last years run there was a saying in KC when an odd decision was made that the game was "Yosted".  Last night when Davis didn't get the call to face Bautista my buddy turned to me and said "we're being Yosted". 

Even on the eve of a second consecutive WS he can't shake the bad image.  It's a shame because, with the enormous help of the front office, he's kept the lightning in the bottle for two years....an amazing accomplishment in this market.

My opinion is that every genius needs the right situation and this clubhouse is Ned's right place.

[wadesworld]

I think I heard that Ned has the highest Playoff winning percentage of any manager in MLB history.  That might be wrong though.

[WI inferiority Complexes]

I think I heard that Ned has the highest Playoff winning percentage of any manager in MLB history.  That might be wrong though.

Maybe with a minimum of 25 games?  If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692).  Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.

[naginiF]

Maybe with a minimum of 25 games?  If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692).  Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.

I think MLB allows Yost not to count games in which Bumgarner pitched so he's in the record books at 18-4/.818

[wadesworld]

Maybe with a minimum of 25 games?  If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692).  Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.

Yeah there must be a minimum number of games to qualify.

[copious1218]

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.

Wades, I think there is consensus that the Mets were the better team in that series.  What I don't understand is how you reconcile your own thought above (I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series) with the idea that the Mets are clearly the better team.  You thought the Cubs were the better team (your words), but now that they were swept in impressive fashion it is clear the Mets are the better team?

What if the Royals beat up the Mets pitchers?  Are the Royals that much better than the Cubs, or is it possible that the Mets got hot at the right time, but cooled off before the WS?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Maybe with a minimum of 25 games?  If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692).  Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.

I was really confused as to why Ozzie had an extra win and 3 losses but I completely forgot about that Rays series in 08.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Wades, I think there is consensus that the Mets were the better team in that series.  What I don't understand is how you reconcile your own thought above (I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series) with the idea that the Mets are clearly the better team.  You thought the Cubs were the better team (your words), but now that they were swept in impressive fashion it is clear the Mets are the better team?

What if the Royals beat up the Mets pitchers?  Are the Royals that much better than the Cubs, or is it possible that the Mets got hot at the right time, but cooled off before the WS?

Not worth your time or frustration to discuss. 

[wadesworld]

Wades, I think there is consensus that the Mets were the better team in that series.  What I don't understand is how you reconcile your own thought above (I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series) with the idea that the Mets are clearly the better team.  You thought the Cubs were the better team (your words), but now that they were swept in impressive fashion it is clear the Mets are the better team?

What if the Royals beat up the Mets pitchers?  Are the Royals that much better than the Cubs, or is it possible that the Mets got hot at the right time, but cooled off before the WS?

Because I hadn't watched much of either team at all.  In fact, I'm not sure I watched a single inning of the Mets prior to the post season.  The Mets didn't get hot at "the right time..." the Mets got hot...for the entire 2nd half of the season.  It's pretty evident to anyone who watched the Post Season that the 2 best teams in baseball are still playing.

The Cubs right now are built like the 2011 Brewers.  One stud ace (Arietta/Greinke), one overrated "ace" (Lester/Gallardo - relax, I know Lester is better than Gallardo, but he's still not a true shut down ace like the Mets #2, or #3), and then not a lot beyond that.  Offensively they like to hit home runs and hit more home runs.  That is great for the regular season and a very fun brand of baseball, but when it gets down to the cold weather of October and going up against real aces every night (like the Brewers did in the 2011 NLCS and the Cubs did in the 2015 NLCS) it's not a winning brand of baseball.

Once the Postseason begins, it comes down to whose starting pitchers can shorten the bullpen and whose bullpen can close out the game, not whose offense can mash.  It's why you saw the Blue Jays and the Cubs both lose to the Mets and the Royals.  Would anybody argue that the Royals could put up bigger offensive numbers than the Blue Jays or that the Mets could put up bigger offensive numbers than the Cubs?  Nope.  But those 2 teams can shut down offenses while the Cubs and the Jays couldn't.

Again, the Cubs never led in the series.  The Cubs were only even tied one time past the 1st inning, and not once after the 4th inning.  If people really think that the Mets just happened to "get hot" so be it.  But the Mets are playing in the World Series and had a few extra days to rest up thanks to big boy-ing the Cubs.