Bleed Cubbie Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

This was not a choke job.

Tiny by dakoose on

Call me crazy, but I am not really all that infuriated about the Cubs early exit. Although they got embarrassed in the postseason by the boys from LaLa Land, the fact remains that the Cubs were, and in my opinion still are, the best team in the National League. Some of you, maybe all of you, are wondering what the hell I'm talking about. How could a team that was bounced in three uncompetitive games be the NL's best team?

Star-divide

     Lets examine the logic of how baseball crowns it's champions. Teams go through a six month, 162 game regular season. A regular season in which there are almost no flukes. Over a six month period, the bad teams are weeded out, the decent teams are identified as simply decent and the top teams are identified as contenders. All of the bad luck and bad bounces(more often than not) even out. Teams and individual players go through streaks and slumps, but at the end of the day, only the best teams end up at the top. But then, the team that outplays each and every one of it's competitors goes through a rough stretch of three games and poof, it's all over.

     Where is the logic in that? I understand that the playoffs make for tons of excitement and bring in loads and loads of cash for the MLB and all of the teams good enough to advance, but the system makes little to no sense. One could argue that hey, if you were that good to begin with you should have been able to handle that lesser team in a three game series. But still, the idea that you should have your season ended because of three bad games is ridiculous. This sounds like sour grapes from a miserable Cubs fan and it very well might be, but I have been harboring these thoughts ever since I started closely examining and studying baseball. There is a reason that baseball used to send the best team recordwise from each league straight to the WS and send everyone else home packing. Because it makes sense.

To all of you that read the book Moneyball, do you remember what Billy Beane said about the playoffs? "My shit doesn't work in the playoffs." Why? Why doesn't his shit work in the playoffs? Because the playoffs are unpredictable, i.e they make no damn sense. So to all of you and all of the guys in the MSM who say that the "Cubs aren't built for the playoffs," how in the world do you construct a team for a process that in essence, is unpredictable and impossible to prepare for. All Jim Hendry can do is assemble the best team possible, and he did that this season. To reference an episode of Seinfeld, the playoffs are like a balm. They're unpredictable.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation, Bleed Cubbie Blue, or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief. FanPost opinions are, however, valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 127 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

This argument pisses me off

First, there is no way in hell that the Cubs are the best team in the NL. No way, no how, no sir.

The best team in the NL doesn’t vomit all over itself when it matters. Period.

Second, let us assume that pre-1969 rules are in place and that the Cubs and the Angels go straight to the World Series.

The Cubs would have, going into Sunday, been down 3-0. Most likely, they lose the series no better than 4-1.

Oh, but we would have been happier with a four-game sweep with the team playing like crap becuase “It was the World Series???” BULL! I’d be just as disgusted!

Whether it’s a one-game playoff or a best 11 of 21, there is simply no way a team deserves to win when they give up the walks, errors and missed opportunties the Cubs did.
 
At some point, you have to win 4 of 7. That’s how baseball has done it for more than 100 years. The playoffs long predate Billy Beane. He knew the rules when he signed up. If he can’t figure it out, he doesn’t deserve to win.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 3:35 PM CDT   0 recs

The point is

that logically, the playoff system is not a real good way to crown a champion. I am not arguing that the crown should be given to the best record in baseball. I just think that the old way makes more sense and ensures that the better teams are fairly compensated for outplaying the competition all year long.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 3:39 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

People hate the BCS...

System and are calling for a playoff, because people love the excitement and surprises of the playoff system. If your team isn’t the top team in each league, then you lose a ton of fan interest and money.

Someday we'll go all the way...

by CubsBullsBears on Oct 7, 2008 3:48 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

According...

To our 162-game season, we were the best team in the NL, there is no arguing that. We almost led every major statistical category as well. Choking in the playoffs is not indicative of being a bad team, it just means that for those 3 games we sucked.

Someday we'll go all the way...

by CubsBullsBears on Oct 7, 2008 3:46 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

4 errors in 1 game

n/t

"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all." -B. Dylan

by Wood20K on Oct 7, 2008 3:36 PM CDT   0 recs

But then...

You still (with the 2 team system) have a 7 game series…

"There is not a better offense in America. Missouri has had 48 possessions and scored on 33 of them. The nation's No. 1 scoring offense has punted just five times and has yet to go three-and-out." Tom Dienhart, Rivals.com

by PurpleLineToWrigley on Oct 7, 2008 3:40 PM CDT   0 recs

I didn't think I would have to write it out,

but given that a seven game series would still be necessary, it takes away some of the error that the playoffs provide. Meaning, the regular season champ doesn’t get screwed for playing one off season.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 3:41 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

That doesn't make any sense

So, a 5-game series is just so pressure packed, but a 7-game series is free and easy.

Cubs would have gone down 3-0 to the Angels. (Or the Astros, if it’s the two-division set-up)

In the end, NOTHING changes.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 3:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

This argument isn't only about this season.

I noted in my post that I have thought about this for a couple of years now. The old system has merit because it doesn’t force the best regulars season team to have to win three separate series in order to win the whole thing, only one series. Why should a team that played so well for so long have to play three wholly unpredictable series’.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 3:55 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Of course the old system was better...

…because if you had the best record after 162, you were in the world series.

Now, what you have to consider is this, back then finishing in 1st place was the equivalent of winning the pennant and no one knows what this group of players would have responded down the stretch with a pennant on the line.

This club has shown for 2 years, it does not respond well to the most important games, how do you know they would have responded in that other system with the pennant on the line?

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 4:21 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

"it does not respond well to the most important games"

Then explain the way they played for 4 games in Milwaukee vs the Brewers best.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Oct 7, 2008 4:28 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I think the answer can be given in this fashion...

1. they were not playoff games
2. the result of those games would not have determined the season outcome

The Cubs could have gotten swept that series and they still would have been in a comfortable playoff posiiton. Hence, less downside, less pressure.

Are you actually saying that a 4 game series in July carries the same weight as a playoff series?

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 5:15 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No

I was responding to the previous post that stated that the team doesn’t respond well to the most important games. I was offering counter evidence.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Oct 7, 2008 5:37 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

It might be that both the Phillies and Dodgers are better teams than the Cubs & Brewers

at the end of the season. One of the warning signs for the Cubs should have been that 4 game series at home with the Phillies. The Phillies should have won all 4 instead of splitting. The Phillies kpet playing well and the Cubs struggled.

The Dodgers really improved by getting Manny and having Furcal return from surgery. 162 games with those 2 at full health in their lineup and their winning record is much better.

by DudeVf11 on Oct 7, 2008 8:17 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

How about that Milwaukee series...

In late July? We were playing like crap, they were hot, and it could’ve ended horribly. We went out and swept them in Milwaukee, and essentially clinched the division.

Someday we'll go all the way...

by CubsBullsBears on Oct 7, 2008 4:29 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed

That’s what I’m saying.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Oct 7, 2008 4:30 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I think what MPH is saying..and I tend to agree

Is that if you put that series in September instead of July, there is a different feel.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:32 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I see

not sure I agree, but see what you’re saying.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Oct 7, 2008 4:34 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Correct...

…they responded very well in that series, but the downside was minimal compared to a playoff series.

Again, even if the Brewers swept them, they are 3 games out with 60 to go and also have a nice lead in the wild card, certainly not the end of the world. In a playoff series, every game is magnified and it is the end of the season if you don’t perform – big big difference.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 5:18 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Again, let me reitirate that

this post, while it’s timing may indicate otherwise, is not just about this year. For about three or four years I have tried to make true sense of the playoff system. I agree with you that there would be added pressure in September, but the system would still make sense. Scheduling aside, teams would play almost identical schedules and in the end of the day, each team had the same shot to make the WS. Being that there are two separate leagues, there is no way around the season culminating in some type of short series, but at least the leagues would be sending out more deserving teams. There is no way that a system which allowed an 82 win Cardinals team to win it all should be used.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 4:40 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

with everything you are saying. I hate the format, and think it totally diminishes the meaning of winning the division, or pennant, as it used to be. Great post.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Oct 7, 2008 4:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

So, you're advocating...

For a system that hasn’t been in place in 30 years? The LCS system has been going since 1969!

There have been three rounds of expansion since 1969. There are simply too many teams to lump them all into one league.

In the real world, people like to make money. Owners do not want to try to sell tickets to a team that is 4th or 5th in a 14-game league. Players do not want to play those games. Fans don’t want to watch them. TV won’t pay for them.

Baseball ALREADY loses September to the NFL and college football.

In 1968, the NFL and AFL hadn’t even merged. The NBA had 8 teams. The NHL had 6. College basketball and college football were nothing like they are now. NASCAR was six rednecks on a dirt track and pro wrestling was fat guys in tights.

And there were three channels.

With today’s options, there is simply no way baseball would do that.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:49 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

no

I would just like to see the NLDS as a 7 game series. I like the 162 game season, I think winning the division matters, and would like to see teams have to win 4 games to advance to the NLCS. Not saying the Dodgers wouldn’t have; I just don’t care for the format.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Oct 7, 2008 5:12 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Do you actually think...

…a seven game series was going to make a difference this year for the Cubs? The only difference it would have made was a 4-0 sweep vs a 3-0 sweep.

IMO, the team was clinically dead as soon as Dempster gave up the grand slam in game one, and a championship team doesn’t go down that easily.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 5:42 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Didn't you read his post?

He said he doesn’t think the Dodgers would have lost. He stated that the format bothers him, regardless of what happened in this years series.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 5:44 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No other sport...

…has that format, and with the number of teams, its not going to happen.

In the end, I really don’t have a problem with it for this reason; if you are the best team, there is no reason you shouldn’t be able to play well in the playoffs. If you don’t, you probably were not the best team.

What bothers me most about the Cubs is how they played, not the fact that they got beat. A championship team show up to play when it matters, and they may get beat, but they don’t beat themselves.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 5:39 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

They don't HUMILATE themselves

There is no way the NLDS Cubs and best team go together.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 7:24 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

This wasn't just about this year.

This is about the system, not the Cubs. Given that the playoffs are unpredictable and anything can happen in a short series, why should a team that outplayed their competitors for 162 have to play three wholly unpredictable series to be crowned? The WS is a necessity as long as there are two different leagues.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 3:59 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Because that's how it freaking IS!

Whine, bitch, moan and complain all you like. Every single team has to do this. Every single GM, manager and owner has to prepare for it.

At some point, you have to win a short series. Period. In a 7-game series, two hot starting pitchers can take over. A hot hitter can come out of nowhere. The best regular season team HAS NEVER been guaranteed of jack crap. (1954 Indians? 1906 Cubs?)

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:04 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The point was to point out that it was not a choke job.

Good teams lose three games sets all of the time. That is why there is a playoff system. Because baseball wants things like this to happen. It offers excitement, which is a horrible reason to have a system in place.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 4:09 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Of course it's a choke job...

If you tell a team that they have to win three games out of five and they fail to do that, and they look petrified, mortified, stupefied and paralyzed in the attempt, that is a choke job.

I could buy this..perhaps, if they lost close games. Or if they beat the Dodgers and the Phillies and then lost badly to the Red Sox or Rays. Or if someone got hurt.

But I do not see how anyone can watch that team’s performance and not see a choke job.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:12 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The Cubs WERE the best team...

… in April and May, maybe into June. They were the best during their winning streak. They were not the best in baseball down the stretch, nor at the end of the season.

If the playoffs had been in May, we might have had something.

In the middle of a good time, Truth gave me her icy kiss. Look around, you must be joking. All that way, all that way for this? -Oysterband

by Ross on Oct 7, 2008 3:42 PM CDT   0 recs

I'd say

they were the best team in July, as well.

by elgato on Oct 7, 2008 3:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Of course they were the best team.

The best team doesn’t always win playoff series. It’s as simple as that.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Oct 7, 2008 4:04 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Our definitions...

of best team differ then, all due respect.

My vision of a best team actually plays like it in a five-game series.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Thats a pretty bad definition.

How about a team that wins a 162 game season.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 4:10 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Winning a season?

You don’t win a season! You get enough wins for the RIGHT to keep playing.

I get that in the olden days, when the leagues were two separate entities and trading between them was banned after a certain date and they never played each other, that there was still some merit in winning a league. I get that. (I submit that a fan of the Indians in 1954 - 111 wins and a four-game sweep — is still pretty ticked…)

But that was decades ago. That changed in 1969, with the LCS system. We’ve had, what, 11, 12 champions under the current system?

Every World Series winner in the wild car era has won 11 of 19 games against three different opponents. That seems to me to be a MUCH fairer test of a team’s mettle than a simple 4 of 7.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:15 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The best team DOES always win a playoff series

If a team can’t bring their “A-game” every day, especially in a playoff series, then they’re not the best team. It’s not a hard concept to grasp. They didn’t hit, or pitch, well. As my old coach used to say “You’re only as good as your last game.”

The Cubs lost because, basically, the Dodgers are a better team.

by NittanyCub on Oct 7, 2008 6:15 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Jesus man

This is a ridiculous position. Baseball is a fickle game. The best team doesn’t always win. The Cubs had a better team than the Dodgers in almost every way this year. They had three shitty games and were done. Doesn’t mean they weren’t better than the Dodgers, objectively speaking.

You look like you'd fit in the trunk of my car.

by mambochicken23 on Oct 7, 2008 6:26 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Uh, objectively speaking?

You give three opinions, that are all your opinions with no real support on their own, before the fourth sentence even starts. That’s the most subjective speaking I’ve heard. If the Cubs were the better team, how were they possibly beaten? There’s a reason that statistics aren’t always correct, and isn’t an exact science in sports.

You are right, they did have three shitty games. If they were a better team, however, they would have had three non-shitty games. I don’t know how it’s at all possible that you believe the Cubs are better than the Dodgers given that they lost to them three straight times. It’s nice and dandy to uphold great stats and numbers for the 161 games this season, but it doesn’t mean anything when they can’t deliver for three extra games, when they count the most. I really can’t understand how you think they’re better given that they lost. With your line of thinking, there has potentially been 103 different teams since the WS began, but who haven’t won because “baseball is a fickle game.” In other words, all the 103 different teams that have won could not potentially be the best, because the “better” team LOST. Uhh…. THEY LOST BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT BETTER.

That’s a ridiculous position.

by NittanyCub on Oct 7, 2008 7:23 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Please.

There is a reason there are things called upsets in sports. The better team doesn’t always win. The better team on that day, or for that series, wins. There is a difference between the better team and the better team on that given day. It’s not that difficult a distinction. The Dodgers outplayed the Cubs in early October. The Cubs were the better team all year long. They played in a tougher division and ended up miles ahead of the Dodgers.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 7:40 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Red Sox sucked last year

They just caused an upset for the whole season and the postseason. Lucky sons of bitches, they are.

by NittanyCub on Oct 7, 2008 7:43 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No one gives a hairy rodent

Who was “better all year long.” They care who wins 11 of 19.

The Dodgers won when it counted. That is the essence of sport.

No one cares if someone beats Tiger Woods at the Scumbumistan Open. They care whether he wins the Masters.

No one cares that the Patriots beat the Giants in the regular season. Or that the Rams beat the Patriots in their regular season.

No one cares if Duke lost to McWhirlybird State in November. They care about six straight in March and April.

The best team wins when it counts. No one cares that the Cubs beat the Dodgers in May. Well, no one except you.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 7:59 PM CDT to parent up   1 recs

Thanks, boys...

This topic aggravates me to no end. I’m sure the original poster and I would agree on other issues.

But I just cannot stand “the better team lost!” whining

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 10:14 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

On paper...

…the Cubs appeared to be a better team – better stats more wins etc.. But, real games are not played on paper, they are played on the field.

Let’s put aside the fact that the Cubs performed brutally bad in every phase of the game. The Dodgers that finished the season were not an 84 win team, not unlike how the 03 Cubs were not an 88 win team when they beat the 101 win Braves in 03. The Dodgers added two huge pieces to their club to finish the season – Ramirez and Furcal, one is probably one of the top 5 hitters in the game and the other is a top notch SS. Furthermore, their top pitchers pitched extremely well to finish the season (just like Wood and Prior did in 03). If the Dodgers have both of these guys the entire year, they win more games plain and simple.

Let me finish with this, part of being the best team is answering the bell when it matters. Although healthy, the Cubs did not answer the bell when it mattered the most, and there is no way around that issue. You can’t just say they played 3 bad games, because they chose to do it, when they knew the season was on the line.

This club is missing something and what it is missing would not allow it to perform like the best team in the NL.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 7, 2008 9:05 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

here's something I've been thinking about

Is it possible the Cubs’ offense, as currently constructed, is worse against really good pitching than other playoff teams? If there are stats that show how teams fare against top-line starters compared with bottom-rung guys, I’d love to see them.

There’s a term called “mistake hitters” — guys who wait for bad pitches and hammer them. Is it possible the Cubs are a bunch of mistake hitters, who get fewer mistakes to hit (and fewer walks) in the postseason, when they’re facing the Dodgers’ best starters instead of the crap at the end of the Pittsburgh rotation?

This is a half-formulated theory, but it’s one I’d like to see discussed.

by elgato on Oct 7, 2008 3:44 PM CDT   0 recs

I have heard that about Soriano,

but not about the team as a whole. Soriano is not so much of a mistake pitcher but a bad pitcher hitter. He kills bad pitchers, but stinks against good ones.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 3:56 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

You know, I disagree with the IRS!

So, I’m not going to pay taxes. Hope I get an internet connection in my jail cell, so I can stay on here!

You play by the rules set, or you get punished. If any single Cub is whining about a 5-game series, I want them cut, traded, demoted and/or beaten.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 3:48 PM CDT   0 recs

Such as Soriano for instance

I’ve been wondering what his stats are against a given teams 1-2 starters as opposed to their 3-5 guys. Based on his career performances in the playoffs, I would imagine it isn’t very good.

by TarHeelHawk on Oct 7, 2008 3:48 PM CDT   0 recs

I know this is just one pitcher . . .

but Soriano has phenomenal stats against CC Sabathia . . .

by TheRiot02 on Oct 7, 2008 3:51 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't think anyone on the team has complained

The original post is a valid point. The only thing a GM can do is put together a team that can get to the playoffs. After that, all bets are off. I don’t know of any team that is “built” for the playoffs. Recent history is full of examples of how one play has turned a series to one teams favor.

by TarHeelHawk on Oct 7, 2008 3:55 PM CDT   0 recs

And the best teams MAKE THAT PLAY!

The best team in the league has a second baseman who makes that play. They have a bullpen that doesn’t give up a run an inning. They have hitters who actually believe the strike zone ends sometime before Waukegan.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:07 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Hey, sometimes things happen

Sometimes Tom Brady fumbles the ball, the ref calls it an incomplete pass and the Patriots go on to win 3 Super Bowls. Jeff Maier catches Derek Jeters “home run” in 1996, and the Yankees go on to win 3 championships. AJ Eyecharts plays against the Angels in ‘05. Yankees/Red Sox game 5 in ’04, where if Posadas ball down the line in right is 2 inches lower, the Yankees win that game. But it went into the stands, and Jeter had to stop at 3rd.
I know that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, it just means that the Cubs need to get a bounce, a lucky break.

by TarHeelHawk on Oct 7, 2008 4:18 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

You also make your own luck

Adam Viniateri still had to kick a 46-yarder in a blizzard. Brady still leads the drive down the field against the Rams.

The Yankees still come back from 0-2 to beat the Braves

The White Sox still sweep the Astros. Red Sox still win six more games.

Or… put it another way, the Marlins still have to score 5 runs in the 8th and beat Kerry Wood in Game 7, not to mention beat the Yankees in the World Series.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

You're missing the point

If it’s called a fumble (which it was) the Pats lose that game, and Brady doesn’t have the oppurtunity to beat the Rams.

Yes, the Yankees came back to beat the Braves, but to get there they would have had to come back from 2 down to the Orioles, who would have won that game if Rich Garcia had made the correct call.

The point is that once bounce or play can change the outcome of a series – good or bad. For the Cubs, it’s been 2 normally sure-handed infielders booting double play balls, and opening the floodgates. One day the Cubs will get a bounce.

by TarHeelHawk on Oct 7, 2008 4:52 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No, I'm not missing the point

The Raiders, Orioles, Cards in 1985, Cubs in 2003, etc… all had many more chances to come back and win. They didn’t. They lost.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:56 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Speaking of football...

The Patriots were 16-0… undefeated. They end up losing in the Super Bowl to the Giants of the “inferior” NFC. Stuff does indeed happen all the time, in every sport.

Someday we'll go all the way...

by CubsBullsBears on Oct 7, 2008 4:31 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Yup...it does

And if the Cubs had romped through the playoffs, only to lose a close series — Patriots were still in it for much of the game — I’d be more apt to listen.

This was the equivalent of the Patriots losing 44-0 in their first game.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:33 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

My friend...

take it from someone who was there; everything that the commentators and writers have said was true, and worse. It was a choker in the Cubs-logo-next-to-the-definition in Websters sort of way.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 7, 2008 3:58 PM CDT   0 recs

And if I might just say another thing...

I really don’t have too much of a problem with losing. You’re right, there isn’t much rhyme or reason to October. It’s the manner in which they were bounced that pisses everyone off.

Personally, I think they’re heading in the right direction, with three playoff appearances now in five years. But game two was the most embarrasing game that I’ve seen in 30-plus years of following baseball.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 7, 2008 4:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed.

We just need to put the best team possible out there and ignore curses and choking.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 4:11 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Wouldn't

this debate be solved if MLB would simply change the NLDS to a seven game series? I have never thought, even before the melt down, that a 5 game series made sense following 162. Wouldn’t 2 more games make MLB more money, and take like 3 extra days? Plus, I’d have a better chance of landing tickets.

"Chicago Cubs fans are ninety percent scar tissue." - George F. Will

by Slakkr on Oct 7, 2008 4:38 PM CDT   0 recs

True, but then

Opening day would be 3/25 or the game 7 of the WS on 11/10

But the wind blew me back via Chicago, In the middle of the night

by N Oakley on Oct 7, 2008 4:41 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I think it will eventually happen

Some travel, union and TV deals have to be worked out.

But to me, it’s moot. You make the NLDS a seven-game series and the Cubs just lose 4-0, or, at best, 4-1.

These were not close losses, people.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:41 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Worf, how many times do I need to say that this is not just about the Cubs.

The Cubs had an awful series. They were outplayed in every facet of the game. Perhaps pressure did have something to do with it. I also believe that if it were a best of seven series they still would have lost if they made the same mistakes. But, that does not mean that the system in place is a correct one or that the Cubs were not the best team in the league. If the Cubs and Dodgers played thirty games against each other, I think the Cubs would win a majority of those games. I will say it again. I believe the Cubs are the best team in the national league.

by dakoose on Oct 7, 2008 4:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

If you told the Cubs and Dodgers

That is a 30-game series to determine the champion, the Dodgers win.

Manny, Torre, Lowe, etc….. > than the Cubs.

The worst beer I had was pretty good.

by Worf on Oct 7, 2008 4:50 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No.

You’re just wrong here.

You look like you'd fit in the trunk of my car.

by mambochicken23 on Oct 7, 2008 6:28 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

i still think the dodgers were the better team

more consistent (if less flashy) starting pitching, better power hitting, better defense.

we judged the dodgers vs. cubs matchup based upon total season stats, but the dodgers that we played are not the same team as they were in the beginning of the year. case in point: they had manny and furcal in the lineup together exactly ONCE during the regular season – the very last game.

i think the better team won

the pink hat guy is my father

by joeschmitt on Oct 7, 2008 4:43 PM CDT <