Right, because the 2005 Cardinals who finished 4 games over .500 were truly the best team in baseball. Or the losing WS team each of the last 3 years was a team that couldn't win its own division. Or that the three years before that both World Series winners couldn't win their own division.Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
1976 Reds - Most dominate team I've ever seen.
There have been several in the Bronx as well.
"My mission is to be the ray of hope, the guy who stands out there on that beautiful field and owns up to his mistakes and lets people know it's never completely hopeless, no matter how bad it seems at the time. I have a platform and a message, and now I go to bed at night, sober and happy, praying I can be a good messenger." -Josh Hamilton
It was 2006. And it turns out the best team was the Cardinals. It didn't help that Detroit kind of sucked, too, but the Cardinals destroyed the Tigers, and everyone they faced before them.
Were the Cards lucky or was everyone else unlucky? I just have a hard time calling any team that wins a WS "lucky". Luck may have helped them some but they don't win the Series without talented players playing good baseball.
Crud, I agree totally...
Great teams make their own luck...
Good teams that get on a roll at the right time are no more lucky than that...they simply make their own luck too...
To have it said better than I: "I am a great believer in luck...and I find the harder I work, the more of it I have!"- Thomas Jefferson
Over 162 games, many things will have an impact...but a cumulative effect of luck is not one of them...
You cannot defeat an ignorant man in an argument!
-William Gibbs McAdoo
Though many of us here are sure trying
The Twins don't allow themselves the luxury of simultaneously paying the likes of contracts such as Dunn, Griffey, Harang, Cordero and Arroyo.
If you missed it, there's a good chance he'll replay it while on 700 WLW this weekend...like maybe during the Inside Pitch tomorrow, or after the Bengals draft....
Ipod of the interview: At Homer under Cutler
Last edited by Spring~Fields; 04-25-2008 at 03:44 PM.
That Wayne had great success following the blueprint for small franchise success in Minnesota, the likes of which the Reds haven't tasted consistently in 30+ years???
Yea, like Billy Beane and his "incapable" 90+ win per season average this millenium. I wonder if Bob Castellini, and his 72+ win franchise (over the same timespan) would take that type of insufficiency?
There's an expression that luck is the residue of good design.
The interesting thing about the playoffs is that the same roster that can win a division title and get you to the playoff is not necessarily the best designed roster for the postseason. I think that explains a lot of the luck factor.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Meaning what, exactly? Care to explain the disparity between the franchises who purchase a run at the title in recent year (Yankees, Red Sox), and those who have done so by superior pitching design (Marlins)? Looks like Wayne was trying to follow a mixture of the Marlins and Twins model, but that's a hard thing to pull off within 2 freaking seasons.
P.S. The Marlins started the first twenty games of their 2003 World Series run at 9-11, so I'm sure you would have approved of scrapping that season 20 games in as well?
I'm not an expert on the A's by any means. The A's had the three good starting pitchers that a postseason team wants. I think the teams that had big slow guys with good OBP was not as conducive to scoring runs in the postseason. Those guys are great for pounding average or bad pitching.
In the postseason, the pitching is much better. The ace pitchers are less likely to walk people. Also, I think defense is much more important in the postseason.
I don't pretend to have all the answers on this, but it seems that at least some of Beane's teams were poorly designed for the postseason.
The 1990 Reds sweep of Oakland was a real eye opener. Sure, the Reds were fortunate to have Billy Hatcher hit .750, but it was a great defensive team with an awesome bullpen and good enough starting pitching. It also had a nice smallball offense and speed at just about every lineup position (other than 1b or C). Conventional wisdom picked the Oakland sluggers, but those guys were not facing mediocre pitching that they could mash. Also, their defense was not as good as Cincy... Again, just an example, but I don't think the Reds swept the A's that year based on luck.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote
