Monday, October 29, 2007
Another Bad World Series
At this point, it is clear to me even more that the Wild Card is ruining October baseball. The last good World Series was 2001, when the two best teams in the baseball played each other, and gave us the best world series since 1975. Over the past few years, October is littered with non-excellent teams who have gotten hot at the right time and prospered at the expense of better teams (the 1997 Marlins, 2002 Giants and Angels, 2003 Marlins, 2004 Red Sox, 2006 Cardinals. 2007 Rockies) and either win a championship or demean the World Series with their presence. The Rockies have fine talent and I actually thought that would win the World Series, but the performance they gave denotes to me that they had no business being there. Sure, it also simply denotes that the Sox have a much better team, and that the AL is a stronger league right now, but this trend supersedes that. One would be hard pressed to argue that the AL has been stronger for 10 years. Think about it...the 2006 Cardinals didn't even win 90 games, and they were the champs. The 2002 World Series, while exciting, was not much more than a bat fight, as John Lackey finally threw a decent game in game 7.
In this era when 8 teams make the playoffs, the game is being ruined. It is still entertaining, and my feeling won't change anything, because MLB is making oodles of money on the poor saps who pay for the tickets and the other poor saps (me included) who just love the game too much to not watch. Oh well...at least we don't have another Wild Card World Series winner, though ironically, my disdain for Boston led me to root for Colorado. Lesser of two evils :)
In this era when 8 teams make the playoffs, the game is being ruined. It is still entertaining, and my feeling won't change anything, because MLB is making oodles of money on the poor saps who pay for the tickets and the other poor saps (me included) who just love the game too much to not watch. Oh well...at least we don't have another Wild Card World Series winner, though ironically, my disdain for Boston led me to root for Colorado. Lesser of two evils :)
# posted by Unknown @ 10:42 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Joel,
We've had this conversation before but you've stated even more strongly here and with some additional proofs that I just can't figure out. Granted, I'm likely just arguing because you are the only person that I know of that rained on my Angels parade in 2002. Even my in-laws, Giant fans through and through, we're mildly happy for me (though definitely not with me). You don't even think it was a World Series. According to you October baseball in 2002 is in the same category as square circles and married bachelors. Anyway, here's a few questions I have about your most recent diatribe.
First of all,I want more explanation as to why the wild card team doesn't belong and why they demean the World Series by their presence. I know they don't belong because there didn't used to be a wild card and baseball purists can handle that aspect of it but, for instance, over the last several years, several of the wild card teams that have made it have been unquestionably better during the regular season than other teams in their own league and often in the opposing league as well. It's not like KC or Pittsburgh can have a 2 week hot streak in September and sneak into the playoffs. Almost all of these teams have records comparable or better than other playoff teams, which means they've had to play well all year. Why is it at the expense of other teams or due to getting hot at the right time?
Secondly, why isn't streakiness a legitimate baseball factor? I would put it in the same category as the recent Yankee phenomenon of sucking royally once you get into the playoffs. Streaks happen, and the Rockies streak was stopped dead in its tracks by the monstrous force known as the Red Sox. I think it'd be hard to argue that the Diamondbacks, Phillies or Cubs would have fared much better against the Sox.
Finally, and I admit that I don't know much about this because I don't pay much attention to the National League, wasn't the Phillies' presence in the playoffs every bit as much a result of a hot streak as was the Rockies'? Sure, it wasn't as dramatic, but they did win a lot of games in September and the Mets lost a lot of games in September (as did the Rockies' opponents). I guess I see the Phillies, a legitimate playoff team, in the playoffs as the result of a hot streak just like the Rockies. I don't see why the Rockies are illegitimate just because their streak got them in via wild card.
In the end, I understand your point because I understand you as a person. I don't think your point in this post, based on this year's case, is demonstrably proved.
We've had this conversation before but you've stated even more strongly here and with some additional proofs that I just can't figure out. Granted, I'm likely just arguing because you are the only person that I know of that rained on my Angels parade in 2002. Even my in-laws, Giant fans through and through, we're mildly happy for me (though definitely not with me). You don't even think it was a World Series. According to you October baseball in 2002 is in the same category as square circles and married bachelors. Anyway, here's a few questions I have about your most recent diatribe.
First of all,I want more explanation as to why the wild card team doesn't belong and why they demean the World Series by their presence. I know they don't belong because there didn't used to be a wild card and baseball purists can handle that aspect of it but, for instance, over the last several years, several of the wild card teams that have made it have been unquestionably better during the regular season than other teams in their own league and often in the opposing league as well. It's not like KC or Pittsburgh can have a 2 week hot streak in September and sneak into the playoffs. Almost all of these teams have records comparable or better than other playoff teams, which means they've had to play well all year. Why is it at the expense of other teams or due to getting hot at the right time?
Secondly, why isn't streakiness a legitimate baseball factor? I would put it in the same category as the recent Yankee phenomenon of sucking royally once you get into the playoffs. Streaks happen, and the Rockies streak was stopped dead in its tracks by the monstrous force known as the Red Sox. I think it'd be hard to argue that the Diamondbacks, Phillies or Cubs would have fared much better against the Sox.
Finally, and I admit that I don't know much about this because I don't pay much attention to the National League, wasn't the Phillies' presence in the playoffs every bit as much a result of a hot streak as was the Rockies'? Sure, it wasn't as dramatic, but they did win a lot of games in September and the Mets lost a lot of games in September (as did the Rockies' opponents). I guess I see the Phillies, a legitimate playoff team, in the playoffs as the result of a hot streak just like the Rockies. I don't see why the Rockies are illegitimate just because their streak got them in via wild card.
In the end, I understand your point because I understand you as a person. I don't think your point in this post, based on this year's case, is demonstrably proved.
Hi Eric,
I don't need to prove anything because it is not a matter of proof. For example, while I believe that AL plays something very like baseball, I don't believe the AL plays baseball in the strict sense because of the DH. But, I will not argue with David Ortiz's HR crown, because baseball as an institution has deemed the AL as legitimate. I cannot argue the legitimacy, because only baseball can decide its rules. But I can argue with their rules. So is the case with October baseball. While I have no problem with the Angels being called the 2002 champs, I have a problem with the rules that allowed it to happen. The Angels won the title fair and square within the rules of baseball, I just disagree with the rules. If the rules were different, this discussion does not exist because there would be nothing to discuss. My contention is that these rules dilute October baseball, but I cannot prove it to you because you and I seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes baseball. Proof is not possible here. My blog entry is simply my position that is backed by by the fact that many teams that are clearly not the best teams in the AL and NL make it to the Series when they shouldn't, whether it would have been the Phillies or the Rockies.
By the way, you may remember that I rooted hard the Angels in '02, I just couldn't stand that monkey.
I don't need to prove anything because it is not a matter of proof. For example, while I believe that AL plays something very like baseball, I don't believe the AL plays baseball in the strict sense because of the DH. But, I will not argue with David Ortiz's HR crown, because baseball as an institution has deemed the AL as legitimate. I cannot argue the legitimacy, because only baseball can decide its rules. But I can argue with their rules. So is the case with October baseball. While I have no problem with the Angels being called the 2002 champs, I have a problem with the rules that allowed it to happen. The Angels won the title fair and square within the rules of baseball, I just disagree with the rules. If the rules were different, this discussion does not exist because there would be nothing to discuss. My contention is that these rules dilute October baseball, but I cannot prove it to you because you and I seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes baseball. Proof is not possible here. My blog entry is simply my position that is backed by by the fact that many teams that are clearly not the best teams in the AL and NL make it to the Series when they shouldn't, whether it would have been the Phillies or the Rockies.
By the way, you may remember that I rooted hard the Angels in '02, I just couldn't stand that monkey.
Don't get me wrong, I love baseball too, but I found this WS little more than boring. But more importantly...
Who in real life talks like Joe Buck? "I'm a Manly Man, Professional Grade. Rogain!" And McCarver "I'm just an endearing old grandpa - smile along with me and pretend my botched mixed-metaphor pseudo-jokes are funny." They give me nausea.
Who in real life talks like Joe Buck? "I'm a Manly Man, Professional Grade. Rogain!" And McCarver "I'm just an endearing old grandpa - smile along with me and pretend my botched mixed-metaphor pseudo-jokes are funny." They give me nausea.
Oh...then there's the product placement. "Here's the Taco Bell lineup card." Or, "the Viagra clutch performer."
It never ends.
Post a Comment
It never ends.
<< Home
