It is currently Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:11 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 54642
Location: To the left of my post
rogers park bryan wrote:
That makes no sense, but whatever.
Why doesn't it make sense? There are many reasons why a team may win less in the regular season than others and still be as good or better when it matters. Since this is the Indians thread, I'll use this example. Right now, are the Dodgers or Indians a better team? If the playoffs started tomorrow which team are you putting your money on to win? Take it a step further, if the Dodgers go 7-10 the rest of the year, they get to 100 wins. Does that put them ahead of the 2005 White Sox? Or even further, do you even think the Dodgers are better than the 2017 Cubs?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 54642
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Who would argue that a team that won the WS wouldn't give any other team a good series? I thought this was a bit, but you're apparently serious.
I don't think every World Series team in history would have a good chance of beating any other World Series champion. It's like you think all World Series winners are pretty much the same.

But, if what you say is true, then why are you arguing against White Sox fans thinking the 2005 White Sox would beat any other World Series team in history?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
That makes no sense, but whatever.
Why doesn't it make sense? There are many reasons why a team may win less in the regular season than others and still be as good or better when it matters. Since this is the Indians thread, I'll use this example. Right now, are the Dodgers or Indians a better team? If the playoffs started tomorrow which team are you putting your money on to win? Take it a step further, if the Dodgers go 7-10 the rest of the year, they get to 100 wins. Does that put them ahead of the 2005 White Sox? Or even further, do you even think the Dodgers are better than the 2017 Cubs?

Image

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 44000
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
That makes no sense, but whatever.
Why doesn't it make sense? There are many reasons why a team may win less in the regular season than others and still be as good or better when it matters. Since this is the Indians thread, I'll use this example. Right now, are the Dodgers or Indians a better team? If the playoffs started tomorrow which team are you putting your money on to win? Take it a step further, if the Dodgers go 7-10 the rest of the year, they get to 100 wins. Does that put them ahead of the 2005 White Sox? Or even further, do you even think the Dodgers are better than the 2017 Cubs?

Image

I think this is RPB's version of a concession speech. Gotta be rough losing a baseball debate to Rick.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
:lol:

Indians peaking too early.

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 3272
Location: Woodstock (not the trailer part)
pizza_Place: Jobu
Terry's Peeps wrote:
AJ > Posada
Konerko > Tino Martinez
Tadahito > Knoblauch
Uribe < Jeter
Crede > Brosius
Pods > Chad Curtis
Rowand < Bernie Williams
Dye = Paul O'Neill
Carl Everett > Darryl Strawberry

Buehrle > Pettite
Garcia < Wells
Garland = Cone
Contreras > Irabu
El Duque < El Duque

Pretty even matchup.


I have one serious quarrel with this list.

How in the hell can anybody pick Mark Buehrle over Andy Pettitte? That is crazy. Andy Pettitte is a five (5) time World Series Champion ace. Andy Pettitte holds the record for most wins in the playoffs. Yes, in case you were wondering, that is all time - including Whitey Ford, Jesus the Son of God, and Cy Young. In other words - in the history of human life on the planet, no person has ever had more wins in the Major League Baseball postseason than Andy Pettitte.

There is no way I am putting Mark Buehrle on my team if I have the chance to get Andy Pettitte.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 42820
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
stoneroses86 wrote:
There is no way I am putting Mark Buehrle on my team if I have the chance to get Andy Pettitte.



I think a reasonably informed baseball fan would consider them pretty similar. I'm surprised you didn't take issue with the ridiculous idea that AJ > Posada.

_________________
We acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of bigfan, slumlord, and denisdman.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
According to the bullshit stat that is WAR
Brosius 5.3 Crede 1.7
O'Neill 5.8 Dye 2.5


Sox have edge on starting pitching though.

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 60393
Location: Suburbs FTW!
pizza_Place: SWEET BABY RAY"S?
'98 Pettitte 16-4 4.24ERA 216IP 1.447WHIP 2.4 WAR

'05 Buehrle 16-8 3.12ERA 236.2IP 1.183WHIP 4.8 WAR (Started All Star game)

Its Buerhle hands down.


Quote:
in the history of human life on the planet, no person has ever had more wins in the Major League Baseball postseason than Andy Pettitte.
And even he could not defeat the White Sox in the 2005 World Series.

_________________
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
First off, the [2016 Cubs World Series] title was never a huge deal to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
Frank Coztansa wrote:
'98 Pettitte 16-4 4.24ERA 216IP 1.447WHIP 2.4 WAR

'05 Buehrle 16-8 3.12ERA 236.2IP 1.183WHIP 4.8 WAR (Started All Star game)

Its Buerhle hands down.

I happen to agree with you on 1998 Buehrle being better than 98 Petite but you really are going to have to pick a lane with this W-L% thing

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:42 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 60393
Location: Suburbs FTW!
pizza_Place: SWEET BABY RAY"S?
Andy Pettitte has a career win% of .626 (.633 in the playoffs). Buehrle is at .572 for his career. Both are winning pitchers.

_________________
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
First off, the [2016 Cubs World Series] title was never a huge deal to me.


Last edited by Frank Coztansa on Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 3272
Location: Woodstock (not the trailer part)
pizza_Place: Jobu
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
stoneroses86 wrote:
There is no way I am putting Mark Buehrle on my team if I have the chance to get Andy Pettitte.



I think a reasonably informed baseball fan would consider them pretty similar. I'm surprised you didn't take issue with the ridiculous idea that AJ > Posada.


Obviously this also was insane. However, I did not feel like embarrassing Terry's Peeps, who seems like a decent fellow.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 54642
Location: To the left of my post
stoneroses86 wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
AJ > Posada
Konerko > Tino Martinez
Tadahito > Knoblauch
Uribe < Jeter
Crede > Brosius
Pods > Chad Curtis
Rowand < Bernie Williams
Dye = Paul O'Neill
Carl Everett > Darryl Strawberry

Buehrle > Pettite
Garcia < Wells
Garland = Cone
Contreras > Irabu
El Duque < El Duque

Pretty even matchup.


I have one serious quarrel with this list.

How in the hell can anybody pick Mark Buehrle over Andy Pettitte? That is crazy. Andy Pettitte is a five (5) time World Series Champion ace. Andy Pettitte holds the record for most wins in the playoffs. Yes, in case you were wondering, that is all time - including Whitey Ford, Jesus the Son of God, and Cy Young. In other words - in the history of human life on the planet, no person has ever had more wins in the Major League Baseball postseason than Andy Pettitte.

There is no way I am putting Mark Buehrle on my team if I have the chance to get Andy Pettitte.

Some say that Javy Vazquez is better than both.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 24036
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Who would argue that a team that won the WS wouldn't give any other team a good series? I thought this was a bit, but you're apparently serious.
I don't think every World Series team in history would have a good chance of beating any other World Series champion. It's like you think all World Series winners are pretty much the same.

But, if what you say is true, then why are you arguing against White Sox fans thinking the 2005 White Sox would beat any other World Series team in history?


You honestly think there are matchups between World Series winners in which one team would have a very low chance of winning? Every World Series champion has good starting pitching and at least a competent offense. Because of that, any team would have a shot against any other team. The highest I'd go in terms of odds would be 65/35. The point is that we have no idea who would beat who, and it would vary. If the '98 Yanks played even a relatively "weak" WS champ, anything could happen. You really don't believe that? You think the "best" team would automatically win?

To your second point, I didn't say they would. I said they could, as could any other team, so it's a meaningless statement.

A hypothetical head-to-head matchup is not only 100% subjective; in baseball, they could play 100 times and split 50/50, which would not happen in other sports.

That's why regular season record matters. It's objective. It certainly has flaws, but it's as close to objective as we'll get when debating this topic that would really have no consensus, anyway.

_________________
312player wrote:
More weird jews..smh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 3272
Location: Woodstock (not the trailer part)
pizza_Place: Jobu
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
stoneroses86 wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
AJ > Posada
Konerko > Tino Martinez
Tadahito > Knoblauch
Uribe < Jeter
Crede > Brosius
Pods > Chad Curtis
Rowand < Bernie Williams
Dye = Paul O'Neill
Carl Everett > Darryl Strawberry

Buehrle > Pettite
Garcia < Wells
Garland = Cone
Contreras > Irabu
El Duque < El Duque

Pretty even matchup.


I have one serious quarrel with this list.

How in the hell can anybody pick Mark Buehrle over Andy Pettitte? That is crazy. Andy Pettitte is a five (5) time World Series Champion ace. Andy Pettitte holds the record for most wins in the playoffs. Yes, in case you were wondering, that is all time - including Whitey Ford, Jesus the Son of God, and Cy Young. In other words - in the history of human life on the planet, no person has ever had more wins in the Major League Baseball postseason than Andy Pettitte.

There is no way I am putting Mark Buehrle on my team if I have the chance to get Andy Pettitte.

Some say that Javy Vazquez is better than both.


Yes but those people probably belong in a mental institution.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 54642
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
You honestly think there are matchups between World Series winners in which one team would have a very low chance of winning? Every World Series champion has good starting pitching and at least a competent offense. Because of that, any team would have a shot against any other team. The highest I'd go in terms of odds would be 65/35. The point is that we have no idea who would beat who, and it would vary. If the '98 Yanks played even a relatively "weak" WS champ, anything could happen. You really don't believe that? You think the "best" team would automatically win?
Yes, I believe there are World Series winners that are significantly better than others. That's an incredibly low margin you have between the best of all time and the worst of all time there.

But, even if I accept what you say as true, it means that it is more than fair for any of us to think the White Sox had a good chance to beat any team in history. The 2005 White Sox are undoubtedly one of the best teams in recent history. That means that even against the top teams ever it would be very close to 50/50.

leashyourkids wrote:
To your second point, I didn't say they would. I said they could, as could any other team, so it's a meaningless statement.

A hypothetical head-to-head matchup is not only 100% subjective; in baseball, they could play 100 times and split 50/50, which would not happen in other sports.

That's why regular season record matters. It's objective. It certainly has flaws, but it's as close to objective as we'll get when debating this topic that would really have no consensus, anyway.
So now it is "No one knows anything about this".

I'll stick with the historical dominance of the 2005 White Sox and think it gives them a good chance to beat any other team in history and you can stick with "any team could beat any team so it is all meaningless".

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 4986
pizza_Place: Pat's...South Loop
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Who would argue that a team that won the WS wouldn't give any other team a good series? I thought this was a bit, but you're apparently serious.
I don't think every World Series team in history would have a good chance of beating any other World Series champion. It's like you think all World Series winners are pretty much the same.

But, if what you say is true, then why are you arguing against White Sox fans thinking the 2005 White Sox would beat any other World Series team in history?


You honestly think there are matchups between World Series winners in which one team would have a very low chance of winning? Every World Series champion has good starting pitching and at least a competent offense. Because of that, any team would have a shot against any other team. The highest I'd go in terms of odds would be 65/35. The point is that we have no idea who would beat who, and it would vary. If the '98 Yanks played even a relatively "weak" WS champ, anything could happen. You really don't believe that? You think the "best" team would automatically win?

To your second point, I didn't say they would. I said they could, as could any other team, so it's a meaningless statement.

A hypothetical head-to-head matchup is not only 100% subjective; in baseball, they could play 100 times and split 50/50, which would not happen in other sports.

That's why regular season record matters. It's objective. It certainly has flaws, but it's as close to objective as we'll get when debating this topic that would really have no consensus, anyway.


I remember in 1990, after the Reds humiliated the A's in a 4-game WS sweep, Rickey Henderson said he believed that if they "played 100 times, we would win 70." :lol:

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
Rickey, as per usual, was right on point.




Image

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 48515
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
stoneroses86 wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
AJ > Posada
Konerko > Tino Martinez
Tadahito > Knoblauch
Uribe < Jeter
Crede > Brosius
Pods > Chad Curtis
Rowand < Bernie Williams
Dye = Paul O'Neill
Carl Everett > Darryl Strawberry

Buehrle > Pettite
Garcia < Wells
Garland = Cone
Contreras > Irabu
El Duque < El Duque

Pretty even matchup.


I have one serious quarrel with this list.

How in the hell can anybody pick Mark Buehrle over Andy Pettitte? That is crazy. Andy Pettitte is a five (5) time World Series Champion ace. Andy Pettitte holds the record for most wins in the playoffs. Yes, in case you were wondering, that is all time - including Whitey Ford, Jesus the Son of God, and Cy Young. In other words - in the history of human life on the planet, no person has ever had more wins in the Major League Baseball postseason than Andy Pettitte.

There is no way I am putting Mark Buehrle on my team if I have the chance to get Andy Pettitte.


stoneroses, we were only looking at the years in question. 2005 White Sox vs. 1998 Yankees

As Frank pointed out, Buehrle in 2005 was superior to Pettitte in 1998.

stoneroses86 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
stoneroses86 wrote:
There is no way I am putting Mark Buehrle on my team if I have the chance to get Andy Pettitte.



I think a reasonably informed baseball fan would consider them pretty similar. I'm surprised you didn't take issue with the ridiculous idea that AJ > Posada.


Obviously this also was insane. However, I did not feel like embarrassing Terry's Peeps, who seems like a decent fellow.


Thank you.

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
If presented with a fact(s) that I do not like, I'll tell myself it's false.


chaspoppcap wrote:
You seem to have a hard on for me and I probably desire it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 24036
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
You honestly think there are matchups between World Series winners in which one team would have a very low chance of winning? Every World Series champion has good starting pitching and at least a competent offense. Because of that, any team would have a shot against any other team. The highest I'd go in terms of odds would be 65/35. The point is that we have no idea who would beat who, and it would vary. If the '98 Yanks played even a relatively "weak" WS champ, anything could happen. You really don't believe that? You think the "best" team would automatically win?
Yes, I believe there are World Series winners that are significantly better than others. That's an incredibly low margin you have between the best of all time and the worst of all time there.

But, even if I accept what you say as true, it means that it is more than fair for any of us to think the White Sox had a good chance to beat any team in history. The 2005 White Sox are undoubtedly one of the best teams in recent history. That means that even against the top teams ever it would be very close to 50/50.

leashyourkids wrote:
To your second point, I didn't say they would. I said they could, as could any other team, so it's a meaningless statement.

A hypothetical head-to-head matchup is not only 100% subjective; in baseball, they could play 100 times and split 50/50, which would not happen in other sports.

That's why regular season record matters. It's objective. It certainly has flaws, but it's as close to objective as we'll get when debating this topic that would really have no consensus, anyway.
So now it is "No one knows anything about this".

I'll stick with the historical dominance of the 2005 White Sox and think it gives them a good chance to beat any other team in history and you can stick with "any team could beat any team so it is all meaningless".


You say you believe there are "World Series winners that are significantly better than others." But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing who would win in a head-to-head matchup, and the reality is that no one has no idea and that even if one team was significantly better than another, in baseball, the better team doesn't always win. In fact, they probably win at less than a 60% clip. This is a mathematical fact. You keep conflating "beating in a series" and "being better." Those two things are not synonymous. We have no idea who would win in a head to head matchup because a 7-game series is a small enough sample that anything can happen. It doesn't mean it's 50/50, but if you think there are two WS champs where the true odds would be any more than 65/35, you're wrong.

You also keep using the word "good chance," which is vague at best. Neither I nor anyone here ever said the Sox couldn't beat any team in history in a 7-game set. As I said earlier, I certainly wouldn't put them at less than a 35% chance. With their starting pitching, I probably wouldn't put them at any less than a 40% chance. Again, it's basically a meaningless statement.

To your statement that I think "we don't know anything," it's untrue. But we know very little within a single series in baseball. Baseball is simply a game where there is a lot of randomness, and this is why it requires large sample sizes. I get the impression sometimes that you think I say this only in defense of Cub arguments or against Sox arguments, but you're wrong. It's just a true thing. That doesn't take anything away from a World Series winner, nor does it mean that the playoffs are COMPLETELY random (i.e. "We don't know anything"). JORR's entire W-L argument hinges on the concept of sample size. Do you ever disagree with it?

_________________
312player wrote:
More weird jews..smh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 54642
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
You say you believe there are "World Series winners that are significantly better than others." But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing who would win in a head-to-head matchup, and the reality is that no one has no idea and that even if one team was significantly better than another, in baseball, the better team doesn't always win.
To make this simple, I will accept this as fact.

I think the 2005 White Sox had no team that was significantly better than them in baseball history. Is that a fair belief to have?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 24036
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
You say you believe there are "World Series winners that are significantly better than others." But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing who would win in a head-to-head matchup, and the reality is that no one has no idea and that even if one team was significantly better than another, in baseball, the better team doesn't always win.
To make this simple, I will accept this as fact.

I think the 2005 White Sox had no team that was significantly better than them in baseball history. Is that a fair belief to have?


Define "significantly." :wink:

_________________
312player wrote:
More weird jews..smh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 4986
pizza_Place: Pat's...South Loop
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
You say you believe there are "World Series winners that are significantly better than others." But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing who would win in a head-to-head matchup, and the reality is that no one has no idea and that even if one team was significantly better than another, in baseball, the better team doesn't always win.
To make this simple, I will accept this as fact.

I think the 2005 White Sox had no team that was significantly better than them in baseball history. Is that a fair belief to have?


1976 Big Red Machine

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
You say you believe there are "World Series winners that are significantly better than others." But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing who would win in a head-to-head matchup, and the reality is that no one has no idea and that even if one team was significantly better than another, in baseball, the better team doesn't always win.
To make this simple, I will accept this as fact.

I think the 2005 White Sox had no team that was significantly better than them in baseball history. Is that a fair belief to have?


1976 Big Red Machine

Probably. And we havent even delved into opponents.

For instance, in my opinion the 2004 Red Sox had a much harder road to their title than most. That Yankee team and the Cardinals were both great.

On the other hand the 07 Red Sox had a pretty easy (relatively) road.

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 42820
Location: Chicago Heights
pizza_Place: Aurelio's
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Who would argue that a team that won the WS wouldn't give any other team a good series? I thought this was a bit, but you're apparently serious.
I don't think every World Series team in history would have a good chance of beating any other World Series champion. It's like you think all World Series winners are pretty much the same.

But, if what you say is true, then why are you arguing against White Sox fans thinking the 2005 White Sox would beat any other World Series team in history?


You honestly think there are matchups between World Series winners in which one team would have a very low chance of winning? Every World Series champion has good starting pitching and at least a competent offense. Because of that, any team would have a shot against any other team. The highest I'd go in terms of odds would be 65/35.


Yeah, and that was the Yankees/Pirates in '60.

_________________
We acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of bigfan, slumlord, and denisdman.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 60393
Location: Suburbs FTW!
pizza_Place: SWEET BABY RAY"S?
rogers park bryan wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I think the 2005 White Sox had no team that was significantly better than them in baseball history. Is that a fair belief to have?


1976 Big Red Machine

Probably. And we havent even delved into opponents.
'76 Reds only had to play a best of 5 NLCS and the World Series. White Sox had to win 11 games to get their title.

_________________
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
First off, the [2016 Cubs World Series] title was never a huge deal to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
Frank Coztansa wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
I think the 2005 White Sox had no team that was significantly better than them in baseball history. Is that a fair belief to have?


1976 Big Red Machine

Probably. And we havent even delved into opponents.
'76 Reds only had to play a best of 5 NLCS and the World Series. White Sox had to win 11 games to get their title.

Right, which is why every post 95 Champ is better than every team before that.

2006 Cards > 1927 Yankees

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71651
Blackjack for the Indians!


Craziness. I credit Jay Bruce.

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 22047
Location: pittsburgh
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
Blackjack for the Indians!


Craziness. I credit Jay Bruce.


That is something.

_________________
OMG, she thought Monday Night Raw was on when it was Tuesday!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cleveland Indians
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 44000
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
You honestly think there are matchups between World Series winners in which one team would have a very low chance of winning? Every World Series champion has good starting pitching and at least a competent offense. Because of that, any team would have a shot against any other team. The highest I'd go in terms of odds would be 65/35. The point is that we have no idea who would beat who, and it would vary. If the '98 Yanks played even a relatively "weak" WS champ, anything could happen. You really don't believe that? You think the "best" team would automatically win?
Yes, I believe there are World Series winners that are significantly better than others. That's an incredibly low margin you have between the best of all time and the worst of all time there.

But, even if I accept what you say as true, it means that it is more than fair for any of us to think the White Sox had a good chance to beat any team in history. The 2005 White Sox are undoubtedly one of the best teams in recent history. That means that even against the top teams ever it would be very close to 50/50.

leashyourkids wrote:
To your second point, I didn't say they would. I said they could, as could any other team, so it's a meaningless statement.

A hypothetical head-to-head matchup is not only 100% subjective; in baseball, they could play 100 times and split 50/50, which would not happen in other sports.

That's why regular season record matters. It's objective. It certainly has flaws, but it's as close to objective as we'll get when debating this topic that would really have no consensus, anyway.
So now it is "No one knows anything about this".

I'll stick with the historical dominance of the 2005 White Sox and think it gives them a good chance to beat any other team in history and you can stick with "any team could beat any team so it is all meaningless".


You say you believe there are "World Series winners that are significantly better than others." But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing who would win in a head-to-head matchup, and the reality is that no one has no idea and that even if one team was significantly better than another, in baseball, the better team doesn't always win. In fact, they probably win at less than a 60% clip. This is a mathematical fact. You keep conflating "beating in a series" and "being better." Those two things are not synonymous. We have no idea who would win in a head to head matchup because a 7-game series is a small enough sample that anything can happen. It doesn't mean it's 50/50, but if you think there are two WS champs where the true odds would be any more than 65/35, you're wrong.

You also keep using the word "good chance," which is vague at best. Neither I nor anyone here ever said the Sox couldn't beat any team in history in a 7-game set. As I said earlier, I certainly wouldn't put them at less than a 35% chance. With their starting pitching, I probably wouldn't put them at any less than a 40% chance. Again, it's basically a meaningless statement.

To your statement that I think "we don't know anything," it's untrue. But we know very little within a single series in baseball. Baseball is simply a game where there is a lot of randomness, and this is why it requires large sample sizes. I get the impression sometimes that you think I say this only in defense of Cub arguments or against Sox arguments, but you're wrong. It's just a true thing. That doesn't take anything away from a World Series winner, nor does it mean that the playoffs are COMPLETELY random (i.e. "We don't know anything"). JORR's entire W-L argument hinges on the concept of sample size. Do you ever disagree with it?

11-1

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group