MLB wildcard tiebreaker could be ahead

Tied wildcard races could cause tiebreaker

9/28/11 in MLB   |   metsfan710   |   400 respect

Ready for two playoff games before the playoffs?
 
There would be two playoff games before the playoffs in the wildcard races remain the same for just one more day.
 
The St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Houston Astros 13-6 Tuesday, catching up to the Atlanta Braves who fell to the Phillies 7-1. They are now tied, and should they remain tied, they would face each other in a one-game playoff Thursday in St. Louis at 8:07pm.
 
The AL wildcard tiebreaker would be played four hours earlier at Tampa Bay, provided the Rays and Sox can’t settle the matter tonight.
 
The Rays took the lead against the Yankees in the seventh inning of Tuesday’s game off of Matt Joyce’s three-run home run, which would be the decisive runs in a 5-3 victory. The Red Sox had to sweat until the last swing before finally shaking off the Orioles 8-7.
 
Boston has gone 7-19 in September, and Tuesday was not any easier. Papelbon needed 28 pitches and all of his resources to close out the game, after allowing one Oriole to score and having the tying run at second base.
 
The Rays will go with ace left-hander David Price tonight. The Braves will also have their ace on the mound in Tim Hudson, but he may need a bit more support than his fellow starters have received in the last two games, when the Phillies held Atlanta hitters to a total of three runs. He’ll be facing the Phillies’ Joe Blanton.
 
The Braves have lost 12 of 17 since September 6th when they held an 8 ½ game lead for the wildcard. Now tied, the Cardinals will face a team with the worst record and the Braves play the one with the best.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

10/3/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Cactus_Jack wrote:
I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Here too.

10/3/11   |   janet011685   |   25874 respect

 

10/3/11   |   Jason_   |   19994 respect

Joe i flagged your post...just so you know.

10/3/11   |   Joe_L   |   12371 respect

kobe_lova wrote:
Booo, I'm glad I didn't put money on Jess posting the CoC first. Crap.

Sometimes Omar is slightly faster.

10/3/11   |   kobe_lova   |   59458 respect

Booo, I'm glad I didn't put money on Jess posting the CoC first. Crap.

10/3/11   |   Jason_   |   19994 respect

10/3/11   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15300 respect

ML31 wrote:
Not applicable.

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

10/3/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Not applicable.

10/3/11   |   kobe_lova   |   59458 respect

10/3/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

(Edited by ML31)

Are you only a condescending arrogant douche on line or does it extend into your real world as well?

10/3/11   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15300 respect

ML31 wrote:
Such a thing would benefit anyone.  Yourself included.  Think you are capable of responding without the glib comments, "Jack"?

This post nearly brought a tiny little tear to the corner of my eye.  The announcer called your name, you picked up your bat and strode purposefully toward the plate, a bead of perspiration gliding slowly down that sloped little skull.  My heart swelled with pride as you tapped your bat on the plate, and then pointed it toward the center field wall, your beady, narrow set eyes set in grim determination.  Yet once again, you relate more to the Mighty Casey than you do to the Sultan of Swat, as you have miserably struck out.

Don't fret.  There is room on life's team for a waterboy too.  Just remember to keep that slack jaw of yours tightly shut, as to not dribble your drool in the refreshment of others.

Should you care to respond, please take care not to melt your speak-n-spell.  It is, after all, your only means of communication at a higher level after your nasty little incident with your blocks during "Playing with Paste" time last week.



Is that glib enough for you, "ML31" ?

9/30/11   |   janet011685   |   25874 respect

 

9/30/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Cactus_Jack wrote:
It would be beneficial if you had a slightly better command of the English language, beyond random utterances of mono-syllabic words then.  Carry on Jr.

Such a thing would benefit anyone.  Yourself included.  Think you are capable of responding without the glib comments, "Jack"?

9/30/11   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15300 respect

ML31 wrote:
I am not aware of any post I have ever written that had the underlying meaning of f**k all".  That is, if I am understanding you correctly.  It was hard to decipher what you wrote.

It would be beneficial if you had a slightly better command of the English language, beyond random utterances of mono-syllabic words then.  Carry on Jr.

9/30/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Cactus_Jack wrote:
You are absolutely correct.  As far as the pictures go, its just me.  With you, its every post that means f**k all.

I am not aware of any post I have ever written that had the underlying meaning of f**k all".  That is, if I am understanding you correctly.  It was hard to decipher what you wrote.

9/30/11   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15300 respect

ML31 wrote:
Who's "we"?

You are absolutely correct.  As far as the pictures go, its just me.  With you, its every post that means f**k all.

9/30/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Cactus_Jack wrote:
as long as we are posting pictures that have absolutey nothing to do with anything...

Who's "we"?

9/30/11   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15300 respect

Cactus_Jack wrote:
as long as we are posting pictures that have absolutey nothing to do with anything...

Prolly right next door to this...



Which, of course is right next to this...

9/30/11   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15300 respect

as long as we are posting pictures that have absolutey nothing to do with anything...

9/30/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

(Edited by ML31)

I could say "Hi" and you would feel I was talking down to someone.  Therefore....

9/30/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

9/30/11   |   woody050681   |   13666 respect

kobe_lova wrote:

YOU DID IT!!!! WHOA! YOU MAY BE SOME SORT OF GINGA GAWD! GG, for short! (I'm yelling, sorry)

Thank You but I'm no God. Just a man,who goes from site to site and weeds out certain unwanted elements using my special powers.

9/30/11   |   The_Real_Stoney   |   24020 respect

ML31 wrote:
Not my style.  You seem very familiar with it, however.  Knock yourself out.

says the guy who wrote the post 4 comments above this... I knew you couldn't go more than an hour without doing it..

Thanks sweetie

9/30/11   |   kobe_lova   |   59458 respect

woody050681 wrote:
 Yeah no kidding Rome wasn't built in a day. Everyone knows it was built in 37 minutes by the Germans in 1904. Did you also know it was built inside a glass bottle, yeah like one of those wooden ships in a bottle.

YOU DID IT!!!! WHOA! YOU MAY BE SOME SORT OF GINGA GAWD! GG, for short! (I'm yelling, sorry)

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

woody050681 wrote:
 Yeah no kidding Rome wasn't built in a day. Everyone knows it was built in 37 minutes by the Germans in 1904. Did you also know it was built inside a glass bottle, yeah like one of those wooden ships in a bottle.

If you say so....

9/29/11   |   SusanVette   |   7955 respect

 Woo hoo...


9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Jess wrote:
So anyway...I wrote out a big long thing and lost it because my internet decided to take a dump.

I think that there's a tier of sorts when it comes to "winners". The regular season is simply an incredibly enjoyable display of teams jockeying for position in the playoff race. First place determines home field advantage etc. but from there, it's a clear slate. I don't think that the Wild Card makes a mockery out of anything; I find it to be just one more exciting aspect of the playoff race. 

I also think that I'm able to walk away and agree to disagree.

I just think making a blanket statement of "who cares about 2nd place?" is somewhat arrogant (please note that I'm not saying anybody in particular is arrogant...I'm saying the statement is). The statement might have been better worded as "I couldn't care less about 2nd place" or "race for 2nd place bores me" or "I think the wild card makes a mockery..." see what I'm getting at? I think that a lot of people care. Just because you don't care about it doesn't make it irrelevant to the entire baseball world...just to you (and anyone who agrees with you). 

All I can say is that different sports operate differently.  NFL is one and done.  Hockey is all about playoffs.  MLB used to be about the pennant race.  Theirs was the only season where first place mattered.  Today, after a grueling 162 game schedule a team that finishes 2nd gets the exact same thing as the team that beat them.  I guess I'm in the minority in this thread when I think there is something wrong with that and its a complete head scratcher when people get excited over a such a thing.

I laughed a little when you qualified your comment as there was no need to.   Unlike others, when you said it (before qualifying it) it did not come across as arrogant or small.  Further still, you did what no one else has ever done...  Explain WHY you felt the comment was arrogant.  However, I will say that when it comes to opinion threads I think that distinctions like you suggest aren't needed as I always felt it was a given and never needed to be said.  Adding that little caveat is very rarely done here by anyone anyway.  People can write, "That player sucks."  And we all know what was meant was, "I think that player sucks." 

9/29/11   |   Jess   |   32854 respect

(Edited by Jess)

So anyway...I wrote out a big long thing and lost it because my internet decided to take a dump.

I think that there's a tier of sorts when it comes to "winners". The regular season is simply an incredibly enjoyable display of teams jockeying for position in the playoff race. First place determines home field advantage etc. but from there, it's a clear slate. I don't think that the Wild Card makes a mockery out of anything; I find it to be just one more exciting aspect of the playoff race. 

I also think that I'm able to walk away and agree to disagree.

I just think making a blanket statement of "who cares about 2nd place?" is somewhat arrogant (please note that I'm not saying anybody in particular is arrogant...I'm saying the statement is). The statement might have been better worded as "I couldn't care less about 2nd place" or "race for 2nd place bores me" or "I think the wild card makes a mockery..." see what I'm getting at? I think that a lot of people care. Just because you don't care about it doesn't make it irrelevant to the entire baseball world...just to you (and anyone who agrees with you). 

9/29/11   |   woody050681   |   13666 respect

ML31 wrote:
A weak first attempt.  You are still coming across as someone completely lost on what is going on but decides to act like a know it all anyway.

But Rome wasn't built in a day.  Try harder.

 Yeah no kidding Rome wasn't built in a day. Everyone knows it was built in 37 minutes by the Germans in 1904. Did you also know it was built inside a glass bottle, yeah like one of those wooden ships in a bottle.

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

woody050681 wrote:
 Okay how about this, "If I tell you that you're right and we're all wrong, will you please shut up?"

Is that less abrasive enough for you?

A weak first attempt.  You are still coming across as someone completely lost on what is going on but decides to act like a know it all anyway.

But Rome wasn't built in a day.  Try harder.

9/29/11   |   woody050681   |   13666 respect

ML31 wrote:
You can try harder by losing the abrasive attitude.

 Okay how about this, "If I tell you that you're right and we're all wrong, will you please shut up?"

Is that less abrasive enough for you?

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

woody050681 wrote:
Guess not, well I tried. 

You can try harder by losing the abrasive attitude.

9/29/11   |   woody050681   |   13666 respect

woody050681 wrote:
 Okay now I have the last word...

If I tell you that you're right and we're all wrong, will you shut up?

Guess not, well I tried. 

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

woody050681 wrote:
 Okay now I have the last word...

If I tell you that you're right and we're all wrong, will you shut up?

I have a better idea...  Why not contribute something apart from a demeaning attitude?

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Jess wrote:
Why not just go straight to the playoff? Uhmmm...I'm thinking to determine which teams go into the playoffs? Just a guess...

So are you saying that the "real" first place is the top spot of each division then?  If so then it follows that the wild card makes a mockery of the regular season.

9/29/11   |   woody050681   |   13666 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK then...  Which is the "real" first place?  The standings that are in the paper every day, or is the only first place in baseball the World Series winner?   If it's the list in on the sports page every summer then the wild card makes a mockery of the season.  If it's the the World Series winner, then why play the season?  Why not just go straight to a playoff?

 Okay now I have the last word...

If I tell you that you're right and we're all wrong, will you shut up?

9/29/11   |   Jess   |   32854 respect

BTW, switching gears....as a Seahawks fan I'm pretty glad there's a wild card in NFL too. Remember that one time the Hawks knocked the defending Super Bowl champs out in the first round? Heh. That was cool.

9/29/11   |   Jess   |   32854 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK then...  Which is the "real" first place?  The standings that are in the paper every day, or is the only first place in baseball the World Series winner?   If it's the list in on the sports page every summer then the wild card makes a mockery of the season.  If it's the the World Series winner, then why play the season?  Why not just go straight to a playoff?

Why not just go straight to the playoff? Uhmmm...I'm thinking to determine which teams go into the playoffs? Just a guess...

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Jess wrote:
Tell someone whose team had no chance in hell of even getting a wild card spot that those standings aren't "real"....I know better.

OK then...  Which is the "real" first place?  The standings that are in the paper every day, or is the only first place in baseball the World Series winner?   If it's the list in on the sports page every summer then the wild card makes a mockery of the season.  If it's the the World Series winner, then why play the season?  Why not just go straight to a playoff?

9/29/11   |   Jess   |   32854 respect

ML31 wrote:
OK...  So then the regular season means nothing since those standings aren't "real".    Would it be just as exciting if it were the bottom two teams fighting for the last of 24 playoff spots?

Tell someone whose team had no chance in hell of even getting a wild card spot that those standings aren't "real"....I know better.

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

This says more...

9/29/11   |   ohwell_   |   16139 respect

www.youtube.com/watch       says it all.

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

The_Real_Stoney wrote:
now you just have to repeat it 37 times to make sure everyone heard your initial point.. Maybe find one of the women posters on this thread and talk down to them, then show your cat how you don't take any sh*** from idiots on the internet.. 
Go get em tiger

Not my style.  You seem very familiar with it, however.  Knock yourself out.

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

janet011685 wrote:
If it all ended there, then it might not be exciting.  But since that "2nd place" team (or teams, actually) moves on to compete again for the REAL 1st place (Series champs), it kinda still IS exciting.

OK...  So then the regular season means nothing since those standings aren't "real".    Would it be just as exciting if it were the bottom two teams fighting for the last of 24 playoff spots?

9/29/11   |   janet011685   |   25874 respect

The_Real_Stoney wrote:
now you just have to repeat it 37 times to make sure everyone heard your initial point.. Maybe find one of the women posters on this thread and talk down to them, then show your cat how you don't take any sh*** from idiots on the internet.. 
Go get em tiger



 

9/29/11   |   The_Real_Stoney   |   24020 respect

ML31 wrote:
That would be you.  Oops...  I just fed the troll.  Shame on me.

now you just have to repeat it 37 times to make sure everyone heard your initial point.. Maybe find one of the women posters on this thread and talk down to them, then show your cat how you don't take any sh*** from idiots on the internet.. 
Go get em tiger

9/29/11   |   janet011685   |   25874 respect

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
"with the wild card successes in world series championships, one can only deduce that the system was loosely based one the principle 'first is the worst, second is the best, third is the one with the hairy chest.'" - sylvester stallone

So wise.


9/29/11   |   ms_hippie_queen   |   28965 respect

"with the wild card successes in world series championships, one can only deduce that the system was loosely based one the principle 'first is the worst, second is the best, third is the one with the hairy chest.'" - sylvester stallone

9/29/11   |   janet011685   |   25874 respect

ML31 wrote:
It boggles my mind that anyone finds any "race" for 2nd place exciting.

If it all ended there, then it might not be exciting.  But since that "2nd place" team (or teams, actually) moves on to compete again for the REAL 1st place (Series champs), it kinda still IS exciting.

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

The_Real_Stoney wrote:
heyooooo, look who's trolling to get a rise out of people..

here's a hint.. ^^^^^^^ Just don't acknowledge the guy, it's pointless

That would be you.  Oops...  I just fed the troll.  Shame on me.

9/29/11   |   woody050681   |   13666 respect

The_Real_Stoney wrote:
heyooooo, look who's trolling to get a rise out of people..

here's a hint.. ^^^^^^^ Just don't acknowledge the guy, it's pointless

Haha I just basically said the same about him in another thread

Gooooo Stoney!!

9/29/11   |   The_Real_Stoney   |   24020 respect

heyooooo, look who's trolling to get a rise out of people..

here's a hint.. ^^^^^^^ Just don't acknowledge the guy, it's pointless

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

YankeeFan wrote:
Agreed - this was "just a tiny bit" of sarcasm.   It boggles my mind that anyone could argue that there was nothing exciting about this year's wildcard race.

It boggles my mind that anyone finds any "race" for 2nd place exciting.

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

YankeeFan wrote:
Not this year, but in the past, we have seen wildcard teams that had a better record than the winners of other divisions.  How does that make them losers?  Which is the least deserving team to be in the playoffs, the one with the worst record, or the one who happens to be in a division with strong competition?

What do you mean "not this year?"  It happens EVERY year.  The wild card team cannot be a first place team.  Therefore, only teams that don't win can get it.

It doesn't matter what the record of a team in a different division has.  Teams play a VERY unbalanced schedule.  (A good thing, I might add because if the schedule was balanced there would be no need for divisions at all)  They also play under different circumstances than teams in other divisions do.  Therefore, having a better record than a team in another division doesn't mean anything.  It has nothing to do with what makes a team a loser.  What makes wild card teams losers is the fact that they cannot get the wild card unless they DON'T WIN.  

The least deserving of the two is the team that DIDN'T win their division, obviously.  If you want to blow off the divisions, then why have playoffs?  Just put the Yanks and Phils in the World Series and be done with it.

9/29/11   |   Jess   |   32854 respect

Just my two cents (probably less, because I am a Mariners fan, after all) - but judging by the hubbub around the internet today after the crazy games last night I think a LOT of baseball fans care, not even just people who are fans of the teams.

9/29/11   |   YankeeFan   |   98 respect

gregory9974 wrote:
I agree with you but I believe the team that wins the wild card cares a lot about it, not a little. Did you see those celebrations by the Cardinals and Rays. Anyone can see that they didn't care one way or the other how they got in, they got to the playoffs. And as for their fans, they love it! It's a chance to see their team play a little longer and feel the excitement that comes along with play off series baseball. Anyone who doesn't like the wild card is just being stubborn. It's a great thing for baseball.

Agreed - this was "just a tiny bit" of sarcasm.   It boggles my mind that anyone could argue that there was nothing exciting about this year's wildcard race.

9/29/11   |   YankeeFan   |   98 respect

ML31 wrote:
Non sequitur.  You cannot "win" the wild card spot since by definition teams must loose to quality for it.  Therefore, every team that is handed that spot is a loser.

Not this year, but in the past, we have seen wildcard teams that had a better record than the winners of other divisions.  How does that make them losers?  Which is the least deserving team to be in the playoffs, the one with the worst record, or the one who happens to be in a division with strong competition?

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

(Edited by ML31)

Non sequitur.  You cannot "win" the wild card spot since by definition teams must loose to quality for it.  Therefore, every team that is handed that spot is a loser.

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

gregory9974 wrote:
I agree with you but I believe the team that wins the wild card cares a lot about it, not a little. Did you see those celebrations by the Cardinals and Rays. Anyone can see that they didn't care one way or the other how they got in, they got to the playoffs. And as for their fans, they love it! It's a chance to see their team play a little longer and feel the excitement that comes along with play off series baseball. Anyone who doesn't like the wild card is just being stubborn. It's a great thing for baseball.

Wong.  If watching your team play longer is so great, let's make the season 190 games.  Or have the season go year round.  Or, let's let in 26 playoff teams.  Think about how great that would be for baseball!

9/29/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

gregory9974 wrote:
If you are going to throw around quotes, please give credit to the person who the quote belongs to. Thank you.

I didn't give the credit because I am unsure who to give the credit to and didn't feel like looking it up.  Sorry.  It's still an excellent quote.

9/29/11   |   gregory9974   |   1342 respect

You want to know who cares about second place? The Cardinals and Rays and any other team that wins the wild card spot in the future.

9/29/11   |   gregory9974   |   1342 respect

YankeeFan wrote:
Well I think the team that gets that wildcard and makes it to the playoffs probably cares just a tiny bit.  Maybe their fans as well.  Maybe baseball fans everywhere?

I agree with you but I believe the team that wins the wild card cares a lot about it, not a little. Did you see those celebrations by the Cardinals and Rays. Anyone can see that they didn't care one way or the other how they got in, they got to the playoffs. And as for their fans, they love it! It's a chance to see their team play a little longer and feel the excitement that comes along with play off series baseball. Anyone who doesn't like the wild card is just being stubborn. It's a great thing for baseball.

9/29/11   |   gregory9974   |   1342 respect

ML31 wrote:
You can't have progress without change.  But not all change is progress.

If you are going to throw around quotes, please give credit to the person who the quote belongs to. Thank you.

9/28/11   |   kramer   |   11003 respect

Well it's almost 11:00 on the east coast and we STILL don't know what's happening.  Boston leads 3-2 in Baltimore and there's a rain delay.  The Yankees blew a 7-0 lead in the 8th and 9th innings and they're going to extras with the Rays.  The Cards blew out the Astros as expected, but the Braves and Phillies are tied at 3 headed to the 12th.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

hartley51592 wrote:
 Since the wild card's inception, 4 teams have one the World Series as a Wild Card team. We can belittle the effect it has on the post season. Whenever you have a 9 game lead in any position to make the playoffs and it is cut down to 0 (which is the Red Sox now), it is a collapse. 

So...  The Red Sox had their sights set on 2nd place from day one?  Kind of takes the sting out of any so called "collapse" then.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

kramer wrote:
If you ever acknowledged the Wild Card this discussion wouldn't even be relevant, that is all.

OK.  The wild card is acknowledged.  The Sox STILL didn't make a notable collapse and their high water mark for the season was STILL a 3 game lead.  There are lots of teams throughout MLB's history who had a 3 game lead in July and finished 7 games off the pace.  It happens all the time.  Not a big deal.

9/28/11   |   hartley51592   |   2462 respect

 Since the wild card's inception, 4 teams have one the World Series as a Wild Card team. We can belittle the effect it has on the post season. Whenever you have a 9 game lead in any position to make the playoffs and it is cut down to 0 (which is the Red Sox now), it is a collapse. 

9/28/11   |   kramer   |   11003 respect

ML31 wrote:
Collapses usually aren't measured by how far you fall AFTER you have lost your top spot unless it is substantial.  Especially when that lead was such a small margin to begin with.  Going from 3 up to 7 back in 60 games is a fall, but it's nowhere near a notable one.  If they ever did have a nine game lead (They didn't, it topped out at 3) and lost it that would only be monumental if it happened over the course of perhaps 6 or 7 weeks tops.  But they didn't blow a 9 game lead.  It was three.  I can provide a link to the Red Sox season time line to prove it if you need it....

If you ever acknowledged the Wild Card this discussion wouldn't even be relevant, that is all.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

kramer wrote:
I know you don't believe in the Wild Card, but it's part of baseball and it must be acknowledged as part of the sport.  They aren't going to throw it away just because YOU don't like it.  The Red Sox went from a 3-game lead when they were blowing teams away on a nightly basis.  At that point, that 3-game lead looked like it would stay pat or increase, but then they started sliding downhill.  They didn't stop after they lost the division lead though.  They kept losing so much that they've given up not only the division, but potentially the Wild Card as well.  That lead was at 9 games.  That's a 12-game margin they've given up to the Yankees and Rays in 2 months time.  If that is not a monumental collapse, please enlighten me as to what is.

Collapses usually aren't measured by how far you fall AFTER you have lost your top spot unless it is substantial.  Especially when that lead was such a small margin to begin with.  Going from 3 up to 7 back in 60 games is a fall, but it's nowhere near a notable one.  If they ever did have a nine game lead (They didn't, it topped out at 3) and lost it that would only be monumental if it happened over the course of perhaps 6 or 7 weeks tops.  But they didn't blow a 9 game lead.  It was three.  I can provide a link to the Red Sox season time line to prove it if you need it....

9/28/11   |   kramer   |   11003 respect

ML31 wrote:
The Red Sox high water mark occurred on July 27 when they were in first with a 3 game lead.  I know of no one who feels that losing a 3 game lead with 60 games to go is any kind of monumental collapse.  Correction...  I now know of one.

I know you don't believe in the Wild Card, but it's part of baseball and it must be acknowledged as part of the sport.  They aren't going to throw it away just because YOU don't like it.  The Red Sox went from a 3-game lead when they were blowing teams away on a nightly basis.  At that point, that 3-game lead looked like it would stay pat or increase, but then they started sliding downhill.  They didn't stop after they lost the division lead though.  They kept losing so much that they've given up not only the division, but potentially the Wild Card as well.  That lead was at 9 games.  That's a 12-game margin they've given up to the Yankees and Rays in 2 months time.  If that is not a monumental collapse, please enlighten me as to what is.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

kramer wrote:
I just checked back on my mid-season grades article from the All-Star break.  At the break, the Red Sox had the best record in the American League.  The Yankees at that point were keeping pace with them, but I don't think you can deny it IS a monumental collapse when you go from the best record in your league to barely hanging on for a chance at the Wild Card in 2 months time.

The Red Sox high water mark occurred on July 27 when they were in first with a 3 game lead.  I know of no one who feels that losing a 3 game lead with 60 games to go is any kind of monumental collapse.  Correction...  I now know of one.

9/28/11   |   kramer   |   11003 respect

ML31 wrote:
So you are saying the Red Sox were in first or 2nd place since May 24.  That doesn't make it a "monumental" collapse unless they had a gigantic lead when they were in first.  And let's be honest...  For the bulk of the final two months they were realistically not in a position to recover first place.  Minor collapse, sure.  Monumental?  Not even close.

I just checked back on my mid-season grades article from the All-Star break.  At the break, the Red Sox had the best record in the American League.  The Yankees at that point were keeping pace with them, but I don't think you can deny it IS a monumental collapse when you go from the best record in your league to barely hanging on for a chance at the Wild Card in 2 months time.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

kramer wrote:
The Red Sox WERE in a good position to begin with.  Let's not forget they were leading that division through the All-Star break.  In fact when they came here to Pittsburgh during interleague play in June, they had the best record in the AL.  They gave away the division lead on the Yankees, and when it looked like they had the Wild Card all but wrapped up, they began to slowly choke that away too.  They had either led the Wild Card OR led the AL East every day since before their game on May 24.

So you are saying the Red Sox were in first or 2nd place since May 24.  That doesn't make it a "monumental" collapse unless they had a gigantic lead when they were in first.  And let's be honest...  For the bulk of the final two months they were realistically not in a position to recover first place.  Minor collapse, sure.  Monumental?  Not even close.

9/28/11   |   kramer   |   11003 respect

ML31 wrote:
A collapse suggests the team was in a good position to begin with.  It's impossible to collapse when you drop from 2nd to 3rd.  Unless your goal was 2nd place going into the season. 

The Red Sox WERE in a good position to begin with.  Let's not forget they were leading that division through the All-Star break.  In fact when they came here to Pittsburgh during interleague play in June, they had the best record in the AL.  They gave away the division lead on the Yankees, and when it looked like they had the Wild Card all but wrapped up, they began to slowly choke that away too.  They had either led the Wild Card OR led the AL East every day since before their game on May 24.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

YankeeFan wrote:
So I guess you're still upset that they split the leagues into 3 divisions and introduced the wildcard factor into the playoffs?  Probably time to get over it and enjoy the modern version of the post-season.  It may not be like the old days, but change isn't always bad.

You can't have progress without change.  But not all change is progress.

9/28/11   |   YankeeFan   |   98 respect

ML31 wrote:
Baseball fans who care about the integrity of the season sure don't.

So I guess you're still upset that they split the leagues into 3 divisions and introduced the wildcard factor into the playoffs?  Probably time to get over it and enjoy the modern version of the post-season.  It may not be like the old days, but change isn't always bad.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

YankeeFan wrote:
Well I think the team that gets that wildcard and makes it to the playoffs probably cares just a tiny bit.  Maybe their fans as well.  Maybe baseball fans everywhere?

Baseball fans who care about the integrity of the season sure don't.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

metsfan710 wrote:
Because "second place" makes the playoffs. How many times have we seen a wildcard team make/win the world series. Also, both the Sox and the Braves could go down as an epic collapse if they fail to win the wildcard.

A collapse suggests the team was in a good position to begin with.  It's impossible to collapse when you drop from 2nd to 3rd.  Unless your goal was 2nd place going into the season. 

9/28/11   |   YankeeFan   |   98 respect

ML31 wrote:
Once again...  Who cares about 2nd place?

Well I think the team that gets that wildcard and makes it to the playoffs probably cares just a tiny bit.  Maybe their fans as well.  Maybe baseball fans everywhere?

9/28/11   |   metsfan710   |   400 respect

Because "second place" makes the playoffs. How many times have we seen a wildcard team make/win the world series. Also, both the Sox and the Braves could go down as an epic collapse if they fail to win the wildcard.

9/28/11   |   ML31   |   3615 respect

Once again...  Who cares about 2nd place?