Skip to Next Poll »
1
Is Nelson Cruz to blame for the Rangers losing the 2011 World Series?
Do u think he that ball in the Bottom of the 9th of Game 6 was catchable? Is it his fault that the Rangers didn't win?
| Closed on 12/01/11 at 12:00AM
FanIQ Pts? No | MLB | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Team Breakout:
13 Fans 
23%a. Yes, he should've caught that ball
77%b. No, the ball wasn't catchable

  
77 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 904 days ago

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUH..........its a TEAM GAME..................it WAS HIT OVER HIS HEAD.........
#2 | 904 days ago
BDV4U (+)

The guy was in line to be the MVP had Texas won! Only a f'ing moron could blame him for anything!

You going to blame him for not catching the ball hit by Allen Craig in Game 1, too?!? GET A LIFE! 
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#3 | 904 days ago

I don't blame Cruz, he clubbed 8 homers in the playoffs,almost 9.
However while I was watching Game 6,after reading few articles i couldn't help thinking back 25 years ago to the '86 WS(Game 6),when the Red Sox needed one more strike,did you know 10 times they were denied. Feliz pitched brilliantly thru the playoffs,however(while on FanIQ) when it came to picking Rangers to win,he HAD BLOWN few saves to my displeasure,well I was waiting for the other shoe to drop and it did.
It's not all Feliz's fault,Oliver could've stopped the bleeding too.
No doubt this game will be disected over and over.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#4 | 904 days ago
BDV4U (+)

hclcdestin wrote:
I don't blame Cruz, he clubbed 8 homers in the playoffs,almost 9.
However while I was watching Game 6,after reading few articles i couldn't help thinking back 25 years ago to the '86 WS(Game 6),when the Red Sox needed one more strike,did you know 10 times they were denied. Feliz pitched brilliantly thru the playoffs,however(while on FanIQ) when it came to picking Rangers to win,he HAD BLOWN few saves to my displeasure,well I was waiting for the other shoe to drop and it did.
It's not all Feliz's fault,Oliver could've stopped the bleeding too.
No doubt this game will be disected over and over.
I prefer to give credit to Berkman, Freese, Craig, Molina and others, than blame on any Rangers. It was a great series and those guys had to come through in the clutch, under more pressure, for 9 full weeks! Yeah, Game 6 was a comedy of errors, but it was on BOTH sides. It was also a slugfest on both sides, too.

Game 7 was just opportunities. Rangers' found gloves, Cardinals' found gaps. That's why they play the game!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#5 | 903 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
The ball was not routine.  But it was certainly catchable ball.  4 out of five times that ball is caught.  Maybe he didn't go all out for it because he knew his team was the real world champs the moment the NL decided to send a 2nd place team to the dance.

Yes, he should have caught the ball.  No, it was not his fault the team didn't win that exhibition game.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#6 | 900 days ago

No more than Buckner did or the fan at wrigly . In the Texas and Boston world series it all came down to 7 games , some where the other players never did there part in the other two losses.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#7 | 889 days ago

I Think Cruz Got The Rangers To The World Series, He Shouldn't Be The Scapegoat Of All Things.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#8 | 881 days ago

ML31 wrote:
The ball was not routine.  But it was certainly catchable ball.  4 out of five times that ball is caught.  Maybe he didn't go all out for it because he knew his team was the real world champs the moment the NL decided to send a 2nd place team to the dance.

Yes, he should have caught the ball.  No, it was not his fault the team didn't win that exhibition game.
your an idiot!!! the cardinals were obviously plenty deserving to be there and they are the 2011 world champs whether you like it or not!!! GO CARDS!!! 11 time world champs!!!
#9 | 881 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
your an idiot!!! the cardinals were obviously plenty deserving to be there and they are the 2011 world champs whether you like it or not!!! GO CARDS!!! 11 time world champs!!!
Really?  I'm an idiot but you are the one jumping up and down celebrating a 2nd place finish?   Whatever, sparky.

The final standings prove they obviously are not deserving to be there.  6 games back?  That makes them losers and fans like yourself who are defending 2nd place teams getting a shot at the world series ought to be embarrassed.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#10 | 881 days ago
BDV4U (+)

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
your an idiot!!! the cardinals were obviously plenty deserving to be there and they are the 2011 world champs whether you like it or not!!! GO CARDS!!! 11 time world champs!!!
You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull on the mask of the ol' Lone Ranger and you DON'T get ML started on the Wild Card system in baseball! LMAO
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#11 | 879 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Really?  I'm an idiot but you are the one jumping up and down celebrating a 2nd place finish?   Whatever, sparky.

The final standings prove they obviously are not deserving to be there.  6 games back?  That makes them losers and fans like yourself who are defending 2nd place teams getting a shot at the world series ought to be embarrassed.
GO CARDS 2011 CHAMPS!!! 
#12 | 879 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Really?  I'm an idiot but you are the one jumping up and down celebrating a 2nd place finish?   Whatever, sparky.

The final standings prove they obviously are not deserving to be there.  6 games back?  That makes them losers and fans like yourself who are defending 2nd place teams getting a shot at the world series ought to be embarrassed.
In the immortal words of Jesus, as he hung on the cross, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

Obviously, at 24, he's only known the Wild Card era, unlike us who started off with the pre-1969 days when there was only ONE round of the playoffs!

I can actually date my Cardinal fandom to my conception. Subtracting the standard 280 gestation period from my projected due date (I was a week late), that puts the blessed event in mid-September 1964, or that miracle 2-week span when St. Louis went from 3rd Place to overtake Cincinnati and Philadelphia on the final day to win the National League pennant, then defeat the Yankees in 7 in the World Series. Since then, they have won 4 more (1967, 1982, 2006, 2011), been to 4 others (1968, 1985, 1987, 2004) and the numerous playoff appearances throughout the past 15 years (1996-2010) under Tony LaRussa. I've also suffered all those lean years in the 1970s and 1990s, when they would finish 6th in a 5-team division!

So, while I can contain my enthusiasm and maintain my perspective, obviously some cannot. Call it spoiled, call it poor sportsmanship, or call it over-exuberance.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#13 | 878 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
GO CARDS 2011 CHAMPS!!! 
St Louis Cardinals.  2011 2nd place finish.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#14 | 878 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
In the immortal words of Jesus, as he hung on the cross, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

Obviously, at 24, he's only known the Wild Card era, unlike us who started off with the pre-1969 days when there was only ONE round of the playoffs!

I can actually date my Cardinal fandom to my conception. Subtracting the standard 280 gestation period from my projected due date (I was a week late), that puts the blessed event in mid-September 1964, or that miracle 2-week span when St. Louis went from 3rd Place to overtake Cincinnati and Philadelphia on the final day to win the National League pennant, then defeat the Yankees in 7 in the World Series. Since then, they have won 4 more (1967, 1982, 2006, 2011), been to 4 others (1968, 1985, 1987, 2004) and the numerous playoff appearances throughout the past 15 years (1996-2010) under Tony LaRussa. I've also suffered all those lean years in the 1970s and 1990s, when they would finish 6th in a 5-team division!

So, while I can contain my enthusiasm and maintain my perspective, obviously some cannot. Call it spoiled, call it poor sportsmanship, or call it over-exuberance.
"Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

That is strangely appropriate.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#15 | 877 days ago

(Edited by STLCardinalsFan)
ML31 wrote:
St Louis Cardinals.  2011 2nd place finish.
i like that link..did you see the part about the postseason(postseason refers to the part of the season that matters, you know the part that all players play the game for)....162 games of baseball is a long season and all teams will have there ups and downs...clearly baseball enforced the wild card for a reason...its not all about how you perform during the season and records are not necessarily an indicator of what team is capable of...what matters is how you play WHEN IT COUNTS!!! And clearly the cardinals were the best team when it COUNTED this year...you know whats ironic about this argument...they beat the brewers fair and square and took them out...the regular season is just to decide who makes the playoffs and who dont...1st place of a division means NOTHING. postseason baseball is what its all about...AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT..YOU CANT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE CARDS  ARE THE WORLD CHAMPS!!!
#16 | 877 days ago
BDV4U (+)

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
i like that link..did you see the part about the postseason(postseason refers to the part of the season that matters, you know the part that all players play the game for)....162 games of baseball is a long season and all teams will have there ups and downs...clearly baseball enforced the wild card for a reason...its not all about how you perform during the season and records are not necessarily an indicator of what team is capable of...what matters is how you play WHEN IT COUNTS!!! And clearly the cardinals were the best team when it COUNTED this year...you know whats ironic about this argument...they beat the brewers fair and square and took them out...the regular season is just to decide who makes the playoffs and who dont...1st place of a division means NOTHING. postseason baseball is what its all about...AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT..YOU CANT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE CARDS  ARE THE WORLD CHAMPS!!!
Bran, you are arguing with a guy that rooted against his own 2002 Giants, merely because they were a Wild Card team! Until 2010, San Francisco had never WON a World Series title and he turned his back on them because he is so opposed to a 2nd Place team getting the opportunity to play.

Your arguments have no merit with him and you are NOT changing his mind. If you read ANY of my posts, you would know that! To put it in 1985 terms - you are Vince Coleman, he is the automated tarp. You either get out of his way, or he rolls over the top of you!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#17 | 877 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
i like that link..did you see the part about the postseason(postseason refers to the part of the season that matters, you know the part that all players play the game for)....162 games of baseball is a long season and all teams will have there ups and downs...clearly baseball enforced the wild card for a reason...its not all about how you perform during the season and records are not necessarily an indicator of what team is capable of...what matters is how you play WHEN IT COUNTS!!! And clearly the cardinals were the best team when it COUNTED this year...you know whats ironic about this argument...they beat the brewers fair and square and took them out...the regular season is just to decide who makes the playoffs and who dont...1st place of a division means NOTHING. postseason baseball is what its all about...AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT..YOU CANT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE CARDS  ARE THE WORLD CHAMPS!!!
I see...  So the only thing that matters is the post season for you.  Fine.  I'm sure you never watched or listened to any Card games until the post season because, using your own words, that is the "part that matters".

Yes, MLB did enDorse the wild card for a reason.  And that reason had nothing to do with the game on the field or what fans wanted.  That reason was $$$$$$  and ONLY $$$$$$.  They didn't care they were ruining the game because they could make one more dime with extra playoff games.

So, for you 162 games is not enough to show what a team is capable off.  Yet for some reason 11-19 is.  Go figure.

You know what is sick about your belief?  The Brewers beat the Cards fair and square already.  By 6 games.  Yet for some reason the Cards got a 2nd chance over a mere 7 game series.  The Brewers NEVER got the 2nd chance the Cards got.  How is that OK?  Shouldn't the Brewers get a 2nd chance as well?

Funny...  For some reason I am thinking that first place would actually mean something to you should the Cards actually get it.  You just want to see your Cards win and you don't care if your team is disgraced in doing so.  How very sad....
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#18 | 876 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I see...  So the only thing that matters is the post season for you.  Fine.  I'm sure you never watched or listened to any Card games until the post season because, using your own words, that is the "part that matters".

Yes, MLB did enDorse the wild card for a reason.  And that reason had nothing to do with the game on the field or what fans wanted.  That reason was $$$$$$  and ONLY $$$$$$.  They didn't care they were ruining the game because they could make one more dime with extra playoff games.

So, for you 162 games is not enough to show what a team is capable off.  Yet for some reason 11-19 is.  Go figure.

You know what is sick about your belief?  The Brewers beat the Cards fair and square already.  By 6 games.  Yet for some reason the Cards got a 2nd chance over a mere 7 game series.  The Brewers NEVER got the 2nd chance the Cards got.  How is that OK?  Shouldn't the Brewers get a 2nd chance as well?

Funny...  For some reason I am thinking that first place would actually mean something to you should the Cards actually get it.  You just want to see your Cards win and you don't care if your team is disgraced in doing so.  How very sad....
i watch every cards game...and 162 games you would think should be enough to show what a team is capable of...but when you have 162 games your gonna have days where players are out there not really giving there all because there tired, its just like a job to them...i know im not the only one who goes to there job some days and dont give it everything i have...brewers didnt get a 2nd chance because its the playoffs!!!!! you dont get a 2nd chance in the playoffs!!! U LOSE YOUR DONE!!! ITS ABOUT BEING A CLUTCH TEAM AND DOING WELL WHEN IT COUNTS!!! regular season does matter, it matters to decide who goes to the playoffs and who dont...and yes i would prefer my team to be in 1st, but when my team makes the most historical run in the history of baseball i cant be too upset about them being a wild card...im done arguing about it...basically the wild card is all ive ever known..its been around all my life..its what ive gotten used too...so it is what it is and the fans cant change the rules..so lets just watch baseball and enjoy it instead of being so worried about rules you cant change..GO CARDS 2011 CHAMPS!!!
#19 | 876 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
i watch every cards game...and 162 games you would think should be enough to show what a team is capable of...but when you have 162 games your gonna have days where players are out there not really giving there all because there tired, its just like a job to them...i know im not the only one who goes to there job some days and dont give it everything i have...brewers didnt get a 2nd chance because its the playoffs!!!!! you dont get a 2nd chance in the playoffs!!! U LOSE YOUR DONE!!! ITS ABOUT BEING A CLUTCH TEAM AND DOING WELL WHEN IT COUNTS!!! regular season does matter, it matters to decide who goes to the playoffs and who dont...and yes i would prefer my team to be in 1st, but when my team makes the most historical run in the history of baseball i cant be too upset about them being a wild card...im done arguing about it...basically the wild card is all ive ever known..its been around all my life..its what ive gotten used too...so it is what it is and the fans cant change the rules..so lets just watch baseball and enjoy it instead of being so worried about rules you cant change..GO CARDS 2011 CHAMPS!!!
I don't understand...  You said those 162 games don't matter.  So why do you waste your time following the team?  If they don't matter, you are a hypocrite.  If they do matter, then you just lied earlier.  So which is it?

So you are saying that it is OK for the 2nd place team to get a 2nd chance but the first place team doesn't get one?  Why bother with playing 162 games if finishing first is actually a DISadvantage?

ITS ABOUT BEING A CLUTCH TEAM AND DOING WELL WHEN IT COUNTS!!! regular season does matter, i

???  So if the regular season counts then the Cards weren't very clutch since they finished 6 games back of the Brewers.  You are wavering back and forth here.  First you say the season doesn't count then you say it does.  Make up your mind!

but when my team makes the most historical run in the history of baseball i cant be too upset about them being a wild card...\

Really?  Give me a break.  They made no historical run whatsoever.  Plenty of teams have gotten hot in the end and pulled into 2nd place.  It's no big deal.  You want to know the most historical comeback ever?  The 1951 Giants were 13 games back on August 11 and came back to win the Pennant.  First place.  Not a weak ass 2nd place.  FIRST.

It's sad that you have never known a true pennant race.  If you ever experienced one you would never be OK with wild cards.  Just because the rules allow for something ridiculous it doesn't mean fans must tolerate it.  Rules kept a certain race out of baseball for decades.  But that didn't stop MLB from changing them for the better.

2011 Cardinals.  2nd place.  The standings show it.  Enjoy your 2nd place finish.  I prefer first.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#20 | 875 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
I don't understand...  You said those 162 games don't matter.  So why do you waste your time following the team?  If they don't matter, you are a hypocrite.  If they do matter, then you just lied earlier.  So which is it?

So you are saying that it is OK for the 2nd place team to get a 2nd chance but the first place team doesn't get one?  Why bother with playing 162 games if finishing first is actually a DISadvantage?

ITS ABOUT BEING A CLUTCH TEAM AND DOING WELL WHEN IT COUNTS!!! regular season does matter, i

???  So if the regular season counts then the Cards weren't very clutch since they finished 6 games back of the Brewers.  You are wavering back and forth here.  First you say the season doesn't count then you say it does.  Make up your mind!

but when my team makes the most historical run in the history of baseball i cant be too upset about them being a wild card...\

Really?  Give me a break.  They made no historical run whatsoever.  Plenty of teams have gotten hot in the end and pulled into 2nd place.  It's no big deal.  You want to know the most historical comeback ever?  The 1951 Giants were 13 games back on August 11 and came back to win the Pennant.  First place.  Not a weak ass 2nd place.  FIRST.

It's sad that you have never known a true pennant race.  If you ever experienced one you would never be OK with wild cards.  Just because the rules allow for something ridiculous it doesn't mean fans must tolerate it.  Rules kept a certain race out of baseball for decades.  But that didn't stop MLB from changing them for the better.

2011 Cardinals.  2nd place.  The standings show it.  Enjoy your 2nd place finish.  I prefer first.
Is this a good time to point out that it was CJ Wilson's pitch that Prince Fielder hit for a HR in the All-Star Game that gave that 2nd Place, WIld-Card Cardinals home field advantage in the World Series, thus giving them the title?

As for 2nd Chances and advantages, Milwaukee had home field for the NLCS, yet lost in 6. If they were that good, they should have dominated St. Louis and won out. For that matter, St. Louis should have never made it past Philadelphia!

Fast forward to 2012 (or 2013), the Cardinals would have hosted the Braves for a 1 game series, burned Carpenter and who knows what would have happened in the Phillies series.

Just saying...
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#21 | 875 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Is this a good time to point out that it was CJ Wilson's pitch that Prince Fielder hit for a HR in the All-Star Game that gave that 2nd Place, WIld-Card Cardinals home field advantage in the World Series, thus giving them the title?

As for 2nd Chances and advantages, Milwaukee had home field for the NLCS, yet lost in 6. If they were that good, they should have dominated St. Louis and won out. For that matter, St. Louis should have never made it past Philadelphia!

Fast forward to 2012 (or 2013), the Cardinals would have hosted the Braves for a 1 game series, burned Carpenter and who knows what would have happened in the Phillies series.

Just saying...
I know you are just playing devils advocate here...  But the fact is, home field in baseball is not nearly the advantage it is in basketball or the NFL for that matter.   It didn't give the Cards the faux series. 

It then follows that home field in the LCS meas precious little as well.  You know baseball.  Even the worst team in the league can get hot and beat a few teams for a few weeks.  If the Cardinals truly were the best they would have dominated over 162 games and won out.  Any statistician will tell you that the larger the sample size the better the results will be.  I'll take the results from 162 samples rather than the results from a mere 18 as far as the best team in a division is concerned.  You say St. Louis never should have made it past Philly?  They never should have been invited to the party!

That new playoff format doesn't make things better.  It will pretty much be more for the same.  The "wild card" team that wins that single play in game will have the advantage over every other team in the playoff because the odds of them being the "team on a roll" will have increased significantly.  While other teams who may or may not have been hot sit an extra day and cool off, the wild card team gets to keep their roll going.  In the future, look for more 2nd place teams to win playoff series' than do now.  And they already win well more than half the time.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#22 | 875 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I know you are just playing devils advocate here...  But the fact is, home field in baseball is not nearly the advantage it is in basketball or the NFL for that matter.   It didn't give the Cards the faux series. 

It then follows that home field in the LCS meas precious little as well.  You know baseball.  Even the worst team in the league can get hot and beat a few teams for a few weeks.  If the Cardinals truly were the best they would have dominated over 162 games and won out.  Any statistician will tell you that the larger the sample size the better the results will be.  I'll take the results from 162 samples rather than the results from a mere 18 as far as the best team in a division is concerned.  You say St. Louis never should have made it past Philly?  They never should have been invited to the party!

That new playoff format doesn't make things better.  It will pretty much be more for the same.  The "wild card" team that wins that single play in game will have the advantage over every other team in the playoff because the odds of them being the "team on a roll" will have increased significantly.  While other teams who may or may not have been hot sit an extra day and cool off, the wild card team gets to keep their roll going.  In the future, look for more 2nd place teams to win playoff series' than do now.  And they already win well more than half the time.
answer this for me please??? are the cardinals the 2011 world series champions?????
#23 | 875 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
answer this for me please??? are the cardinals the 2011 world series champions?????
As soon as you answer me this...   In what position did the Cards finish their 2011 season?
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#24 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
I know you are just playing devils advocate here...  But the fact is, home field in baseball is not nearly the advantage it is in basketball or the NFL for that matter.   It didn't give the Cards the faux series. 

It then follows that home field in the LCS meas precious little as well.  You know baseball.  Even the worst team in the league can get hot and beat a few teams for a few weeks.  If the Cardinals truly were the best they would have dominated over 162 games and won out.  Any statistician will tell you that the larger the sample size the better the results will be.  I'll take the results from 162 samples rather than the results from a mere 18 as far as the best team in a division is concerned.  You say St. Louis never should have made it past Philly?  They never should have been invited to the party!

That new playoff format doesn't make things better.  It will pretty much be more for the same.  The "wild card" team that wins that single play in game will have the advantage over every other team in the playoff because the odds of them being the "team on a roll" will have increased significantly.  While other teams who may or may not have been hot sit an extra day and cool off, the wild card team gets to keep their roll going.  In the future, look for more 2nd place teams to win playoff series' than do now.  And they already win well more than half the time.
So, having the final at-bat in that pivotal Game 6's 9th, 10th & 11th Innings and again in the comeback in Game 7 didn't matter?
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#25 | 874 days ago

ML31 wrote:
As soon as you answer me this...   In what position did the Cards finish their 2011 season?
they are the world champs..i.e. #1 team
#26 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
So, having the final at-bat in that pivotal Game 6's 9th, 10th & 11th Innings and again in the comeback in Game 7 didn't matter?
Not really.  Who says they wouldn't have scored in the top half of the innings?
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#27 | 874 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
they are the world champs..i.e. #1 team
Funny...  The final standings don't support that conclusion.   So I guess the regular season really doesn't count for anything.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#28 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Funny...  The final standings don't support that conclusion.   So I guess the regular season really doesn't count for anything.
It's how you phrased the question. The BASEBALL season ended with the Cardinals as World Champions. The REGULAR season ended with the Cardinals finishing 90-72, 6 games out in the Central. You weren't specific!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#29 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Not really.  Who says they wouldn't have scored in the top half of the innings?
But would the urgency to score 2 runs in the 9th & 10th, each with 2 out, 2 strikes on the batter, then lead off the bottom of the 11th, match the urgency of leading off those same innings on the road - like Texas had? The Rangers proved, you can let up when you're the team on the road with a lead. Have 44k people screaming for you to come from behind and that adrenaline level changes in a hurry!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#30 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
It's how you phrased the question. The BASEBALL season ended with the Cardinals as World Champions. The REGULAR season ended with the Cardinals finishing 90-72, 6 games out in the Central. You weren't specific!
Doesn't matter.  Cards finished in 2nd place at the end of the regular season and the post season doesn't change that.  At the end of the post season the Cards are still a 2nd place team.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#31 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
But would the urgency to score 2 runs in the 9th & 10th, each with 2 out, 2 strikes on the batter, then lead off the bottom of the 11th, match the urgency of leading off those same innings on the road - like Texas had? The Rangers proved, you can let up when you're the team on the road with a lead. Have 44k people screaming for you to come from behind and that adrenaline level changes in a hurry!
Why wouldn't that urgency be there?  You never know what a different venue would bring but I don't think it made all that much a difference.  Just as it didn't help the Giants last year.  Giants were firing on all cylinders and it didn't matter what field they were on or who the crowd was backing.  The difference?  Last year the Giants earned the right to be there by finishing in first place.  Cards didn't.  Baseball is not a game that is condusive to "letting up" anyway.  You think a batter at the plate was thinking, "I don't need to get on base here so I won't swing or watch for a pitch as hard as I normally would".  Certainly for pitchers "letting up" is a sure fire way to ruin your mechanics.  
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#32 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Why wouldn't that urgency be there?  You never know what a different venue would bring but I don't think it made all that much a difference.  Just as it didn't help the Giants last year.  Giants were firing on all cylinders and it didn't matter what field they were on or who the crowd was backing.  The difference?  Last year the Giants earned the right to be there by finishing in first place.  Cards didn't.  Baseball is not a game that is condusive to "letting up" anyway.  You think a batter at the plate was thinking, "I don't need to get on base here so I won't swing or watch for a pitch as hard as I normally would".  Certainly for pitchers "letting up" is a sure fire way to ruin your mechanics.  
Tell that Neftalie Feliz, who lost his closers job, about letting up with a 2-run lead

You, yourself, answered that Cruz should have caught the ball to end the game in the 9th Inning. If it were the top of the 9th - tied - he would have been farther back and closer to the line. Instead, he was playing in, expecting a shorter dunk-hit and got burned.

Defense rests, Your Honor!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#33 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Tell that Neftalie Feliz, who lost his closers job, about letting up with a 2-run lead

You, yourself, answered that Cruz should have caught the ball to end the game in the 9th Inning. If it were the top of the 9th - tied - he would have been farther back and closer to the line. Instead, he was playing in, expecting a shorter dunk-hit and got burned.

Defense rests, Your Honor!
Are you suggesting that Feliz "let up" and didn't try as hard?  Are you kidding me?  Feliz didn't lose the closer job because of that.  Last spring the Rangers had the idea of him becoming a starter already.  To the point where he started a few games.  It was only abandoned when they felt they couldn't get a closer replacement.

If it were the top of the 9th it's likely Cruz would have been playing the same way.  Unless you have evidence that Washington has been changing his defense between road and home games all year.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#34 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Are you suggesting that Feliz "let up" and didn't try as hard?  Are you kidding me?  Feliz didn't lose the closer job because of that.  Last spring the Rangers had the idea of him becoming a starter already.  To the point where he started a few games.  It was only abandoned when they felt they couldn't get a closer replacement.

If it were the top of the 9th it's likely Cruz would have been playing the same way.  Unless you have evidence that Washington has been changing his defense between road and home games all year.
Having coached for 20+ years and a student of the game for 40, you play the game differently home or away, because of that last at-bat. Granted, players and managers should give every effort from the 1st pitch to the last, but you know that doesn't happen! A batter SHOULD take a strike if down a run or more.  A runner should be stealing if it more than 2 runs in either direction, or your big bat could get walked if you take 2nd. There SHOULDN'T be a difference, but there IS!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#35 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Having coached for 20+ years and a student of the game for 40, you play the game differently home or away, because of that last at-bat. Granted, players and managers should give every effort from the 1st pitch to the last, but you know that doesn't happen! A batter SHOULD take a strike if down a run or more.  A runner should be stealing if it more than 2 runs in either direction, or your big bat could get walked if you take 2nd. There SHOULDN'T be a difference, but there IS!
Be that as it may...  The game 6 moment you refer to may not have even come into play had the locations been swapped.  Maybe the Cards win earlier.  Maybe the Rangers do,.  Who knows?  The point is, to say X would have happened had things been different can be a slippery slope.  My opinion is the Cards would have won no matter what ball park it was played in because they were the team with the all important momentum.  In baseball the team of lesser talent but is on a roll will more often than not beat the team of superior talent who is not.  The results of the last 17 post seasons support that case.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#36 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Be that as it may...  The game 6 moment you refer to may not have even come into play had the locations been swapped.  Maybe the Cards win earlier.  Maybe the Rangers do,.  Who knows?  The point is, to say X would have happened had things been different can be a slippery slope.  My opinion is the Cards would have won no matter what ball park it was played in because they were the team with the all important momentum.  In baseball the team of lesser talent but is on a roll will more often than not beat the team of superior talent who is not.  The results of the last 17 post seasons support that case.
That's true. I'm merely stating that the urgency of HAVING to score 2 runs on the last strike TWICE AND having 44 thousand screaming fans behind you amps up your system more than being tied or up 2 and the crowd against you. Just saying...
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#37 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
That's true. I'm merely stating that the urgency of HAVING to score 2 runs on the last strike TWICE AND having 44 thousand screaming fans behind you amps up your system more than being tied or up 2 and the crowd against you. Just saying...
I still don't think it changes the outcome of the series.

BTW... If Feliz backed off in that series (which I don't believe is possible) I like to think he backed off because he knew the Rangers were already the default World Champions and the games against the Cards were little more than glorified exhibition games that meant nothing. 
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#38 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
I still don't think it changes the outcome of the series.

BTW... If Feliz backed off in that series (which I don't believe is possible) I like to think he backed off because he knew the Rangers were already the default World Champions and the games against the Cards were little more than glorified exhibition games that meant nothing. 
That's why he was so distraught, Washington couldn't use him in the 10th or in Game 7 because he had become a head case - Ron's admission, after the Series.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#39 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
That's why he was so distraught, Washington couldn't use him in the 10th or in Game 7 because he had become a head case - Ron's admission, after the Series.
If true it seems the Rangers knew this was his mental state over a year ago.  Which could explain why they tried to make him a starter in the 2011 spring training.

But, had the site been different (but the situation similar) Wash would have still had the same issues with using Feliz.  He probably had those same issues all year long.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#40 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
If true it seems the Rangers knew this was his mental state over a year ago.  Which could explain why they tried to make him a starter in the 2011 spring training.

But, had the site been different (but the situation similar) Wash would have still had the same issues with using Feliz.  He probably had those same issues all year long.
Probably. That unhittable pitch that Freese hit was probably the last straw.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#41 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Probably. That unhittable pitch that Freese hit was probably the last straw.
I have no idea what pitch you are talking about.  I only watched perhaps 20% of those games tops.  And most of that was the end of game 6.  And even then I was only half paying attention since it was merely an exhibition series for me.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#42 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
I have no idea what pitch you are talking about.  I only watched perhaps 20% of those games tops.  And most of that was the end of game 6.  And even then I was only half paying attention since it was merely an exhibition series for me.
You forgot the very poll you are on? LMAO
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#43 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
You forgot the very poll you are on? LMAO
The poll is about Cruz catching a ball.  Not if a pitch was unhittable.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#44 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
The poll is about Cruz catching a ball.  Not if a pitch was unhittable.
It was the same play! No mere mortal should have been able to get a bat on that pitch AND hit it where it landed at the base of the wall for a triple to tie the game. It was the stuff of legend and why Game 6 will go down in baseball history. Freese, at best, should have only fouled it off to say 1-2, but instead we're talking about it landing fair, in the corner, prolonging the game. 67% of batters would have struck out.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#45 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
It was the same play! No mere mortal should have been able to get a bat on that pitch AND hit it where it landed at the base of the wall for a triple to tie the game. It was the stuff of legend and why Game 6 will go down in baseball history. Freese, at best, should have only fouled it off to say 1-2, but instead we're talking about it landing fair, in the corner, prolonging the game. 67% of batters would have struck out.
You are letting your Cardinal allegiances get the better of you.  You want to talk about pitches in the World Series that never should have been hit, the last one was Kirk Gibson hitting that way low of the strike zone shot in 1988.  Injured on top of that.  Freeze or whatever his name is just hit a pitch like what happens all the time in MLB.  It was more Cruz failing to make a catch he would normally make 9 out of ten times.  As I said before, it would have been a difficult catch, but most major leagues make it.

That is how forgettable it was.  I remember the catch, but not the pitch.

The poll was about the catch.  Not the pitch.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#46 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
You are letting your Cardinal allegiances get the better of you.  You want to talk about pitches in the World Series that never should have been hit, the last one was Kirk Gibson hitting that way low of the strike zone shot in 1988.  Injured on top of that.  Freeze or whatever his name is just hit a pitch like what happens all the time in MLB.  It was more Cruz failing to make a catch he would normally make 9 out of ten times.  As I said before, it would have been a difficult catch, but most major leagues make it.

That is how forgettable it was.  I remember the catch, but not the pitch.

The poll was about the catch.  Not the pitch.
Lefties like the low ball, so Gibson's hit - although remarkable, not that big a surprise. Eckersley's pitch was a little fat.

Freese, as I stated, for a righty, most would swing through, other would merely foul off. Allegiances aside, making contact AND keeping fair AND bouncing off the wall was pretty remarkable - maybe why Cruz was out of position to catch it (even he was shocked and hesitated?). For not the pitch, dear Yorick, there not be the play!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#47 | 874 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
BDV4U wrote:
Lefties like the low ball, so Gibson's hit - although remarkable, not that big a surprise. Eckersley's pitch was a little fat.

Freese, as I stated, for a righty, most would swing through, other would merely foul off. Allegiances aside, making contact AND keeping fair AND bouncing off the wall was pretty remarkable - maybe why Cruz was out of position to catch it (even he was shocked and hesitated?). For not the pitch, dear Yorick, there not be the play!
Gibson practically needed a walker to get to home plate...  And a 9 iron to golf that low pitch.  It was about as remarkable as a moment could get.  Although, I was already irate with Eck at the time for walking the .190 hitting Davis before Gibson. 
But the moment, albeit one that was against my team, I'm forced to admit was a classic.

I do not recall anything spectacular about the pitch or the hit.  It was there.  He put decent wood on it.  And more times than not the ball would have been caught.   Only Cruz himself knows why he missed it. 
Why did Maldonado slide in Game 6 of the '87 LCS and miss a ball that was more difficult to catch than the one Cruz missed?  It's baseball.  Stuff happens.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#48 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Gibson practically needed a walker to get to home plate...  And a 9 iron to golf that low pitch.  It was about as remarkable as a moment could get.  Although, I was already irate with Eck at the time for walking the .190 hitting Davis before Gibson. 
But the moment, albeit one that was against my team, I'm forced to admit was a classic.

I do not recall anything spectacular about the pitch or the hit.  It was there.  He put decent wood on it.  And more times than not the ball would have been caught.   Only Cruz himself knows why he missed it. 
Why did Maldonado slide in Game 6 of the '87 LCS and miss a ball that was more difficult to catch than the one Cruz missed?  It's baseball.  Stuff happens.
I didn't articulate myself well. Gibson's effort was what made that the classic that it was. The pitch was not all that great. A healthy player would have made contact - probably not hit a HR, but hit it. Feliz' pitch, on the other hand, most would have whiffed through, other would have fouled off. That was all I was saying. I guess the coach's/umpire's eye versus a fan's eye varies.

And I will agree 1000% - Stuff Happens!!!! LOL
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#49 | 874 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
I didn't articulate myself well. Gibson's effort was what made that the classic that it was. The pitch was not all that great. A healthy player would have made contact - probably not hit a HR, but hit it. Feliz' pitch, on the other hand, most would have whiffed through, other would have fouled off. That was all I was saying. I guess the coach's/umpire's eye versus a fan's eye varies.

And I will agree 1000% - Stuff Happens!!!! LOL
No.  A healthy player probably would have taken the pitch for the ball it was.  An over anxious hitter would have swung and missed.  At best he taps a weak grounder to the pitcher or other infielder.

I still say your looking at the situation through Cardinal colored glasses...   LOL
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#50 | 874 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
No.  A healthy player probably would have taken the pitch for the ball it was.  An over anxious hitter would have swung and missed.  At best he taps a weak grounder to the pitcher or other infielder.

I still say your looking at the situation through Cardinal colored glasses...   LOL
My name isn't Brandon. LMAO
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#51 | 873 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Doesn't matter.  Cards finished in 2nd place at the end of the regular season and the post season doesn't change that.  At the end of the post season the Cards are still a 2nd place team.
this was a pretty ignorant comment and i only have one more thing to say on that note...the cardinals were in 2nd place at the end of the reg. season....the cardinals were WORLD CHAMPIONS at the end of the postseason....look it up on google you'll see
#52 | 873 days ago

(Edited by STLCardinalsFan)
BDV4U wrote:
My name isn't Brandon. LMAO
sorry for being a die hard cardinals fan who is happy his team won the world series...i say my team because they truely are MY TEAM.... I LOVE THE CARDINALS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A DIE HARD FAN, WIN OR LOSE...maybe i am a little biased..but the wild card is all ive ever known and baseball is not baseball without one in my eyes, in fact i always root for the wild cards because i like rooting for the underdogs..the wildcard in my eyes is good for baseball and im sure 95% of fans would agree..makes things much more interesting in the playoffs...cant wait for 2 wildcard teams in a one game playoff...HOW EXCITING THAT WILL BE!!!
#53 | 873 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
this was a pretty ignorant comment and i only have one more thing to say on that note...the cardinals were in 2nd place at the end of the reg. season....the cardinals were WORLD CHAMPIONS at the end of the postseason....look it up on google you'll see
Wait...  I have to stop laughing...   Too funny....   I'm ignorant???   HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! 

OK...  Looked up Cardinals final 2011 standings.  Yahoo sports said 2nd place on the team page.  Yahoo standings show them 6 games back.  ESPN standings showed them 2nd place 6 games back.  The Cardinals home page didn't have the finals standings anywhere.  MLB .com showed them in 2nd place.  Those were the first 5 hits.  I think I'm supported when I say the Cardinals of 2011 were a 2nd place team.  

Too funny...
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#54 | 873 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
sorry for being a die hard cardinals fan who is happy his team won the world series...i say my team because they truely are MY TEAM.... I LOVE THE CARDINALS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A DIE HARD FAN, WIN OR LOSE...maybe i am a little biased..but the wild card is all ive ever known and baseball is not baseball without one in my eyes, in fact i always root for the wild cards because i like rooting for the underdogs..the wildcard in my eyes is good for baseball and im sure 95% of fans would agree..makes things much more interesting in the playoffs...cant wait for 2 wildcard teams in a one game playoff...HOW EXCITING THAT WILL BE!!!
You are not a very good fan if you are happy your team finished behind the Brewers.  Most fans would not be pleased about that unless 2nd place exceeded expectations.

The welfare card is all you've ever known and that is very very sad.  You have never experienced an honest to God pennant race.  I pity the younger fans of MLB for that.  You have no idea what you are missing.  Ignorance truly is bliss it seems.

BTW...  The welfare teams are rarely the underdogs.  They are more often the hot team in the post season.  They actually have the advantage!  But you don't care about that.  You don't even care about the regular season.  You only tune in for the playoffs.  It's the kind of fan MLB is creating over the last 17 years. 
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#55 | 873 days ago
BDV4U (+)

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
sorry for being a die hard cardinals fan who is happy his team won the world series...i say my team because they truely are MY TEAM.... I LOVE THE CARDINALS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A DIE HARD FAN, WIN OR LOSE...maybe i am a little biased..but the wild card is all ive ever known and baseball is not baseball without one in my eyes, in fact i always root for the wild cards because i like rooting for the underdogs..the wildcard in my eyes is good for baseball and im sure 95% of fans would agree..makes things much more interesting in the playoffs...cant wait for 2 wildcard teams in a one game playoff...HOW EXCITING THAT WILL BE!!!
You have nothing to apologize for. I was merely pointing out that you are a zealot and, as ML already pointed out and you admitted to, a product of the Wild Card Era. ML & I are from a time when there were no divisions at all, so the only playoff series was the World Series!

I'm sure that if ML wasn't only 4 years old, like I was, he probably would have been hopping up and down about how unfair it was the Braves and Twins got to play in the playoffs, since they finished behind the Mets & Orioles, in 1969! "But you don't care about that. You only tune in for the playoffs. It's the kind of fan MLB is creating over the last (42) years."

Be proud, shout loud, but realize that there are going to be fellow radicals, like you, calmer, rational fanatics, like me, and skeptics that will have differing points of view, like ML. No matter what you do, he is NOT changing his mind and he is set in his ways!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#56 | 873 days ago

ML31 wrote:
You are not a very good fan if you are happy your team finished behind the Brewers.  Most fans would not be pleased about that unless 2nd place exceeded expectations.

The welfare card is all you've ever known and that is very very sad.  You have never experienced an honest to God pennant race.  I pity the younger fans of MLB for that.  You have no idea what you are missing.  Ignorance truly is bliss it seems.

BTW...  The welfare teams are rarely the underdogs.  They are more often the hot team in the post season.  They actually have the advantage!  But you don't care about that.  You don't even care about the regular season.  You only tune in for the playoffs.  It's the kind of fan MLB is creating over the last 17 years. 
first off, i said google 2011 world champions not fucking final standings..final standings dont mean shit other then who makes the playoffs and who dont, now dont twist my words around like u always do and make it seem like im saying reg. season dont matter, reg season matters to decide who makes the playoffs...beyond that its all about the playoffs, thats where they find out who the world champions are, its called a tournament/ playoffs...playoffs are what makes the sport exciting and is the best part of the season... did i spell that out for you enough...secondly the cardinals beat the brewers...and 3rdly i watch the entire season and have weekend season tickets..so do not state something that you know nothing about...thanks go cards!!!!
#57 | 873 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
You have nothing to apologize for. I was merely pointing out that you are a zealot and, as ML already pointed out and you admitted to, a product of the Wild Card Era. ML & I are from a time when there were no divisions at all, so the only playoff series was the World Series!

I'm sure that if ML wasn't only 4 years old, like I was, he probably would have been hopping up and down about how unfair it was the Braves and Twins got to play in the playoffs, since they finished behind the Mets & Orioles, in 1969! "But you don't care about that. You only tune in for the playoffs. It's the kind of fan MLB is creating over the last (42) years."

Be proud, shout loud, but realize that there are going to be fellow radicals, like you, calmer, rational fanatics, like me, and skeptics that will have differing points of view, like ML. No matter what you do, he is NOT changing his mind and he is set in his ways!
ok thanks...it is ok to have opinions i have no problem with that...but for someone to say the world series is an exhibition game is just ignorant and stupid..i have no prob at all with him having an opinion..but baseball is what it is, and he cant change it and he is not the comissioner of baseball so he cant change the fact that the cardinals are the world series champions..they made probably the greatest title run of all time and he denies there was even a run..he is in denial and needs help
#58 | 873 days ago
BDV4U (+)

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
ok thanks...it is ok to have opinions i have no problem with that...but for someone to say the world series is an exhibition game is just ignorant and stupid..i have no prob at all with him having an opinion..but baseball is what it is, and he cant change it and he is not the comissioner of baseball so he cant change the fact that the cardinals are the world series champions..they made probably the greatest title run of all time and he denies there was even a run..he is in denial and needs help
Funny thing is, Atlanta, San Francisco, Cleveland and Anaheim (I refuse to call them Los Angeles, unless you're referring to the original Angels, before they were called California) all got playoff shares AND NEVER PLAYED A GAME, because they finished 2nd in their divisions!
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#59 | 873 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
first off, i said google 2011 world champions not fucking final standings..final standings dont mean shit other then who makes the playoffs and who dont, now dont twist my words around like u always do and make it seem like im saying reg. season dont matter, reg season matters to decide who makes the playoffs...beyond that its all about the playoffs, thats where they find out who the world champions are, its called a tournament/ playoffs...playoffs are what makes the sport exciting and is the best part of the season... did i spell that out for you enough...secondly the cardinals beat the brewers...and 3rdly i watch the entire season and have weekend season tickets..so do not state something that you know nothing about...thanks go cards!!!!
Wow...  You've resorted to swearing.  Nice.  I think we all know what that means...

I never twisted anything you said.  Don't blame me for what you yourself write.  You said only the playoffs matter.  Therefore it follows that nothing else does.  Including the regular season, if you were being honest.  

It's great that you like playoffs.  But it follows that if playoffs are everything then the regular season is a huge bore and waste of time for you.  I like the Stanley Cup playoffs a great deal myself.  But the flip side of that is that the regular season is practically worthless.  I understand that.  You don't seem to.  The difference is baseball has traditionally had pennant races.  Which were often much more exciting than a playoff. 

Next, the Cardinals did not beat the Brewers.  The final standings show this and for some reason you seem to refuse to believe the fact that the Cards are a 2nd place team.

I am only addressing what you have written.  If you think I am wrong then you are incapable of honest communication of your thoughts and ideas.  

Glad you enjoy 2nd place finishes.  I prefer first place.  But I suppose we all have our standards.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#60 | 873 days ago

STLCardinalsFan wrote:
ok thanks...it is ok to have opinions i have no problem with that...but for someone to say the world series is an exhibition game is just ignorant and stupid..i have no prob at all with him having an opinion..but baseball is what it is, and he cant change it and he is not the comissioner of baseball so he cant change the fact that the cardinals are the world series champions..they made probably the greatest title run of all time and he denies there was even a run..he is in denial and needs help
You want to know about ignorance and stupidity?  How about celebrating 2nd place finishes as if the team actually accomplshed something meaningful.  Technically, all post season games are exhibitions.  But the presence of 2nd place teams make them even more worthless and completely devoid of excitement.  But if letting loser teams in the post season turns you on, then this is the era for you.  Enjoy.

I have yet to understand how finishing in 2nd place makes for "probably the greatest title run of all time"...  A lot of teams have come back from large deficits to finish in 2nd place.  Now if the Cards had come back and caught and passed the Brewers for first, you would be correct.  But they didn't.  They were an also ran no matter what spin you choose to put on it to help you sleep better. 

What exactly am I in denial about?  Am I wrong?  Did the Cards finish in first place and every web link ever saying otherwise take part in some kind of conspiracy? 
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#61 | 873 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Funny thing is, Atlanta, San Francisco, Cleveland and Anaheim (I refuse to call them Los Angeles, unless you're referring to the original Angels, before they were called California) all got playoff shares AND NEVER PLAYED A GAME, because they finished 2nd in their divisions!
This is nothing new.  Players have always gotten shares for where their teams finished in the standings.  It's one way to give teams incentives to win late in the season if the divisions were wrapped up.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#62 | 873 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
This is nothing new.  Players have always gotten shares for where their teams finished in the standings.  It's one way to give teams incentives to win late in the season if the divisions were wrapped up.
True. But these players/coaches/staffs are getting paid for not even playing in October. Now, a THIRD PLACE team (ie the 2011 Red Sox) could actually make the playoffs, so would they get a 9th split, or not get a share at all?

If you are going to throw a hissy fit, it should be over THESE 4 teams, not the 2 that actually played in October - deserving or not.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#63 | 872 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
True. But these players/coaches/staffs are getting paid for not even playing in October. Now, a THIRD PLACE team (ie the 2011 Red Sox) could actually make the playoffs, so would they get a 9th split, or not get a share at all?

If you are going to throw a hissy fit, it should be over THESE 4 teams, not the 2 that actually played in October - deserving or not.
I have no issue with the league dishing out 2nd and 3rd place money to 2nd and 3rd place finishers.  Although, if everyone is going to make the playoffs, will that money still be dished out?  I have no idea.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#64 | 872 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
I have no issue with the league dishing out 2nd and 3rd place money to 2nd and 3rd place finishers.  Although, if everyone is going to make the playoffs, will that money still be dished out?  I have no idea.
All 30 teams get money by order of finish. It's the Top 12 that get Playoff Money! Why should 4 teams that don't get into the playoffs, get playoff money? Yes, play them handsomely for finishing 2nd, but to pay them the same as the 6 that played?!?
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#65 | 872 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
BDV4U wrote:
All 30 teams get money by order of finish. It's the Top 12 that get Playoff Money! Why should 4 teams that don't get into the playoffs, get playoff money? Yes, play them handsomely for finishing 2nd, but to pay them the same as the 6 that played?!?
Admittedly I'm not current on the end of season monies dished out to teams.  But before the welfare card, I know teams got bonus money depending on where in the standings they finished.  With so many teams getting in the playoffs I'm not sure how that money is dished out...  If it still is at all.  I mean, what good is 2nd place money if 2nd place teams get in the post season? 

BTW...  Here is a worse case scenario...  Suppose the two welfare teams to play in the upcoming "play in" game are from the same division?  Suppose there is a large gap between them...  Pretty lame to have those two teams playing each other to see who gets in when one team already beat the other.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#66 | 872 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Admittedly I'm not current on the end of season monies dished out to teams.  But before the welfare card, I know teams got bonus money depending on where in the standings they finished.  With so many teams getting in the playoffs I'm not sure how that money is dished out...  If it still is at all.  I mean, what good is 2nd place money if 2nd place teams get in the post season? 

BTW...  Here is a worse case scenario...  Suppose the two welfare teams to play in the upcoming "play in" game are from the same division?  Suppose there is a large gap between them...  Pretty lame to have those two teams playing each other to see who gets in when one team already beat the other.
I wasn't really aware, either, until I read an article on what the share was this year. In the article, it said all 12 teams got a piece of the playoff pie! Naturally, I went nuts - what business did Atlanta, SF, Cleveland & Anaheim have getting the same cut as those that didn't make the playoffs?!?

Now a possible 3rd Place team (like Boston this year) will make the playoffs, making it potentially 13 teams - almost half - spreading the wealth of Post Season money.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#67 | 872 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
I wasn't really aware, either, until I read an article on what the share was this year. In the article, it said all 12 teams got a piece of the playoff pie! Naturally, I went nuts - what business did Atlanta, SF, Cleveland & Anaheim have getting the same cut as those that didn't make the playoffs?!?

Now a possible 3rd Place team (like Boston this year) will make the playoffs, making it potentially 13 teams - almost half - spreading the wealth of Post Season money.
Funny...  I've always known about the 2nd and 3rd place shares.  I remember 20 years ago players on teams out of the race in September saying they want to move up in the standings for, among other reasons, the extra money finishing higher gets them.

But with all the extra playoff teams I 'm wondering what good that incentive is.  I mean, is the share the 2nd place playoff teams get the same as the other 2nd place teams?  I think it should be to be honest.  Those teams didn't do anything the other 2nd place teams didn't do.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#68 | 871 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Funny...  I've always known about the 2nd and 3rd place shares.  I remember 20 years ago players on teams out of the race in September saying they want to move up in the standings for, among other reasons, the extra money finishing higher gets them.

But with all the extra playoff teams I 'm wondering what good that incentive is.  I mean, is the share the 2nd place playoff teams get the same as the other 2nd place teams?  I think it should be to be honest.  Those teams didn't do anything the other 2nd place teams didn't do.
The way the article read, all 12 teams got the same amount. How they split it into individual shares and money gifts, was up to the individual teams. I wish I hadn't deleted my Yahoo email that had the link, or I would post it.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#69 | 871 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
The way the article read, all 12 teams got the same amount. How they split it into individual shares and money gifts, was up to the individual teams. I wish I hadn't deleted my Yahoo email that had the link, or I would post it.
Interesting...   I also knew players in the post season got playoff shares that grew from the LCS to the WS.   Perhaps that base the 12 teams got is the same, but increases at each playoff level?

But then, and I felt this way back then too...  The players make so very much now that playoff shares really aren't all that much any more except to perhaps the rookies or close to rookies.  There was a time in MLB when World Series shares was a HUGE plus for the players.  No so much any more.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#70 | 871 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Interesting...   I also knew players in the post season got playoff shares that grew from the LCS to the WS.   Perhaps that base the 12 teams got is the same, but increases at each playoff level?

But then, and I felt this way back then too...  The players make so very much now that playoff shares really aren't all that much any more except to perhaps the rookies or close to rookies.  There was a time in MLB when World Series shares was a HUGE plus for the players.  No so much any more.
Like I said, I wish I hadn't deleted that article.

They all get one lump, then split it into shares. The Cardinals split theirs into like 51+ shares, with the partials going to guys that only played part of the year with the team (Ryan Franklin, Colby Rasmus, minor leaguers, etc.). Players that didn't end up on the post-season roster, office personnel, coaches, staff, etc. got a share. Some people, like bat boys just got a cash payout. A share came out to like $323,170(?), I think, which was lower than 2009, but higher than 2010. For some of the coaches and staff, it was more than what they made all year.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#71 | 871 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
Like I said, I wish I hadn't deleted that article.

They all get one lump, then split it into shares. The Cardinals split theirs into like 51+ shares, with the partials going to guys that only played part of the year with the team (Ryan Franklin, Colby Rasmus, minor leaguers, etc.). Players that didn't end up on the post-season roster, office personnel, coaches, staff, etc. got a share. Some people, like bat boys just got a cash payout. A share came out to like $323,170(?), I think, which was lower than 2009, but higher than 2010. For some of the coaches and staff, it was more than what they made all year.
There is traditionally a players only meeting where they decide how to split the shares.  They can decide to give shares to players not on the team any more, to club house attendants bat boys...  Any way they want.   I understand there is a lot of "F him!" type of comments in those meetings.  I have heard of players who don't get others to give shares to certain people have been known to dish out all of or portions of their own allotted shares to those individuals they feel strongly should get something.
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#72 | 871 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
There is traditionally a players only meeting where they decide how to split the shares.  They can decide to give shares to players not on the team any more, to club house attendants bat boys...  Any way they want.   I understand there is a lot of "F him!" type of comments in those meetings.  I have heard of players who don't get others to give shares to certain people have been known to dish out all of or portions of their own allotted shares to those individuals they feel strongly should get something.
That is correct.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#73 | 871 days ago
BDV4U (+)

I found an AP article on SI:

NEW YORK (AP) -- A full postseason share for the World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals was worth $323,170, up slightly from last year but still below the record set in 2009.

A full share was worth $317,631 on the 2010 San Francisco Giants and $350,030 on the 2009 New York Yankees.

The commissioner's office said Monday a full share on the losing Rangers was $251,516, up from $246,280 on Texas last year but down from $265,358 for the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies.

The players' pool was $57.3 million, up from $54.9 million last year but below the record $59.1 million in 2009. It includes 60 percent of the ticket money from the first three games of each division series, and the first four games of each league championship series and the World Series.

St. Louis awarded 51 full shares, 11.962 partial shares and eight cash awards. Texas players split their money into 47 full shares, 6.5 partial shares and 19 cash awards.

Among the losing LCS teams, a full share was worth $133,511 on the Milwaukee Brewers and $126,902 on the Detroit Tigers. For losing division series teams, shares were $30,758 on the Tampa Bay Rays, $30,401 on the Phillies, $26,675 on the Arizona Diamondbacks and $26,239 on the Yankees.

For second-place teams that failed to make the postseason, shares were $11,089 on the Atlanta Braves, $10,862 on the Los Angeles Angels, $10,690 on the Giants and $10,366 on the Cleveland Indians.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#74 | 871 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
I found an AP article on SI:

NEW YORK (AP) -- A full postseason share for the World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals was worth $323,170, up slightly from last year but still below the record set in 2009.

A full share was worth $317,631 on the 2010 San Francisco Giants and $350,030 on the 2009 New York Yankees.

The commissioner's office said Monday a full share on the losing Rangers was $251,516, up from $246,280 on Texas last year but down from $265,358 for the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies.

The players' pool was $57.3 million, up from $54.9 million last year but below the record $59.1 million in 2009. It includes 60 percent of the ticket money from the first three games of each division series, and the first four games of each league championship series and the World Series.

St. Louis awarded 51 full shares, 11.962 partial shares and eight cash awards. Texas players split their money into 47 full shares, 6.5 partial shares and 19 cash awards.

Among the losing LCS teams, a full share was worth $133,511 on the Milwaukee Brewers and $126,902 on the Detroit Tigers. For losing division series teams, shares were $30,758 on the Tampa Bay Rays, $30,401 on the Phillies, $26,675 on the Arizona Diamondbacks and $26,239 on the Yankees.

For second-place teams that failed to make the postseason, shares were $11,089 on the Atlanta Braves, $10,862 on the Los Angeles Angels, $10,690 on the Giants and $10,366 on the Cleveland Indians.
What bugs me about this is not that 2nd place teams get shares.  But that two 2nd place teams got more than the other 2nd place teams!  It used to go down to 3rd place teams.  I guess that is what was lost when they went to 6 divisions and 8 playoff teams...
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#75 | 871 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
What bugs me about this is not that 2nd place teams get shares.  But that two 2nd place teams got more than the other 2nd place teams!  It used to go down to 3rd place teams.  I guess that is what was lost when they went to 6 divisions and 8 playoff teams...
That's a share. Some teams may have elected to split the pot more than others did, so a share may be less for one team, than for another. $5M split 5 ways is $1M a piece. 10 ways is only $500K, but still $5M.
No, the ball wasn't catchable  
#76 | 871 days ago

BDV4U wrote:
That's a share. Some teams may have elected to split the pot more than others did, so a share may be less for one team, than for another. $5M split 5 ways is $1M a piece. 10 ways is only $500K, but still $5M.
Yes.  I understand the concept.  Thank you.  I just don't like the idea of one 2nd place team getting a larger share than another 2nd place team.  Makes no sense to me.  But that's MLB for you....
Yes, he should've caught that ball  
#77 | 871 days ago
BDV4U (+)

ML31 wrote:
Yes.  I understand the concept.  Thank you.  I just don't like the idea of one 2nd place team getting a larger share than another 2nd place team.  Makes no sense to me.  But that's MLB for you....
If it makes sense, you know MLB has nothing to do with it
No, the ball wasn't catchable  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Miami Marlins @ Atlanta Braves 4/23/2014
Asked by maroon&gold4eve | MLB, ATL, MIA | 10 questions asked 04/19/14
70 predictions | Last by maroon&gold4eve
Miami Marlins @ Atlanta Braves 4/22/2014
Asked by maroon&gold4eve | MLB, ATL, MIA | 10 questions asked 04/19/14
70 predictions | Last by maroon&gold4eve
MLB*Chasing Joe D*The FanIQ Hitting Streak*4/24
Asked by Michael_G | MLB, SF, BOS | 3 questions asked Yesterday
12 predictions | Last by maroon&gold4eve
MLB*Chasing Joe D*The FanIQ Hitting Streak*4/23
Asked by Michael_G | MLB, SF, BOS | 3 questions asked Yesterday
27 predictions | Last by maroon&gold4eve
Miami Marlins @ Atlanta Braves 4/21/2014
Asked by maroon&gold4eve | MLB, ATL, MIA | 10 questions asked 04/19/14
70 predictions | Last by maroon&gold4eve | 9 hours left