The Sports Bar
- Thread starter Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra
- Start date
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
The Indians pitching is such a disaster. We manage to get a two run lead and HERE! TAKE THESE SIX RUNS LORDS AND MASTERS! We're so, so sorry for inconveniencing you so please take the lead back and punish us even more. We'll neve rdo it again.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
It's all about the money. More people watch the Yanks and the Sox so it'll be the game more often than not. Especially early in the season when the good teams and bad teams haven't revealed themselves.
When the Yanks and Sox play late in the year they are only on ESPN if one/both are in the playoff hunt, or there is no other game that would feature a good team.
Harvey is an attraction. That being said they can't air all his games (some are on days ESPN doesn't air baseball). Those days he'll be on Fox or TBS.
Oh and it'd get old eventually having to watch the Mets play a lot.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
This.
Yeah he'll hit 660 and he'll likely get to 700 next year. I'm sorry but I'm not going to be happy for someone who has been busted for cheating twice and spent about a year trying to get sympathy. "WAH! I've gotten half a billion dollars to play baseball and I couldn't help but cheat and I got to sleep with Torrie Wilson for years. FEEL SORRY FOR ME!"
It's...Baylariat!
Team Finnley Baylor
This was the Cubs last year.
Now, we actually have good pitching and hitting. I'm kinda freaking out right now.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I'm wondering if Manfred is going to change the All-Star game. Get rid of this home field nonsense already. It was stupid then and it's stupid now.
I was never bothered by the home field thing. If it always went to the team with the best record before, then the change would have annoyed me. Since it just alternated between American and National League every year regardless of record I don't see it as a big deal.
Yeah I actually like that they play for home field advantage. It makes the All Star game actually mean something. That's the problem with the NFL Pro Bowl, the players don't really take it seriously or care about it.
With baseball it can actually be an all around fun but serious event.
One problem I have with the voting, and it's very minute...but it's organized by alphabetical order when you vote and not by current stats. Just makes me worry that people who don't know or care about baseball but want to vote will just vote for players at the top of the list. Or fans who are too lazy to scroll down. I might have to count just for argument's sake how many players with the names A through M there are compared to the second half of the alphabet lol.
Then again I homered for most of my picks anyways, and picked players who I either had on my fantasy teams or I had on my hometown teams.
With baseball it can actually be an all around fun but serious event.
One problem I have with the voting, and it's very minute...but it's organized by alphabetical order when you vote and not by current stats. Just makes me worry that people who don't know or care about baseball but want to vote will just vote for players at the top of the list. Or fans who are too lazy to scroll down. I might have to count just for argument's sake how many players with the names A through M there are compared to the second half of the alphabet lol.
Then again I homered for most of my picks anyways, and picked players who I either had on my fantasy teams or I had on my hometown teams.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Here's my issue with home field advantage. Let's say the World Series is Cleveland (stop laughing) vs. San Francisco and let's say Cleveland had a better record and even swept the Giants in a regular season series (seriously, stop laughing). Why should an at bat between a Cubs pitcher and a Yankee batter give the Giants home field advantage? That makes no sense.
The All Star game was just fine before Selig decided it needed to mean something and it's unfair for one team to be given an advantage because of the performance of players who may have had no connection to the World Series or the playoffs in general.
The All Star game was just fine before Selig decided it needed to mean something and it's unfair for one team to be given an advantage because of the performance of players who may have had no connection to the World Series or the playoffs in general.
Your point makes sense.
What they should do is give it to whichever team had the better record. And say if they both won 95 games or something, then go to whichever league won the All Star game. That still makes the All Star game outcome still mean something, but barely and it gives the more deserving team home field advantage.
Really though I think in the World Series the "away team" actually has the bigger advantage. Home Field advantage team gets the first two games on their field. But then the other team gets the next three games at home. Three straight home games versus two home games, and then games 6 and 7 if you get there? It's debatable though because Games 6 and 7 are often the deciders of the series when it's close between two teams.
As long as the away team doesn't choke at home and pulls off at least one win in those first two games on the road, they could win the series in 5 games.
I think the way the NBA Finals games are set up is a better format. "Home" team gets games 1, 2, 5, and 7. And "Away" team gets 3, 4, and 6. It's a little more balanced between both teams. I still think the All Star game needs to mean something though. Otherwise the fans wouldn't care about it whatsoever. As a huge sports fan I already think the All Star break is the most boring time of the year, because there is absolutely NOTHING going on. No games going on or anything. So they need to find something to make the All Star game mean something but at the same time not making it something too overpowered.
While we're talking about rule changes, I also really think they need to make the new Wild Card game a 3 game series. It'd be 1-2 extra games, no different than a normal series during the regular series. A one game playoff series is ridiculous. You can still use the one game system for tiebreakers, but that actually Wild Card series should be best out of 3. Then it goes on as normal with the Divisional round being 5 games and the Championship and World Series rounds being 7. I'm hoping they get there in the next couple of years, because one game does not determine the best team.
What they should do is give it to whichever team had the better record. And say if they both won 95 games or something, then go to whichever league won the All Star game. That still makes the All Star game outcome still mean something, but barely and it gives the more deserving team home field advantage.
Really though I think in the World Series the "away team" actually has the bigger advantage. Home Field advantage team gets the first two games on their field. But then the other team gets the next three games at home. Three straight home games versus two home games, and then games 6 and 7 if you get there? It's debatable though because Games 6 and 7 are often the deciders of the series when it's close between two teams.
As long as the away team doesn't choke at home and pulls off at least one win in those first two games on the road, they could win the series in 5 games.
I think the way the NBA Finals games are set up is a better format. "Home" team gets games 1, 2, 5, and 7. And "Away" team gets 3, 4, and 6. It's a little more balanced between both teams. I still think the All Star game needs to mean something though. Otherwise the fans wouldn't care about it whatsoever. As a huge sports fan I already think the All Star break is the most boring time of the year, because there is absolutely NOTHING going on. No games going on or anything. So they need to find something to make the All Star game mean something but at the same time not making it something too overpowered.
While we're talking about rule changes, I also really think they need to make the new Wild Card game a 3 game series. It'd be 1-2 extra games, no different than a normal series during the regular series. A one game playoff series is ridiculous. You can still use the one game system for tiebreakers, but that actually Wild Card series should be best out of 3. Then it goes on as normal with the Divisional round being 5 games and the Championship and World Series rounds being 7. I'm hoping they get there in the next couple of years, because one game does not determine the best team.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
The thing is though, they cared about it just fine before the rules change. I certainly did.
I can absolutely see wanting the team with the better record getting home field advantage in the World Series. I can't even say I disagree with it. My only point is it was never that way anyway. The way it was before if Cleveland (ha ha) and San Francisco made it to the World Series this year, and Cleveland had the better record (ha ha ha) San Francisco would still get home field advantage simply because it is an odd number year and the NL used to get home field in odd number years. Winner of the All Star game getting home field is at least better than that.
The change was just a knee jerk reaction to the game ending in a tie in 2002. Selig was embarrassed by that and the very next year the change was made so people didn't think the game was a joke. It really wasn't necessary but Selig seemed to think the result of 2002 was going to damage the credibility of the game.
One positive thing that did come from it is more players seem to care about the game. For so many years it was considered such a high honor to be an all star but somewhere around the turn of the century a lot of guys didn't care. Guys that got voted in would exaggerate some minor injury or just flat out decline to go and take the three days off instead of play in the game. I understand a three day break in the middle of a long season sounds like a long vacation but that always rubbed most people the wrong way.
Yeah that's who I was talking more so about caring was the players. I mean the fans caring is a big part of it too, but it correlates. Fans want to see more effort from the players...so if players aren't putting effort in the fans aren't enjoying it.
Home field advantage in the World Series like I said is not that much of a difference. Out of the first five games the "away" team actually has home field for 3 of those games. So which side really has the advantage? No one, it's really even. One side gets more home games for a longer stretch early, and the other gets home field for the last two games if they get that far.
However, I went back and looked at all the World Series matchups to see how many teams won the World Series on the opposite side of Home Field Advantage since the rule was introduced in 2003....4 out of 12. 66% of teams with home field advantage go on to win it all. So statistically home field advantage does have a huge impact on the outcome of the game.
But this wasn't all Bug Selig's call. The Players Union agreed to it, hesitantly, because they were also getting other rule changes such as player reserves. And even then, it was more the Networks that wanted it so they could improve their ratings. The owners unanimously agreed. Players agreed with KB saying that the World Series is too important for home field advantage to be determined by an exhibition game.
Home field advantage in the World Series like I said is not that much of a difference. Out of the first five games the "away" team actually has home field for 3 of those games. So which side really has the advantage? No one, it's really even. One side gets more home games for a longer stretch early, and the other gets home field for the last two games if they get that far.
However, I went back and looked at all the World Series matchups to see how many teams won the World Series on the opposite side of Home Field Advantage since the rule was introduced in 2003....4 out of 12. 66% of teams with home field advantage go on to win it all. So statistically home field advantage does have a huge impact on the outcome of the game.
But this wasn't all Bug Selig's call. The Players Union agreed to it, hesitantly, because they were also getting other rule changes such as player reserves. And even then, it was more the Networks that wanted it so they could improve their ratings. The owners unanimously agreed. Players agreed with KB saying that the World Series is too important for home field advantage to be determined by an exhibition game.
I am not a LeBron hater. Also I watch very little NBA so this opinion is from a small sample size. I'm tired of LeBron looking at the refs in shock when he doesn't get a whistle when he misses a shot. Even if he deserved the whistle I wish he would just shut up and continue playing. He may have a completely legitimate complaint but he looks like an over dramatic crybaby. Just be a pro and keep playing and privately voice your complaints to the ref when the clock is stopped.
Mustang Sally
Sells seashells by the seashore
Agreed. On that play near the end of Game 2 in which he was hacked on the arm and didn't get a call (which followed a traveling violation on LeBron that wasn't called, either) play was moving toward the Warriors' side of the court while LeBron was arguing with the ref. What if the man he was guarding is runs downcourt and scores an uncontested basket?
The best player in the game could choose his battles more wisely.
The four greatest living baseball players were voted on and announced before the All Star game tonight. Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Sandy Koufax, and Johnny Bench. I voted for Mays and Aaron. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't vote for those two. I also voted for Barry Bonds but it's obvious why he wasn't selected. My fourth vote went to Frank Robinson. I knew he wouldn't make it because he wasn't even on the ballot. Why did I have to use a write in vote for Frank Robinson? Terrible oversight by MLB.
Sure, Frank Robinson was an oversight, but the biggest oversight of all was the hometown guy, who was acknowledged in terms of the Reds, but not in terms of being one of the greatest living players of all time. You simply cannot have a list of greatest living players of all time and not include Pete Rose, regardless of your viewpoint regarding him and his Hall of Fame aspirations.
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
Rose is very good and definitely should be in the Hall, but he's not one of the 4 greatest living players.
Well, to each their own, but I disagree with you on both halves of this sentence.
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
I don't understand how you can acknowledge his as one of the four best living players, and say he shouldn't be in the Hall.
Simple actually. His merits as a player on the field qualify him as one of the four best living players. An integral component of one of the greatest baseball dynasties of all time. He set a record for the greatest number of hits which will never be beaten, in fact I don't think anyone will even come close. And his "Charlie Hustle" style of play is seldom replicated.
All things considered, he should belong in the Hall Of Fame. The fact that he bet on baseball changes that unfortunately. For years the suggestion was he only bet on baseball as a manager (and always bet on his team to win). This leaves his inclusion in the Hall very much up for debate, and if this was as far as it went, I say he goes in. But recent developments suggest that he bet on baseball as a player, and apparently there is some hard evidence to substantiate that assertion. If this is indeed true, he can easily be one of the four greatest living baseball players of all time, while not being deserving of Cooperstown.
If I remember correctly Pete Rose was at least a choice on the ballot. It's hard to pick the greatest when you're asked to choose only four. You could make an argument for plenty of guys. Even though I voted for him I'm not surprised Robinson didn't make the cut but I was shocked I had to write him in. His name on the ballot may not have made a difference but it definitely should have been there.
Still, what Pete Rose did had nothing to do with on the field stuff. He didn't cheat or use PEDs. And he never beat against his team meaning he didn't point shave. If what he did didn't impact the components of the game, then I don't see why he's gotten such harsh treatment from the league and fans.
