CyYoung31
Shift Leader
So, in other words, it's a crapshoot.
GDT 9/18/13: Braves (Wood) @ Nationals (Ohlendorf) 7:10 PM
- Thread starter NYCBrave
- Start date
So, in other words, it's a crapshoot.
Runnin
Well-known member
No Elroy. If it was a crapshoot no one would care. Braves fans like to call it a crapshoot because we've lost in the playoffs a lot and it takes away some of the sting, as if we didn't really get beat, just got unlucky.
You still have to play baseball. If you get beat, say you got beat, not that you lost throwing dice.
conalthomas
High School Draftee
Of course, it's a crap shoot. The fact that it has elements of random chance (i.e., it's a crap shot) doesn't mean that people won't care about it. People care a great deal about high stakes games of craps. People are very interested in winning a $400 million lottery. It is the very element of randomness and unpredictability that makes it so appealing to people. People don't want to watch sporting events in which we already know the outcomes.
In a short series, let alone a single game, random chance plays a significant role. Better teams tend to win, and much better teams tend to win much more often, but when you get to the play-offs most of the teams are pretty good, so nothing is ever guaranteed.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
Best pitching staff in the 14 yr reign and 1 world series win = crap shoot.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
For anyone who doesn't think playoff baseball is a crapshoot, three words: 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates.
I always laugh when the "playoffs are a crapshoot" mantra gets credited to the Moneyball movement. Any fan with any sense of history knows this to be the case.
PS--Please define the word "tear" in conjunction with Uggla. A homerun per week?
PPS--Looks like Fredi and company managed the heck out of the game last night. I didn't catch any of it. Kudos to the 2nd/3rd levels of the bullpen.
It looks like Nat fans are barking about Davey Johnson, but as much as I dislike Johnson (he just seems like a self-satisfied pr*ck), the problems go deeper. That team just didn't play to expectations. Some guys (notably Span) getting hot now, but the hole was too deep. The bench is terrible. The bullpen is terrible. Three really good starting pitchers and a decent starting line-up. LaRoche looks to be their version of Uggla.
Well, that and the AL was much better than the NL during that time.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
But...but...but.....ACES guarantee you post season success!!
Not.
We had 3 Aces and 2 minor aces on that for most of those 14 years and ON THE SAME staff.
So right there tells you it is a crapshoot and I don't think the AL teams weren't that much better especially their pitching.
You know the old adage "Great pitching shuts down great hitting!"
Not. Since it was obvious our juggernaut staffs (3 aces and one 1a and a 2) couldn't hold down great hitting while their mediocre pitching (1 ace and a bunch of 3/4's) shut down our hitting.
Nerfherders
Well-known member
You also have to remember that we did have a winning record in playoffs during the 90's. Sometimes it's just about winning in the right sequence. There's no room to lose 4 before you win 8.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
The competition in the playoffs is tougher, goes without saying. You still have to play the game and do the right things. You might call it a crapshoot or whatever, but I've seen this team beat itself multiple times in the playoffs. During that 14-year run, we hardly hit, we had shaky at best relief pitching most of the time, and our Hall of Fame starters had an occasional bad outing. That's why we only won once.
conalthomas
High School Draftee
No one will ever convince me that the outcome of the '91 World Series wasn't a crap shoot (well, that and a ridiculous home field advantage for Minnesota). The '96 Yankees were not better than the '96 Braves. You think the '97 Marlins were better than the '97 Braves, but ended up 9 games behind them in the same division? Better teams tend to beat worse teams, but when the margin isn't that great, the effect of chance in a short series is huge.
conalthomas
High School Draftee
Sure, if you lost, there was a reason - a blown play, a homerun given up in a crucial situation (instead of flyball to left), a bleeder that finds a hole, a line drive that is just barely caught, a base running gaffe - those things happen all the time and they frequently determine the outcomes of games, but they aren't predictable, and they are almost certainly random. Rewind the tape on the '96 World Series and it could easily have come out very differently. We tend to create a narrative after the fact because we like neat stories with clear explanations.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Ok, so we won all three games at home against the Twins that year, and they were a veteran team that was just as good if not better over the course of the season. We had a critical base running mistake in the eighth inning of game 7, and in game 2, Hrbek picked Ron Gant up off of first base to kill a rally. So I think it was pretty reasonable they beat us 4 out of 7, just as reasonable if we won.
1996: I think the Braves were the better team, but it's not like the Yankees were that much worse. Blew that because we couldn't win a home game, and the bats went dead after going up 6-0 in game 4, which Wohlers and Avery went on to blow. Still that Yankees team won 92 games in a tough division against Baltimore, so it wasn't out of the question for them to beat us 4 out of 6, but I guess it could be a good example of crap shoot.
1997: Braves were better over the course of the season, but that was a damn good Marlins team that beat us 8 out of 12 during the regular season, so there wasn't a remarkable difference, even though we finished nine games ahead. 8 out of 12 is in keeping with 4 out of 6. Sometimes, it's simply about matchups. Even still, Eric Gregg played a big role in them winning that series. If his fat ass wasn't umpiring, Livan would STILL be walking people in that game.
So while it can be random and usually depends on who the hottest team is, simply how two teams match up with each other plays a pivotal role.
1996: I think the Braves were the better team, but it's not like the Yankees were that much worse. Blew that because we couldn't win a home game, and the bats went dead after going up 6-0 in game 4, which Wohlers and Avery went on to blow. Still that Yankees team won 92 games in a tough division against Baltimore, so it wasn't out of the question for them to beat us 4 out of 6, but I guess it could be a good example of crap shoot.
1997: Braves were better over the course of the season, but that was a damn good Marlins team that beat us 8 out of 12 during the regular season, so there wasn't a remarkable difference, even though we finished nine games ahead. 8 out of 12 is in keeping with 4 out of 6. Sometimes, it's simply about matchups. Even still, Eric Gregg played a big role in them winning that series. If his fat ass wasn't umpiring, Livan would STILL be walking people in that game.
So while it can be random and usually depends on who the hottest team is, simply how two teams match up with each other plays a pivotal role.
The National League teams were not as good as Toronto or the Yankees during that time. Yes, we held our own against the Twins and beat the Indians who were a better team(crapshoot?) than us but we were dominated by the Yanks and the Blue Jays. It wasn't a crap shoot, we got a beat down by teams that were better than us.
Gary82
Called Up to the Major Leagues
This is a pretty good summarization of those series. I to this day continue to be enraged over the 96 World Series. We were the better team.
The 97 NLCS played out pretty much like it did over the regular season. The Marlins were designed to beat us, and they did throughout that year. However, I would like to say, that if it weren't for the Marlins and Gregg, we would have beaten the Indians again in the World Series.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I mean yeah, we could have legitimately won in 96 and 97. The most frustrating thing about the 96 WS is we got swept at home.
We could very well be one dumbass base running mistake, one bad pitch to Leyritz and one fat ass umpire away from having won it all four times in the 90s.
Edit: What made that '96 WS worse was I was at game 4, in the CF upper deck amongst a gathering of Yankee fans. Brutal. And I was a little boy then, too. Only time I've cried over losing when we dropped that series.
conalthomas
High School Draftee
Which is pretty much what I'm saying. Chance, and not inevitable domination of one team by another (or one league by another), was the difference between the Braves winning one World Series and four World Series in the 90's. Heck, in '96 the Yankees weren't even the best team in the American League. '95-'97 it was pretty clearly the Indians, but because they didn't win a World Series, the post hoc narrative is that they weren't a very good team.