It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:43 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:11 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4814
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... --mlb.html

Retiring Atlanta Braves star Chipper Jones has become a little more outspoken as he approaches the finish line of his 19-year career. That continued on Friday night prior to the Braves 6-2 loss to the Phillies in Philadelphia.

The topic he weighed in on this time?

That would be Major League Baseball's new one-game wild-card playoff, which, barring a ridiculous collapse by the Washington Nationals in the National League East or another late season tumble by Atlanta, will directly affect his Braves' postseason chances. And let's just say that when asked for his opinion on the subject, he didn't disguise his feelings one bit.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:


"I think it's stupid, to be honest with you," Jones said. "But Major Lague Baseball wants a bunch of teams in the playoffs. There's nothing like cut-throat baseball for the fans. And people love that 163rd regular-season game. They've loved it in the past. I'm sure that's probably what's promoted a second wild-card team. I wish they would've done it a year earlier so we would have had a chance last year. But it is what it is."

The timing is likely what irks Jones the most about baseball's new rule. Had it been in place when the Braves blew an 8 1/2 game wild-card lead over the St. Louis Cardinals last September, I'm sure he'd be just as much in favor of it as Bud Selig. This season, the Braves again hold a large six-game advantage over the Cardinals, with the Phillies, Dodgers and Brewers not far behind, but would find themselves getting ousted all over again should one of those teams knock them off in the one-game playoff.

They just can't find a comfortable position, and if they were to lose that play-in game, that would have to be the most brutal back-to-back season endings we've seen in any sport in quite some time.


"You say to yourself, we could possibly have the second- or third-best record in the National League when the season's over and we have to play a one-game playoff just to get in," Jones said. "That doesn't seem fair because anything can happen [in one game]. Now if you were to say the two wild-card teams will play a best two-out-of-three [series], I'd be OK with that. We play three-game series all the time, and we concentrate on winning those series all the time. I think it's more fair from a standpoint that anything can happen in one game — a blown call by an umpire, a bad day at the office … at least in a two-of-three-game series you have some sort of leeway."

I think Chipper makes a decent point there, but the scheduling conflicts would be unworkable and of course there's the potential result of the higher seeded team winning game one and losing games two and three, leading to complaints about the series format. There's really no way for baseball to win from that perspective, but considering the money they're about to make from it, there's no way for them to lose where it matters most.

I guess the lesson for all teams here is to either win your division, which thankfully takes on much more importance again, or step up and win the baseball game with your back against the wall. There's nothing to feel bad or complain about if you accomplish one of the two.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
You know the fix for this?

Cut the regular season in half. 80-game season. And then you can have as many 3, 5, or 7-game playoff series with as many teams as you want because you'll essentially have 2 months to play them out. And of course if the baseball season ended sometime in August, you'd get a boost to the ratings. July, rather than being the "dead" time in the sports calendar would not be the month chock full of a bunch of baseball playoff games.

The Braves along with like 11 other teams could all make the playoffs and make things a lot more interesting for baseball which currently possesses least exciting postseason in all of sports. At least with the bowls, they could say college football was below them. But with them going to playoffs starting 2014, MLB now holds the "Bottom Spot" firmly.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6077
Location: Planet Claire
Not a baseball fan, huh, Pudge? :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:50 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
backnblack wrote:
Not a baseball fan, huh, Pudge? :lol:

How did you guess? :shock:

:lol:


I fell out of love with baseball after the strike. And I just never really got back into it. Besides overhearing it on SportsCenter when I just have ESPN on in the background, I pretty much don't follow it.

And I do think it's lost a lot of its luster over the years because it's got too long a season, and thus the results of games really don't matter for far too much of the season.

I think the only fans of baseball are people that are 45+ years old (and thus part of a different generation that grew up when baseball was still king in this country) or live in one of the 30 or so cities (see I don't even know off the top of my head how many teams there are) that have pro baseball teams.

It's not that I hate baseball. I just want them to give me a reason to care. Should I care what is going on with the Rays once I leave the city limits of Tampa? Apparently people within the city limits of Tampa don't even care about that team. Am I supposed to think the Yankees are more relevant now than they have been for any of the past 15-20 seasons? Is Pujols being in L.A. really a big deal? I know he started the season struggling, but is that still the case? I don't know. And should I care?

I've basically spent the last 5 years devoting about 0.3% of my brain to baseball, and I don't think I've suffered a single consequence for it. Could I pull that off with football or basketball? I don't think so.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:51 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6474
Location: Indianapolis IN
Baseball the great American past time. :P :P

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:43 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4814
thescout wrote:
Baseball the great American past time. :P :P

ho hum, it;s world series time and AS USUAL, the Yankees and Red Sox....

oh wait. scratch that. never mind :oops:

Keep baseball Amurican! If you get to the Fall Classic: you built that!

game set match~ :dance: :clap: :rofl: :snooty: :whistle:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:35 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:41 pm
Posts: 2297
Location: Albany NY
I'm with Pudge on this one. Way to many regular season games. Just watching you can tell the guys playing are even bored lol. I like playing ball, but my days watching it are behind me. Also the lack of salary cap, makes it corny.

_________________
When life gives you lemons, find some salt and tequila then invite me!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:09 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4814
DaveWaz wrote:
. Also the lack of salary cap, makes it corny.



makes it awesome! :clap:

Arod's contract ALONE with the Yankees is a beautiful thing to watch. The results speak for themselves.

In a sport where you are 'free' to spend what you want ( with some stipulations) the end results vary (since the end of the 'Roids era).

Yet, in the NFL, the same teams meet in the playoffs and Superbowls in that same time.

The salary cap hurts more then it helps, IMO.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:27 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:41 pm
Posts: 2297
Location: Albany NY
Gus, what are you talking about? It's completely unfair. Just look at this year the teams with the top 10 payrolls had 7 teams in the playoffs, the teams with the bottom 10 had zero? The team with the highest payroll in the league has made the playoffs 15 out of the last 16 years! In the last ten years only 1 team has won the world series being in the bottom half of the leagues payroll!

Gus, maybe your post was made to be sarcastic and I miss read it. If so haha, but if your serious the stats are completely against your argument.

_________________
When life gives you lemons, find some salt and tequila then invite me!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:38 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4814
DaveWaz wrote:
Gus, what are you talking about? It's completely unfair. Just look at this year the teams with the top 10 payrolls had 7 teams in the playoffs, the teams with the bottom 10 had zero? The team with the highest payroll in the league has made the playoffs 15 out of the last 16 years! In the last ten years only 1 team has won the world series being in the bottom half of the leagues payroll!

Gus, maybe your post was made to be sarcastic and I miss read it. If so haha, but if your serious the stats are completely against your argument.





First, life is not 'fair'. It's sports, not 'everyone gets a trophy'. But lets revisit those stats.

All the NFL salary cap does is save owners $$. Because unless you make a 'coaching cap' then it is still 'unfair'.

Need an example? Look at the Saints. Still think S Peyton doesn't really 'make a difference'? How 'bout us? Do you think Lovie Smith could do as good a job as Mike Smith? I dont. How is that 'fair' to say the Oakland Raiders?

So lets look at the Superbowl winners since the turn of the century:

Giants
Packers
Saints
Steelers
Giants
Colts
Steelers
Patriots
Patriots
Bucs
Patriots
Ravens
Rams

now go look at who they played. Seeing a trend here?

World Series Champs, same timeline

Cards
Giants
Yankees
Phillies
Bo Sox
Cards
White Sox
Bo Sox
Marlins
Angels
Diamondback
Yankees

so basically, for having ALL THE $ in the world, the evil hated Yankees have only won as many Championships in thier 'unfair' sport as say , oh I dunno, the NY Football Giants, Steelers, and less then the Patriots.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... -1.1188539

Now, does it suck to be a Pittsburgh Pirate fan? Yeah, sure. About as much as a Bills fan. The difference here is, some shiek can roll over here with a bazillion dollars, buy out the team, stock it with talent and make a run ( see Florida Marlins). In the NFL, you cant 'build that'.


Also, as it's been pointed out before, the high spending teams are forced to reallocate $$ throught a 'luxury tax'. This year the eeeevil Yankees coughed up 18 million to those 'bottom teams'. As a matter of fact, the top 5 spending teams this year were:Yankees,Phillies,Bo Sox, Angels and Tigers, and only one of those ( Tigers ) is in the Fall Classic.


The Braves( 83 mil) were one infield fly rule from defeating the Cardinals(110 mil).( I know they left alot on base, but I do believe had we loaded the bases then, we would have scored and the mo would have been in our favor. It seemed to me that call took us out of it).. The Cards had eight other teams spend 'more'. Of those, only the Tigers (132, #5 spending) is in the WS.

The Yankees spent 192 million, and are not in the WS. So $$ alone wont do it.

So why do we see the Giants, Steelers and Pats over and over again even though they have a cap? Because they have good coaching and FO staffing. Good GM's. And Im not saying thats 'unfair' but statistically it is factual.

I'll leave you with this: if you need any more reason to 'keep it free' look at how Arod is going to mightily screw the Yankees next year. He has a no trade clause and a 4 year multi million dollar contract: and he stinks. Giving him that contract ( which you could not do in a capped sport) is going to be an albatross around the Yankees neck. It is not going to work out well for them. I think that is just about as American as you can get :lol:

I get the 'argument' but I reject it, because when you look at the big picture, it's not about 'keeping it fair' it's about preventing someone else from doing what they want with thier $$. OK Yankees, go nuts. But dont be surprised when it bite you in the a$$ in the fall. Conversely, Im sure Marlins Fans circa 2003 loved having no cap, but then when the rich owner got his ring and sold off the team in 2004, they were whinging and crying about it. Tough titty said the kitty, but the milk still pours!

If you salary cap baseball, the terrorist win! :mrgreen:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:48 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6077
Location: Planet Claire
Can we put this in the here-we-go-again file? I think the cap makes for a level playing field. The fact that the highest paid team doesn't win the WS every year is not a clear eyed way to assess their payroll's impact. They are certainly in the mix every year. Are all the highest paid teams in the mix every year? No. but more often than not. Basbeall has always been this way. The Yankees don't have 27 WS titles because their scouting is so much better than everybody else's. Also, the Braves were not one infield fly rule away from winning. They were three infeild errors away from winning.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:59 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
I agree there is a significant correlation between high payroll and wins. But one the contributing factors to why football has a successful cap and baseball doesn't is TV money.

The networks pay billions of $$$ to get the right to broadcast 6-8 games every weekend for football. Now MLB has big tv deals like that too but I believe most are handled individually by the teams.

TV money begets revenue sharing which you don't have to the degree in MLB as you do in the NFL. In the NFL the owners made the choice decades ago to stand beside one another and grow the brand together. That is not the case in any of the other sports, which also is why labor issues differ across the spectrum.

Without MLB owners making the decision to throw all of their moneys into a single pot and split the revenues a cap could never really work in baseball. And there's just no way you could convince the Yankees of the league to give up billions in order to support the Pirates of the league. And I understand fun gus's argument that adds "nor should they."

And without substantial changes to the game I don't think you could ever get the networks to pony up the amount of money to broadcast baseball to make true revenue sharing worth MLB's while.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:37 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4814
backnblack wrote:
Can we put this in the here-we-go-again file? I think the cap makes for a level playing field. The fact that the highest paid team doesn't win the WS every year is not a clear eyed way to assess their payroll's impact. They are certainly in the mix every year. Are all the highest paid teams in the mix every year? No. but more often than not. Basbeall has always been this way. The Yankees don't have 27 WS titles because their scouting is so much better than everybody else's. Also, the Braves were not one infield fly rule away from winning. They were three infeild errors away from winning.



BnB, I see your point, but the reason this doesn't get filed in the 'here we go again file' is because 5 years ago, Scout started the damn thing by saying 'here we go again, the Yankees and Red Sox, etc..'

The reason I bring this up every year is becuase what sounds good in 'theory' doesn;t always work out in 'reality'.

For the record, I agree with your assessment of the Braves. I do think they had a better chance of pulling out that one game if they got the call right: but there is also just as much of a chance (if not more) that they would strand the runners as well....

But statistically and realistically, there is nothing to suggest that big money correlates to a Championship vs the NFL. But there is a reason why certain teams in the NFL ARE always in the hunt...Because there is no 'coach cap or 'front office cap'. The reason the Yankees have 27 titles is not due directly to $$. Does it play a role? Of course! But the Yankees did not start outspending the other teams really until the late 60's-early 70's. It wasn't until the eighties and nineties that they REALLY started pouring it on, and the new century ( the 'oughts?) with the $$ from the YES network they REALLY REALLY started spending. The ratio of salary-competition from the 1920'-1950's was pretty damn close. They weren't pouring it on like they do now, and interestingly enough: that's when they racked up most of their titles. Plus, they were an original: one of the early teams (like the Reds and Cubs) so is it so shocking that the Marlins and the Rockies dont have as many?

Plus, players are always going to want to go to NYC. It is the 'capital' of American Sports. Before Dimaggio got his 50's 'world record 100k contract' he still wanted to go to NY. BTW: the Yankees spent 100K on him which in todays $$ is more like 977k! But what people dont know is that during that same time the Cardinals gave Stan Musial a contract worth 94k....

My point here, which nobody has ever responded to, is how is it 'unfair' for the Pirates ( who's ownership does not care) yet it is completely 'fair' for the Marlins? The Marlins example, no one has ever talked about.

The Marlins have a WS ring.. Why? Because there was a freedom to purchase the team, stock it and make a run. Now, it sucked for the fans the next year after the owner sold off the team: but they have a ring.. Period.

The only thing stopping this from happening to the Pirates is that someone hasn't stepped up yet.

BUt what if you are a Raider or a Bills fan? How is THAT fair? Not only are they stuck, they dont have the option of selling the team to a guy who will buy them a chance. Year after year they struggle.

IMO, Blank could feasibly buy a Superbowl Ring is he wanted to. If he had the freedom to do so. Does the fact that the Yankees 'buy' thier way into the postseason make a WS win any less so? Go ask a Yankees fan. The cap only saves Blank $$. That to me is hilarious..

But the facts are, even if you can buy your way into the postseason, there is no guarantee you will win.

Look at the facts: the Yankees have 2 Championships since 2000. The Patriots have 3. Why is that?

Unless all the players decide to play for free, or for a flat salary where everyone gets paid the same, there will never ever ever ever be 'fair'. And there shouldn't be, because we are not the USSR or China. At least not yet :ninja:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:32 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4814
backnblack wrote:
Can we put this in the here-we-go-again file? I think the cap makes for a level playing field. The fact that the highest paid team doesn't win the WS every year is not a clear eyed way to assess their payroll's impact. They are certainly in the mix every year. Are all the highest paid teams in the mix every year? No. but more often than not. Basbeall has always been this way. The Yankees don't have 27 WS titles because their scouting is so much better than everybody else's. Also, the Braves were not one infield fly rule away from winning. They were three infeild errors away from winning.



BnB, the reason I still bring this up is because in the Original Thread the Scout proclaimed 'here wo go again!'..I wanted to show that the Yankees and R Sox are not necessarily 'locks' for the WS..It's kinda like after Katrina, everyone said we were going to have heavy hurricane seasons: and the nature went and decided to prove them wrong :wink:

Lets address the elephant in the room: those eeeeevil NY Yankees.

They have 27 titles, but part of the reason is because they have been around so long (one of the original teams) and because of where they are. They did not start really outspending until the late 60's: and didnt really really start pouring it on until the late 80's, 90's..And then when they got the YES contract, they really really REALLY spent.

When they gave Dimaggio the 100k contract in the 50's, their payroll spent only 7k more then the Cardinals: who gave Stan Musial a 94k contract. So lets throw out a little more then half of thier titles right there...


Somehow baseball is able to defy the inequalities created by a “capless” league. Yes, the Yankees spend the most and therefore are competitive nearly every year. But they spend the most because they make the most money of any team in baseball: they (arguably) have the most fans, sell the most merchandise and tickets, and have the most nationally televised games. Therefore, if we chose to embrace our country’s capitalistic ideals, the Yankees deserve to spend more than any other team. Deserve has EVERYTHING to do with it!

And they do spend—a lot. Last year, the Yankees payroll exceeded 206 million dollars—by far the most in baseball. In fact, only eight teams spent half the money the Yankees did. Out of those eight teams that spent half of the New York payroll, only one (the Philadelphia Phillies) made the playoffs. Only one of those eight teams (the White Sox) finished within six games of a division title. Four of those teams finished with a .500 record or worse and one (the Mariners) finished with the second worse record in the entire league. In other words, money doesn’t necessarily buy success.

More evidence can be found simply by scrolling through 2010 payroll statistics. The Yankees were knocked out of the playoffs by the Rangers, a squad with the fourth lowest payroll. Four teams from the top fourteen payrolls and four teams from the bottom seventeen payrolls were represented in the playoffs. This essentially shows equal success between teams who spend and those who don’t. Low payroll teams can combat the big spenders with other factors: a good farm system, good team chemistry, execution etc. Perhaps the biggest payroll anomaly of 2010 was the Sad Diego Padres, who’s monumental late season collapse kept them one game out of the playoffs. The Padres’ 2010 payroll? A measly 37 million dollars.

New Yorkers have a unique perspective on this. They have two teams that both spend boatloads of money. One of them, the Yankees, has lots to show for it. The other, the Mets, seem to dive deeper and deeper into dysfunction as they spend more dough. Or at least they did until Madoff 'made off' with thier loot! Perhaps, like any business, the Yankees manage their capital well and therefore find success, while the Mets overspend for injury prone players. Or maybe the Mets are simply cursed. Im going with cursed..Either way the New York duo show that money doesn’t necessarily buy success in the Major Leagues.

Yes, baseball has an inherent competitive imbalance built into its infrastructure but the game is also tailored to combat this. Unlike any other sport the lowest paid team has a legitimate chance to beat the highest paid team every time they play—there’s no consistent standard for a ‘good play’. A poorly hit ball that rolls 15 feet can be better than a line drive hit 300 feet, A 88 mile per hour fastball can be more effective than a 95 mile per hour fastball.

This fairness is embedded in the game; there is no recipe for success. Even if an expensive and talented team find themselves in the postseason they are certainly not guaranteed success in the playoffs. The postseason sample size is too small to predict success. That poorly hit ball can knock in the game-winning run just as that scud missile can turn into a game ending double play. The intangibles that are the essence of baseball neutralize themselves over a 162 game season but the story is quite different when a team reaches playoffs where the games are few and significant. The five and seven game playoff series become the great equalizer—there aren’t enough games for inequalities to shake out.

Sure, there are a couple teams that perpetually sit in the basement of their respective decisions, but for the most part, teams and their fans break spring training optimistic for the upcoming year. The Yankees are welcome to spend a combined 100 million dollars on A-Rod, Jeter, CC Sabathia and Mark Teixeira because the game will continue to churn out Evan Longorias, Troy Tulowitzkis, Tim Lincecums, and Joey Vottos. Young, exciting players effectively combat the competitive unbalance..

also, the cap actually hurts more then helps: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... ro-sports/

Look at the Marlins. They had an owner that came in, spent his money, got a ring. The next year, he sold off the team. During the year they won: Marlins fans happy. Next year? Marlins fans sad.

Pirate fans: always sad. But that doesnt mean a gazillionaire cant do what Jeffrey Loria did.


But what about Bills fan? Raiders fan? How is this 'fair' to them?

They have a cap but struggle due to incompetance. There is no 'J Loria' for them, they are stuck.

I dont think thats fair. Until they have a coach and FO cap' or sharing, the Steelers,Pats and Giants will always be in the hunt..

The salary cap is offensive to principles of American democracy, frankly; a vestige of Sixties era Mao-think, where there are no losers and the smart and strong kids have to compete with their brains or arms tied behind their back. Football et al. are all mob-based authoritarian sports; no wonder they embrace caps. The owners LOVE it!! When the non sports thinking public turns on the NFL because they realize it involves paying men to pound their brains into mush, leaving them morons or invalids by the age of 50, baseball will have the last laugh. And I am only half kidding. The question is..which half? :P

BTW, I guess I agree the Braves screwed themselves more then the infield fly rule. I do think they had more of a chance to win if they got that call right :ninja:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Chipper doesn't like the one game Wildcard
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6077
Location: Planet Claire
Disagree. :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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

Jump to: