Houston Astros

Crash Course · 09-01-2004, 12:29 PM

How in the name of Tal's Hill did they get back in this thing?

nyy26wc · 09-01-2004, 03:09 PM

The blaness of this year's NL that I was referring to in the thread regarding people's feelings about the 2004 season.

Meanwhile, they are they a perfect reason for the absurdity of the wild card. Any team that is 18 1/2 games back should never have any business being mentioned as a postseason candidate.

Crash Course · 09-01-2004, 03:21 PM

Just to play devil's advocate..........
say they had winning percentage of .645, but were 18 1/2 out because some other team had a W% of .760, would it still be bad to let them play as the WC?

nyy26wc · 09-01-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Just to play devil's advocate..........
say they had winning percentage of .645, but were 18 1/2 out because some other team had a W% of .760, would it still be bad to let them play as the WC?

Yes...

Crash Course · 09-01-2004, 03:32 PM

At least you're honest!

In the beginning, I thought the WC was good - because of teams like the 1974 Reds, 1978 Red Sox, 1980 O's, etc. Now, I agree that it is bad because of all the teams with 81 to 89 wins that get into the post-season and muck it up.

rc3000 · 09-01-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash Course

In the beginning, I thought the WC was good - because of teams like the 1974 Reds, 1978 Red Sox, 1980 O's, etc.

But what do you go back to ? Two divisions per league or pre-1969 ?

captain_napalm · 09-01-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash Course

At least you're honest!

In the beginning, I thought the WC was good - because of teams like the 1974 Reds, 1978 Red Sox, 1980 O's, etc. Now, I agree that it is bad because of all the teams with 81 to 89 wins that get into the post-season and muck it up.

Never liked it. I'll take the two divisions per league. Hell, I could do the two leagues without divsions

But I guess I have to accept the wildcard. I don't have to like it, but I'll accept it

Crash Course · 09-01-2004, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rc3000

But what do you go back to ? Two divisions per league or pre-1969 ?

Good point. With 30 teams, 4 overall DIVs seems like not enough. But, 8 DIVs would be too many. I'd have to think about this some more........

nyy26wc · 09-01-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rc3000

But what do you go back to ? Two divisions per league or pre-1969 ?

2 divisions per league.

captain_napalm · 09-01-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Good point. With 30 teams, 4 overall DIVs seems like not enough.

Not really. The AL would have two divisions with 7 teams, the NL would have two divisions with 8 teams.

PianoMonkey · 09-01-2004, 08:43 PM

I'm not sure what I think on the subject, yet (I've never known baseball w/o the WC, so it's hard for me to decide), but I think "muck it up" is a bit of an overstatement, Crash.

I think one of the strengths of the unbalanced schedule combined with the three-divisional system is the element of mystery. Sure, one team might have a better record, but they played a different distribution of teams. One is rarely sure going in to the playoffs which is the best team. The Wild Card heightens the mystery.

Ultimately, if an uber-team loses the World Series to a WC, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Also, I'm not sure if the point of the World Series is simply to determine the best team. If it was, why not just have one giant "division," one league, and just award the trophy to the team with the best record? I think excitement and intrigue is generally heightened in the playoffs with a WC, although I think most people would agree (certainly not Marlin fans, though) that a Cubs/Yankees series would have been a beautiful sight indeed.

captain_napalm · 09-01-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PianoMonkey

I'm not sure what I think on the subject, yet (I've never known baseball w/o the WC, so it's hard for me to decide), but I think "muck it up" is a bit of an overstatement, Crash.

You missed Giants-Braves (1993)? Braves-Dodgers (1991)? Tigers-Jays (1987)? Yanks-Jays (1985)? O's-Brewers (1982)? Yanks-O's (1980)?

Yep, there's nothing like a good, ol' fashioned pennant race

PianoMonkey · 09-02-2004, 12:41 AM

I know, I know. But it just so happens I was nine (9) in 1993. Furthermore, though by then I was a fan of the game, I'm in an American League town, and was only vaguely aware of the NL.

FWIW, there have only been three wildcards in either league with fewer than 90 wins. All of them lost in the first round.
(Edit: Also, there have been eight divisional winners with fewer than 90 wins, not counting Cincinatti, Seattle, or Boston in the shortened '95.)

IMHO, I think the WC, for better or worse, is definately gonna stick around. More teams in playoffs = more playoff games, more cities intrested in playoffs = more ad revenue.

09-01-2004, 12:29 PM	#1
Crash Course NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 10,070	Houston Astros How in the name of Tal's Hill did they get back in this thing? __________________ Steve, Forum Admin Hit Grass, Win Salad Man, this is baseball. You gotta stop thinking. Just have fun. - Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez, in The Sandlot I've been going to games since August 8, 1973....and on August 22, 2004, finally, a foul ball came my way. I had to reach for it, and it deflected off the tip of my right index finger. Shoot, if I was only 4 inches taller! Have you read The Baseball Same Game?

09-01-2004, 03:09 PM	#2
nyy26wc NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 14,584	The blaness of this year's NL that I was referring to in the thread regarding people's feelings about the 2004 season. Meanwhile, they are they a perfect reason for the absurdity of the wild card. Any team that is 18 1/2 games back should never have any business being mentioned as a postseason candidate. __________________ Lee Creator, Complete Baseball Encyclopedia. It's powerful, yet extremely easy to use. Features extensive sorting and stat display options. The CBE has many features that are not available in online and printed sources. Has 2006 stats and daily update service for 2007.

09-01-2004, 03:21 PM	#3
Crash Course NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 10,070	Just to play devil's advocate.......... say they had winning percentage of .645, but were 18 1/2 out because some other team had a W% of .760, would it still be bad to let them play as the WC? __________________ Steve, Forum Admin Hit Grass, Win Salad Man, this is baseball. You gotta stop thinking. Just have fun. - Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez, in The Sandlot I've been going to games since August 8, 1973....and on August 22, 2004, finally, a foul ball came my way. I had to reach for it, and it deflected off the tip of my right index finger. Shoot, if I was only 4 inches taller! Have you read The Baseball Same Game?

09-01-2004, 03:32 PM	#5
Crash Course NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 10,070	At least you're honest! In the beginning, I thought the WC was good - because of teams like the 1974 Reds, 1978 Red Sox, 1980 O's, etc. Now, I agree that it is bad because of all the teams with 81 to 89 wins that get into the post-season and muck it up. __________________ Steve, Forum Admin Hit Grass, Win Salad Man, this is baseball. You gotta stop thinking. Just have fun. - Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez, in The Sandlot I've been going to games since August 8, 1973....and on August 22, 2004, finally, a foul ball came my way. I had to reach for it, and it deflected off the tip of my right index finger. Shoot, if I was only 4 inches taller! Have you read The Baseball Same Game?

09-01-2004, 08:43 PM	#11
PianoMonkey Inducted Into The NetShrine Assembly of Fame Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: (Former) Home of the Blades Posts: 838	I'm not sure what I think on the subject, yet (I've never known baseball w/o the WC, so it's hard for me to decide), but I think "muck it up" is a bit of an overstatement, Crash. I think one of the strengths of the unbalanced schedule combined with the three-divisional system is the element of mystery. Sure, one team might have a better record, but they played a different distribution of teams. One is rarely sure going in to the playoffs which is the best team. The Wild Card heightens the mystery. Ultimately, if an uber-team loses the World Series to a WC, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Also, I'm not sure if the point of the World Series is simply to determine the best team. If it was, why not just have one giant "division," one league, and just award the trophy to the team with the best record? I think excitement and intrigue is generally heightened in the playoffs with a WC, although I think most people would agree (certainly not Marlin fans, though) that a Cubs/Yankees series would have been a beautiful sight indeed. __________________ "We can’t win at home, we can’t win on the road, and quite frankly, I don’t know where else to play.” Last edited by PianoMonkey : 09-01-2004 at 08:49 PM.

09-02-2004, 12:41 AM	#13
PianoMonkey Inducted Into The NetShrine Assembly of Fame Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: (Former) Home of the Blades Posts: 838	I know, I know. But it just so happens I was nine (9) in 1993. Furthermore, though by then I was a fan of the game, I'm in an American League town, and was only vaguely aware of the NL. FWIW, there have only been three wildcards in either league with fewer than 90 wins. All of them lost in the first round. (Edit: Also, there have been eight divisional winners with fewer than 90 wins, not counting Cincinatti, Seattle, or Boston in the shortened '95.) IMHO, I think the WC, for better or worse, is definately gonna stick around. More teams in playoffs = more playoff games, more cities intrested in playoffs = more ad revenue. __________________ "We can’t win at home, we can’t win on the road, and quite frankly, I don’t know where else to play.” Last edited by PianoMonkey : 09-02-2004 at 12:52 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Beltran traded to the Astros	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	1	06-25-2004 11:51 AM
Houston Astros 2004 Outlook	sweaver	Hot Baseball Chatter	19	01-15-2004 08:43 PM
The 1998 Houston Astros	Wolf Hopper	Baseball History	8	12-15-2003 03:38 PM
Should the Astros Pay?	BuzzBuzzard	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	30	05-03-2002 07:26 PM
Closer gets $27 million to remain in Houston	CubFan7125	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	5	01-10-2002 09:41 AM