Playoff predictions

[AllStarBalla]

Here are my picks...

AL WEST: Rangers

AL EAST: Red Sox

AL CENTRAL:White Sox

AL WILD CARD: ANGELS



NL WEST: ATLANTA

NL EAST: Padres

NL CENTRAL: Cardinals

NL WILD CARD: CUBS

whatya think?

[Mclaren208]

Atlanta doesn't play in the NL West and the Padres don't play in the NL east...

and there's no way the Rangers catch up with the Angels. They have the 3rd best record in baseball!

So the wild card should be the Twins, and the NL Wild Card should be someone from the East, preferably Florida.

[AllStarBalla]

Whoops i got those mixed up

[doublee]

Cubs are in the process of losing their sixth straight and are fading quickly. The NL Wildcard likely goes to whoever loses out between the Braves and the Nats.

I have a question. What the crap do Playoff predictions have to do with how many road games the Rockies win this year?

[coachJ]

I was thinking the same thing as Doublee wondering how you can put up a post about playoff predictions and then have a poll about the Rockies?? lol

Anyways, i think the Marlins will sneak up and grab the wildcard in the NL. And as much as it pains me, i think the Rangers will miss out on the playoffs again :(.

[doublee]

Derrek Lee going down to injury tonight is not going to help the Cubs chances too terribly much either.

[AllStarBalla]

yeah i agree nats prolly will take over the cubs

[doublee]

What do you mean? The Nats are already 10 games ahead of the Cubs. There is no taking over necessary.

[Mclaren208]

Nats have been extremely lucky this year.

[blackdogsong]

im going to post my original predicitions-

al- red sox, white sox, angels + o's wild card
nl- marlins, cards, dodgers + braves wild card

[Alex]

AL East- Boston Red Sox (ugh)
AL Central- Chicago White Sox
AL West- Los Angeles Angels
AL Wildcard- New York Yankees

NL East- Washington Nationals
NL Central- St. Louis Cardinals
NL West- San Diego Padres
NL Wildcard- Florida Marlins

I still say watch out for the Yankees.

[Mclaren208]

Washington?

???

[Alex]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
Washington?

???
Atlanta is banged up. The Mets have no pitching outside of Pedro. The Phillies always crumble. That leaves Washington and Florida to battle it out for the NL East. I believe the loser will still end up in the play offs as the wildcard.

[Mclaren208]

Atlanta basically has a team of rookies and is still within 5 games. No team has a negative run differential and gets away with a division championship.

[Billy D]

AL EAST: Red Sox
AL CENTRAL: Twins
AL WEST: Angels
WC: White Sox (i'm finally admitting it'll be nearly impossible for them to miss the playoffs)

NL EAST: Marlins
NL CENTRAL: Cardinals (i was nuts for doubting them)
NL WEST: Padres
WC: Cubs

The lesson, of course, is that i can't pick the central divisions worth a darn. My other preseason picks are doing pretty well, though.

[doublee]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
Atlanta basically has a team of rookies and is still within 5 games. No team has a negative run differential and gets away with a division championship.

I suggest you research on that one before making any bets on whether that statement is true or not.

[davematthews3]

AL East: Yankees (Played terribly and there only 3 and 1/2 or 4 games out)

AL Central: Twins

AL West: Angels (Already done)

WC: White Sox

NL East: Nationals (eventhough I can't explain how)

NL Central: Cardinals (Already Done)

NL West: Giants

WC: Astros

[Kashchei]

NL Central- Cardinals
NL East - Nationals
NL West- Padres
WC- Braves

AL Central- White Sox
AL East- Red Sox
AL West- Angels
WC- Orioles

[coachJ]

You think the Astros are going to get the Wildcard spot again???

[davematthews3]

yea I do they are leading now and there pitching is the 2nd best staff in the nl in my opinion behind the marlins. Also there offense has started to pick it up.

[Pimpbot]

Giants to win the NL west?. While everyone else in that division seems to be doing their best to lose it, you're a brave man to pick them.

[davematthews3]

I picked them at the begining of the season so I am sticking with them and for not having the best player in baseball they arent that far out of it. I really think Bonds will take that team to the playoffs

[doublee]

Originally posted by davematthews3
yea I do they are leading now and there pitching is the 2nd best staff in the nl in my opinion behind the marlins. Also there offense has started to pick it up.

Leading what exactly? They are still six out of the wildcard and Pettite leaving early with some 'discomfort' in his elbow is not an encouraging sign.

[Pimpbot]

Originally posted by davematthews3
I picked them at the begining of the season so I am sticking with them and for not having the best player in baseball they arent that far out of it. I really think Bonds will take that team to the playoffs

If and when he returns, nevermind how awful their starters are behind Schmidt, who's been average most of the year.

[doublee]

I'll be shocked if we see Bonds in the Giants lineup this year. I suspect that is why he was dropping hints about playing in 2007 a couple of weeks back. Even if he does come back how effective is he going to be? There is also a reasonable chance that the Giants may move Schmidt to the highest bidder and there seems to be quite a bit of interest in Omar Vizquel as well these days.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by doublee
I suggest you research on that one before making any bets on whether that statement is true or not.

You think someone with a negative run differencial will last? It has "luck" written all over it.

And Atlanta does have a team of rookies...

[davematthews3]

3 rookies play for the braves on a consistant basis I wouldn't exactly call that a team. They are Kelly Johnson Kyle Davies and Pete Orr

[davematthews3]

Originally posted by doublee
Leading what exactly? They are still six out of the wildcard and Pettite leaving early with some 'discomfort' in his elbow is not an encouraging sign.

My mistake I meant to say they are winning now and pettite leaving early does scare me but I am sticking by my pick.

[coachJ]

Langerhans is a rookie isnt he???

[doublee]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
You think someone with a negative run differencial will last? It has "luck" written all over it.

And Atlanta does have a team of rookies...

Check the 1987 Minnesota Twins and then get back to me on whether the Nationals can last or not.

The Braves are playing their share of rookies, but the core of the lineup is still veteran players like Estrada, Giles, A. Jones, Furcal, Jordan, and LaRoche.

[Mclaren208]

LaRoche isn't a veteran player...

The Nationals have the 2nd worst offense in the NL this year. The 1987 Minnesota Twins is one team, and one team only. They've been playing great in one run games, but in 2 run games and above, their record stands:

28-26

In other words, barely above .500. Compare that with their 23-8 record in 1 run games, and you see they have luck.

The Braves also have their best offensive player out and 3/5ths of the rotation injured, with Hudson, Hampton, and Thompson out.

[doublee]

The Twins may be one team and one team only but they show a precedence that a team can go through the season being outscored and win the World Series. And, no it is not luck it has to do with the fact that they have arguably the best closer in the game going for them right now, they are getting good pitching and good defense. If the Cubs only had the defense and closer the Nats did they would be in the playoff race right now. The Nats are proving the old adage that you win with pitching and defense.

LaRoche may not be a 10-year veteran but he is not a rookie and generally speaking in professional sports if you are not a rookie then you are a veteran.

[Mclaren208]

You can't win with pitching and defense only. You need offense too. And the Nationals have the least runs scored IN THE LEAGUE. Sorry, but the Nats have been lucky up to this point.

[doublee]

Sorry, but a team does not win 52 games by the break by being lucky the entire season. As I said they have a closer getting the job done and are playing good defense. That is not luck that is skill. They just are not beating teams by two and three runs.

[Mclaren208]

They have a closer who's arm is about to fall off, and defense is 15% of the game anyway. They need to produce offensively, or they're in trouble.

And a team wins games by scoring runs. Sorry, but if you're last in the league in runs scored, and you're in first place, you're lucky.

[Billy D]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
They have a closer who's arm is about to fall off, and defense is 15% of the game anyway. They need to produce offensively, or they're in trouble.

And a team wins games by scoring runs. Sorry, but if you're last in the league in runs scored, and you're in first place, you're lucky.
It's tough to beat the "Sorry, but i'm right" arguement, isn't it? There's no logic to dispute!

I'm with Doublee-- winning close games is a skill. Sure, there's often luck involved, but the teams mentioned here are more than lucky.

[Mclaren208]

No logic to dispute!? Can you guys even read!? These guys have scored the LEAST amount of runs IN THE LEAGUE!!!

[coachJ]

And yet, these guys are in FIRST PLACE!!!

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by coachJ
And yet, these guys are in FIRST PLACE!!!

Exactly! How can you score the least amount of runs in the league and be in first place!? Luck!

[Pimpbot]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
Exactly! How can you score the least amount of runs in the league and be in first place!? Luck!

Probably the same way that the Reds are currently 2nd in the NL in runs scored but hug the basement in their division.

Your argument doesn't really have merit when they continue to win games by scoring more than the team they are playing against and sit 17 games above 500. Luck doesn't have anything to do with it, but you seem intent on arguing for it until your blue in the face.

[Mclaren208]

Luck doesn't have anything to do with it? If you have a negative run differential and are maybe 3 or 4 games over .500, then it's a testimony of skill. But if you are 17 games over .500 and have a NEGATIVE run differential, you are just plain lucky.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll bump this up in August and we'll see where the Nationals really are. IN THE CELLAR.

Oh, and the Reds have a negative run differential also. It doesn't really matter. But the prediction of Washington winning the NL East is ridiculous.

[doublee]

Okay, for one, how is it ridiculous to pick the Nationals to win the division when they are the team leading the division at the break? Please tell me how asinine it is to pick the first place team, that has been there a good part of the season by the way, to win the division.

First, and foremost, you are making an assumption that the Nats offense is going to remain stagnant the rest of the season and they won't make any acquisitions to improve the lineup over the next couple of weeks.

Secondly, you are quick to point out all of the Braves injuries but neglect to bring up the fact that the Nats have weathered as many signfiicant injuries to its starting lineup as well. First Basemen Nick Johnson has missed the last 13 games due to injury and should be back next week. Johnson is only hitting .320 with a .444 OBP by the way. OFer Ryan Church has missed the last 15 games and is due back next week as well. He is only hitting .325 with a .544 slg and .381 OBP. Lastly, they have played the bulk of the season without Jose Vidro their best hitter. So, once everyone gets healthy and back into the lineup the Nats will start scoring more runs. Not to mention that they are likely going to go and get a bat to help out with the lineup.

Before we completely write the Nats off why don't we wait and see if they are able to acquire a bat or two and see how the lineup shapes up when Johnson and Church come back next week to provide more pop in the middle of the order.

[Mclaren208]

Fine... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But, I will bump this up when the Nats have faltered. They've already begun to do that...

P.S. Offensive injuries don't matter to the Nats when they depend on pitching & defense.

[Pimpbot]

You're incredible!. lol

You complain that the Nationals are only in first because of luck and you back that up by claiming that is because of low scoring. Then, when it's pointed out to you that two or three of the big bats in that line up have been out injured, you claim offense doesn't matter because they depend on pitching and defense!. And I guess going 5-5 to start july, may seem like the Nats are faltering, considering they went 20-6 in june!.

They may or may not win the division, but your arguments are weaker than a wet paper tissue.

[acesh1gh]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
Exactly! How can you score the least amount of runs in the league and be in first place!? Luck!


I'll explain to you how you can....

These aren't actual scores.

I'm gonna take 4 teams and name them Nationals, Cubs, Reds and Braves just for an example...

Game 1 scores
Nationals 4 Reds 2
Cubs 18 Braves 5

Games 2 scores
Braves 13 Cubs 11
Nationals 3 Reds 2

Game 3 scores
Reds 6 Cubs 3
Nationals 4 Braves 2

Game 4 Scores
Cubs 15 reds 7
Nationals 5 Braves 4


Now look at the standings based on these 4 games

1. Nationals (4-0)
2. Cubs (2-2)
3. Braves (1-3)
4. Reds (1-3)

Lets rank the teams in order of runs scored...

1. 47 runs - Cubs
2. 24 runs - Braves
3. 17 runs - Reds
4. 16 runs - Nationals

Now pretend this is happening all season long....

That's how the Nationals are winning and in 1st place in the most competitive division in the NATIONAL league.

YES you win with CONSISTANT pitching and defense, NOT LUCK. If you score 2 runs a game, and your pitching gives up 1, you win. If your pitching gives up 5 runs in that game, you lose.

With great defense, you don't give up unearned runs.

I just explained this soooo in depth, and if you don't understand it, please ask me. I don't know how clearer I can be.

[Mclaren208]

It looks like the Nationals are starting to lose their one run games. I just gave you their record in 2 run games and above:

28-26

And yet they're in first place. How's that not luck? Plus a negative run differential...

I'm not saying the Nats WON'T win the division. I'm saying it's highly likely they'll falter since they are average in 2 run games and are starting to come back to Earth.

To acesh1gh: That's a small sample size anyway. It's only 4 games! What are the chances of it happening ALL SEASON LONG? Very slim. Besides, they'll need to have godly pitching and defense to overcome the least runs scored in the league.

I'm not going to comment on this any longer. Maybe you guys should start reading articles on baseballprospectus...

[acesh1gh]

What is the matter with you?

If you are winning one run games it generally means your pitching is doing its job.

Regardless, they still have more wins than losses in 2 runs or more.

It's not luck. You want to know what luck is? 2003 NLCS when the fan grabbed the foul ball away from Moises Alou of the cubs. I'm sure you remember this! THAT is luck for the Marlins.

Being consistantly good and winning close games with a good bullpen, and still winning games that aren't close is pretty good. Especially in that division.

Are you just bitter that the Cubbies got their asses swept by the former Montreal Expos? It sure sounds like it. There is no logic on earth to say its luck. You can say its a hot streak, sure. But no team wins games with luck.

PS: The sample was an example of what is happening. If you don't believe that's whats happened all season, look on www.mlb.com under schedule. They have the scores of every game this season. Do the math, and you'll see.

[Mclaren208]

"Are you just bitter that the Cubbies got their asses swept by the former Montreal Expos?"

Yeah, try to be a complete ASS to prove your point. You have no class at all. Try posting something without actually INSULTING someone. It really makes you look like an ass and your point wouldn't be taken seriously.

"Regardless, they still have more wins than losses in 2 runs or more."

Only about 2 more. That's not what you need from someone who might win the division (which they probably won't.)

[acesh1gh]

Originally posted by Mclaren208

Yeah, try to be a complete ASS to prove your point. You have no class at all. Try posting something without actually INSULTING someone. It really makes you look like an ass and your point wouldn't be taken seriously.



Only about 2 more. That's not what you need from someone who might win the division (which they probably won't.)

OBVIOUSLY, I hit a bad nerve with you. How do you know I have no class at all? I can be as dirty and insulting as I want on a message board without you knowing how much class I actually have. It's just funny that someone such as yourself, who always brings up stats, and always has to resort to facts to back your point, has absolutely no explanation for why the Nationals are in first place other than "luck".

So in the final game of that series "cubs and nats", after the Cubbies staged a 2 run comeback against one of the best closers in baseball right now (that's not luck), Jeromy Burnitz representing the winning run was gunned out at third base, that was luck. And then after the Nats scored 2 more runs in the 11th I believe, the Cubs came back! But that's not luck, thats skill. Only the Nationals resort to luck to win games. Then in the next inning the Nationals were lucky enough to score another run! But the Cubs don't have luck, so they lost the game and were swept.

Why is this classless? I'm just bringing up facts to you, the same way you bring up facts. The fact is, if you beat a team 3 games in a 3 game series, that's a lot of ****ing luck.

Hows this for luck? The Cubs came to San Diego and took 3 out of 4. What was so lucky about that? Instead of facing our best pitchers, you got to face the rookie making his third start (stauffer), you got the guy who can't give up less than 6 runs per start (darrel may), and then you got the guy who just came off the disabled list (woody williams). But when you faced the good pitcher (adam eaton), you lost the game. Not only that, our whole team was hit by the flu that week, so the Cubs got lucky and pitched 2 shutouts against us! The luck just kept piling up. So you won 3 out of 4 games in San Diego because 3 out of 4 days we had a weak starting pitcher. Sounds like luck to me. You couldn't do **** against Peavy in April, but he didn't start that series.

The fact that the Nationals CAN beat the Braves is luck, but the fact that the Cubs got their asses kicked by the Braves is what?

No team has ever won a postseason berth on account of luck. I'd saying winning 88+ games a year, there's waaaay too much luck to calculate.

[blackdogsong]

um. lock the topic?

[Deluxe]

Originally posted by blackdogsong
um. lock the topic?

Please do

[acesh1gh]

Why?

[Marc]

At the request of some, I am going to lock this. It has started to get personal and I don't think it's going anywhere but downhill.