Nationals got what they deserved.....

[pigture perfect]

I agree. If he was on an innings count, I certainly would have thought to hold him out to start the season, so he could have pitched in the post season.

[dacskc]

Exactly. You manage to win the post-season, not the other way around. They went about it bass-ackwards.

[dhornjr1]

If you are talking about the Braves game then I still don't see it. The Braves had 3 costly errors while the Cardinals didn't. That's not really outplaying anyone.

Your team beat my team but my team is still better'n yours.

An argument you can't lose.

[dhornjr1]

David Justice? That's just off the top of my head. Don't think the Braves were clean when nobody else was.

It was rampant within the Red Sox clubhouse. Again...I don't make excuses for McGwire. But nobody's house was clean back then.

Ex-Braves Named In Steroid Report

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/ex-braves-named-in-steroid-report/nFBCj/

Braves Prospect Darrel Leiva Suspended 50 Games For Steroids

http://atlanta.sbnation.com/2012/8/13/3239461/braves-prospect-darrel-leiva-suspended-steroids

[hoglady]

That's baseball.
You don't have pitchers who can handle the postseason pressure you lose. Any pitching staff given a 6 run lead in the playoffs should win that game. When you don't - your pitching staff choked or just wasn't good enough to begin with.
You see it every year in the postseason - pitcher's collapsing under the pressure.

[Arkiehawg (kingfish0318)]

Ex-Braves Named In Steroid Report

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/ex-braves-named-in-steroid-report/nFBCj/

Braves Prospect Darrel Leiva Suspended 50 Games For Steroids

http://atlanta.sbnation.com/2012/8/13/3239461/braves-prospect-darrel-leiva-suspended-steroids

Braves are obviously a bunch of thugs, drunks and juicers... . Oh and whiners when they fold in post season....

And now for the umpteenth rebuttal from bsking.....que the music...

[TuckFexas]

Forgive me if I should have read all 3 pages before commenting, but after 1/2 of the first page I'm gonna throw my .02 in.

To say that the Cardinals are just lucky and aren't the better team after they win a best of 5 or 7 series is a bit retarded. There's a reason why the playoffs are series and not single games. The regular season doesn't mean jack once the playoffs are set. A team that gets into the playoffs may have a lesser record than expected due to a number of factors. One of them being injuries. How about throwing a little credit the Cards way for just making it into the playoffs?

1) Lost Pujols, LaRussa, and Duncan.
2) Lost Carpenter (ace)before the season began
3) Lost Garcia for several months
4) Craig missed the first month of the season
5) Lost Furcal late in the year
6) Freese missed time with injuries
7) Wainwright had to fight his way back from TJ surgery

Now, the team you see right now is probably the healthiest the Cards have been all year. They have platooned and plugged guys in to scratch and claw a spot in the playoffs. Now that they're in they are doing what they could/should have done all year. They outscored the Nats by 16 runs in a 5 game series, who had home field advantage.

Luck doesn't breed consistent success. And the Cards aren't clutch, as evidenced by their terrible record in close games this year. All you haters can just shut up and watch us continue to play.

[pigture perfect]

You sure you didn't read all three pages? Good post.

[bsking]

And the Cards aren't clutch, as evidenced by their terrible record in close games this year.

Do you know what clutch is?  Clutch is coming through when you need it the most.  The Cardinals obviously did that and have done that the last 2 years.

[bsking]

To sum everything up so you stop wasting your time posting things at me that are irrelevant.

And for the thousand and last time.  I have never said the Cardinals were just a bunch of losers who got lucky.  They are a good team.  However in my opinion the Nats are a better team.  I am in no way shape or form saying that is 100% correct or that you are wrong for thinking differently.

From this assertion we have argued for 3 pages whether it is possible to be better and lose a series.  I'm sorry but I'm not arguing that any more.  Debating facts isn't very fun.

What it boils down to is this, and I know most of you will scoff but I'd bet most impartial people won't.  You cannot say ANYTHING even slightly negative about the Cardinals to a Cardinal fan without them wanting to rip your heart out and lay waste to everything you own.

[Rocky&Boarwinkle]

MANY Cardinals fans, including MANY on this board, whether they'll admit it or not, say the Cards are the best franchise in baseball and even all of sports.

Historically speaking, nobody touches the Yankees in regards to appearances and wins in the world series.

Yankees: 40 appearances, 27 wins
Cards: 18 appearances, 11 wins

in the national league:  Giants  18/6, Dodgers 18/6  and Braves 9/3

So for a Cardinals fan it is easy to see how they feel superior to the Giants and definitely the Braves out of the national league.  But in the grand scheme, the Yankees are historically the cream of the crop.

[dacskc]

What it boils down to is this, and I know most of you will scoff but I'd bet most impartial people won't.  You cannot say ANYTHING even slightly negative about the Cardinals to a Cardinal fan without them wanting to rip your heart out and lay waste to everything you own.

I don't think anything close to that ever happened here. I thought it was a fairly friendly argument (at least between both of us).  Most Cards fans have been entirely rational. There have been what...2 people... out of all the Cards fans on this board behaving badly. We just have a big difference of opinion on the way we view the thread topic (or at least what the topic turned into) and aren't likely to change our minds, so I agree the argument is at an end. An entire fanbase doesn't = a few idiots.

If the Cards lose the NLCS, I won't have any excuses. It will mean we got outplayed by a better team and I'll be cool with that. Don't be surprised though, if you see a lot of people gleefully rubbing it in and Cards fans getting defensive. It's what fans do. (I'll probably just avoid the forum for a few days and start thinking about next year's pitching staff, lol)

[TuckFexas]

Do you know what clutch is?  Clutch is coming through when you need it the most.  The Cardinals obviously did that and have done that the last 2 years.

Dude, your smartass tone with me is growing old quickly. I didn't call you specifically, maybe I should have since you seem to want to cherry pick anything I say and post with a smirk on your face. The point of the line you quoted was that in close ball games the Cardinals have failed moreso than succeeded this year. When they win, they usually win big. They have lost the lead over 20 times in the late innings this year. Have they had some clutch moments? Hell yes they have. But overall, a clutch team wins those tight ballgames in the late innings. Were they clutch in game 1 when they had the bases loaded and nobody out and failed to score? Nope.

If you want to debate something I said, feel free. But I'd ask that you do so with a little bit of respect, as I've earned that as a long time member here and treat you with respect. Sadly, I'm not beyond stooping to a childish level if you piss me off so please don't force me to.

[ucahogfan]

Tuck,

I admitted to the Cards being a good team.  It is in one of the posts in this thread.  I'm just tired of the fact that most posters on here are unwillingly to admit that the Cards were the inferior team to the Nats or Braves.  I would also think that a lot of posters will say that they are the better team even if the Giants win the NLCS.  Winning a 1 game playoff or 5 game series doesn't mean you are the better team that season, just for that week.  Heck, top teams lose series to the Cubs and Astros every now and then.  Does that make them the better team?  I saw you giving examples of what the Cards have overcome to this point, let's play that game with the Braves:

1)  Lost Brandon Beachy who had been the best starter in the MLB.
2)  Medlen also had TJ surgery, but seemed to overcome it pretty well.
3)  McCann had been the best hitting C in the NL for a long time, but spent most of the year battling injuries.
4)  Uggla had the worst year of his career and was even benched for a while.
5)  Simmons was on the DL for an extended period of time.
6)  Hanson was on the DL for a while.

Now cue the Cards fan saying it is sour grapes, etc.  I'm trying to say that every good team has to overcome injuries and other things.  It just so happens that the Cards are healthier than they have been all year.  The NLCS should be fun to watch as the Giants and their pitching take on the Cards and their offense.

[bsking]

Dude, your smartass tone with me is growing old quickly. I didn't call you specifically, maybe I should have since you seem to want to cherry pick anything I say and post with a smirk on your face. The point of the line you quoted was that in close ball games the Cardinals have failed moreso than succeeded this year. When they win, they usually win big. They have lost the lead over 20 times in the late innings this year. Have they had some clutch moments? Hell yes they have. But overall, a clutch team wins those tight ballgames in the late innings. Were they clutch in game 1 when they had the bases loaded and nobody out and failed to score? Nope.

If you want to debate something I said, feel free. But I'd ask that you do so with a little bit of respect, as I've earned that as a long time member here and treat you with respect. Sadly, I'm not beyond stooping to a childish level if you piss me off so please don't force me to.

Sorry if that offended you.

I disagree with you that the Cardinals have not been clutch.  I consider coming back from a 6 run deficit in a do or die game clutch.  I consider overcoming a 2 run lead in the 9th inning of a do or die game clutch.

[dacskc]

UCA, you and I are actually saying the same thing...believe it or not. What I was trying to get across is that it doesn't matter who was better in the regular season...for the exact same things you're saying. ALL teams...Cards, Braves, Nats, whoever...have injuries and weird things that happen to them over 6 months. What matters is who is the better team when it counts. Post Season.

When the Nats subtracted Strasburg and the Cards added Carp, it shifted the balance towards the Cards being the better team. That is what I mean by the Cards being better. When October gets here, the other stuff goes out the window. (HogTropolis exlpained better than I did) We are saying basically the same thing, but I think you are applying what happened in the regular season to the post-season and I'm not. That's really the only thing we differ on.

With that being said, as to the one-game playoff, they either need to drop it or apply the same format as other series and cut a few regular season games.

[ucahogfan]

UCA, you and I are actually saying the same thing...believe it or not. What I was trying to get across is that it doesn't matter who was better in the regular season...for the exact same things you're saying. ALL teams...Cards, Braves, Nats, whoever...have injuries and weird things that happen to them over 6 months. What matters is who is the better team when it counts. Post Season.

When the Nats subtracted Strasburg and the Cards added Carp, it shifted the balance towards the Cards being the better team. That is what I mean by the Cards being better. When October gets here, the other stuff goes out the window. (HogTropolis exlpained better than I did) We are saying basically the same thing, but I think you are applying what happened in the regular season to the post-season and I'm not. That's really the only thing we differ on.

With that being said, as to the one-game playoff, they either need to drop it or apply the same format as other series and cut a few regular season games.

My whole thing is that you might say that the Cards were the better team in 2012 when that is off base.  When I look at how good a team is, I look at both the regular and postseason.  I will still say the Cards are the 5th best team in the NL for 2012 unless they win the WS.  At that time I will move them to 3rd ahead of the Braves and Giants.  They just happened to play the best ball when it mattered.

[TuckFexas]

Cards overall record against NL division winners in 2012:

Nats: 6-6 (including post season)
Reds: 8-8
Giants: 3-3

National league rankings:

Avg: 2nd
Runs: 2nd
HR: 7th
ERA: 5th

So they played .500 ball against the league's best, can hit and pitch very well, but they're clearly just a clutch team and when looking at the overall picture they're just not very good, right? Come on guys, you're letting your hatred for Cardinals success blind your common sense.

And finally, yes the Cardinals have been clutch in the post season. They haven't been clutch all year long. What they are is a damn good team that doesn't quit and the reason this thread is still going is because you guys are failing to give them their due. You say that they're clearly not one of the top teams in the NL, just clutch. The evidence suggests their pretty damn good. Is it just because they beat the Braves in a one-game playoff when the Braves happened to own them during the regular season?

[bsking]

Tuck where did anyone say that the cardinals are "just not very good"?

I've said over and over that they're a good team.  In my opinion they are not a better team than the Nats.  And it's apparent that I cannot have this opinion.

[ucahogfan]

Tuck where did anyone say that the cardinals are "just not very good"?

I've said over and over that they're a good team.  In my opinion they are not a better team than the Nats.  And it's apparent that I cannot have this opinion.

I know.  I say they are 5th best and get slammed saying it is blind hatred.  I guess we aren't allowed to have opinions that differ from Cards fans or we are going to get slammed for it.  If anything, it is blind homerism on their part.  I would ask one of them to show me where you or I said that the Cards aren't good?

[TuckFexas]

Go ahead boys, start the back-pedaling.

[bsking]

Go ahead boys, start the back-pedaling.

Pack pedaling from what?  Show us where I said the Cardinals weren't good.  I DARE you.  I didn't even insinuate it.  You just fabricated it.

[Hogtropolis™]

Forgive me if I should have read all 3 pages before commenting, but after 1/2 of the first page I'm gonna throw my .02 in.

To say that the Cardinals are just lucky and aren't the better team after they win a best of 5 or 7 series is a bit retarded. There's a reason why the playoffs are series and not single games. The regular season doesn't mean jack once the playoffs are set. A team that gets into the playoffs may have a lesser record than expected due to a number of factors. One of them being injuries. How about throwing a little credit the Cards way for just making it into the playoffs?

1) Lost Pujols, LaRussa, and Duncan.
2) Lost Carpenter (ace)before the season began
3) Lost Garcia for several months
4) Craig missed the first month of the season
5) Lost Furcal late in the year
6) Freese missed time with injuries
7) Wainwright had to fight his way back from TJ surgery

Now, the team you see right now is probably the healthiest the Cards have been all year. They have platooned and plugged guys in to scratch and claw a spot in the playoffs. Now that they're in they are doing what they could/should have done all year. They outscored the Nats by 16 runs in a 5 game series, who had home field advantage.

Luck doesn't breed consistent success. And the Cards aren't clutch, as evidenced by their terrible record in close games this year. All you haters can just shut up and watch us continue to play.

You left off Berkman and Westbrook. Every team faces injuries, but like you mentioned, the Cards are overall the healthiest they have been and arguably the best they have been all year. They're playing good when it counts, not in April.

And the Nats and Braves may have had a better regular season record, but the moment the Nats shut down Strasburg they immediately became worse.  It just changed the whole dynamic of their pitching staff. Just like Tuck mentioned, gettting Carpenter back changed the whole dynamic of the Cards pitching staff. They immediately got much better by getting him back.

As far as who is better between the Braves and Cards, it's tough to say. They play in a different division and were sepearated by 6 games. I don't think it's clear cut that the Braves are better than the Cards. I'm happy with the way it worked out, but if I'm being honest with myself, I don't like the 1 game playoff. It's just not baseball. It doesn't give a team enough time to show they are the better team. It doesn't allow each pitcher on the staff throw a game, which a pitching staff is a big part of how good a team is.

And I'm not even going to try to rephrase this so I'm just going to copy what I posted already, but I do believe that the two teams that are playing in the World Series at the end of the year are the best teams from each league. Being clutch and playing good at the right time is part of being a good team. Here's what I said earlier.

As far as who is the better in the regular season is meaningless to me. As long as my team gets the final win of the season, I don't care if they finished 4th or 5th in the regular season.

If we're just going to say that the best team in baseball is the team with the best record, then why even hold a playoff? The reason why is because the schedules are unbalanced. The playoffs are basically a tournament of the best teams in baseball. You have to beat the best to be declared the champion (i.e. the best team) at the end of the year. The regular season is really just 162 games of finding out who is good enough to be in that tournament.

[TuckFexas]

Teams that are more clutch win in the clutch.

I agree. I remember hearing the great Don Sutton say, "the 162 game season is the real test," during a braves broadcast. To me being clutch in baseball is just being hot at the right time and getting some breaks. It doesn't mean your the better baseball team.

Dear Lord Cardinal fans are literally bigger homers than any fans in any sport.

If you HONESTLY believe the Cardinals were the best team in the MLB last year, you are naive.

If you think they're the best team this year, you are naive.

You can't say that bsking!  Don't you know that the Cards are the greatest team ever?  It can't be about luck for them the last couple of years.  It's not like the Cards lucked into the 2011 postseason because of one of the greatest September collapses of all time.  It's not like the only reason the Cards made the 2012 playoffs is because the MLB changed the postseason format.  It's not like the best defense in the NL made 3 errors in a do-or-die game.  It's not like they are the benefactors of the biggest collapse in a do-or-die game in MLB postseason history.  Come on, luck never factors in.  The better team always win even though the Cards are the only playoff team who won less than 90 games this year.

Now it takes a good team to take advantage of those situations, but to say the Cards are the best team because they are in the NLCS is just stupid.  They are the hotter team right now.  The 162 game regular season tells you who the top teams are.  That would be the Nats, Reds, Giants, Braves, and Cards in that order for 2012.  The Cards just happened to be a team that catches fire in the postseason.

There's just a few selections from page 1 that do not explicitly state that the Cardinals are bad. However, they do insinuate the Cardinals aren't where they are based off of their own merits. That's what I have an issue with. The overall tone from all of you non-Card fans is that they just back into every piece of success they've had recently.

Are all of you in agreement that the Yankees are basically the best team in baseball every year because they have an All-Star laden lineup to throw out every night? When's the last time we had a start to finish all around "best" team win it all? If the Cardinals win it all this year, are they still not the best team for 2012? If they win the NLCS, are they still going to be considered worse than the Nats (who they beat), the Reds (who lost to the Giants), or the Giants (who they will obviously beat if they win the NLCS)? Or are they still going to be considered worse than the Braves who had their best starter going @ HOME and committed 3 errors?

[bsking]

First off, please point out where I said that the Cardinals didn't get their on their own merit in the phrases:  Teams that are more clutch win in the clutch.  And The Cardinals weren't the best team last year.  I'll be waiting anxiously because I can't fathom where you're getting it.

Secondly, we are at a standstill if you think that winning the World Series automatically proves you're the best team.  Flawed logic.

I consider the 2001 Mariners one of the best teams in the last 40 years and they didn't make the World Series.  If I remember correctly the ALCS wasn't very close.

My question is, where would YOU rank the 2001 Mariners?  Couldn't be in the top 80 because they didn't make it to or win the WS right?

[Hogtropolis™]

First off, please point out where I said that the Cardinals didn't get their on their own merit in the phrases:  Teams that are more clutch win in the clutch.  And The Cardinals weren't the best team last year.  I'll be waiting anxiously because I can't fathom where you're getting it.

Secondly, we are at a standstill if you think that winning the World Series automatically proves you're the best team.  Flawed logic.

I consider the 2001 Mariners one of the best teams in the last 40 years and they didn't make the World Series.  If I remember correctly the ALCS wasn't very close.

My question is, where would YOU rank the 2001 Mariners?  Couldn't be in the top 80 because they didn't make it to or win the WS right?

The Mariners were not the best team at the time when it counted (and I would argue not the best overall that year). The Diamondbacks to me were clearly the better team. When Johnson and Shilling beared down and focused in during that point in their career, they couldn't be beat. That's the reason for the playoffs. Even with 118 wins or whatever it was, the Mariners did that in the AL, while the D-Backs played the majority of their games in the NL. It's almost impossible to compare the two records.

If I remember correctly, no one expected the Marniers to be that good. It was shocking they won that many games. It's not like they were the '98 Yankees who everyone expected to win 110+ games and win the WS. A lot of people were actually predicting them to lose to the Yankees. Even with all those wins, it wasn't an accepted fact that they were the best team in the majors that year.

I guess what I am saying is largest number of wins doesn't always translate into best team.

[bsking]

I guess what I am saying is largest number of wins doesn't always translate into best team.

You're right, it doesn't.  Exactly like number of postseason wins doesn't translate into best team.

[pigture perfect]

How can you say without smiling that all this argument is about sour grapes. I have relatives from Savannah Ga. who are season ticket holders for the Braves. I've been to almost as many Braves games as Cardinals, and we have no problem on this issue. As a matter of fact, I showed some of these threads about this to my cousin Debbie and she couldn't believe the shear ignorance of the logic here.

[Hogtropolis™]

And no, you can't be considered one of the best teams ever if you choke and can't even make it to the WS, much less win it. To me, winning the WS is a huge part of being considered a top team ever.

I know the '27 Yankees are widely considered the best team ever, but as far as in my lifetime, I would consider the '98 Yankees one of the best ever. '01 Mariners aren't really in the converstation.

Some of the Braves teams could have been considered in that conversation of best teams in my lifetime if they would have closed the door. I know I remember their '98 team being really good but they couldn't win when it counted. Same thing with their team in I believe it was '01 & '02 or '02 & '03 when they won 100+ games and couldn't even make it out of the NLDS.

Now I know that sometimes teams like Houston will take a 3 game set from a team like the Nationals this year, but you will rarely see that happen when you stretch the series out to 5 and especially 7 games. The better team is going to win a longer series the majority of the time.

Here's where I think this whole argument that has been going on throughout this thread is flawed. bsking and ucahogfan are trying to argue that the Nationals were clearly the better team, but at the same time not saying the Cards are bad. My stance is that the Cards are the better team because they won the series. In actuality, the teams are very evenly matched (as evidenced by Tuck's post earlier) and the series could have gone either way, but the team that was clutch came away with the win.

9 times out of 10 (and maybe more than that) if a team is clearly the better team, they will win a 5 or 7 game series. If the teams are more closely matched like the Nats and Cards were, then the Nats might win 5 series and the Cards might win 5 series.

I think it is agregious to say that the Nats are clearly better than the Cards though and vice versa. Both teams were good and are very evenly matched.

To declare the better team though, the best way is to have a playoff and that's what we do and the Cards are the team that came out on top, so they should be the team that is considered the better team. Same thing can be said with the Giants in reference to the Reds and with whoever wins between the Giants and Cards.

Were the A's clearly a better team that the Tigers? They had a better record, but I would say that the Tigers were a little better and deserve to be thought of as being a little better because they won a 5 game series in the postseason. I think they are very close to each other and one is not clearly better than the other, but the Tigers won when it counted.

Anyway, I'm sorry for this post, I feel like it's been all over the place, but I have just been putting down what I am thinking about this whole topic. The point is, you can't say a team is clearly better than another team just because they won 5-8 more regular season games than another team because you have to keep in mind that teams are constantly evolving over the course of the year.

Heck, the Dodgers could possibly be the best team in baseball right now with the moves they made and they're not even in the playoffs. It was just too little, too late for them. Hypothetically, would you have considered the Nationals clearly better than the Dodgers even if the Dodgers would have made the postseason instead of the Cards and done the exact same thing the Cards have done? I would have said the Dodgers were the better team in the end because they won when it counted. The two teams would have been comprable in how good they were going into the series, but the Dodgers would have set themselves apart by winning the series. Just like in my mind, the Cards did.

I'm done. I feel like this was a lot of random thoughts. Sorry again. Hope it all made sense.

[Hogtropolis™]

You're right, it doesn't.  Exactly like number of postseason wins doesn't translate into best team.

But when you get into the postseason, all bets are off. Record doesn't matter, just win. Like I said earlier, you're not getting to pad your record on patsy teams anymore, you are playing the best of the best. It's time to win or go home. The team that is standing at the end deserves to be called the best team.

I guess I'll say it like this. I feel like the 2004 Cards were better overall than the 2006 Cards, but the 2006 Cards were a better TEAM because they knew how to win when it counted. It's all about winning when it counts. Team chemistry to me is bigger than how many stars you have on your teams. Ask the Yankees.

[dhornjr1]

It's not the best team that wins. It's the team that plays the best baseball.

---Tony LaRussa

[dacskc]

The team who wins the WS is the best team because that's how MLB rewards it. People can call it "playing better" in the post-season instead of "being better" (although IMO, it's the same thing) if they want, but the better team is the one playing better in the post-season. The Nats were the better team during the regular season because they were "playing better" then. (just like the Cards are playing better now!) Things don't stay the same over the course of a season, the balance of power shifts, schedules differ, and players come and go. That is not flawed logic. Flawed logic is thinking that because the Nats were better than the Cards in July, they must be better than them now. Cards + Carp > Nats - Strasburg.

Bsking, I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling us and we are dumbasses for continually falling into your trap.

[Hogtropolis™]

It's not the best team that wins. It's the team that plays the best baseball.

---Tony LaRussa

Love it! I always like hearing from you dhorn. Everything going good?

[dhornjr1]

Love it! I always like hearing from you dhorn. Everything going good?

Yeah, 'trop. My son is nine months old now. I don't remember if I told you he was born on Christmas day last year. He takes up most of my time, of course.

How are things with you?

[ucahogfan]

Ok, here is another scenario so most of y'all are so sure that the best team always win in the postseason.  I'll stick with baseball, but go down to the college level.  Was Fresno State the best team in 08?  They did win the national championship, but were they really the best team?  What about Arizona this past year?  Heck, LSU in 09 was the last team in college baseball that was the clear favorite and actually won it.  And there is more parity in the MLB than in college.

Now how does this relate to the MLB?  Let's expand the playoffs to 16 teams total which adds 3 more teams in each league.  In the NL, the Dodgers and Brewers would get in while the Phillies and DBacks would have a play-in game.  In the AL, the Rays, the White Sox, and the Angels would get in.  For argument's sake, the DBacks win the play-in game.  The DBacks then hit a hot streak to advance all the way to the WS against the White Sox.  These would be who some of y'all consider the 2 best team because they are in the WS.  Would they really be considering they were the bottom seed entering the playoffs?  And if the DBacks won, would they be the best team in the MLB for 2012?

[bsking]

A question to all.  You don't need to reference why, I can surmise as much. Who was the best team in 2010?

[dacskc]

Look. All we are saying is this:

1. Regular season narrows the field
2. Best teams make the post-season
3. Best of the best wins by proving it on the field against the best.

That's just the way they do it. We didn't make the rules. Sorry for winning.

You can come up with different scenarios and ask all the irrelevant questions you want, but the answers will always be the same. This is the method MLB uses to determine who the best team is. Many of us agree with it; some apparently do not. If you think the current method (which has been in place for some time and only changed to add more teams, thereby making it tougher) does not benefit the "regular season winner" properly, then Cards fans aren't the right people to complain to.

[bsking]

Look. All we are saying is this:

1. Regular season narrows the field
2. Best teams make the post-season
3. Best of the best wins by proving it on the field against the best.

That's just the way they do it. We didn't make the rules. Sorry for winning.

You can come up with different scenarios and ask all the irrelevant questions you want, but the answers will always be the same. This is the method MLB uses to determine who the best team is. Many of us agree with it; some apparently do not. If you think the current method (which has been in place for some time and only changed to add more teams, thereby making it tougher) does not benefit the "regular season winner" properly, then Cards fans aren't the right people to complain to.

So what you are saying is, you won't answer my question.  And I know why.  You're not stupid.  You KNOW the Giants weren't the best team in 2010.  But that doesn't fit your argument.  So you just steer clear.

[dacskc]

So what you are saying is, you won't answer my question.  And I know why.  You're not stupid.  You KNOW the Giants weren't the best team in 2010.  But that doesn't fit your argument.  So you just steer clear.

I could be answering your and UCA's questions all day long. Every Card fan here has been answering the same way all through the thread. You guys are looking up every single example you can find to try to get one of us to be inconsistent, and while I admire your consistency in trying to get us to be inconsistent, it's not gonna happen. I've already said that my opinion of how MLB determines its champion wouldn't waver depending on which team (be it the Cards, Braves, Giants, Yankees, or even the Cubs lol) won.

It all depends on whether or not you accept the idea that the best team during the regular season may not be the best team during post season. (the reasons for that have been spelled out previously by myself and others) So the answer to your question and all future questions is: Yes. The team who wins is( "IS" being the key word, not "was"...because in the post season, nothing else matters except the present) the best team. This will be my take on it no matter what team/year, so I shall now defer any future argument on this topic to someone else. (An impasse is declared and I agree to disagree.)

[bsking]

What you just stated makes it 100% impossible to have a "Cinderella Story."  Or "winning against the odds."  Since, IF they won, they were the best.  No underdog has EVER won the World Series.

I'm sure you'll scoff at that but that is EXACTLY what you're saying.

[Hogtropolis™]

Being an underdog doesn't mean that you aren't the better team. It's jus that many people don't believe you are the better team and you have to prove them wrong.

Fresno ended up being the best team when it counted, therefore they were crowned champions, or the best team in baseball that year. Doesn't mean they were the best team throughout the year, but they were when it counted.

I starting to get déjà vu. I feel like I've said this already.

[bsking]

Being an underdog doesn't mean that you aren't the better team. It's jus that many people don't believe you are the better team and you have to prove them wrong.

Fresno ended up being the best team when it counted, therefore they were crowned champions, or the best team in baseball that year. Doesn't mean they were the best team throughout the year, but they were when it counted.

I starting to get déjà vu. I feel like I've said this already.

Yeah, we are going around in circles.

I just can't agree that Fresno St. was the best team in college baseball that year.  They won when it mattered but if you played that postseason out a hundred more times they may not win it again.