Nationals got what they deserved.....

[dacskc]

Braves - Who would that have been?  Never really heard about any Braves doing roids ala your current hitting coach.

Cubs - Well, I could see Bartman doing roids.  The Cubs weren't good enough to have been cheating.

Bo Sox - There must have been PEDs in the beer and chicken then.

Yankees - They don't call him A-Roid for nothing.

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.

[dacskc]

The Cards did the same thing last season against, my team, Texas.

Getting there, then putting it together is the key to the way playoffs operate these days. Yeah, luck plays into it, too. But I said in the WS last year, you can't beat destiny. In 2011, the Cards were a team of destiny. Are they again in 2012?  We'll see.

But it was fun watching them come back in Game 5 last night. Good baseball is always fun to watch...

Yes it is. I hope this post-season continues to live up to last year's. I'm not particularly a Giants fan, but I guess if the Cards lose the NLCS. I'll have to pull for the NL just because. Although Smyly is on the Tigers' post-season roster so if they beat the Yanks, I may have to root for them. (I'll tune into Rangers games too-when I can find them- to see if I can catch Gentry playing).  Ex-Hogs trump league affiliation.

[clutch]

Just calling the Cardinals lucky and not giving them any credit is ridiculous. Sure luck plays a part in it, but it's definitely not the only factor. Luck plays a part in every teams season. The Nats had some luck to have the best record, the A's had an insane amount of come from behind wins to win their division, the Cardinals got lucky last year that the Braves collapsed, but also showed they were a damn good team by winning while the Braves were losing.

Sure this year they were fortunate that the playoff system changed, but you could also say that they had a lot of unfortunate injuries hamper their season. Not having Carp all season, Craig out for months, Berkman out most of the year, Furcal hurt, Beltran spent some time hurt, etc. etc. That's just part of the game.

What can't be denied though is the fact that the Cardinals are a gritty team that knows how to pull it together when it matters most. The postseason is that time. If baseball, or any sport, wanted the Champions to be the team that was the best during the regular season then they wouldn't have a postseason. The postseason isn't necessarily about which team is the best, it's about which team can pull it all together when it matters the most. Which team is the "best" in the crunch time. The Cardinals were better than the Nationals this time. To say they got lucky in that series is crazy. Two of their wins were blowouts and the final win was one of the gutsiest performances I've ever seen. It's not like the Nats gave them the game. The Cardinals just kept grinding away and played until the final out. Hell the Nats even tapped on the insurance runs when needed, but the Cards still kept grinding. They just never quit. That's the difference between teams that win in the postseason and teams that don't. Not every team can stay in the game, much less come back and win it when they are down 6-0 after 3 innings in a deciding game. Almost all of those runs were off of good hits that there wasn't anything the Nationals could do about. I don't call that blowing the game. I call that coming back and winning the game. The Nationals pitchers were still bringing good stuff late in the game, just look at that slider in the 9th that struck out Craig. The Cardinals hitters just got really patient and did what needed to be done.

Are the Cardinals the best team in baseball this year? No. Were they the best team in baseball last year? No. They may be the best postseason team in baseball though,  and that is what matters in MLB.

[clutch]

Oh and on the steroids issue. Yes BigMac juiced. Was it right? No. Do I care? Not really. Same reason I don't really care that Bonds juiced, Sosa juiced, ARod juiced, Manny juiced, or anybody else. It made them stronger, but from my experience, and I've played a lot of baseball, it didn't make it any easier for them to hit the ball. Sure in inflated the numbers like HR's, but I bet you can also say that it inflated most of the pitchers numbers too like SO's. It is what it is. It was a bad time in baseball. I think the majority of baseball was using. That was just the culture during the time. It sucks but it happened.

I don't think BigMac will get into the HoF, but I don't think he should. If it wasn't for the HR's he wouldn't even have a very good case for it. Guys like Bonds and Clemons and ARod who were probably no doubters without steroids should still get into the HoF imo.

Oh and to think that your team was clean during the time is just naive. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that there wasn't a single team in the MLB that was completely clean. It might not of helped some as much as it did others, but there were still those on there that were juicing.

I definitely don't have a problem with McGuire being our hitting coach. Sure he cheated and it was wrong but he was far from the only one. If we want to ban everybody that was somewhat dirty during that time frame from baseball then we are going to be short on managers and coaches in a few years because a large part of baseball was dirty somehow. Keeping them out of the HoF is fine, but no need to ban them from baseball for something that wasn't exactly against the rules at the time. They weren't throwing games or anything like that. They were just trying to be better players.

[pigture perfect]

It's called playoffs. The reason you have playoffs is to find out who is the better team. A huge ground swell of people have been clambering for years how we need a playoff system in College football. Guess what we're getting one. Now people are crying because the playoff system doesn't benefit their team. Let's just do away with the playoffs if you want to play the regular season record card. That's fine. Let's do it for March madness, The NFL and the NBA too. How often do the teams with the best records regular season win it all?

[johnny cash]

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.

No they were just the
Best in the play offs were it counts! Let's see beat the phillies, brewers and rangers not too shabby. Also got help from the braves who choked, then again when do they not!

[bsking]

No they were just the
Best in the play offs were it counts! Let's see beat the phillies, brewers and rangers not too shabby. Also got help from the braves who choked, then again when do they not!

English translation?

[bsking]

It's called playoffs. The reason you have playoffs is to find out who is the better team.

Theoretically, but that's not how it works.

If I say to you, I bet I'll roll a 5 on a die.  Straight odds.  You say okay, I bet you a hundred dollars you don't.  I roll a 5.  Does that make you stupid for betting that?  No, it was the good bet.  I just got lucky.

The Nats were the good bet.  The Braves were the good bet.  Ask Vegas.  Just because you won doesn't mean you're better, period.

[Davy turtle]

As huge Cards fan I would love to say that MY team is the best this year and even the best franchise of all time, but I cant. In baseball being clutch is as important (or more) as being great. The Redbirds are as clutch as any team I can remember the past ten years.  (04 Bo Sox might have an argument too). Being clutch matters more than antything else in  baseball, but you cant take anything away from the Cards for their win against the Nats.

2004: Best team Cards. Most clutch Bo Sox
2006: Best team Mets or Yanks, Most clutch Cards
2009:Best team Yanks. Most clutch Yanks
2010: Best team Phils or Rays. Most clutch Giants
2011: Best team Phils (no doubt). Most clutch Cards

Just an example that the best team isnt always the most clutch team. The only thing that matters is being clutch in October, that is what we all remember.

Just thought i'd chime in.

[johnny cash]

English translation?

cardinals good team when it counts!

[bsking]

+1 Davy.  I apologize for calling all Cards fans massive homers.  There are a few rational ones left.

[pigture perfect]

Theoretically, but that's not how it works.

If I say to you, I bet I'll roll a 5 on a die.  Straight odds.  You say okay, I bet you a hundred dollars you don't.  I roll a 5.  Does that make you stupid for betting that?  No, it was the good bet.  I just got lucky.

The Nats were the good bet.  The Braves were the good bet.  Ask Vegas.  Just because you won doesn't mean you're better, period.

You know what they say about armpits and excuses.

Vegas is all about gambling. Gambling means you're not sure.

As far as the Braves being a good bet, They really weren't. Not in a one game playoff.

If it is such a big deal to some of you guys, go do research and find every underdog that ever won a championship and take it from them. Start with UK and Texas Western (UtEP) in 1966. Take away the Giants Superbowl against the Patriots a few years back.

[bsking]

You know what they say about armpits and excuses.

Vegas is all about gambling. Gambling means you're not sure.

As far as the Braves being a good bet, They really weren't. Not in a one game playoff.

If it is such a big deal to some of you guys, go do research and find every underdog that ever won a championship and take it from them. Start with UK and Texas Western (UtEP) in 1966. Take away the Giants Superbowl against the Patriots a few years back.

Where did I say those teams didn't deserve a championship?  I didn't?  You made it up?  Oh, I'm soooo shocked.

All I said was that the better team doesn't always win, as exemplified by the Cards beating the Nationals.  And that apparently means I want to kill all your children.

[Davy turtle]

+1 Davy.  I apologize for calling all Cards fans massive homers.  There are a few rational ones left.

No worries.
To take it a step farther, in 06 the Cards may have been one of the worst teams to win a WS that I can remember. The deal is that nobody cares about that now. All people remember is the emergence of unlikely heroes like Spezio (sp), Molina, Weaver, Wainright,  Eckstein, and a guy named Suppan that made a truckload of money based off that postseason. Clutch with some talent=Ws champs. Lots of talent with no clutch=disappointment. Braves and Nats. Sorry, dont mean to rub it in.

[pigture perfect]

You have just said the Cardinals didn't deserve their championships in 06 and 12 because they weren't in your opinion the better team. You have been saying that every since the infield fly call. If you want to say that those teams need to have asterisks by those chamionships then most certainly should agree that the games I've mentioned should have them as well. If you don't agree then you have a double standard.

[ucahogfan]

As far as the Braves being a good bet, They really weren't. Not in a one game playoff.

Really?  So a team with 6 more wins than the opponent in a tougher division playing at home with a starting pitcher who had won more consectutive starts than anyone else in history with a closer who was having argubably the greatest season ever by a reliever was a bad bet?  Don't really know what to think about that.

[TomasPistola]

That's not the point. The point is if they played that series 10 times the nationals would win more than they would lose. Thus, their the better team. The cardinals are the clutch team, which is what matters in the postseason. That's like saying a team that won 110 games isn't better than a 85 win wild card team, because they got beat 3 games to 2 in a best of 5 series. Makes no sense.

Really?
REALLY???

Scoreboard chump.

[pigture perfect]

Really?  So a team with 6 more wins than the opponent in a tougher division playing at home with a starting pitcher who had won more consectutive starts than anyone else in history with a closer who was having argubably the greatest season ever by a reliever was a bad bet?  Don't really know what to think about that.

Not in a one game playoff.

But the Cards also had one of the best offenses in baseball this year and their lack of wins can be atrributed to 3 starters spending much of the year on the DL. Once we got the pieces together and healthy, Yes, we can beat anyone. Especially in a short series. Look especially at how dominant our bull pen was also in the last 2 weeks of the season and the playoffs. It comes from being healthy and chemistry.

[ucahogfan]

Not in a one game playoff.

But the Cards also had one of the best offenses in baseball this year and their lack of wins can be atrributed to 3 starters spending much of the year on the DL. Once we got the pieces together and healthy, Yes, we can beat anyone. Especially in a short series. Look especially at how dominant our bull pen was also in the last 2 weeks of the season and the playoffs. It comes from being healthy and chemistry.

So having the best starter in baseball pitch for that one game playoff doesn't matter?  Especially considering the guy who would be catching him has helped him to some of his better outings?  Not sure if serious or just blind Cards homer.

[bsking]

You know who wasn't better than Pujols?

Stan Musial.

[ucahogfan]

You know who wasn't better than Pujols?

Stan Musial.

Or any other Cardinal in history.  Good thing he will go into the HOF as an Angel though.

[dacskc]

Why would you want to be the better team at the beginning or middle of a season? Being better at the end is what counts and has MORE value than being the best in July or April. I couldn't care less who was better on June 2nd.

The regular season is a weeding process. The post-season determines the best team. The team who can put it all together and do it when it matters IS the best team. Period. Maybe that isn't the Cards this year. Maybe it is. The regular season just gets you there. That's how it works. This one game playoff thing that is pissing everyone off was designed to hurt the final WC. It didn't. You hear the talking heads every year discuss teams being "designed for the post-season." Well, that's just smart management. You have to be able to play the game the way MLB rewards it. That's the way the Cards do it. They make pieces fit instead of going out and throwing together an all-star roster (see the Dodgers). You are rewarded for post-season play. Nothing else. Therefore, if you are the best team in the post season, then YOU ARE the best team. I would make that same argument if the Braves had won, if the Nats had won, or if the Giants win next week.

Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that's how it is. Griping about the Cards still being there isn't going to change the facts.


Edit: Here's something we can all agree on...Jonathan Williams is AWESOME!

[bsking]

Why would you want to be the better team at the beginning or middle of a season? Being better at the end is what counts and has MORE value than being the best in July or April. I couldn't care less who was better on June 2nd.

The regular season is a weeding process. The post-season determines the best team. The team who can put it all together and do it when it matters IS the best team. Period. Maybe that isn't the Cards this year. Maybe it is. The regular season just gets you there. That's how it works. This one game playoff thing that is pissing everyone off was designed to hurt the final WC. It didn't. You hear the talking heads every year discuss teams being "designed for the post-season." Well, that's just smart management. You have to be able to play the game the way MLB rewards it. That's the way the Cards do it. They make pieces fit instead of going out and throwing together an all-star roster (see the Dodgers). You are rewarded for post-season play. Nothing else. Therefore, if you are the best team in the post season, then YOU ARE the best team. I would make that same argument if the Braves had won, if the Nats had won, or if the Giants win next week.

Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that's how it is. Griping about the Cards still being there isn't going to change the facts.

So what if the Braves had beaten the Cardinals 1-0 and their only run was a texas leaguer, a seeing eye single and a soft ground out.  Whereas every single Cardinal hitter hit line drive at-em balls at outfielders.

You would say the Braves were the better team, yes?

[ucahogfan]

So what if the Braves had beaten the Cardinals 1-0 and their only run was a texas leaguer, a seeing eye single and a soft ground out.  Whereas every single Cardinal hitter hit line drive at-em balls at outfielders.

You would say the Braves were the better team, yes?

Obviously because they did what it took to win!  I think a better argument would be if the Braves got no-hit and won 1-0.  All that matters is who wins even if the other team clearly outplayed them.

[dacskc]

So what if the Braves had beaten the Cardinals 1-0 and their only run was a texas leaguer, a seeing eye single and a soft ground out.  Whereas every single Cardinal hitter hit line drive at-em balls at outfielders.

You would say the Braves were the better team, yes?

Yes. Because getting it done when it matters is what counts. This "who was better in the regular season" malarkey doesn't hold water because teams don't stay the same throughout a six month season. Players heal up and come back for the post-season, some get hurt, some go into slumps, some get inexplicably benched by the Nats manager. You know this. Just because a team was better in August doesn't make them the better team when it counts. The post-season matters more. It just does; if it didn't they'd give the trophy to the team with the best record on Oct 1.

[dacskc]

Obviously because they did what it took to win!  I think a better argument would be if the Braves got no-hit and won 1-0.  All that matters is who wins even if the other team clearly outplayed them.

Well if you win a game 1-0, it's pretty debatable that you were "clearly outplayed."

[bsking]

Yes. Because getting it done when it matters is what counts.

In that scenario you didn't "get it done".  You got lucky.

Whether you want to believe it or not, luck plays a HUGE part in every baseball game.

[pigture perfect]

What this clearly is, is sour grapes because your team got beat in a playoff game. I will tell you that I am not a fan of the 2nd wild card and 1 game playoff. The only time that should happen is if there is a regular season tie. Since that isn't the case this year, why is it wrong for Cardinal fans to celebrate? I have been on the defensive ever since the Braves-Cards game because my team was being dumped on. I won't let you do it.

As long as the Cards are still in it, I'm rooting them on. Once they're out I will pick a another team to cheer for, probably the National league, but I'm not going to go after other fans of the team that beat me. That's called being a bad sport, and it doesn't make me a better person.

[bsking]

What this clearly is, is sour grapes because your team got beat in a playoff game. I will tell you that I am not a fan of the 2nd wild card and 1 game playoff. The only time that should happen is if there is a regular season tie. Since that isn't the case this year, why is it wrong for Cardinal fans to celebrate? I have been on the defensive ever since the Braves-Cards game because my team was being dumped on. I won't let you do it.

As long as the Cards are still in it, I'm rooting them on. Once they're out I will pick a another team to cheer for, probably the National league, but I'm not going to go after other fans of the team that beat me. That's called being a bad sport, and it doesn't make me a better person.

This is sour grapes in no way.  I'd be arguing this if the Braves finished last in the NL.

It's just insane to me that you can't accept the FACT that luck plays a huge part in baseball and the better team doesn't always win.  It's laughable and naive.

[Dr. Starcs]

I have no problem with fans celebrating their teams successes. However, when that celebration intrudes on me, I do have a problem.

*no one on here has done that to me, for the record. There's a lady I work with and she literally gloats about the cardinals at the expense of other teams. It is for that reason I don't cheer for them. I know every team has people like this, but St Louis is the only team I'm bombarded with seemingly every October.

[dacskc]

In that scenario you didn't "get it done".  You got lucky.

Whether you want to believe it or not, luck plays a HUGE part in every baseball game.

Winning=getting it done. Look, I understand your argument, I think the one game play-in is stupid. If MLB wants to expand the post-season, then they need to make it a three out of five and cut back the regular season games. Sure luck plays a big part in baseball, but it's not much of a mystery that as the season averages out, the "luckier" teams tend to be the better teams.

It would've been fairer with a longer series, and it's not really my intention to boil down the post-season argument I've been making to just the Braves/Cards one game "series." (mainly because I DO think a one and done is a bad idea, but talk to Selig about that one) However, I get the idea that if the Cards had taken a 3 out of five, you guys would be saying the same things. It is what it is. You play with the hand you're dealt and if you come up short, don't blame the winner. That's a "you problem."

FWIW, I spent exactly zero time complaining about how the Cards were the "better" team in '04. They lost and I got over it. I was at game four in StL sitting in the middle of a bunch of Sox fans and it was great seeing them celebrate. We were back "getting lucky" 2 years later. You'll be back too. It's not like you're Cubs fans for goodness sakes.

[dacskc]

I have no problem with fans celebrating their teams successes. However, when that celebration intrudes on me, I do have a problem.

*no one on here has done that to me, for the record. There's a lady I work with and she literally gloats about the cardinals at the expense of other teams. It is for that reason I don't cheer for them. I know every team has people like this, but St Louis is the only team I'm bombarded with seemingly every October.

Understandable. That gets old; I wouldn't appreciate it either.

[bsking]

Winning=getting it done. Look, I understand your argument, I think the one game play-in is stupid. If MLB wants to expand the post-season, then they need to make it a three out of five and cut back the regular season games. Sure luck plays a big part in baseball, but it's not much of a mystery that as the season averages out, the "luckier" teams tend to be the better teams.

It would've been fairer with a longer series, and it's not really my intention to boil down the post-season argument I've been making to just the Braves/Cards one game "series." (mainly because I DO think a one and done is a bad idea, but talk to Selig about that one) However, I get the idea that if the Cards had taken a 3 out of five, you guys would be saying the same things. It is what it is. You play with the hand you're dealt and if you come up short, don't blame the winner. That's a "you problem."

FWIW, I spent exactly zero time complaining about how the Cards were the "better" team in '04. They lost and I got over it. I was at game four in StL sitting in the middle of a bunch of Sox fans and it was great seeing them celebrate. We were back "getting lucky" 2 years later. You'll be back too. It's not like you're Cubs fans for goodness sakes.

That's not my point at all.  This is NOTHING to do with Braves vs. Cardinals.  This is the argument:

I said the Nationals were a better team.  Cards fans argue that isn't true because they just won.

That logic is wrong.  Period.  And that's not my opinion, that is a FACT.

[dacskc]

Well, it's not a fact. That's your opinion. It's my opinion that the Cards are the better team because they won when it counted. We added Carp, they subtracted Strasburg. The two teams in the post-season were NOT the same two teams as they were in regular season. The better team won this series. You don't get extra points for being good 2 months ago.

[bsking]

Well, it's not a fact. That's your opinion. It's my opinion that the Cards are the better team because they won when it counted. We added Carp, they subtracted Strasburg. The two teams in the post-season were NOT the same two teams as they were in regular season. The better team won this series. You don't get extra points for being good 2 months ago.

I don't know if you guys don't know how to read or what.

NOT ARGUING WHO IS BETTER.

ARGUING THAT THE BETTER TEAM DOES NOT ALWAYS WIN.

FACT.

[hoghappy]

I've been following your arguments through several threads, you are either not much of a baseball person, or you're trying to just stir the pot.

[bsking]

I've been following your arguments through several threads, you are either not much of a baseball person, or you're trying to just stir the pot.

Yeah, you're right.  I know nothing.

The better team wins every single game.

No luck has anything to do with any game ever.

And I've never seen you post before in my life but, enlighten me.  What's you're favorite team?

[dacskc]

I don't know if you guys don't know how to read or what.

NOT ARGUING WHO IS BETTER.

ARGUING THAT THE BETTER TEAM DOES NOT ALWAYS WIN.

FACT.

Ok then, first you weren't arguing about the Braves, then you weren't arguing about the Nats being better... ahem...

I said the Nationals were a better team.

now what you ARE arguing about is that "the better team does not always win?" It's hard to keep up when you keep changing what you're talking about.

I never said that the better team ALWAYS wins. What I said was that winning in the post-season trumps winning in the regular season, and the team left standing at the end of a series, is indeed the better team because they proved it when it mattered. But go ahead and change it to whatever you feel like.

The Braves were better during the regular season, but they were not the better team during the post-season when it counts. Is that what you want to hear? I hope so because this is tiresome.

[bsking]

Ok then, first you weren't arguing about the Braves, then you weren't arguing about the Nats being better... ahem...  now what you ARE arguing about is that "the better team does not always win?" It's hard to keep up when you keep changing what you're talking about.

I never said that the better team ALWAYS wins. What I said was that winning in the post-season trumps winning in the regular season, and the team left standing at the end of a series, is indeed the better team because they proved it when it mattered. But go ahead and change it to whatever you feel like.

The Braves were better during the regular season, but they were not the better team during the post-season when it counts. Is that what you want to hear? I hope so because this is tiresome.

I haven't been arguing who was better this entire thread.  PLEASE argue that the Cards are better than the Nats, I disagree but in no way would I ever say it was fact.  You're entitled to you're opinion and I'm great with that.  But it is a FACT that the better team does not always win a game or a series.  Sorry, that is NOT an opinion and THAT is why I wonder how most of the people arguing in this thread walk around without helmets.

[bsking]

And I've never seen you post before in my life but, enlighten me.  What's you're favorite team?

Ah, I saw you post in the Cardinals thread.  I'd say I'm surprised but we all know that's not true.

[HF_Mudd]

No worries.
To take it a step farther, in 06 the Cards may have been one of the worst teams to win a WS that I can remember. The deal is that nobody cares about that now. All people remember is the emergence of unlikely heroes like Spezio (sp), Molina, Weaver, Wainright,  Eckstein, and a guy named Suppan that made a truckload of money based off that postseason. Clutch with some talent=Ws champs. Lots of talent with no clutch=disappointment. Braves and Nats. Sorry, dont mean to rub it in.

Both of your posts have been on target, IMO.

You have to consider "chance" in every aspect of life including professional sports and because the season is so long and so tied to the pitcher/catcher performance, it doesn't take a lot of chance events to affect game outcomes.

That being said, I also agree with your take on clutch and my opinion is this....that every series that a so called inferior team wins in the playoffs does something in my mind to dispel the notion that they are indeed inferior.

Getting lucky series after series as the Cardinals apparently did last year is one way to look at it.  The other is to call them lucky after the Phillies series and to call them damn good after the Rangers series....well damn good in 2011.

[dacskc]

I haven't been arguing who was better this entire thread.  PLEASE argue that the Cards are better than the Nats, I disagree but in no way would I ever say it was fact.  You're entitled to you're opinion and I'm great with that.  But it is a FACT that the better team does not always win a game or a series.  Sorry, that is NOT an opinion and THAT is why I wonder how most of the people arguing in this thread walk around without helmets.

Was it you who said this? I forget.

I said the Nationals were a better team.  Cards fans argue that isn't true because they just won.

That logic is wrong.  Period.  And that's not my opinion, that is a FACT.

Sounds like you're saying it was fact that the Nats were better to me.

But it is a FACT that the better team does not always win a game or a series.  Sorry, that is NOT an opinion and THAT is why I wonder how most of the people arguing in this thread walk around without helmets.

You are also refusing to listen to what I'm saying and making it about whatever you want it to be about. What I said was this:

I never said that the better team ALWAYS wins. What I said was that winning in the post-season trumps winning in the regular season, and the team left standing at the end of a series, is indeed the better team because they proved it when it mattered.

How else would you like to determine who is the best team in baseball? That's what post-season is for. The regular season narrows the field and winner take all. Of course, why bother? Just give it to the team with the best record the first week of October. That discounts all the intangibles and things a team falls victim to during a season. If half a team goes down in July, loses ground, but then returns to play in post-season, that team should have a shot to prove their worth (provided the rest of the team keeps them in it til the end.) Like I said before, the team you finish with isn't always the same team you had at the All Star break. That's what's so great about post-season. The best team is indeed the one that weathers the storm. I never once said the better team ALWAYS wins a given game or a given series. I am talking about running the post season gantlet.  Call it clutch, call it lucky, call it whatever you want...I call it being the better team.

[pigture perfect]

This is honestly getting ridiculous. We are not arguing the same premises. The Cards fans are saying don't cry about being eliminated from the playoff, while the other side is trying to argue that their team is better and the Cardinals don't deserve to be where they are.

[bsking]

I can't do it.

It's like arguing with with a stump.

[dacskc]

I can't do it.

It's like arguing with with a stump.

I agree.

[Hogtropolis™]

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.

I would say the Yanks are, but the Cards are the best in the NL. The proof is in the puddin'. 27 WS titles and 11 WS titles. What other data is there to look at?

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.

A buddy of mine and I were having a conversation the other day about the winners of the WS from around '90 and up. We named everyone of them and most of the teams they played in the WS as well. You know what I couldn't do if I tried...name the teams that finished with the best record in each league over the last 20 years and I don't think many people could, because most people only care who won the WS.

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.

So to sum it up, I don't really care what place my team finishes in, I just want them to make the playoffs so I can enjoy watching them try to prove that they are the best of the best in October. I'd like them to have the best record, but not nearly as much as I'd like them to be the team that wins the last game of the season.

[pigture perfect]

I agree.

Me too. +1

I would say the Yanks are, but the Cards are the best in the NL. The proof is in the puddin'. 27 WS titles and 11 WS titles. What other data is there to look at?

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.

A buddy of mine and I were having a conversation the other day about the winners of the WS from around '90 and up. We named everyone of them and most of the teams they played in the WS as well. You know what I couldn't do if I tried...name the teams that finished with the best record in each league over the last 20 years and I don't think many people could, because most people only care who won the WS.

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.

So to sum it up, I don't really care what place my team finishes in, I just want them to make the playoffs so I can enjoy watching them try to prove that they are the best of the best in October. I'd like them to have the best record, but not nearly as much as I'd like them to be the team that wins the last game of the season.

Thanks for saying what I wasn't saying well enough. +1

[Davy turtle]

I would say the Yanks are, but the Cards are the best in the NL. The proof is in the puddin'. 27 WS titles and 11 WS titles. What other data is there to look at?

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.

A buddy of mine and I were having a conversation the other day about the winners of the WS from around '90 and up. We named everyone of them and most of the teams they played in the WS as well. You know what I couldn't do if I tried...name the teams that finished with the best record in each league over the last 20 years and I don't think many people could, because most people only care who won the WS.

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.

So to sum it up, I don't really care what place my team finishes in, I just want them to make the playoffs so I can enjoy watching them try to prove that they are the best of the best in October. I'd like them to have the best record, but not nearly as much as I'd like them to be the team that wins the last game of the season.

+1. I like the way you put it.

[clutch]

Obviously because they did what it took to win!  I think a better argument would be if the Braves got no-hit and won 1-0.  All that matters is who wins even if the other team clearly outplayed them.

Which game are you talking about to where the Cardinals won but were outplayed? Just assuming that that is what you are saying. If you are talking about Game 5, then I don't agree that the Cardinals were outplayed. They were outplayed for 3 innings, but for the other 6 they no doubt outplayed the Nats. They outscored them 9-1 over the remaining innings.

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.

[Hogtropolis™]

For not pitching Strasburg. I can't stand the Cardinals, but it was idiotic to shut him down like that. The opinions are almost unanimous amomg veteran MLB pitchers that the more you pitch, the stronger your arm gets. If they only wanted him to pitch a certain number of innings, then spread it out and leave 4 or 5 starts for the postseason. Just my opinion...

And to get back to how the thread started, I think the Nats probably would have won this series if they had Strasburg pitching. He made them a much better team overall.