Hello there, entire game. I notice that the uploader has WS Games 4 through 7 on there. Game 5 has 10x as many views as the others. Since we're talking about Game 5, my favorite part of the whole series, I think, is when Springer allows the run to score on the ill-chosen dive in center, and he looks mad and heartbroken...and then comes up to bat leading off and drills the first pitch out of the park. Just the best little redemption story. I will point out that we have the pitching this year, I think, to prevent so many runs being scored back against us like what happened in that game. That's a good feeling. Better lineup, better pitching. Come at us, L.A.
If it wasn't for Marwin, the play of that game would have been Taylor's hat deflecting the ball perfectly to the left fielder to hold Bregman to a single saving one, maybe two runs. That World Series was almost decided by a stupid baseball cap.
It's ok to be spectacularly wrong, happens to everybody. You probably shouldn't double quadruple down on it though.
This seems like it begs the question: how do you decide who's the best team? If you're saying the best team is the one that wins, then of course the best team will win the World Series. It's just a stupid statement, in that case. But if you're saying you can determine the best team before the playoffs and know that that team will basically always win it, then I think the whole world laughs at you. You should be an extremely rich person through sports betting, if you could actually do that.
Which side are you on? That the playoffs are a crapshoot. Or that the best team wins. You posts seem unclear now. My position is very clear. The world series winner is almost always the best team. 20 out the last 22 world series events, the best team won. That's my position. I don't agree with u that the other posters are being stupid about it though. They have a right to think it's a crapshoot. That the bill of the Dodgers cap could have determined the winner of the 2017 world series. And at least one poster, the darkhorse, brought a case. I countered it. And I agree with you, I shouldn't have to state that the world series winner is the best team or bring my case as to why, but it's obviously a debate folks feel strongly divided on, especially given the Astros might be considered as the best team heading into the playoffs based on their pyth. is it a crapshoot, or does the best team win it.
Well ya seem kinda uptight. Relax. Also, try not to forget again that it’s a message board, nothing more. Just like how I don’t take your overly sarcastic ribbing to heart, you too can enjoy the ride without anyone bringing you down. It’s all mindset. Now, I hoped that helped!
I didn't realize entire games were there until today. High quality video to boot. All the in-between innings time nicely edited out (mostly). I just wanted to get what the feel of that team was again. See how it compares vs the current one.
I don't think anybody is "debating" it... its universally acknowledged that the variance in a sport that is designed to eliminate acts of randomness over a 150-160 game season is decidedly increased when you go down to 22 (or less) games. It is a crapshoot... whereby the best team can win, but if they don't, its not some amazing upset or impossible event (as opposed to a two touchdown favorite losing the SB, or a #1 NBA seed losing to a #8 seed).
I'll ask again - how are you determining who is the "best team"? Of the 20 out of 22 "best teams", what is your metric? For example, in 2001, how did you determine the 92-70 DBacks were a better team than, say, the 116-46 Mariners? Did you determine that before the playoffs, and if so, how? or did you determine that because the DBacks won? If Mariano Rivera doesn't give up a broken bat single and the Yankees win that WS, were they the best team? Or did the better DBacks lose in that scenario?
The Diamondbacks won the world series by winning 4 games and the playoffs. I mean why do you think the infield was playing in on that play. They won because Luis earned that hit, they earned that defensive strategy, and Luis fought for that pitch location all series. You can't take that hit away from him hypothetically with a "What if". They were the best team. And they beat the 3 time defending champions on the field. Well deserved.
So...in 2000, you have every Yankee win as an upset, yet you say their championship was deserved because they won the previous year. There is a difference between deserved and ‘best team’. It can be argued that every single World Series winner in your list deserved to win, but it is clear that some of them were not the best team going into the playoffs.
Agree. They weren't best team going in based on the regular season. But I don't care because that's not part of my definition of best team. It's the playoffs that matter to me. They won the previous 2 years. And they won again in 2000 making them 12-1 in the world series over that span. They didn't just get lucky or have some fluke hot streak. They were still the best team in the playoffs. Three years running. Which basically shoots down the crapshoot theory ( from my point of view ) that the Yankees got lucky that year because of variance.
The bbs is reaching new lows... “The best team is the team that wins the WS” theory reminds me of city slickers 2 and when Jon Lovitz’ character claims that “North is always up”. We are now all directly south of an idiot...
You're saying the Yankees weren't a dynasty then? They weren't the best team? How many championships did they need to prove it to you. 4 out of 5 WS appearances. 6 out of 8. Ok, everything is so random. Your theory that baseball is a random event and a literal crapshoot has to be the worst of all time. You've slid the Astros achievement into the category of winning at Yahtzee. Sad you think so little of the Astros achievement becoming the best team in baseball. They earned it.
No, I haven’t. You’re either purposely refusing to grasp the concept or you’re being difficult. The best team in baseball doesn’t always win the World Series... and that’s entirely plausible, and would never considerably be an “upset”. This reminds me of whoever made the asinine argument that “Carlos Correa doesn’t hit long HR’s.”
I posted that I understand why you would want to think that. But it's wrong. And of note, how long were Carlos last three HR, please tell me, I am begging you, please, please do it, and were does he currently rank in power, what, #189 last I checked. He's not even in the top 5 on his own team in average distance. And he's barely 50th percentile in the entire qualified league. Do the math. Don't just be a fanboy with no substance.
Oh jeez... I was praying you wouldn’t actually admit to being that idiot This also reminds me of the time where somebody was extremely skeptical that Aaron Sanchez would do anything as an Astro... At some point, when the hole is deep enough... I guess you just keep digging.
And you still didn't post his HR distances, rank, or average distance because it's embarrassingly below average. It's simple math. He's down to #261 out of 343. It's getting worse. But you can still be blind to it if you want.
