Rockies-Dbags NLCS

[Bowzer]

He's not comparing college bball to MLB, he's saying that both of those teams got hot at the right time when it mattered.

No shit sherlock. The analogy may work for basketball but not for baseball, hence why it's a shitty analogy.

[Bowzer]

It's not my preference to play the dejected head coach after a heartbreaking loss who keeps answering "Give the other team credit" to every question raised from the press about what went wrong.

The Phillies could've exploited the Rockies' weaknesses and still have their shitty bullpen, which is even worse than the Rockies', blow games.

If the Rockies survive the World Series with Jorge Julio, Matt Herges, Jeremy Affeldt, Latroy Hawkins, and Brian Fuentes handing the game to Manny Corpas, then yes, I'll change my opinion.

Julio was left off of the postseason roster. The only two relief pitcher I have any faith in are Corpas and Herges. The rest scare the shit out of me.

[Bowzer]

There are always hot teams in any sport.

There are always hot teams in any sports but I think that plays differently in each sport. I get where you were going at, but being hot is so variable depending on what sport you are in and at what level.

[GiantsFanatic]

No shit sherlock. The analogy may work for basketball but not for baseball, hence why it's a shitty analogy.

The **** are you saying? It worked in basketball because George Mason won those games and made it to the Final Four, in baseball Rockies got hot and are now in the NLCS, and they have one hell of a chance to make it to the WS. So how is it a shitty analogy?

[HollywoodLeo]

The Padres lost the game more than the Rockies won the game, thanks to Trevorblownsavetime. Hell, ****in Jorge Julio handed the Padres the game.

It was a 13 inning game.

In any extra inning affair there'll be many different aspects of the game on both sides of the ball that anyone can point to that, had it gone differently, we could have seen a different outcome.

Extra inning home runs and blown saves stick out like sore thumbs, but there's plenty of other things that you can point to that would've made the game not even go into extras.

The bottom line is, the Rockies rocked Trevor and did what they needed to do to get into the post season.

Playing the "did they win it or did the other team lose it?" game is rather pointless.

[HollywoodLeo]

The **** are you saying? It worked in basketball because George Mason won those games and made it to the Final Four, in baseball Rockies got hot and are now in the NLCS, and they have one hell of a chance to make it to the WS. So how is it a shitty analogy?

Since nobody's said it yet, I'm sure the entire concept of only having to win one game in college basketball, as opposed to a series in baseball, comes to play here.

And before the counter-argument is made, yeah it was a one game playoff....but it was a one game playoff that was created due to the standings not being settled after a 162 game season.

I'm pretty sure that's the thought process, anyways.

I kinda get what you (and mofo) are saying....even if I still don't fully agree with it.

[Bowzer]

The **** are you saying? It worked in basketball because George Mason won those games and made it to the Final Four, in baseball Rockies got hot and are now in the NLCS, and they have one hell of a chance to make it to the WS. So how is it a shitty analogy?

Because college basketball and pro baseball are two very different ****ing sports ****stick. Would George Mason made it to the final 4 if the games were in series and not in single elimination? You bet your ass they wouldn't have but that would've destroyed the fun that is March Madness. He was trying to compare a run of single elimination games to a run that is in series elimination which is a shitty analogy. Also factor in that one player can carry a college basketball team in any given game, that depth could play a huge factor in one game, that foul trouble has to be ruled in, that the depth of talent in college isn't near as close to the talent in the pros at any sport, and that there usually isn't home advantage and that is why it is a shitty analogy. Comparing a team that got hot in NCAA (especially George Mason) to a team that got hot in MLB is a shitty ****ing analogy.

[Bowzer]

Or what Leo said. I get what real was saying, just I don't think it fairly portrays the whole true spectrum of things in both cases.

[realmofotalk]

There are always hot teams in any sports but I think that plays differently in each sport. I get where you were going at, but being hot is so variable depending on what sport you are in and at what level.

The human element is the constant. Hot teams and players become seemingly unbeatable and it doesn't matter who they play because the other guys are most likely scared shitless on the inside.

[GiantsFanatic]

Since nobody's said it yet, I'm sure the entire concept of only having to win one game in college basketball, as opposed to a series in baseball, comes to play here.

And before the counter-argument is made, yeah it was a one game playoff....but it was a one game playoff that was created due to the standings not being settled after a 162 game season.

I'm pretty sure that's the thought process, anyways.

I kinda get what you (and mofo) are saying....even if I still don't fully agree with it.

Because college basketball and pro baseball are two very different ****ing sports ****stick. Would George Mason made it to the final 4 if the games were in series and not in single elimination? You bet your ass they wouldn't have but that would've destroyed the fun that is March Madness. He was trying to compare a run of single elimination games to a run that is in series elimination which is a shitty analogy. Also factor in that one player can carry a college basketball team in any given game, that depth could play a huge factor in one game, that foul trouble has to be ruled in, that the depth of talent in college isn't near as close to the talent in the pros at any sport, and that there usually isn't home advantage and that is why it is a shitty analogy. Comparing a team that got hot in NCAA (especially George Mason) to a team that got hot in MLB is a shitty ****ing analogy.

Leo and Bowzer I understand what your saying about single elimination in CBB, but if you look at the Rockies run its very similar to single eleminatation because techincally there not eliminated if they lose one game, but had they lost just one game durring there run, they wouldn't even be playing SD in the play in game, thats what I think Mofo is trying to say.

Also another anology that would be more acurate is the 99 NY Knicks, they were a 8th seed and beat Miami in the first round, and made it to the NBA Finals that year. Because I believe they barely got into the playoffs by 1 game, but the point is they got hot and made a run, and they played best out of 5 to best out of 7 series.

[realmofotalk]

It was a 13 inning game.

In any extra inning affair there'll be many different aspects of the game on both sides of the ball that anyone can point to that, had it gone differently, we could have seen a different outcome.

Extra inning home runs and blown saves stick out like sore thumbs, but there's plenty of other things that you can point to that would've made the game not even go into extras.

The different aspect of that game was that the Padres had the fortune of facing Jorge Julio in the 13th inning. The same aspect was that the Padres still had the all-time saves leader to close the game.

[Bowzer]

The human element is the constant. Hot teams and players become seemingly unbeatable and it doesn't matter who they play because the other guys are most likely scared shitless on the inside.

I think that has some factor going into it. But in all honesty college players are more likely to get scared shitless compared to pro athletes (on average of course). Looking at this whole thing though, it is often to see teams like George Mason to do that in the Big Dance; however, I can't remember when a team got as hot as the Rockies have this late into the season. It just doesn't happen exactly like that in the MLB is all I was saying. The Rockies are more of an outlier than anything else. The main thing I was going for in all these posts was to point out many things but to mostly point out that the Rockies are in fact very talented. I just got the hint from your analogy that it is as easy to get as far as the Rockies are right now as it was for George Mason to get as far as they did, which ISN'T the case. But who knows, I haven't been able to recover all day from the Broncos game so none of this may make sense to me tomorrow.

[Bowzer]

The different aspect of that game was that the Padres had the fortune of facing Jorge Julio in the 13th inning. The same aspect was that the Padres still had the all-time saves leader to close the game.

But everyone knows that Hoffman blows when it is clutch time .

[HollywoodLeo]

The different aspect of that game was that the Padres had the fortune of facing Jorge Julio in the 13th inning. The same aspect was that the Padres still had the all-time saves leader to close the game.

So, wouldn't reason dictate that if the Padres "overcame" Jorge Julio and the Rockies had to overcome Trevor Hoffman that the Rockies played a better game?

[Bowzer]

So, wouldn't reason dictate that if the Padres "overcame" Jorge Julio and the Rockies had to overcome Trevor Hoffman that the Rockies played a better game?

I'm going to go out on a limb here....... it was a close game. It could've gone either way. It's really hard to argue which team is better because it is simply so close especially considering that we had to play a 163rd game.