Once again, a wild card team advances in the the finals agains t what was
considered a superior team.
Camaro

>Once again, a wild card team advances in

Time to expand the division series to 7 games.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:13:03 -0400, Chris ® wrote:


I generally agree, except this year I'm glad it was 5 games.

>I generally agree, except this year I'm

Me too.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump

On October 08 2006, Tarkus <karnevil9@atlantabraves.net> wrote:

Still trying to figure out this supposed upset. Detroit was
the wild card, but it's hard to argue with the Tigers being at
least an equally talented team. I don't think 7 games
would have changed much in this matchup -- there wasn't a fluke
win like the Mets/Dodgers series. The Tigers just plain outplayed
the Yankees across the board. The Tigers exposed the Yankees
starters and took advantage of a bunch of rusty players coming off
injuries and playing out of position.

Actually I think all the AL teams are pretty similar talent level.
Minnesota road the coattails of Santana/Liriano and only one
of those guys were available. Oakland's deep pitching staff
exposed the Twins weak offense.

Mets even with the depleted pitching staff exposed the Dodgers
overall lack of depth and inexperience. Mets offense is just
plain impressive.

In article <00060908134413.OUI00.davidxn@cxrxlxnx.rr.cxm>,
davidxn@cxrxlxnx.rr.cxm (dn) wrote:


Remember, for a good chunk of the season, the Tigers had the best record
not just in the AL but in all of MLB. They coasted in the last month of
the season, but, even so, it took a tremendous run for the Twins to beat
them out for the AL Central, on the last day of the season. While it's
arguably the case that the Tigers weren't as good as they played early
on, in no way were they as bad as they played toward the end of the
season.

--
"If you love the Rangers set them free; if they win, they're yours, if
they don't they never were...."
--Hadrian Wall on the Zen of fandom

"Tarkus" <karnevil9@atlantabraves.net> wrote

Getting swept by KC to lose their division might have been the best thing
that could have happened to Detroit. Got them to face the Yankees in 5
instead of (had they made it that far) in 7.

Colin

"Alice Faber" <aqfaber@gmail.com> wrote

But still, how often do teams really turn on a dime after finishing as
poorly as they did? I don't know that Detroit was really "coasting". Sure
they'd built up a large lead, but they seemed genuinely worried about their
declining performance coming down the stretch and about the sweep to lose
the division.

I guess the last team I can think of doing that was the 2000 87-win Yankees.

Colin

In article <4ostuiFg85r3U2@individual.net>,
"Colin William" <colintwilliam@hotmail.com> wrote:


I don't know if it would count as "turning on a dime", but the Mets'
worst month of the season was September.

--
"If you love the Rangers set them free; if they win, they're yours, if
they don't they never were...."
--Hadrian Wall on the Zen of fandom

"dn" <davidxn@cxrxlxnx.rr.cxm> wrote

The overall records substantiate it. I think of it asn an upset more within
the context of how the teams finished the year. NY finished with two strong
months after adding a strong player in RF, the Tigers finished poorly
(though in retrospect they did get Polanco back after enduring 20+ starts by
Neifi perez in his absence).

Detroit probably wins in 7 too, but I still am stuck with the ongoing
assumption that the team I pull for in any given postseason series will find
a way to lose.

Colin