Magic Number: Playoffs - 0; Division - 4

[Orlando]

3 hours ago, ChiSox59 said:

I think they win today and get 2/3 from the Reds. That’s 37-23. That requires Sox to go 4-1 to win division outright at 38-22.

 Plus there is Cleveland who if Sox lose next two are 1 GB with 3 left with Pittsburgh. 

Sox would only need to go 3-2 if the twins win today and 2 of 3 vs Reds. 4 is the magic number so 1 Twins loss and 3 Sox wins would do it. Sox have the tie breaker.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Orlando

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

The Sox don’t even deserve to win the division the way they’ve been playing. At this point I just hope they don’t have to face Cleveland in the Wild Card round because that has disaster written all over it.

[Orlando]

Just now, YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! said:

The Sox don’t even deserve to win the division the way they’ve been playing. At this point I just hope they don’t have to face Cleveland in the Wild Card round because that has disaster written all over it.

So teams that had their bad stretches earlier "deserve it". Cmon, the Sox have played so well they can afford a little skid. It would still take a pretty bad meltdown to lose the division. They have the tie breaker.

[reiks12]

Since clinching the playoffs its like this team doesnt care. Thats on the coaching staff

[maloney.adam]

I have a question, if the Sox win and the Twins lose tonight wouldn’t that drop the magic number to two and if the Sox win and the Twins win the magic number would go to three correct?

Edited September 23, 2020 by maloney.adam

[Orlando]

Just now, maloney.adam said:

Say for example, If the Sox win and the Twins lose tonight Wouldn’t that drop the magic number to two? 

Yes any combination of Sox wins and Twins losses that = 4 means we win the division.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

5 minutes ago, Orlando said:

So teams that had their bad stretches earlier "deserve it". Cmon, the Sox have played so well they can afford a little skid. It would still take a pretty bad meltdown to lose the division. They have the tie breaker.

I mean the Sox have been having a pretty bad meltdown since last Thursday when they clinched a playoff spot. lol

[maloney.adam]

That off day for the Twins tomorrow is crucial because if we lose again tonight and the Twins win, we need to win tomorrow to gain that .05 game back because we hold the tiebreaker. That would be a momentum booster going into the Cubs series.

Edited September 23, 2020 by maloney.adam

[Orlando]

2 minutes ago, YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! said:

I mean the Sox have been having a pretty bad meltdown since last Thursday when they clinched a playoff spot. lol

IDK if this is a meltdown. A couple bad games and some bad luck. We are a week removed from taking 3 of 4 from our rival. 

[flavum]

9 minutes ago, maloney.adam said:

I have a question, if the Sox win and the Twins lose tonight wouldn’t that drop the magic number to two and if the Sox win and the Twins win the magic number would go to three correct?

The magic number goes down by one with every Sox win and every Twins loss, so yes. 

[Orlando]

5 minutes ago, maloney.adam said:

That off day for the Twins tomorrow is crucial because if we lose again tonight and the Twins win we need to win tomorrow to gain that .05 game back because we hold the tiebreaker. That would be a momentum booster going into the Cubs series.

I agree. If the Sox lose and Twins win today and the Sox win tomorrow they will be tied in the standings but it will be more like a 1 game lead for the Sox because of the tie breaker.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

5 minutes ago, Orlando said:

IDK if this is a meltdown. A couple bad games and some bad luck. We are a week removed from taking 3 of 4 from our rival. 

It seems to me like the Sox have been coasting and taking things for granted since last Thursday. I hope the ejections and the ending of last night’s game lit a fire under these guys.

[ChiSox59]

21 minutes ago, Orlando said:

Sox would only need to go 3-2 if the twins win today and 2 of 3 vs Reds. 4 is the magic number so 1 Twins loss and 3 Sox wins would do it. Sox have the tie breaker.

I said win division outright.  Not win a tie breaker.  4 is the magic number to get the top seed in the division, 5 is the magic number to win the division outright.  

I want to be ALC Champions by having the best record.  Not Co-ALC Champions who won the one year seeding tiebreaker.  

Edited September 23, 2020 by ChiSox59

[Orlando]

4 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I said win division outright.  Not win a tie breaker.  4 is the magic number to get the top seed in the division, 5 is the magic number to win the division outright.  

I want to be ALC Champions by having the best record.  Not Co-ALC Champions who won the one year seeding tiebreaker.  

They will still be named AL Central Champions unless I’m missing something

[maloney.adam]

9 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I said win division outright.  Not win a tie breaker.  4 is the magic number to get the top seed in the division, 5 is the magic number to win the division outright.  

I want to be ALC Champions by having the best record.  Not Co-ALC Champions who won the one year seeding tiebreaker.  

I don't think they use Co-champions anymore. If you win the tiebreaker that means you win the division completely. In 2008 when we won the tiebreaker game, that was the case. Unless I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure that’s how it works.

Edited September 23, 2020 by maloney.adam

[ChiSox59]

9 minutes ago, Orlando said:

They will still be named AL Central Champions unless I’m missing something

 

7 minutes ago, maloney.adam said:

I don't think they use Co-champions anymore. If you win the tiebreaker that means you win the division completely. In 2008 when we won the tiebreaker game, that was the case. Unless I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure that’s how it works.

I mean the teams will have the same record.  They tied.  The Sox won the tiebreaker.  I want to actually win the division outright.  A tie is a tie, and I am happy we have the tiebreaker with the Twins as opposed to not having it, but actually winning it would definitely be sweeter in my mind.  Hence why I think we need to go 4-1 as the Twins are likely to finish 3-1.  Tall task at this point, IMO.  

[Orlando]

7 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

 

I mean the teams will have the same record.  They tied.  The Sox won the tiebreaker.  I want to actually win the division outright.  A tie is a tie, and I am happy we have the tiebreaker with the Twins as opposed to not having it, but actually winning it would definitely be sweeter in my mind.  Hence why I think we need to go 4-1 as the Twins are likely to finish 3-1.  Tall task at this point, IMO.  

If that’s how you feel, more power to you but the MLB rules this year make them the champs and it’s not like it’s a coin flip, their play vs the central will earn them that distinction so I will be happy and that banner will fly at the Rate. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Orlando

[he gone.]

Am one of the few that don't really care if we win the division? I really don't care what seed we play. 

I'd love to play the Astros, Blue Jays, Oakland, Twins ... those are the teams I'd want in a 3 game series. Outside of that? I don't really care if we finish 2 seed or 7 seed or anywhere in between. 

[flavum]

5 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Am one of the few that don't really care if we win the division? I really don't care what seed we play. 

I'd love to play the Astros, Blue Jays, Oakland, Twins ... those are the teams I'd want in a 3 game series. Outside of that? I don't really care if we finish 2 seed or 7 seed or anywhere in between. 

I just want to see good baseball before next Tuesday. Baseball is weird, but I don’t see the Sox flipping the switch next week if they suck all this week. 

[reiks12]

Giolito vs Cole

Keuchel vs Tanaka

Lopez/Dunning vs Happ

Our bullpen is better

Im starting to think I would much rather face the Yankees than the Indians who for whatever reason own us. 

[he gone.]

I understand that angle too. I think a lot of Sox fans got wrapped up in the fact we were hot for a few weeks. I think we have to balance who that came against. It's a sign of a good team to beat up on the bad ones. But realistically this team is exactly what I still think it was going into the season .... young, inexperienced, etc. It was going to be up and down and i think if we played 162 this year finishing around the 85 win mark is probably what this team really is. 

The issues are what have hurt the Cubs/Twins in the past... aka, you can't just rely on home runs. even in today's game. you have to be able to be situational hitters, smarter AB's, and put the ball in play. HR teams can get hot and that can carry them for weeks on end, but when cold you turn into the Cubs of the past few years. I've said in the past, and continue to say even now, this isn't the year. Next year isn't the year either. This is the year to have nice stretches and bad stretches and to learn from them. Next year is a year where realistiically, in a perfect scenario we could win it all, but the following year is the real year. 

 

Things I wanted to see this year: Cease/Dunning/Rodon/Kopech learning, growing, figuring out how to pitch at the major league level sucessfully, and showing they can do it for a full season. I can't say that has happened much. Kopech didn't suit up. Rodon was hurt again all season. Cease has been Lopez of a few years back - he has the stuff, but not really putting it together. Dunning looks like a  guy who can be a mainstay as a 3/4 guy. one out of four pitchers taking that next step is really disappointing. I would have liked to see two of the guys solidify their role as pitchers who are mainstays. 

Giolito/Moncada - I wanted to see them repeat their success and take that next step into true studs. I think we can confirm that this year with gio. so take that as a positive. moncada? To me he's turning into Joe Crede. Which isn't necessarily a knock - it's just that he's not going to be Arenado/Machado or some stud 3B as we hoped. He can still be a decent piece on a Championship team. I just don't think he's going to be the reason we win. Nonetheless he should be able to hold down the corner spot fine enough in that 6/7 hole in the lineup IMO.

Robert/Madrigal - get a feel for what we have there. I think I'm confident in both guys that their play into the future well. Robert is what I thought - now it's his turn to readjust to pitching and pressure/weight of doing it consistently. I really wish he had a full year ... but confident next year or the following year you'll see him "figure it out" completely and take that step to being a top 20 bat in the league. Madrigal just is about as worry free as you can have, and i think thats important. 

RF - still a hole. Still a disaster. Engel though looks like he can be that nice 4OF on a championship team which to me is a huge step compared to coming itno the year. 

Eloy - The defense is disappointing, but i like his approach at the plate a bit better. Still cant say I'm not disappointed with his progress. 

Overall I give the Sox a B on the year, but in no way do i really think we'll be able to grind it through the playoffs and come out the other end. 

[Jose Abreu]

2 hours ago, reiks12 said:

Giolito vs Cole

Keuchel vs Tanaka

 Lopez/Dunning vs Happ

Our bullpen is better

 Im starting to think I would much rather face the Yankees than the Indians who for whatever reason own us. 

I wonder if the Yankees would avoid throwing Happ against us because of our success vs LHP

[South Side Hit Men]

4 hours ago, maloney.adam said:

I don't think they use Co-champions anymore. If you win the tiebreaker that means you win the division completely. In 2008 when we won the tiebreaker game, that was the case. Unless I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure that’s how it works.

In 2001, Houston / Cardinals tie, broken by a tie-breaker and not a Game 163, was the first example of two teams claiming a "co-division championship".

Before Division Titles and the regular season meant something. Like all other aspects of MLB, ownership greed has rendered the regular season a marathon length exhibition season, followed by a few dozen games which actually matter in terms of revenue and a "champion" played by a majority of teams not good enough to win a five team division.

"Wild cards" expanded from two to four and now ten teams, or a majority of the sixteen teams competing for a "championship". Sorry, but if you cannot beat four other teams in a lengthy season, you shouldn't be able to complete for a championship.

I follow the season because of Rotisserie baseball, but the expansion has made the playoffs a farce which I rarely watch.

[reiks12]

55 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

In 2001, Houston / Cardinals tie, broken by a tie-breaker and not a Game 163, was the first example of two teams claiming a "co-division championship".

Before Division Titles and the regular season meant something. Like all other aspects of MLB, ownership greed has rendered the regular season a marathon length exhibition season, followed by a few dozen games which actually matter in terms of revenue and a "champion" played by a majority of teams not good enough to win a five team division.

"Wild cards" expanded from two to four and now ten teams, or a majority of the sixteen teams competing for a "championship". Sorry, but if you cannot beat four other teams in a lengthy season, you shouldn't be able to complete for a championship.

I follow the season because of Rotisserie baseball, but the expansion has made the playoffs a farce which I rarely watch.

OK boomer

[South Side Hit Men]

4 minutes ago, reiks12 said:

OK boomer

Not quite, and all ages should support season integrity, especially those who buy tickets for one of the 81 exhibition games (or 30, when the owners want to avoid honoring signed contracts).