miamibaseball Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 the way we play on road what change losing 100 game like last year ?i know manger think this better team last year but i dont see it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Ugh, close this. We just lost one game cuz our awesome closer had his first bad night in a full year. We're 10-13, not 3-20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Ugh, close this. We just lost one game cuz our awesome closer had his first bad night in a full year. We're 10-13, not 3-20. To be fair, we're on pace to go 70-92, and one more loss would pretty much have us right on pace to lose 100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlinsForever Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 could we lose 100 game again? I would say that we will, I said before I predicted we win 84 games and 3rd in the standings.. I was way off..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamibaseball Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 because if keep losing on road like we do now that pull lose close 100 mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Ram Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 This teams no good, but I think they will be closer to 90 than 100. Don't react to a good or bad week. It'll even out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackRubysDog Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 This team is better than a 10-13 team. People react too harshly. I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread saying that Steve Cishek is a worse closer than Heath Bell or Jorge Julio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yokofox33 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 I highly doubt it. I think at most they lose 95 games. Best case they win about 75-77 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMarlinPride Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Of course they could, any team can. Will they? Doubt it unless we have a huge injury bug bite us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlinsForever Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 This teams no good, but I think they will be closer to 90 than 100. Don't react to a good or bad week. It'll even out. even if we lose 90 even 80 games. That is a horrible record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 even if we lose 90 even 80 games. That is a horrible record. Losing 80 games is a winning record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poptart Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 and that's why baseball's kind of dumb. you look at any other sport, a division leader has a .700ish record. in baseball (last season) the best team was under .600 a GREAT team wins less than 2/3 of its games? it's dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Ram Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 even if we lose 90 even 80 games. That is a horrible record. 80 would be an average team. You also have to remember it's a rebuilding time and the team isn't realistically built to win right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 and that's why baseball's kind of dumb. you look at any other sport, a division leader has a .700ish record. in baseball (last season) the best team was under .600 a GREAT team wins less than 2/3 of its games? it's dumb I see it as showing how difficult baseball is. And it's still better than the NBA where not just one but multiple teams with losing records actually get into the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SongInTheAir Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 and that's why baseball's kind of dumb. you look at any other sport, a division leader has a .700ish record. in baseball (last season) the best team was under .600 a GREAT team wins less than 2/3 of its games? it's dumb I LOVE the parity of baseball. If you don't like parity, watch basketball, where .200 and .700 teams are common in the same year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 To be fair, we're on pace to go 70-92, and one more loss would pretty much have us right on pace to lose 100. The irony is strong in this here thread, I tell ya what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 and that's why baseball's kind of dumb. you look at any other sport, a division leader has a .700ish record. in baseball (last season) the best team was under .600 a GREAT team wins less than 2/3 of its games? it's dumb Why is that dumb? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammerhead Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 April. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poptart Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Why is that dumb? the absolute best team in the game still loses 40% of the time they play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 the absolute best team in the game still loses 40% of the time they play. You'll win 54, you'll lose 54, it's what you do with the other 54 that matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entendu Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The difference in talent from team to team doesn't warrant .700 and .300 records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Beinfest Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Why is that dumb? WELL WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT PARITY IN SPORTS? I mean clearly what they should be doing is half the league in the playoffs with two dominant teams and the playoffs having no value until the finals. *cough* NBA *cough* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackRubysDog Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 WELL WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT PARITY IN SPORTS? I mean clearly what they should be doing is half the league in the playoffs with two dominant teams and the playoffs having no value until the finals. *cough* NBA *cough* We've had this England, in football/soccer for years now: English soccer titles won since 1992: Manchester United (13), Arsenal (3), Chelsea (3), Blackburn Rovers (1), Manchester City (1). That's like the Yankees winning the World Series (or at least the AL) nearly every year, with a couple of wins for the Red Sox and Cardinals thrown in. Oh and the Marlins and the Dodgers once. In Scotland it's even crazier: Scottish soccer titles win since 1985: Rangers (17), Celtic (12). Now you may think only two teams play for the title in Scotland each year, but that's not true - there are 40 in the league, but only two teams have won it in the last 29 years. Can you imagine the World Series being the same two teams every year for almost 30 years? And yes, it kind of sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.