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

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.

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.

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.....

because if keep losing on road like we do now that pull lose close 100 mark

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.

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.

I highly doubt it. I think at most they lose 95 games. Best case they win about 75-77 games.

Of course they could, any team can. Will they? Doubt it unless we have a huge injury bug bite us.

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.

even if we lose 90 even 80 games. That is a horrible record.

Losing 80 games is a winning record.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

April.

Why is that dumb?

the absolute best team in the game still loses 40% of the time they play.

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.

The difference in talent from team to team doesn't warrant .700 and .300 records.

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*

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.