Jump to content

2021 MLB Playoffs


SonOfJack
 Share

Recommended Posts


40 minutes ago, Das Texan said:

Looks like Das was right again.

 

Regardless, whether its 3 or 4 teams, it still says plenty and makes the meme kinda fucking stupid. 

Meh, it was just a harmless joke. Could have easily just been a reference to this year where they were great in September and then got knocked out in 1 game in October. Doesn't have to relate to franchise history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no year zero but you should include the zero in the count of a decade because when one talks about, for example, the 90s, they're including the year 1990.

The year 2000 is in the 2000s, not in the 90s, so I think the 2000 should count in this question above .

This century started with the year 2000, not the year 2001.

It's not the same as counting things. The zero counts.

The year you were born you were less than a year old but the year itself counts in your life. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SonOfJack said:

Meh, it was just a harmless joke. Could have easily just been a reference to this year where they were great in September and then got knocked out in 1 game in October. Doesn't have to relate to franchise history.

Also, it's accurate enough every year after 2011, if they had any championships over the last decade then it would be a bad meme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SilverBullet said:

There was no year zero but you should include the zero in the count of a decade because when one talks about, for example, the 90s, they're including the year 1990.

The year 2000 is in the 2000s, not in the 90s, so I think the 2000 should count in this question above .

This century started with the year 2000, not the year 2001.

It's not the same as counting things. The zero counts.

The year you were born you were less than a year old but the year itself counts in your life. 

First century - Year 1-100 AD 

Second century Year 101-200 AD

And so far.

So the 20th century was Year 1901-2000 AD

21st century has been 2001 - now AD.

You can all anything you want a decade technically.  Any 10 year consecutive period is a decade.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SonOfJack said:

Meh, it was just a harmless joke. Could have easily just been a reference to this year where they were great in September and then got knocked out in 1 game in October. Doesn't have to relate to franchise history.

Eh whatever, lost to a far superior team.  

Things happen.  

Was a hell of a good run Marlin fans would have died to have tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Das Texan said:

Eh whatever, lost to a far superior team.  

Things happen.  

Was a hell of a good run Marlin fans would have died to have tbh. 

Yeah but we also probably wouldn’t get all triggered by a meme 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SonOfJack said:

Yeah but we also probably wouldn’t get all triggered by a meme 

Not really triggered, found it insanely stupid and idiotic when you look at the reality. 

 

I mean if people want to be amused by things that are flat out inaccurate then I cool I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael said:

And if they end up losing this game now, we're going to get a MAJOR rule change.

I honestly don't know what happened/what play you're referring to, as I haven't watched any baseball in months, but it's the Rays, the league won't care.

 

If the roles were reversed and the Red Sox got hosed, there'd be a press conference and the rule changed the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

I honestly don't know what happened/what play you're referring to, as I haven't watched any baseball in months, but it's the Rays, the league won't care.

 

If the roles were reversed and the Red Sox got hosed, there'd be a press conference and the rule changed the next day.

During the regular season, absolutely.

 

This, however, happened on a national stage. The rule changes occur under two circumstances.

1. National Stage

2. High-Profile Player / Team

 

My examples, and I'll admit some "apples to oranges" stuff here. First for #2:

No more home plate collisions. Buster Posey getting injured was the catalyst for this. Catchers got trucked for years, got hurt, and said "it's part of the game." Nowadays, young, high-profile star on a team that just won the World Series gets hurt? "We better change the rule." Brett Hayes got absolutely hammered in September of 2010 (ya know, the reason we went after Nyjer Morgan!). Nobody cared. "Part of the game."

 

Now example for #!:

Sliding rules into bases. For years and years and years, takeout slides occurred at second base to prevent double plays. Players got injured for many years. "It's part of the game." Chris Coghlan slides hard into second and breaks Jung Ho Kang's leg in September of 2015. "Well that's unfortunate." Chase Utley slides hard into second and breaks Ruben Tejada's leg in the NLDS, a national stage. "WE HAVE TO CHANGE THIS RULE, NOW."

 

In the NFL, it's similar. Patriots vs Chiefs in the AFC Championship a few years ago. The rule hasn't yet changed, but it got everyone talking - Patriots won the coin flip, marched down the field and scored a touchdown. Mahomes didn't get a shot to try and tie it. For years and years and years, it was simply, "it sucks ... but it's how the game goes." As soon as this happened in a game where the winner gets to go to the Super Bowl, AND against a young and high profile superstar, "maybe we should change this rule ..."

 

This will, at the very least, get a lot of discussion this off-season, and "how can we make this better?" It's a play that should involve umpire discretion.

 

Here's the play in question:

 

 

Yandy Diaz started at first base and was already at third base by the time the ball bounced over. That's where the umpires ended up putting him. He would have very obviously scored on this, because he was on the run with the pitch as well.

Kiermaier would have possibly ended up at third but wouldn't have been the worst thing ever if they placed him at second.

This really needed to be an "umpire's discretion" situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael said:

During the regular season, absolutely.

 

This, however, happened on a national stage. The rule changes occur under two circumstances.

1. National Stage

2. High-Profile Player / Team

 

My examples, and I'll admit some "apples to oranges" stuff here. First for #2:

No more home plate collisions. Buster Posey getting injured was the catalyst for this. Catchers got trucked for years, got hurt, and said "it's part of the game." Nowadays, young, high-profile star on a team that just won the World Series gets hurt? "We better change the rule." Brett Hayes got absolutely hammered in September of 2010 (ya know, the reason we went after Nyjer Morgan!). Nobody cared. "Part of the game."

 

Now example for #!:

Sliding rules into bases. For years and years and years, takeout slides occurred at second base to prevent double plays. Players got injured for many years. "It's part of the game." Chris Coghlan slides hard into second and breaks Jung Ho Kang's leg in September of 2015. "Well that's unfortunate." Chase Utley slides hard into second and breaks Ruben Tejada's leg in the NLDS, a national stage. "WE HAVE TO CHANGE THIS RULE, NOW."

 

In the NFL, it's similar. Patriots vs Chiefs in the AFC Championship a few years ago. The rule hasn't yet changed, but it got everyone talking - Patriots won the coin flip, marched down the field and scored a touchdown. Mahomes didn't get a shot to try and tie it. For years and years and years, it was simply, "it sucks ... but it's how the game goes." As soon as this happened in a game where the winner gets to go to the Super Bowl, AND against a young and high profile superstar, "maybe we should change this rule ..."

 

This will, at the very least, get a lot of discussion this off-season, and "how can we make this better?" It's a play that should involve umpire discretion.

 

Here's the play in question:

 

 

Yandy Diaz started at first base and was already at third base by the time the ball bounced over. That's where the umpires ended up putting him. He would have very obviously scored on this, because he was on the run with the pitch as well.

Kiermaier would have possibly ended up at third but wouldn't have been the worst thing ever if they placed him at second.

This really needed to be an "umpire's discretion" situation.

It'd be nice to have a synced up view to show where he was when the ball went over, but at the very least he looked to be at least halfway between 2nd and 3rd already by the time the ball had landed, at which point I think he should be given 2 bases from where he was when it went out, which would be scoring.  Had he not passed second when it went over, I'd be ok with putting him at 3rd, because you can't assume he'd have scored from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...