2011 ALCS: Tigers @ Rangers

[Reck]

You only want to factor out the regular season because it's convenient for you, so that your 13 innings is the only sample size. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. So because Cliff Lee has stunk in his last 3 or 4 postseason performances, does that mean he's at a disadvantage versus, say, the Cardinals, if the Phillies were down 2-0? This isn't rhetorical, I want to know if you factor in the fact that up to that point, he was pretty much unbeatable in the postseason, including in the World Series and in elimination games.

 

I'll actually say that by the time the Tigers do get to Verlander, regardless of what game it's in, will be facing elimination. I will give the Tigers the advantage in that game, whether it's 3-1 or 3-0. Just like I give the Tigers the pitching edge in game 3 easily.

 

I think if Fister wins tonight, and make's sure to a game 5, that Rangers take game 4, Tigers take game 5 with Verlander, then whoever wins game 6 will win the series (obviously, if it's the Rangers).

 

If the Rangers win tonight, I think they sweep unless Verlander pitches game 4 as an emergency, then they put them down in 5.

 

Tonight's huge, but I don't think it changes who has the advantage when Fister or Verlander are pitching.

 

You're going off base.

 

First of all, I dont care if Verlander does good or bad. Same goes for Texas or any other teams right now on the Playoffs, except maybe Cardinals and only because Pujols is there.

 

So is not convinient for me because I'm indifferent in that regard.

 

With that said..

 

I'm not talking about past accomplishments with those other guys. Just talking about this postseason.

 

Lee, Halladay, Cebathia, Verlander are all great pitchers, no doubt about that.

 

However, all pitchers mentioned above didn't do their thing when it mattered.

 

You can have the best pitcher out there but you wont have the advantage even if he's the best pitcher in the world when the oposing pitcher is basically matching your performance. Which BTW has been the case in many games this year in these playoffs.

[VA Sox Fan]

You're going off base.

 

First of all, I dont care if Verlander does good or bad. Same goes for Texas or any other teams right now on the Playoffs, except maybe Cardinals and only because Pujols is there.

 

So is not convinient for me because I'm indifferent in that regard.

 

With that said..

 

I'm not talking about past accomplishments with those other guys. Just talking about this postseason.

 

Lee, Halladay, Cebathia, Verlander are all great pitchers, no doubt about that.

 

However, all pitchers mentioned above didn't do their thing when it mattered.

 

You can have the best pitcher out there but you wont have the advantage even if he's the best pitcher in the world when the oposing pitcher is basically matching your performance. Which BTW has been the case in many games this year in these playoffs.

 

Who is that? You have referred to him twice tonight.

[VA Sox Fan]

Tigers are still leaving too many men on base. Tighten up fella's!

 

Good luck with all the injuries and what not.

 

Make this series exciting!

[a700hitter]

Lolz' date=' "unless Verlander can pull out a victory". Yeah, they really have a disadvantage in that one.[/quote']The quoted portion of my statement had more to do with the fact that Verlander is not scheduled for game 4, but game 5. If the Tigers go down 3-0, Leyland might be tempted to go with Verlander on short rest. Pitching against the Rangers lineup on short rest is no easy task, even for a great pitcher like Verlander.

[VA Sox Fan]

Nice steal Dirks!

[Emmz]

You're going off base.

 

First of all, I dont care if Verlander does good or bad. Same goes for Texas or any other teams right now on the Playoffs, except maybe Cardinals and only because Pujols is there.

 

So is not convinient for me because I'm indifferent in that regard.

 

1. Your argument is flawed, all you're saying is that somehow the Tigers are disadvantaged somehow because they'll be down. Your argument is that there is pressure of some sort. For one, you don't know what it's like to be Justin Verlander, you've never pitched in a major league baseball game, so you don't know the difference between a regular season or playoff game.

 

2. It is convenient for your argument, because you're trying to discount his regular season, and well over 200 innings worth of performance, because it outshines your crappy sample size of 13 innings interrupted by rain. You keep missing this point.

 

With that said..

 

I'm not talking about past accomplishments with those other guys. Just talking about this postseason.

 

Lee, Halladay, Cebathia, Verlander are all great pitchers, no doubt about that.

 

However, all pitchers mentioned above didn't do their thing when it mattered.

 

You can have the best pitcher out there but you wont have the advantage even if he's the best pitcher in the world when the oposing pitcher is basically matching your performance. Which BTW has been the case in many games this year in these playoffs.

 

Who cares about this postseason. 13 innings worth of sample size isn't substantial. Verlander is advantaged whenever he starts, because he's that good, 13 innings is simply not enough to counter that with any validity. I don't know how this is so difficult to understand, it seems pretty basic to me.

 

LOL @ YOU for saying Halladay or Lee didn't do their thing when it mattered. Lee shut out the Yankees 24/7 in the playoffs, including the WS twice. Just because he's had a few ass performances doesn't mean he's disadvantaged. Had the Phillies advanced to the NLCS, I'd laugh at you for saying the Brewers had some sort of edge over the Phillies vs. Halladay and Lee because they "couldn't get it done" vs. the Cards. Halladay has pitched playoff no-hitters, and only allowed 1 run vs. the Cardinals, who have one of the best offenses in the majors. That's THIS season, not last season.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Verlander has pitched a total of 34 innings in the postseason in his career, and has a 5.71 era, 2-3 record, and 1.5 whip. No matter how you want to spin that, that's bad. Screw sample sizes.

[Emmz]

In 2006 he was a rookie, that's completely irrelevant to today, where he's become the best pitcher in the AL, and is in his prime years.

 

Try again, please.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

In 2006 he was a rookie, that's completely irrelevant to today, where he's become the best pitcher in the AL, and is in his prime years.

 

Try again, please.

 

Yeah, and Jacoby Ellsbury's .360 average as a rookie in the 2007 postseason series is irrelevant. It's probably irrelevant today also that Verlander was in the top 10 in Cy Young voting, top 20 in MVP, and rookie of the year in 2006. He was one of the best pitchers in the league then, and ever since.But wait a minute, did you just factor out the regular season because it's convenient for you? I thought that mattered too.

 

Really, every time you discuss something with people on this site you try to fault their argument EVERY TIME with either "small sample size", "straw man", "irrelevant" or something of the sort... It'd be nice to see you not do that just once.

 

In the end, Verlander hasn't shown himself to be a great post season pitcher. Therefore, in the post season, his team may be at a disadvantage when he pitches regardless of how much talent he has or what he did in the regular season.

[Emmz]

Yeah, and Jacoby Ellsbury's .360 average as a rookie in the 2007 postseason series is irrelevant. It's probably irrelevant today also that Verlander was in the top 10 in Cy Young voting, top 20 in MVP, and rookie of the year in 2006. He was one of the best pitchers in the league then, and ever since.But wait a minute, did you just factor out the regular season because it's convenient for you? I thought that mattered too.

 

Really, every time you discuss something with people on this site you try to fault their argument EVERY TIME with either "small sample size", "straw man", "irrelevant" or something of the sort... It'd be nice to see you not do that just once.

 

In the end, Verlander hasn't shown himself to be a great post season pitcher. Therefore, in the post season, his team may be at a disadvantage when he pitches regardless of how much talent he has or what he did in the regular season.

 

every time I'm discussing something, you butt your head in and try to start s***. You use flimsy ******** logic and irrelevant stats, and when others use better stats than you do, you get mad and say how stupid sabermetrics are. Or you take my posts out of context. If that didn't happen, I wouldn't have to say that sort of s*** all the time, and it's sapping my strength that I have to explain this s*** to you every time, but you do it every time I'm involved in a discussion. You're now veering off subject into past arguments and trying to instigate s***. This is the EPITOME of irrelevance LOL.

 

13 innings is a s*** sample size, 2006, his rookie season, is irrelevant to today. Your logic is this: 2006 playoffs and 2011 playoffs (13 innings of it) are relevant, but 2011 is not.... But somehow his 2006 regular season is relevant to why 2011 isn't relevant? That's just a maze of circular logic dude.

 

2006 is irrelevant, recent and large sample sizes suggest he's at an advantage whenever he pitches.

 

You resort to tactics like attacking their posting style. How about you, for once, attack the post and not the poster? This is called ad hominem. You're a fountain of logical fallacies, and you're just proving it with this post. Just because I say these words like "irrelevant" or "logical fallacy" or whatever does not mean it doesn't apply. When it does apply, I'm not going to let you keep debating like you're making a sound, rational argument.

 

Why should I just keep arguing like nothing happened when you take what I said out of context to make it easier for you to defeat? Either it means you're intentionally jerking me off about it, or you're not comprehending what I'm typing properly. Don't get mad at logic bro, just take some time, settle down and try to make a better argument that doesn't involve ad hominem, taking my words out of context, or use out-of-date stats that don't apply to the situation.

 

Now, could you discuss the actual point, and not your squabbles over the words I use?

[Emmz]

Since I'm anticipating something about how my breakdown of your logic is a "straw man", I figure I'll just go through it more in detail exactly how this is your logic indeed.

 

Verlander has pitched a total of 34 innings in the postseason in his career, and has a 5.71 era, 2-3 record, and 1.5 whip. No matter how you want to spin that, that's bad. Screw sample sizes.

 

This says: 2006 playoffs is relevant, 13 innings from 2011 is relevant, sample sizes are unimportant.

 

Yeah, and Jacoby Ellsbury's .360 average as a rookie in the 2007 postseason series is irrelevant. It's probably irrelevant today also that Verlander was in the top 10 in Cy Young voting, top 20 in MVP, and rookie of the year in 2006. He was one of the best pitchers in the league then, and ever since.But wait a minute, did you just factor out the regular season because it's convenient for you? I thought that mattered too.

 

This says: that 2006 regular season is relevant as to why his 2011 regular season is irrelevant. Being a top pitcher in 2006 is the same as being THE top pitcher now.

 

That's all in perfect context, in clear text. I have good sarcasm detectors, see?

 

Your logic just doesn't really make sense. Verlander was a good pitcher then, one of the best in the AL, but he was not elite. He is now pretty much a dream pitcher, the best in the league. He's got elite stuff, he's got the command, and he's the biggest workhorse in the league.

 

He's improved since 2006, and if the 2011 regular season isn't more relevant to the 2011 playoffs than the 2006 playoffs and a 13 inning bad stretch in the 2011 playoffs where he was rain delayed TWICE, then this is pointless.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Oh boy. Your level of mad is quite hilarious and entertaining. But good job on completely missing the point of my post, getting butthurt on one sentence, and also trying your best to dissect my post and make it look like I don't know what the f*** I'm saying when it's all just actually going over your head.

[Emmz]

Oh boy. Your level of mad is quite hilarious and entertaining. But good job on completely missing the point of my post' date=' getting butthurt on one sentence, and also trying your best to dissect my post and make it look like I don't know what the f*** I'm saying when it's all just actually going over your head.[/quote']

 

 

When arguing actual baseball-related points (I actually typed in the word "intelligently" here first, then remembered how stupid your last couple of posts were, but hey, can't hate ya for at least TRYING to argue baseball, even if you stink at it) fails, resort to bad, obvious trolling.

 

Lol, trust me, I can beat you at that too. I'd quit while you're only a little behind.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

You know, I'd take things a bit more seriously and try to have an intelligent conversation, but I get put off when I try to and get a snide remark like "Try again, please". To be honest, get the f*** over yourself.

[Emmz]

Lol, who's butthurt now? Jeez, and you thought I was mad? You get all bent out of shape every time I say anything you deem to be arrogant.

 

Funny how first it was that you took exception to my use of the word irrelevant, then you attempted to actually discuss baseball, then when you couldn't handle a assessment of your logic, and some counterpoints, you resort to trolling. To top it off, you get butthurt (after calling me butthurt LOL) because I'm too arrogant.

 

It's the internet dude, get over it, stop s***ing your pants every time I say anything you don't see eye-to-eye with.

[VA Sox Fan]

Rain delay is over. First pitch at 6:30.

 

BTW, go Emmz! lol

[Station 13]

Beltre is a defensive wizard.

[VA Sox Fan]

Beltre is a defensive wizard.

 

That was a nice play.

[VA Sox Fan]

Cabrera is a beast! 2-0 Tigers bottom 3rd.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

What happened? I went to get cake and the score is 2-0. Awesome

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Porcello is the freakin man

[VA Sox Fan]

What happened? I went to get cake and the score is 2-0. Awesome

 

Cabrera had a 2 rbi double that almost went out.

[VA Sox Fan]

Porcello is the freakin man

 

No Doubt! :thumbsup:

 

Another good game, so far.

[VA Sox Fan]

Young ripped that one. Foul.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Oh, I thought it was a homer. Thanks.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

If the Tigers don't win the World Series this year I bet they will within the next 3. I love watching this team.

[VA Sox Fan]

If the Tigers don't win the World Series this year I bet they will within the next 3. I love watching this team.

 

Me too. Leyland is a great manager and there are so many good players on that team.

 

I also like Texas.

 

Find myself rooting for the Tigers for the most part. Verlander is a VA native and still has a home about 20 mins from where I live. Have heard he's a good guy and very down to earth.

[Reck]

Yeah, and Jacoby Ellsbury's .360 average as a rookie in the 2007 postseason series is irrelevant. It's probably irrelevant today also that Verlander was in the top 10 in Cy Young voting, top 20 in MVP, and rookie of the year in 2006. He was one of the best pitchers in the league then, and ever since.But wait a minute, did you just factor out the regular season because it's convenient for you? I thought that mattered too.

 

Really, every time you discuss something with people on this site you try to fault their argument EVERY TIME with either "small sample size", "straw man", "irrelevant" or something of the sort... It'd be nice to see you not do that just once.

 

In the end, Verlander hasn't shown himself to be a great post season pitcher. Therefore, in the post season, his team may be at a disadvantage when he pitches regardless of how much talent he has or what he did in the regular season.

 

LOL yep.

 

That's why I stopped replying. Emmz is one of those people that has to be right everytime and everyone is wrong.

 

Anyhow, back on topic..

 

The Rangers look dead in this game. They're not even trying.

[VA Sox Fan]

Murphy is raking and now Kinsler.

 

2-1.

[Reck]

And of course after I made that comment about Rangers acting like they're dead. They go on a run scoring binge. lol