Yeah, their right fielder must be feeling kinda Buckneresque right about now.
Juan Soto has a good chance to be the left-handed, left-fielding Willie Mays. You read it here first.
What odds will you give me on that bet?
Maybe so, but the timing of this particular bullpen implosion for Milwaukee was particularly inauspicious. 
People are acting like the Twins snuck into the playoffs out of a weak division, with 89 wins or something. The Twins aren’t underdogs this year. Yankees fans should be very nervous…home field might be the only thing that saves them.
Me and history will bet you straight up that the Yanks win.
Current odds for the ALCS champion are Yankees 2/1, Twins 6/1 - 7/1. Here, or here.
So, very brave of you to offer pick em odds and take the Yankees.
Yankees won the regular season series with them 4-2, with one game going into extra innings. How many of the legion of guys who got injured on the Yankees this year, are going to be able to play in the ALDS?
Unfortunately, Jacoby Ellsbury won’t be on the postseason roster.
“Plenty” is understating it. They may have won 100 games with even a mediocre bullpen.
The Nets won because of the home field advantage.
They had a lot of support there.
Heh. I stopped watching after the first. Way too many idiotic commercials on TBS; I’ll have to find a radio to listen to with the TV on mute when they play the Dodgers.
MLB.TV has offered me, an international subscriber, a post season ticket to all the games for 25USD.
After I do the math, how much per game?, I may join.
If all the teams play the maximum number (5 of 5, 7 0f 7) of games. What would be the price per game?
Thanks for your help.
4 DCS @ Best of 5 = 20
2 LCS @ Best of 7 = 14
1 WS @ Best of 7 = 7
41 games @ 25 = .61/game
Even thinking fairly conservatively (avg DCS goes 4 game, avg LCS goes 5, WCS goes 5) there’s probably 30+ games in there, so still less than $1 per game.
TLDR, it’s a deal, take it.
Gracias Zakalwe for the math!
I am on it! Will be great to have the larger screen.
On the one hand “Yes, I know. Win your division”
In theory though…because when it was implemented the One game playoff was most likely to affect the… John Henry: “We will never be able to financially compete with the Yankees so lets go for the WC Red Sox”… i hated the idea. I railed against it. Called it a forced substitute for actual one game playoffs. Said its like deciding a football playoff game based on one series of downs. In theory i still hate it even though my Red Sox have never had to play in it…and its gone on so long I would have been happy to see the Sox in it.
Yes, I know. “Win your division”. But I still feel for the A’s.
I don’t think that’s at all a fair assessment of John Henry’s approach. The Red Sox tried to win as many games as they could. If that meant a Wild Card, oh well. They never aimed for second place and you can’t argue with the results over the last twenty years.
I don’t like the two Wild Card thing, but the Wild Card is, to my mind, a superior approach than would be four divisions, if you’re looking for a three round playoff system (which I like.) A three-division-winners plus one system will generate a higher quality of playoff team than a four-division-winner system. Adding the Wild Card game reduces the quality a little (though Tampa Bay over Oakland isn’t really a difference at all.)
The thing about the Widl Card games is some of these games would have had to happen anyway; I can think of several examples where the two teams had the same record anyhow and so would have played the same game under the old system.
Is it just me, or is this sort of thing juvenile and possibly sexist bullshit?
I understand that there’s going to be beer and champagne flowing in the locker room of a team that’s just won its way into the playoffs, and I don’t expect the players to curb their exuberance just to accommodate the reporters, but it seems to me that there’s a difference between some incidental soaking and a deliberate effort to pour as much shitty beer as possible over the head of a professional reporter who’s just trying to do her job.
I’ve seen male reporters get wet from beer and champagne before, but I don’t recall ever seeing this type of concentrated and persistent soaking, and I can’t help but thinking that it’s a product of the fact that the reporter is a relatively young woman.
You’re right, that’s not a good look, especially when it’s a bunch of men and a lone woman. Bad optics, as they say. Also, TV reporter means TV makeup getting wrecked. She’s not a member of the team, or even the organization. Why should she (or he) get drenched? On the other hand, does anybody watch or care about these celebrations? The game is over.
I didn’t even really care about those celebrations when it was the Blue Jays. “Wooooo! It’s a great bunch of guys! This is what we worked for! Gonna have some fun tonight and then get ready for the next round!” You can only say those things so many ways.
I think you’re making too much out of it. It doesn’t look good in isolation but I’ve seen the beat reporters get pretty drenched in celebrations. Sweeny Murti of WFAN has been that drenched covering the Yanks. Others have too. Though most teams use champagne don’t they?
ETA: If she isn’t a regular reporter though, it is a lot worse looking.
I’m curious, you don’t like the post-game celebrations, how about when the fans stay after the win of a clinching game or big comeback to serenade their team?
I’ve been part of a few, thousands strong, sing-alongs to New York, New York in the past.