Conference hbahba::cam_sports

    
    George excuse #1 
    
    	- abbreviation or symbolic representation 	= GM#1
    	- reference note				= 88.3232
    
    	Excuse - 
    
    	"Winning championships means little if anything when it comes to
    	picking the better team. When a team wins a championship series
    	all that means is that they played better than the other team,
    	not that they are better than the other team. Good teams play
     	bad games and bad teams play good games all the time."

  Championships do not determine who is the better team, they determine who
played better. That's not an excuse it's a fact and there are many examples to
back it up. 

  The idea that winning means you are better is a romantic and notion that
has great emotional appeal but it has little relationship to reality.

  George

    >> The idea that winning means you are better is a romantic and 
    >> notion that has great emotional appeal but it has little re-
    >> lationship to reality.
    
       If winning doesn't mean you're a better team then what does?
       Who can swig the most beers? Dropping trou and breaking out 
       the measuring tape? Explain please, o' wise one.

    
    Using GM#1, the Red Sox are better than the Indians this year - outcome
    of games is meaningless, but the one game George went to Tim Naehring 
    was a star.
    
    (the above statement pretty much sums it all up)
    

RE         <<< Note 280.3 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>       If winning doesn't mean you're a better team then what does?
>       Who can swig the most beers? Dropping trou and breaking out 
>       the measuring tape? Explain please, o' wise one.

  This is a compound question of the form "when will you stop beating your
dog". It assumes that we agree that you are beating your dog but only question
when you will stop. 

  I don't agree with your unspoken assumption that there is any way to clearly
tell which team is better than another team. Some times teams are so evenly
matched neither is better than the other. Sometimes, as in baseball with no
interleague play, there is no way to ever know which team is better. 

  In any case, a championship game or series adds little to the dilemma. If you
win you are the champion but that just means you won, not that you are
necessarily better. 

  George 

RE                      <<< Note 280.4 by ROCK::GRONOWSKI >>>

>    Using GM#1, the Red Sox are better than the Indians this year - outcome
>    of games is meaningless, but the one game George went to Tim Naehring 
>    was a star.

  No, that's not what I said. In the case of the Red Sox v. the Indians there
was a large sample size of 12 games and there are many games against common
opponents as well as a ton of individual stats that seem to indicate that
the Indians are the better team.
    
>    (the above statement pretty much sums it all up)
    
  Here we agree.

  George

    
    12 games is a large sample size whereas 6 games is a small sample size?
    
    So is 9 games a medium sample size?  What sample size is required to
    make a comparison?
    

    
    
     re .5
    
     Just answer the question. If winning doesn't mean you're the
     better team then what does?

    
    The team with higher merchandise sales, better uniforms, and proximity
    to George (unless, you include GM#2 - former teams of near proximity
    cities).
    

    
    George excuse #3
    
    	- abbreviation or symbolic representation	= GM#3
    	- reference note				= RED_SOX 621.527
    
    	Excuse -
    
    	"just because you lose, that doesn't make you a loser"
    
    
    

This stuff just keeps growing and growing and growing....

It must be alive or something....

    
    	It's the GeorgeBlob!  Run away!
    
    Claybone

    
    
       Claybone   Rollwarddddd
    
    
            Tell em George its not whether you win or lose its how you play
    the game.
    
    
        I hereby Denounce the Yankees 21 WS championships. The other team
    was definitely better in all those series.
    
    Chap

  Well it's clear from the response that we sit on the verge of another one of
our great LDUCs. As with many of these I've started it all by eating a hamburg
made out of one of sport's great sacred cows.

  As usual, the 1st round consists of a simple "God is dead" type statement
this time of the form "Champions are teams that played better, not teams that
are better" and the crowd goes berserk.

  So now what? Do we dive into this or not? Does anyone want a long drawn out
argument as to whether or not the champion is the best team or the team that
played better or after about a month of this is everyone going to resent the
fact that we are discussing this?

  As I understand, your (plural) argument is:

    - Teams are static things from the start to the end of the season.
    - It is a given that you can always determine the best team, the only
      question is how it's done.
    - The best teams always make it to the playoffs.
    - The best team always wins.

  My argument is:

    - Teams are dynamic things constantly changing throughout the season.
    - It is almost impossible to ever know which team is the best. You can
      only approximate who is the best through analysis of a large number
      of games and then you are only measuring their average ability throughout
      the season.
    - The best teams have a better chance of making the playoffs.
    - The champion is not the best team but the team that played better.

  What about it? Big debate throughout July or let it drop?

  George

RE          <<< Note 280.18 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    George, telnet to node BLACKHOLE.SUK.DEC.COM, execute BROKENRECORD.EXE, 
>    and then proceed to debate to your heart's content there.
    
  Mike, the problem is that while your words here say you do not want to
debate, this in effect is a typical note from your side while one of our
debates is getting started.

  If you really didn't want a debate you wouldn't have challenged my statement
in the 1st place, you would have just ignored it. 

  The fact that you not only dove in but dove in with such irrational anger
suggests that you feel very deeply about this. While I know you to be an
intelligent guy, so far your argument seems to be:

   - I hate your position about Champions not being the best.
   - I want to win by intimidation, not by arguing.
   - Down here Cambridge represents all we hate.
   - I hate what you said about Champions.
   - Therefor you are a cambridge.

  That's not going to stop the debate, fanning the flames like that will only
heat it up.

  If what you feel is : "I like to think of a champion as the best regardless
if they are or are not and you popping my bubble makes me upset", then fine.
Say that and we'll let it drop. But inflammatory statements like the one you
entered will only make it more likely that we will debate, not less likely.

  George

    
    Groaner only has one excuse, anything he says....

   >> - It is almost impossible to ever know which team is the best. You can
   >>   only approximate who is the best through analysis of a large number
   >>   of games and then you are only measuring their average ability 
   >>   throughout the season.

      This and the rest of your reply is a lot of pseudo-intellectual
      BS. It quite often very easy to tell who the best team is. In
      basketball this year it was Chicago, in football Dallas and in
      college basketball it was Kentucky. If your statement had been
      that winning championships does not *always* indicate which team 
      is best you'd have been on more solid ground. But when you say that
      'the idea that winning means you are better is a romantic notion
      blah blah blah' you're all wet. The Red Sox, Celtics and Patriots
      could all use a little romance right about now.
    

RE        <<< Note 280.21 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>If your statement had been
>      that winning championships does not *always* indicate which team 
>      is best you'd have been on more solid ground. But when you say that
>      'the idea that winning means you are better is a romantic notion
>      blah blah blah' you're all wet. 

  You are confusing cause and effect. When I say "winning means that you are
better" is a romantic notion that is correct. That does not preclude the
possibility that the better team will win, it only means that you can not draw
the conclusion that the champion is the better team based only on the fact that
they won the championship.

  In the case of Chicago there is additional information including win and loss
records against the teams of the league and individual stats which backs up
the premise that on average through out the year the Bulls were the best team
in the NBA.

  George

    
    
    
    >  Yes. Winning championships means LITTLE if anything when it comes to
    picking the better team.
    
    
          George let me explain how assinine that statement is. Some
    times the team withg the best record doesn't win the championship,
    sometimes the team with the best player doesn't win the championship,
    but most of the time the best team does win. If you get there and choke
    that just means you weren't the best team. Sports (woops Real Sports)
    has a winner and a loser. There have been upsets like there always will
    be, but a real winning team won't fold up in the clutch.
    
    
    Chap 

RE  <<< Note 280.23 by WMOIS::CHAPALONIS_M "Donnie Baseball Yankee HOFer!!!" >>>

>If you get there and choke
>    that just means you weren't the best team. Sports (woops Real Sports)
>    has a winner and a loser. There have been upsets like there always will
>    be, but a real winning team won't fold up in the clutch.
    
  I don't agree with this at all. Sure if a really good team completely
collapses, starts losing and backs into the playoffs, then gets knocked out in
the 1st round you can say that they folded up in the clutch. 

  But if you have a case like game 6 of the '86 World Series where a gust of
wind could have lowered the pitch causing Mookie Wilson to hit one of those
foul tips a little better popping it up would that gust of wind have meant that
the '86 Red Sox were a better team than the '86 Mets?

  Some times two teams are playing on the same level, a series is close and
luck determines the winner. That doesn't mean the team that won was better,
only that they played better that day. Or you could even argue that in some
cases the winner didn't even play better, they were just lucky.

  The Mets dodged a bullet in '86 and almost lost the series but got lucky,
won game 6, and came back to win game 7. Yes, most likely they were the better
team but only by looking at the rest of their season does that become obvious.

  George

      George,
    
        I agree that the team that wins it all is not necessarily the
        best team.  There was the year the Pirates beat the Yankees.
        (The year Mazeroski hit the home run.)  It is hard to insist 
        the Pirates were really the better team.
    
        I also think the Giants team that beat the Bills was not as good
        as the 49'ers and certainly the Steeler team in the dynasty years
        that started out something like 0-5 or 0-6 and barely missed the
        playoffs may very well have been the best team that year.
    
        *However*, I think there is a pretty good correlation.
    
        I would say that at least 85% of the time, the best team is also
        the team that wins.
    
        I am curious...what percentage of the time do you think the
        best team is also the team that wins it all?  If you have to
        separate by sport, go right ahead!
    
    							Tony
                                                                   

    
     Tony,  
    
        Hows life??  Can you set up a correlation on to how you came up
    with 85%???   All teams have talent, but some have no drive or heart
    to go out and play hard every day.....how do you set up a database
    for heart and hard play???  
    
    Tony I'm curious where do yo think of these things????  Stick with
    B-Ball and being a Packers fan!!!!!  George is in his own fantasy
    world so leave him alone........
    
    Back to your database......../westy
     

      Kevin,
    
        Let me just say that my thoughts are not your thoughts and
        my ways are not your ways!!!  (And I realize this deeply
        saddens you and I am grieving for you for this.)  I think
        I'd like to meet you, but I know I'd blow your mind and I
        realize you can't elevate yourself to my thought level.
    
        85% was a gut-level pick which I am fully confident is 
        so close to the true value that I am also amazed by my
        uncanny ability to prognosticate.
    
        Kevin, I deeply appreciate your concern for my well being!!!
    
    						Tony

    
    Tony, I've met you and everytime I run into you, you blow my mind
    time after time after time......
    
    I can't elevate myself to your level cause I'm afraid of heights and
    flying and your the only commander of your spaceship......
    
    Stay up there.....have a good trip and a nice 4th weekend....../Kevin**^)
    
    

      Kevin,
    
        You had me laughing real good!!!
    
        You have a good 4th yourself!
    
    						Tony

Once again, I find myself wondering if there is something about the way
George writes that results in nobody understanding him but me.  George
says something that I find utterly noncontroversial, almost self-evident,
and another LDUC breaks out.

Let me see if I can put it a different way.  George can tell us if I've
understood him correctly, and the rest of you (except Tony, who I think
also got it right) can decide if it's easier to agree with.

1. Teams that play against each other in championship contests are usually
   pretty evenly matched.  It is not often possible to say with any real
   certainty which is the better team.  (Of course, it is easy to say that
   one team is better if the comparison is between, say, the Indians and
   the Tigers, but that's not the point:  the Tigers aren't going to be
   playing in any championship contests.)

2. In those cases where it is possible, it is not always the better team
   that wins (case in point, the 1988 Dodgers, and what do *you* think, Pete
   Sampras?).

3. Conclusion:  championships are won, not necessarily by the better team,
   but by the team that played better on the day or for a week.

My answer to Tony's question (how often does the better team win?) is that
the question might be meaningless.  In any case, it is not interesting,
because (see #1) more often than not, it can't be determined.  Who was
the better team in 1995, Atlanta or Cleveland?  Over the season, I'd have
to give Cleveland the edge.  Who won?  Atlanta.  Why?  Because they match
up well against the Indians and because they played their best baseball in
October.  If they had rested for a week and then played another best-of-7
series, who would have won?  Dunno.

Steve

    >Once again, I find myself wondering if there is something about the way
    >George writes that results in nobody understanding him but me.  George
    >says something that I find utterly noncontroversial, almost
    >self-evident,and another LDUC breaks out.
    
    I'm with you on that one, that makes two of us.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    I can't see what the argument here is either.
    
    Everyone can come up with examples, but most recent in my mind
    is last year's NFL.  C'mon, don't tell me Dallas breathed 1000
    sighs of relief when the Pack beat SF.  SF was the better team,
    but not on the day the Pack put it all together.  Hence, the lesser
    Dallas team goes to and wins the Super Bowl.  No biggie, that's 
    what's great about sports.  It'd be pretty boring if they just
    let Kentucky and UMass play the final no matter what happened
    in the tourney.
    
    The best team does not always win - it matters when they are best.
    
    - Sean

RE        <<< Note 280.27 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>       Once the playoffs, post season or whatever-you-want-to-call-
>      it starts, who was the best team during the season only matters
>      in terms of seedings. They have the playoffs, post season or
>      whatver-you-want-to-call-it to determine the "champion". 

  Yes, that's exactly my point. The playoffs are to determine the "champion",
not to determine the "best team". As others have pointed out, they may not
be the same.

>Ask
>      the '91 Braves, the '91 Bills or the '85 Georgetown Hoyas how 
>      much consolation being the best during the regular season was.
>      Damned little I'm sure. By that measure their own measure the
>      eventual champ is the best team because after all they've got 
>      the trophy.
      
  No, no one said that you had to have consolation to be the best team. In
'91 the Braves probably were the best team but the Twins played better and
won the championship. That doesn't mean they were better, they weren't.
It's just that after splitting 6 game 3 and 3 and after being tied for
9 innings of game 7 they just played the 10th inning of game 7 better than
the Braves. It won them the championship but means very little as to who
was better.

  George

      re: -1
    
      I agree completely with regard the '91 series.  Also relevent
      is the home team factor.  I mean, the Twins have had two recent
      world series and are 8-0 in Minnesota in that Twindome or what-
      ever the heck they call that pathetic impersonation of a place
      where the Vikings should play football.
    
      I still remember Ray Scott often saying, "Its cold here in Bloomington,
      Minnesota!"  (Metropolitan Stadium.)
    
    						Tony

  >> That doesn't mean they were better, they weren't. It's just that 
  >> after splitting 6 game 3 and 3 and after being tied for innings 
  >> of game 7 they just played the 10th inning of game 7 better than
  >> the Braves. It won them the championship but means very little as 
  >> to who was better.

     It doesn't matter who you, I or anyone else *thinks* was better. 
     They don't play for the George Maiewski Memorial Recognition Award. 
     All teams start the season with the same goal - to win the champion-
     ship. Only one team will reach that goal. Subjective arguments on 
     who was or wasn't the better makes nice fodder for talk radio but the
     team that wins the iron is the team that accomplished what everyone
     set out to do when everything was on the line.
    

RE        <<< Note 280.37 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     It doesn't matter who you, I or anyone else *thinks* was better. 
>     They don't play for the George Maiewski Memorial Recognition Award. 
>     All teams start the season with the same goal - to win the champion-
>     ship. Only one team will reach that goal. Subjective arguments on 
>     who was or wasn't the better makes nice fodder for talk radio but the
>     team that wins the iron is the team that accomplished what everyone
>     set out to do when everything was on the line.
    
  Yes we agree on this. But that's not what we are talking about.

  This all started because we were having one of those discussions about
whether the '78 Yankees or the '78 Red Sox were a better team. The discussion
was not about who won in '78, just which team was better.

  I said they were evenly matched but Chappy made the claim that because the
Yankees won the playoff game they were a better team. Not that they played
better that one day, not that they were champions, but that they were a better
team. 

  I disagree. I believe that from all the information I've seen and from the
tie that resulted from all the games over an entire season there is evidence
that the two teams were very evenly matched and that neither could be said
to be better than the other. In fact weekly variations in their ability would
have been greater than any difference in the relative strength of the two
teams.

  Your side disagrees and says that the fact that the Yankees won that one
playoff game means that without question they were the better team. Not that
they were champions, not that the team that played better that day but that
they were a better team overall. There we disagree. 

  George

  >> Your side disagrees and says that the fact that the Yankees won 
  >> that one playoff game means that without question they were the 
  >> better team. 

     First, you need to get away from this "your side/my side" attitude.
     The fact that the Yankees won one game just means that they won
     one game  - when they had to - and the Red Sox didn't. That the Yanks 
     were WS champs that year and the Red Sox weren't says it all as far 
     as who the better team was.
    

RE        <<< Note 280.39 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     First, you need to get away from this "your side/my side" attitude.
>     The fact that the Yankees won one game just means that they won
>     one game  - when they had to - and the Red Sox didn't. That the Yanks 
>     were WS champs that year and the Red Sox weren't says it all as far 
>     as who the better team was.
    
  No, it says nothing as to who the better team was, it only says who won. 

  Say the Brewers are playing the Giants in the 2002 World Series, the last
game in Candle Stick Park before the Giants move down town. It's game 7, 2
out bottom of the 10th, the Brewers are leading 4-3. The Giants have a runner
on base when Matt Williams hit's long deep drive to center field. 

  The ball is headed right toward the top of the fence where Pat Listach is
waiting his back to the wall when the tricky winds start playing with the ball.
First it blows out, then in, then out, then in and just at the last second it's
hit by a gust of wind. 

  Now are you saying that if that gust of wind blows out and the ball goes over
the fence the Giants would be the better team but if the gust of wind blows in
and Listach makes the catch the Brewers would be the better team? 

  What acquisition by a GM, decision by a manager, advice given by a coach, play
by any player, plan made by anyone through out the year based on their ability
would factor in to this championship? The answer, none. The champion would be
determined by a Candlestick wind that is no less chance than the flip of a
coin. In no way would that gust of wind determine which team was better, only
which team won. 

  George 

    
    
    Yes George.

RE   <<< Note 280.40 by OLD1S::CADZILLA2 "Loose with rhythmic syncopations" >>>

                        -< Who's wearing the WS Ring? >-

  Good question, if a player pawns his ring and it's bought by some 71 year old
millionaire who never attended a baseball game does that make him better than
the guy who won? Does it make him better than the guy who the winner beat or
anyone else that played that year? 

  The argument is not about who won or who is wearing the ring, it's about who
was the better team. If the better team gets upset by a team of less ability
that just played better at a critical time then the ring is worn by members
of a team that is not necessarily the best. That is until they sell it.

  George

    
    So if Pittsburg had beaten Dallas, Dallas would still be the better
    team? I'd like to hear you say that in front of a few Steeler fans if it
    had happened. Pittsburg played better but Dallas played good enough to
    (Thanks Neal) win. 
    
    OBTW The 78 Yank's were better than the Red Sux.  

RE   <<< Note 280.44 by OLD1S::CADZILLA2 "Loose with rhythmic syncopations" >>>

>    So if Pittsburg had beaten Dallas, Dallas would still be the better
>    team? I'd like to hear you say that in front of a few Steeler fans if it
>    had happened. 

  Exactly my point. From a logical point of view, yes. Dallas would have been a
better team that got outplayed. Based on an emotional point of view, non
rational football fans might have become abusive in an attempt to suppress the
most logical point of view, just as see here in this note.

  George

    
      You can create more of those same incredibly contrived "what if"
     scenarios but actual events don't support your argument. What
     happens in reality isn't that an act of God intervenes for one
     team or another. What really happens is that one team is better
     prepared to win than the other. It happened in '85 when Villanova
     beat Georgetown. It happened when Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson.
     It wasn't a matter of luck. It was a matter of preparation. To
     reduce it to luck is to belittle the accomplishments of the victor.

	Putting pride and overzealous fandom aside, I'd have
	to say that yes, the better team does win.  If you are
	talking about "luck" and "breaks", the better team
	finds a way to put themselves in position to take
	advantage of the breaks.

	This is obviously just my opinion, but I'd venture to
	say that most folks who consider themselves sports
	fanATICs, should they take a truely objective look,
	would feel the same.


	billl

    
    Next you'll want me to believe that the 9er's were the best NFL team
    in 95. Even though they lost to Carolina and got the crap beat out
    of them by the Packers in the playoffs. 
    

  Here's another way of looking at it. 

  Ever have one of those days on the golf course or at a bowling ally where you
were "in the zone"? Every shot you took was dead solid perfect or every ball
you rolled was right in the pocket. I've had both those things happen and I've
seen it happen to others. Conversely you have the bad days where nothing goes
right. 

  What do you do to prepare for those types of days? The answer, you show up
and it happens. Sure you can practice, get in shape, etc but for any given
level of preparation some times things go better than expected, some times
worse. You hear athletes at all levels talk about it all the time and no one
claims to be able to control when they are "in the zone" or when they go into a
slump. 

  Now what happens when the members of a lesser team have a week like that when
playing a better team in a championship? What happens is that the lesser team
wins. That doesn't mean they are better and if they were to play a week later
no amount of preparation would help them win again but that week nothing can go
wrong. They are "in the zone" and they are unbeatable. 

  In the '78 World Series Steve Garvey was in a slump and nothing he did helped
him to help his team. In the '81 series Steve Garvey was "in a zone" and he
helped his team clobber the Yankees.

  Was Steve Garvey a better player in '81 than he was in '78? Well he played
better in the World Series in '81 than he did in '78 but it's unlikely that it
was due to anything he planned. It just happened. Luck has everything to do
with who wins over a short period.

  George

    
    
       78 Yankee pitching staff was much better than 81's.

  I notice you ducked the main point. Are you saying guys don't have slumps and
that guys don't go "into a zone" and that these types of things that people can
not control can't swing a championship? 

  Intimidation didn't work, chipping around the edges won't work either. Try
addressing the main points in the argument. 

  I've heard major league pitchers talk about being "in the zone". A couple
guys that pitched no hitters or perfect games talked about how they just showed
up at the ball park that day and everything just felt right. They felt they
could throw any pitch and get anyone out and they did. It was due to nothing
they could explain or repeat, it just happened. 

  Likewise with Slumps. You hear over and over again that they just come on
like a cold, last two weeks then disappear and there's nothing you can do to
prevent or cure them.

  George 

  >> That doesn't mean they are better and if they were to play 
  >> a week later no amount of preparation would help them win 
  >> again 

     They don't have to play again a week later and do it again.
     All they have to do is win when it counts. That's all. Who
     would win if they had to do it again is purely subjective
     and mere guesswork. Who did win when they needed to is a
     fact and a matter of public record. That's why we have 
     championships - to settle things on the field.
    
    
     BTW - three Dodgers were co-MVPs of the '81 WS. None
           of them was named Steve Garvey. I tend to think 
           the difference between the '78 and '81 WS was
           more then Steve Garvey being in or out of a 
           zone.
    

RE        <<< Note 280.53 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     They don't have to play again a week later and do it again.
>     All they have to do is win when it counts. That's all. Who
>     would win if they had to do it again is purely subjective
>     and mere guesswork. Who did win when they needed to is a
>     fact and a matter of public record. That's why we have 
>     championships - to settle things on the field.
    
  So what? This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

  As I've said a dozen times, on this point we agree. We are not talking
about who deserves to be champion after the combination of talent, skill,
execution, luck, weather and what ever else has happened. We all agree that
who ever wins deserves to be champion.

  The discussion is not about that. It's about who is the better team and
so far you have said nothing to indicate that just because a team wins they
are better. More deserving, fine. Champion, fine. Wear the ring, sell the
ring, get your face on a box of corn flakes fine but that doesn't mean they
are better, just that they won.

  George

    
    
       I'll give you an example in my own life George.
    
         I pitch modified Softball, for years I have been playing on shitty
    teams we'd go 6-24, 10-20,12-18 etc... We actually made the playoffs
    once or twice. Upset a team in the first round once, then we got to the
    Semifinals best 3 out of 5. Well we won the first game and wow were we
    psyched. We ended up losing the next 3 games by a combined total of
    about 30 runs. Now if we would have won that series and moved on to the
    next one and beat that team, do you think we would have felt that we
    didn't deserve it?
    
    
       Now this year I am on a team that is 13-2. Outfielders are getting
    to balls that on my other team they couldn't. My SS is all league both
    myself and our other pitcher are 6-1. My loss came on 4 Unearned runs
    in the 7th. Now if we continue our pace (no reason we shouldn't) we
    will win the whole thing this year. But if my SS starts booting balls I
    start walking the ballpark. My OFers don't hustle out every fly ball.
    We probably will get beat and it just goes to prove we aren't/weren't the
    best team.                                                 
    
    
    Chap

    
    
    Doooooooooooooooooooooooooooop

  No, it wouldn't prove that you were not the best team, it would just prove
that what appears to be the best team can have a bad week and lose. 

  Then again there is also the possibility that your SS will make every play,
you are right on the corner with every pitch but the guys you face are playing
so far above their normal ability that they pound you anyway and that your
OF'ers hustle but every line drive finds legs and gets into the gap. 

  You probably would lose not because another team is better but because
another team was lucky enough to be so "in the zone" that they couldn't be
beat. 

  Ok here's another one. Three Roman Centurians with swords and shields are
bearing down on you and they want your ass. You have a choice, you can have
David between you and them or you can have Goliath. Take your pick.

  I don't give a rip about David and his one lucky shot, I'd want Goliath
standing between me and the Romans. Who would you want?

  George 

    
    
    Yes George.

>     They don't have to play again a week later and do it again.
>     All they have to do is win when it counts. That's all. Who
>     would win if they had to do it again is purely subjective
>     and mere guesswork. Who did win when they needed to is a
>     fact and a matter of public record. That's why we have 
>     championships - to settle things on the field.
    
 >> So what? This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
   
    The why'd you bring it up. This "if they were to play again next 
    week..."?

 >> The discussion is not about that. It's about who is the better team 
 >> and so far you have said nothing to indicate that just because a team 
 >> wins they are better. 

    I always thought that by definition the team that wins is better.
    That's why they keep score. I think I've said as much. I never felt 
    the need to inject subjectivity into something that was settled on 
    the field. I can see your point that results might be different over 
    the long haul versus a short series but they don't suddenly decide to 
    stage a seven game series to settle who is champ. Everyone knows the 
    process and if you aren't geared for or geared up for a championship 
    series then you aren't the better team nor do you deserve to be champ. 
    I'm sure there are instances of wild upsets where some flukey team wins 
    it all but those instances are exceedingly rare.
    

    
    
       That last paragraph Tommy. I could have sworn I said the same thing
    to him last week. Give it up. It worthless. I'm beginning to see pink
    skies like George now too. 

RE        <<< Note 280.60 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>    The why'd you bring it up. This "if they were to play again next 
>    week..."?

  Remember the topic, we're discussing the possibility of a lesser team
beating a better team. I was making the argument that when you play a
championship series could determine who is the winner because by chance
one or the other team could be "in the zone" that week making the difference.

  Same two teams, different week, and as luck would have it different team
plays better. That doesn't mean they are better, just that they played better.

>    I always thought that by definition the team that wins is better.

  The team that won played better. They may be better then again they my
be a team of lesser players who were playing above themselves. That's why
they have the saying "may the best team win". They say that because the
best team doesn't always win. To me that's a hope that the championship will
be decided on skill rather than a hot streak or luck.

>    I'm sure there are instances of wild upsets where some flukey team wins 
>    it all but those instances are exceedingly rare.
    
  Not that rare as it turns out. The '88 World Series has been mentioned.
Better NCAA teams are always getting bounced by teams everyone agrees are
not as good.

  I agree that they play the games regardless of who people think is better
but it's not to determine who is really better it's to determine who deserves
the championship. Maybe it will be the better team ("May the best team win")
and maybe not ("*** WAAAAP ***, David gets Goliath right between the eyes").

  George

	You can't sit around waiting for "luck" to drop the ring
	in your lap.  It's how you react to the "break" when it 
	happens that counts.

	Just for sheets and giggles I'm gonna try one last thing...

	If'n the team that wins is not the "better" team, than
	how the hail do you make the distinction?

	

	billl

    
    George,
    
       Which zone did you come from?

RE     <<< Note 280.63 by MKOTS3::tcc122.mko.dec.com::long "Beat em Bucs" >>>

>	You can't sit around waiting for "luck" to drop the ring
>	in your lap.  It's how you react to the "break" when it 
>	happens that counts.

  No one argues against that. Usually the better team wins because they have
the ability to do just that but some times they lose despite reacting to
breaks because the other teams just does better.

>	If'n the team that wins is not the "better" team, than
>	how the hail do you make the distinction?

  Given two evenly matched teams there is no way to tell which team is
better. In fact given the change of ability over a season, one team
may be better part of the season, and worse other parts of the season.

  George

RE           <<< Note 280.64 by OLD1S::CADZILLA2 "Are you a Turtle" >>>

>                                  -< Bozone? >-
>    George, 
>       Which zone did you come from?

  I remember starting off this debate noting that LDUCs often happen when one
side is arguing from the rational side and the other is arguing the religious or
emotional side. 

  Here we see the emotional side. Name calling. Gee that's persuasive.

  Now about the argument you and Chap both made about the champion being the
guy wearing the ring, what happens when the guy who won sells his ring. Do we
have a new champion? 

  George

    
    
       George in your opinion!!!
    
    What % of the time does the best team win???
    
    
    Chap

      I wish you didn't give that last sentence in .49 George.  
      Luck doesn't have EVERYTHING to do with what happens over short 
      time periods.
      
      Outside of that, everything you have said is so obviously 
      right that, in my mind, anyone who disagrees (Tommy especially)
      has a mental block.
    
      A good example is the Steeler/Raider Immaculate Reception game.
      I read an article in, I believe Inside Sports, where one of the
      referees was interviewed.  He says that Harris undoubtably was
      out of bounds and he mentioned this to another ref.  The other
      ref replied that if he called it out they would never get out
      of the stadium alive.  
    
      In consideration of this *and* of the freak nature of the catch
      (the ball bounced like a boomerang), to insist that the Steelers
      were the better team BECAUSE they won is totally absurd.
    
      Another example is the runner (can't think of her name - Slaney
      maybe?) who was knocked down by Zola Budd.  Sure, she was the
      worst runner on the track!  (I am assuming she finished last.)
    
      There's a mental block somewhere.
    
    						Tony

      re: .53
    
      TOMMY,
    
        Explain to me how it is you can insist on your present
        posture ALL THE WHILE YOU INSISTED TO ME THAT UCLA WAS
        BETTER THAN WISCONSIN AFTER THEY *LOST*!!!!  (I refer
        to the Rose Bowl game.  Care to review your replies???)
    
        You blunderhead you!!!
    
    						Tony

RE  <<< Note 280.67 by WMOIS::CHAPALONIS_M "Donnie Baseball Yankee HOFer!!!" >>>

>       George in your opinion!!!
>    
>    What % of the time does the best team win???
    
  I don't know. I suspect that it's nearly impossible to tell since it's
difficult to impossible to know in most cases which team is really the best at
any one time never mind averaging out their talent over a season. 

  George

    
    
    Guess!

    
    
    
       George have you ever thougt about going into Politics? You'd do
    great.
    
    
    Chap

    
    
    
       Mike,
    
         Are you trying to start the FXXXXX SXXXXXX debate again! I won't
    have it!!!!!
    
    
    Chap

    
    You win a ring by beating your opponent. You will be or will have been
    the winner no matter what you did with the jewelery. 
    
    
    
       <<< Note 280.66 by CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI "Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs"
    >>>
    
    RE           <<< Note 280.64 by OLD1S::CADZILLA2 "Are you a Turtle" >>>
    
    >                                  -< Bozone? >-
    >    George,
    >       Which zone did you come from?
    
    
     
    Where did I call you anything but George? Calling you George is enough
    name calling for me. 

    
   >> A good example is the Steeler/Raider Immaculate Reception game.
    
      A similar example would be the '76 Raiders-Patriots game that was
      decided by a roughing the passer call on Sugar Bear Hamilton. The
      Pats were winning handily with the best squad in team history (all
      of you non_Pats fans stop laughing). The call changed the game and
      the Pats lost. Did the best team win? Subjectively,w ho knows? What 
      is known is that the Raiders went on and the Pats went home. Pats
      fans can argue who the better team was, Raiders fans don't have to.
      That's why George's "if they played again next week..." line is ir-
      relevant. They don't get to play again next week.

    
    >> Explain to me how it is you can insist on your present
    >> posture ALL THE WHILE YOU INSISTED TO ME THAT UCLA WAS
    >> BETTER THAN WISCONSIN AFTER THEY *LOST*!!!!  

       UCLA is my team but Wisconsin has the Rose Bowl trophy.
       Enough said.
    

    OK Tommy and my apologies for my blunderhead comment though
    I meant it entirely in friendly jest!

RE          <<< Note 280.73 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    Now I can see why indeterminate recreational contests like Fxxxxx
>    Sxxxxxx appeal to George.  Without his current diatribe, he couldn't
>    defend it.

  I seem to be doing really well here. I keep putting up rational arguments and
all you can counter with is insults and meaningless references to other
debates. 

  As I said, I'm on the rational side, you are on the emotional side and boy
are you hop'en mad that I've just made hamburger out of one of sport's sacred
cows.

  George

    
    
       You and a couple of your flunkies may think your doing well but the
    vast majority of Sprots know that your all wet.
    
    
    
    Chap

    re: .76
    
    Tommy, don't forget the pass interference NONCALL on Russ
    Francis.  They call that blatant interference on Villapiano,
    its 1st down Pats, and the Raiders never even see the ball
    for a chance to call roughing on Sugar Bear.
    
    20 years ago. Wow.
    
    					Tony

RE  <<< Note 280.80 by WMOIS::CHAPALONIS_M "Donnie Baseball Yankee HOFer!!!" >>>

>       You and a couple of your flunkies may think your doing well but the
>    vast majority of Sprots know that your all wet.
    
  Vast? I see a handful. In fact this seems to be one of our more balanced
debates with a few on each side. 

  What you meant to say is that the Sprots believe we are all wet. That's
because you are arguing the religious side of the debate and religion is based
on belief, not on reason. That's why we see so much more heat than light from
your side. 

  For example, two of you started out by saying the winners were the guys
wearing the rings but when I pointed out that someone could sell their ring
suddenly we stopped hearing that argument and the insults stepped up. I wonder
why? Then I talked about athletes saying they were not being able to control
when they were "in the zone" or in slumps again all I got back were insults.
Again, no defense. 

  This is the way it always goes. This is why Tommy originally said "Logic has
no place in the Sports notes file". He was right. To many people Sports is a
religious thing and if you don't mumble the SPORTS Scriptures, you feel the
wrath. 

  George

  >> Then I talked about athletes saying they were not being able to 
  >> control when they were "in the zone" or in slumps again all I got 
  >> back were insults.

     What you did was mention Steve Garvey as being one of the differences
     between the '78 and '81 Dodgers. Supposedly, he was in a zone in '81
     versus in a slump in '78. When it was pointed out to you that three 
     Dodgers were co-MVPs of the '81 series and Garvey wasn't one of them, 
     you chose a different tack.

    
    
    BTW - George, the 'guys wearing the rings' is a figure of speech.
          

RE        <<< Note 280.84 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     What you did was mention Steve Garvey as being one of the differences
>     between the '78 and '81 Dodgers. Supposedly, he was in a zone in '81
>     versus in a slump in '78. When it was pointed out to you that three 
>     Dodgers were co-MVPs of the '81 series and Garvey wasn't one of them, 
>     you chose a different tack.

  Garvey was an example of how someone could be in a slump one time and in
a zone another. The fact that there were other factors in no way refutes
that argument. I never said Garvey was the decisive factor in the Series.

  That was a tangent by your side to duck my argument on zones and slumps
which you are still ducking. No question why, it destroys your argument.

>    BTW - George, the 'guys wearing the rings' is a figure of speech.
          
  Of course it is. The entire notion that a championship determines who is the
best is a figure of speech. It only determines who played better and who is
given the rings.

  George

    My wife has this CD from this new person Enya.  And in one of the songs
    she's saying "Is this the beginning, is this the end", Something like
    are we going forward or backward...
    
    I was listening to it and thinking of Sprots Lducs.  I think we should
    make this Enya our patron saint.  I'll see if I can get the words
    right.

    
    So the teams that won championships and get to wear rings are not
    really the best team, the team that lost was the better team even
    though they lost to the champion that gets to wear the ring. 
    
       
    Now thats logical. 
    

  >> I never said Garvey was the decisive factor in the Series.

     What you said was: "In the '78 World Series Steve Garvey was 
     in a slump and nothing he did helped him to help his team. In 
     the '81 series Steve Garvey was "in a zone" and he helped his 
     team clobber the Yankees."

     I'd say that was calling him a "decisive factor". Why mention 
     what he did in '78 and '81 in the context of this discussion
     if he was not a major factor. Wasn't that your whole point? 
     That being in a zone or slump could be the diffenence in win-
     ning a title?
    

RE        <<< Note 280.88 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     What you said was: "In the '78 World Series Steve Garvey was 
>     in a slump and nothing he did helped him to help his team. In 
>     the '81 series Steve Garvey was "in a zone" and he helped his 
>     team clobber the Yankees."
>
>     I'd say that was calling him a "decisive factor". Why mention 
>     what he did in '78 and '81 in the context of this discussion
>     if he was not a major factor. Wasn't that your whole point? 
>     That being in a zone or slump could be the difference in win-
>     ning a title?
    
  The point was to show how an athlete could be "in a zone" one time and in a
slump the other and that it could impact his team which it did. 

  The fact that other's contributed to the '81 demise of the Yankees in the
World Series does not alter the point that athletes in general have good days
and bad days and that for any given level of talent luck plays a major part
in determining when a player plays above or below his given level.

  George

Having gotten no help over there in the questions, I'm now going to state
my case on what I think and I don't care what anyone else thinks or what
they think about me or what I think. So there.

Winning a championship means that you won a championship. When you win a
championship they call you the champion, you get a ring, trophy and/or
money and it's almost always better and nicer than what the other guy
gets.

In your sport, they write you down as the champion. Look up the NFL for
lasted year and you'll see the Dallas Cowboys on that list for that
season and not the Pittsburgh Steelers.

As for who's better, I support the generalization that winning is
better'n losing.

TTom

RE           <<< Note 280.87 by OLD1S::CADZILLA2 "Are you a Turtle" >>>

>    So the teams that won championships and get to wear rings are not
>    really the best team, the team that lost was the better team even
>    though they lost to the champion that gets to wear the ring. 
    
  Not all the time, not even most of the time but sometimes yes. The rings are
given to the team that won and that may or may not be the team which is
actually the best.

  Once again the example of the '88 World Series when the Dodgers beat the
A's who just about everyone agreed was better. The A's were a better team
but the Dodgers pulled an upset and got to take the rings home.

  George

RE         <<< Note 280.91 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>Having gotten no help over there in the questions, I'm now going to state
>my case on what I think and I don't care what anyone else thinks or what
>they think about me or what I think. So there.

  Yes, dive right in, take no prisoners. This is a SPORTS LDUC and that
means sports at it's best.

>Winning a championship means that you won a championship. When you win a
>championship they call you the champion, you get a ring, trophy and/or
>money and it's almost always better and nicer than what the other guy
>gets.

  On this we all agree.

>In your sport, they write you down as the champion. Look up the NFL for
>lasted year and you'll see the Dallas Cowboys on that list for that
>season and not the Pittsburgh Steelers.

  On this too we all agree.

>As for who's better, I support the generalization that winning is
>better'n losing.

  No question. Losing sucks, winning rooooools.

  All I'm saying is that from a talent and organizational point of view
it is possible for a team with less talent or less organizational preparation
or less ability or less heart or less of what ever you think makes a team
great, it's possible for that team to pull an upset and beat a better team
in a championship.

  To me that means that the best team did not win, a team of lesser ability
pulled an upset and while not better they are called champions.

  George

    At least I've finally found one guy who will agree that Grogan was a
    better quarterback than Bradshaw even though the latter has those four
    rings which rational argument has proved are inconsequential.

>  On this we all agree.

So now you're the spokesman for ever one? I see now how you can declare
what the argument is and how you won it.

TTom

RE         <<< Note 280.95 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>>  On this we all agree.
>
>So now you're the spokesman for ever one? I see now how you can declare
>what the argument is and how you won it.

  I only say that because I haven't seen anyone disagree with that point.

  My apologies to anyone who holds a contrary point of view.

  George

RE                      <<< Note 280.94 by MKOTS3::BREEN >>>
>                              -< Grogan>Bradshaw >-
>
>    At least I've finally found one guy who will agree that Grogan was a
>    better quarterback than Bradshaw even though the latter has those four
>    rings which rational argument has proved are inconsequential.

  While we are at it, I read in the Boston Globe today that some guy believes
he's poked a hole in the theory of relativity.

  Guess the cold war was all for naught and those reactors are run by squirrels
on tread mills after all. 

  George

>  While we are at it, I read in the Boston Globe today that some guy believes
>he's poked a hole in the theory of relativity.

I think it was Mike Heiser :-]

See, the speed of light peaked while it was in college and although it's
won a bunch of championships, but they may have been upsets.

However, if'n you want a really good sacred cow, which this one aint,
check out

	http://home.earthlink.net/~tmurphy/sacredcow/cow.htm

And Altavista has a bunch of other pointers from searching for "sacred
cow".

TTom

from 5.2942:

>  A champion is not the team that is better, it is the team that did better.

Your assertion that it is not the team that is better has yet to be
proven.

TTom

RE        <<< Note 280.100 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>Your assertion that it is not the team that is better has yet to be
>proven.

  Yeh, nothing ever gets proven in the SPORTS notes file. What can you say.

  It's my opinion.

  George

      With some of this il-logic, I can now say my '89 Broncos were better
    than the 49'rs.  They just had a slump day and got beat by what I
    thought was a better 49'r team, but was just a team in the zone that
    day.  I knew I was lookin at that in a wrong way.
    
      This il-logic by George & co sounds like the typical digital
    managment reverse logic.  If it makes sense and makes a profit, kill
    the business and do something that wastes $$$ instead of making it..
    
      I've read the light;-)
    
      Thanks for helping me with this...
    
      Tim

      re: -1
    
      Thank you for showing me the light.
    
      It is now clear to me that Mary Decker, who was considered the
      worlds fastest runner in, I believe the 5000 m, was the worst
      runner in the competition wherein she was knocked down by Zola
      Budd and finished last.
    
      I couldn't see the light, but your in depth analysis helped me
      to see that this is obviously so.
    
    

>Didn't think I was this hip didja?

>My wife has this CD from this new person Enya.

Enya has been around for quite a while, Bill.  Your hipness is still
in question...

  <<< Note 280.104 by IMBETR::DUPREZ "It's Baseball And You're An American" >>>

>Enya has been around for quite a while, Bill.  Your hipness is still
>in question...

He's been looking for it on 8-track.

daryll

          <<< Note 280.89 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

   > "Caribbean Blue" is the only Enya song I'm familiar with

    "Sail Away" is the only one I can recall...

    daryll

    
  >> The point was to show how an athlete could be "in a zone" one 
  >> time and in a slump the other and that it could impact his team 
  >> which it did. 

     You just got done sayintg that you never said Garvey was a 
     decisive factor. Now you're saying that he was.

  >> the point that athletes in general have good days and bad days 
  >> and that for any given level of talent luck plays a major part
  >> in determining when a player plays above or below his given level.

     Ever notice that the Kirk Gibsons, the Orel Herschisers, the Michael
     Jordans, the Larry Birds, etc. of the sports world have their best
     days when it counts most. It's what makes them champions. Some might
     just call them lucky but I tend to think it's more than that.
    

>  Yeh, nothing ever gets proven in the SPORTS notes file. 
>  What can you say.

>  It's my opinion.

>  George

	Sheesh!  I thought only the folks who believed the
	"better" team is the one who "wins" were the only ones
	being "religious" and without reason.

	I'm still wondering what convuluted formula is used by
	George when he decides in his mind who the _real_
	"better" team is.


	billl

  Ok, I'm tired of going around in circles trying to defend points I never
made.

  In the last few I've been accused of saying the best team always loses,
Tommy made some point about Larry Bird being a champion which is not at issue
and someone still feels I'm arguing that there is another way to tell who
is the best team which I am not.

  If someone wants to go back and debate the original topic let me know. If
you want to shift to new topics fine, that's your right but please don't make
the claim that I'm involved in those debates if I am not.

  George

	Wassa matta?  No answer to my burning question?



	billl

  >> Ok, I'm tired of going around in circles trying to defend points 
  >> I never made.

     You're not even doing a very good job of defending points that you
     *did* make. You're wavering back and forth on whether or not Garvey
     was a decisive factor in '81 or not and what that all means vis a vis
     athletes in slumps vs. athletes in zones. 

  >> Tommy made some point about Larry Bird being a champion which is not 
  >> at issue

     Of course it's at issue. You've said that when an athlete will perform
     at peak is largley a matter of luck and that luck is a large factor in
     determining who will win a title. Au contraire, I say, the best athletes 
     perform best when the most is on the line. That's not luck, that's what 
     seperates them from the pack. The '88 Dodgers are the team that you keep 
     pointing to as evidence of an inferior team winning a title from the 
     better team. Who was on that '88 Dodgers team? Big game performers? Money 
     players? *(see answers below)


     "I've always believed in luck. And I find the harder I work, the more
      I have of it."   - Thomas Jefferson.
 

  


     * - yes and yes.
 
    

>  Ok, I'm tired of going around in circles trying to defend points I never
>made.
 
Good. Let's get it on!~

from 5.2942:

>  A champion is not the team that is better, it is the team that did better.

This goes beyond a_attempt to refute the statement: A champion is the 
team that is better.

It asserts that the champion is *NOT* the team that is better. You have
provided no evidence to date of this. And I suspect you won't. I suspect
you will back away from it and refer to some previous point somewhere
about something. But the fack remains: you said and I say prove it!~

We now have entered another zone. So besides anything that you may have 
hamburgered, you have just force fed yourself a sandwich of tonsorial 
turds.

FWIW, I'm a radical centrist on the issue of who's the better team. 
George says some say the champion is better. George has now said that the 
champion is not better. I'm a maybe kinda guy on this. 

Some would use the 83 Pack team that beat Phi Slamma Jamma as a_example 
of the champ is not better theory. However, I submit that the team not 
included the players, whose talent level obviously favored Houston, as 
well as the coach. There is little doubt that Valvano had it over Guy 
Lewis, the Pack's real MVP. So maybe State was not better.

TTom

    
    	Here is my formula.
    
    	Best Team --- Team with the best overall physical skills. When
    	              the pressure of winning isn't as high, physical
                      skills go a long way towards winning.
    
    	Champion  --- Team with the best overall physical/mental skills.
                      When the pressure is on, mental toughness can
                      over come physical talent.
    
    	So it basically all comes down to intangibles.
    
    Ron

RE     <<< Note 280.110 by MKOTS3::tcc122.mko.dec.com::long "Beat em Bucs" >>>

>                           -< What is your formula? >-
>
>	Wassa matta?  No answer to my burning question?

  Again someone claiming I made an argument I've never made.

  See 280.70

  As I've said several times there is no formula. In many cases you can
never tell who is best. Other times you can look at an entire season and
make a reasonable guess as with the Bulls this year.

  George

RE        <<< Note 280.111 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     You're not even doing a very good job of defending points that you
>     *did* make. You're wavering back and forth on whether or not Garvey
>     was a decisive factor in '81 or not and what that all means vis a vis
>     athletes in slumps vs. athletes in zones. 

  I never once waverd on that. I used Garvey only to show that some times
a player could be in a slump and some times they could be in a zone. Only
by distorting what I said did people then start arguing against a point
I never made.

>     Of course it's at issue. You've said that when an athlete will perform
>     at peak is largley a matter of luck and that luck is a large factor in
>     determining who will win a title. Au contraire, I say, the best athletes 
>     perform best when the most is on the line. 

  No, you are wrong. Take Dave Winfield in his 1st World Series for the Yankees
when he went 1 for 22. I believe even Ted Williams had problems in the '46
World Series. In any case, some times great players do well, some times they
do not.

>     "I've always believed in luck. And I find the harder I work, the more
>      I have of it."   - Thomas Jefferson.
 
  OK, so how much work would it take to hit megabucks? Why do I feel that
you have done to Jefferson what you always do to me which is to quote him
out of context.

  George

RE        <<< Note 280.112 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>from 5.2942:
>
>>  A champion is not the team that is better, it is the team that did better.
>
>This goes beyond a_attempt to refute the statement: A champion is the 
>team that is better.
>
>It asserts that the champion is *NOT* the team that is better. You have
>provided no evidence to date of this. And I suspect you won't. I suspect
>you will back away from it and refer to some previous point somewhere
>about something. But the fack remains: you said and I say prove it!~

  If you take that line in the context that I used it you will see that when
I say "A champion is not the team that is better, it is the team that did
better." I'm saying that winning the championship is not deterministic either
way, not that the champion is the lesser of the two teams.

  Oddly enough, some of the people on your side saw that and asked "how then
do you tell who's better" so it's clear that several people on your side
understood the context with which that statement was made.

  George

>>     "I've always believed in luck. And I find the harder I work, the more
>>      I have of it."   - Thomas Jefferson.
 
>  OK, so how much work would it take to hit megabucks? Why do I feel that
>you have done to Jefferson what you always do to me which is to quote him
>out of context.

It's a well-known quote that he's *not* using out of context, George...

    Well the song by Enya is "Everything Is".  The last two lines if I have
    them right are
    
    I may be at the beginning
    
    I may be at the end
    
    Yesterday I thought this string was at the end but it looks like it's
    now no better than the beginning.  Enya kind of grows on you; We bought
    for our friends 11 year old daughter and ended up with a copy
    ourselves.
    
    Personally I like this Cole Porter cassette I originally bought for my
    uncle, for whom time stopped around 1948.  I kept it going through the
    '75 series, nothing significant sporting-wise has happened since.

  I believe it is being taken out of context. Jefferson was smart enough to
know that no amount of hard work would make a coin come up heads or tails. It
is my opinion that if he said that he was using that statement as a figure of
speech and that he meant that if you worked hard, in most cases you would
improve the probability of being successful. 

  Jefferson was not stupid and unless he was drunk would never have said
something that would mean hard work could determine the outcome of a flip of a
coin. 

  George

 >> I never once waverd on that. I used Garvey only to show that some 
 >> times a player could be in a slump and some times they could be in 
 >> a zone.

    You left out that you also said that when Garvey was in a slump the 
    Dodgers lost and when he was "in a zone" the Dodgers won. That was
    your whole point that a title could be decided by who was hot and
    who was not. You later said that Garvey wasn't a decisive factor.
    Then you said he was. There's still time to change your mind again
    before lunch.

 >> No, you are wrong. Take Dave Winfield in his 1st World Series for 
 >> the Yankees when he went 1 for 22. 

    I fail to see how I'm wrong. It would seem to me that Winfield was
    not a big game player. It happens. There are a lot of players who
    can post the numbers but don't get it done when the money is on the
    line. Again, it's what seperates the greats from the near-greats.
    

re: .116

Thanks for not disappointing. Ah, it's context. So when you said that a
Champion is not better you didn't mean that. You meant that the
champions was not necessarily, deterministically speaking, better. 

Pivot, parry, chomp hard.

>  Oddly enough, some of the people on your side saw that and asked "how then
>do you tell who's better" ...

Now, for you nexted assignment: what side am I on?  I think I revealed my
position as maybe. So far as I can read, I'm the onliest declared maybe.

So my side did not purport anything of what you say. Your statement is
therefore a lie. In the immortal words of da SOAPBOX: Why do you lie?

TTom

RE        <<< Note 280.120 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>    I fail to see how I'm wrong. It would seem to me that Winfield was
>    not a big game player. 

  ???????????

  Whooooooo.

  Better stick to basketball Tommy, you are a bit out of your league in
baseball. 

  George

RE        <<< Note 280.121 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>re: .116
>
>Thanks for not disappointing. Ah, it's context. So when you said that a
>Champion is not better you didn't mean that. You meant that the
>champions was not necessarily, deterministically speaking, better. 
>
>Pivot, parry, chomp hard.

  Go back to .17 and you will see where I spelled out the context of my
side of the debate in detail. I stand by what I said in that note. If you
read all of the bullets at the end of that note not just the last one you
can see clearly that I am not making any change from what I've been stating
all along.

  George

     >> Better stick to basketball Tommy, you are a bit out of your 
     >> league in baseball. 
    
        I'm sure that if you apply yourself you can do better than that,
        George. Care to offer any evidence to support your assertion?
        Mere naysaying will not suufice.

    
    
        With the Yankees he was known as Mr May. Was that a media misque
    there Georgie??
    
    
    Chap

RE: .123

And what about that lie you posted?

TTom

>>    I fail to see how I'm wrong. It would seem to me that Winfield was
>>    not a big game player. 

>  ???????????

>  Whooooooo.

>  Better stick to basketball Tommy, you are a bit out of your league in
>baseball. 

Sounds like you are, too, George.  Winfield did next to nothing in 
post-season play.

  Well I was right. Back at the beginning I said this would be a LDUC and boy it
sure was. And I believe I had the reason right, I stomped on a sports sacred
cow and sent the other side into an emotional tail spin. 

  Now we're off to "we are right because Dave Winfield couldn't hit", "you lie
but no one knows what the lie is", "blah", "blah", "blah" while every argument
I put forward gets ignored.

  I'm not playing any more. If you want to go back to .17 to what I really
said, not what you think I said, post that block of bullets and make your case
that it's wrong then go ahead. If you want to argue that there is no such thing
as "being in the zone" or a slump, then fine, make that argument but I'm done
with the nonsense, smoke screens, side shows, diversions, etc.

  Meanwhile I am happy because now I'm going to be rich. Since Thomas Jefferson
says I can make luck happen with lots of work I'm going to work real hard at
picking me some megabucks numbers and take home a bundle. Unless, of course,
the same people that quote me out of context were quoting Jefferson out of
context.

  George 

>  Well I was right. Back at the beginning I said this would be a LDUC and boy it
>sure was. And I believe I had the reason right, I stomped on a sports sacred
>cow and sent the other side into an emotional tail spin. 

I ask again, which side am I on? And what's my sacred cow?

TTom

>  I'm not playing any more.

Promise?

RE        <<< Note 280.129 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>I ask again, which side am I on? 

  I don't know.

>And what's my sacred cow?

  I don't know.

  George

RE  <<< Note 280.130 by IMBETR::DUPREZ "It's Baseball And You're An American" >>>

>Promise?

  Done.

  I'll debate if anyone wants to stick to the subject and debate the points
I made but I'm not debating the side shows and rat holes.

  George

  >> Now we're off to "we are right because Dave Winfield couldn't hit", 
  
     Is this your way of saying that you were completely wrong about
     Winfield? Go ahead, George say the words.


  >> I'm not playing any more. 

     Translation: Referee stops contest at 2:05 of the 5th round.

  >> If you want to go back to .17 to what I really said, 

     I read .17 and the basic flaw in it is that you completely
     misinterpret what the other side's position is. Or at least
     you're misinterpreting what *my* position is. It isn't that 
     you can always deteremine who the best team is. Or even that
     the best team always wins. My position is that *by definition*
     the team that wins the championship is the best team. That's
     why we have championships - to settle things on the field of
     play. If you want conjecture and opinion check college football.
     That's usually what you get after a full season of college foot-  
     ball -  specualtion on who the best team is. Nearly everyone
     would agree that it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory way to deter-
     mine a national champion. Your argument seems to be that it's 
     actually the most accurate and best way.

  >> Since Thomas Jefferson says I can make luck happen with lots 
  >> of work I'm going to work real hard at picking me some megabucks 
  >> numbers and take home a bundle.


     "Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey
    

Damn, just when things were getting started....

daryll

RE        <<< Note 280.133 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     "Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey
    
  Oh, so I can design a winning number for my lottery ticket?

  Fits right in with the rest of your ideas. By the way if you care to debate
the original topic, let me know I'll be happy to oblige.

  George

>>I ask again, which side am I on? 
>
>  I don't know.
>
>>And what's my sacred cow?
>
>  I don't know.

That's good enough for me. One can only hope that I am therefore no
longer lumped into "your side".

Let me add another thought: Did I disagree with your premise? I'll
answer: maybe. 

FWIW, I think the champion is more likely to be better than the defeated
opponent based simply on the demonstration at either one crucial time or
during a series that they indeed had played better. The ability to play
better is part of being better.

Was Hakeem and his Cougars better'n the Pack in 83? Prolly. I'd have
hated to play 'em a series even with Guy Lewis at the helm.

Was lasted year's Houston Rockets better'n lasted year's Magic? Prolly,
at least better as a playoff team.

TTom

      Sounds like Tommy's argument is nothing more than semantics.
      Defining the best team as being the team that wins the 
      championship is nothing more than attributing to the meaning
      of the term "best team" something other than what I think
      everybody knows what George is meaning by "best team."
    
      Do you guys really insist that the Steeler team that won
      the immaculate reception game was a better team than the Raiders
      on the basis of that win?
    
      The Garvey thing sounds like a Tommy smokescreen.  It goes like
      this:
    
      "A position is proved invalid if one attempts to support that
       position with an unsatisfactory example."
    
      Gee, it seems to me if other examples in the universe exist, a
      position may still be proved valid all the while some example 
      given may have stunk.  I tend to think, if three players other
      than Garvey won the co-MVP, that the example stunk.  George 
      shouldn't use it and shouldn't abide by it.  However, Tommy's
      logic is flawed.  (Surprise.)
    
      Finally, George need not offer a formula to prove his point.
      The ability to offer a formula has absolutely no bearing on
      the viability of the point he is making.  None whatsoever.
    
      Most of the logic I am seeing from George's opponents is flat
      out flawed.
    
      I submit that Mary Decker was a better runner than most of the
      field that day she finished last by getting knocked down by
      Zola Budd.
    
      Take the example or leave it, but its pretty solid to me.
      Actually, Tommy agreed with George already (whether he knows 
      it or not).
                                   
    						Tony

    
    >> By the way if you care to debate the original topic, let me know 
    >> I'll be happy to oblige.
    
       You've been taken to task on everything from Garvey to Winfield.
       I think you're done - well done. You do well at chest thumping
       and pontificating which is what you'd like to confine the debate 
       to. It's in areas regarding facts that you fall down quite badly. 
    
    
       
     ``The championship, in the minds of a lot of people, is a sign of,
       well, greatness. I guess they can say that about me now.'' -- Michael
       Jordan after leading the Chicago Bulls to their first NBA championship.

       

RE        <<< Note 280.138 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>       You've been taken to task on everything from Garvey to Winfield.

  And you've been taken to task on coming up with the ridiculous notion
that according to Thomas Jefferson and Branch Ricky, hard work will get
me a winning lottery ticket. Not to mention that those points have about
as much to do with this argument as the ones you mention.

>       I think you're done - well done. 

  No doubt that's the way it looks to you as you look around the fryer in
which you sit. If you are ever able to figure out what this debate is about
as others have done let me know and we'll resume debating.

  George

From Note 280.60

    The hole in the argument...

    *I'm sure there are instances of wild upsets where some flukey team wins 
    *it all but those instances are exceedingly rare.
    
    "fluky" - by definition not the better team.

    We are now in the realm of subjectivity.

Wail, in that case we got ourselves a real manpower problem.

There's so few of us left we'd all have to play 2 or three parts. 

TTom

    
    	Fine with me.  I wanna be judge, jury, and executioner!  :*)
    
    Claybone

Does the executioner have the pee-pee whacking authority of the bailiff?

     >> -< The Air That Escaped The 'Airtight' Case >-

        I think all of that air escaped into your head.


     >> *I'm sure there are instances of wild upsets where 
     >> some flukey team wins *it all but those instances 
     >> are exceedingly rare.
    
     >> "fluky" - by definition not the better team.

     >> We are now in the realm of subjectivity.

        I have yet to see an example of a complete fluke winning 
        a championship cited. I'm willing to grant that it could
        happen but I haven't seen a pointer to one. I've seen weak-
        chinned waffling back and forth on slumps and zones. I've 
        seen Dave Winfield cited as an example of a big game player 
        who wasn't. And when that all fell to the floor an attempt
        was made to sweep it under the rug. But so far no evidence 
        of a team that had absolutley no business winning a champion-
        ship doing so just a lot of posturing and pontificating.
    

What's the relationship between a fluke and a_upset? Diff'rent? Same?

Certainly, we've all seen upsets and prolly have out own favorite or at
least most memorable.

I remember some gooduns from NCAA tournaments with a special mention to
the 1959 California Bears who beat Big O and #1 Cincinnati in the semis
and Jerry West and the onliest West By Gawd Virginee team to make it to
the final four.

I see this as a bigger upset than Villanova beating Georgetown which
could be viewed as a glorified conference game where upsets occur
regularly, and State beating Houston, mostly cause of Guy Lewis.

However, I'd have to put State in something close to a fluke. Starting
with the firsted game of the conference tournament, through a regional
semi-final game with UNLV and then the finals, the tourney was basically
a string of pulling games out of that dark place well know by all.

Broadway Joe beating the mighty Colts was more than just a_upset, too.

In series, flukes and upsets both are less likely, it would seem.

TTom

RE        <<< Note 280.146 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>        I have yet to see an example of a complete fluke winning 
>        a championship cited. 

  That's because this debate is not about that. You have seen examples of
lesser teams winning such as the '88 Dodgers.

>I've 
>        seen Dave Winfield cited as an example of a big game player 
>        who wasn't. 

  Nor have we seen any evidence that he wasn't. Meanwhile as long as you
are claiming victory over a minor point, I'm still waiting for the Thomas
Jefferson / Branch Ricky method on how hard work will get me a winning lottery
ticket.

  Got any more quotes of famous guys saying hard work can replace luck?

  George

I think that this is all easily explainable.

Jefferson was not drinking when he propounded his Luck Theorem so useful
in the coin flipping and lottery industries today. He was smoking some of
that rope he grew.

As for Ricky, I'd say this is a case of too much bourbon and branch.

TTom

    
  >> You have seen examples of lesser teams winning such as 
  >> the '88 Dodgers.

     And I haven't seen any proof that the Dodgers were the
     'lesser team'. They had the big game players, they won 
     the big games. Where's the mystery in that?

  >> Nor have we seen any evidence that he [Dave Winfield] wasn't
     [a big game player]. 

     How soon they forget. You provided the evidence yourself.

    
    
      Ttom, Question for ya.
    
          Dale Earnhardt leads 499 laps around Daytona with Dick Trickle in
    close pursuit, on lap 500 Dale runs out of gas. Ol Dickie takes the
    checkered flag.  Does that take away from Dickies celebration? Because
    Dale can't read Gas guage under pressure on the big lap. Is Dickie the
    best driver?
    
    
    
    Chap

Wail, ya raise a couple of points there.

Firsted of all, if'n Dick Trickle wins something this side of the
Milwaukee Mile, there'll be some serious partying not the least of which
will be done on Sportscenter by Keith Olberman.

Secondly, lasted race at Michigan, Sterling Marlin was obviously the
fastest car but he had to pit to avoid running outta gas while Rusty
Wallace, who's a proven whiner, coasted to the win. He drove the best
race that day. The way I know that is he won.

Thirdly, in your scnerio, if'n ol' Dale realizes he's running outta gas
he's gonna take out any and all cars he can bump into. They don't call
him the Intimdator for nothin!~

TTom

>          Dale Earnhardt leads 499 laps around Daytona with Dick Trickle in
>    close pursuit, on lap 500 Dale runs out of gas. Ol Dickie takes the
>    checkered flag.  

The key word here is "Daytona".  Even though I could care less about racing,
I know that Dale Earnhardt is to Daytona as the Boston Red Sox are to the
World Series.

The correct answer is that Dale choked it away, Dick wins the race, and
someone else is the best driver... :-)

Ya gotta qualify that Daytona-Earnhardt thing.

Earnhardt has definitely won and won big at Daytona, just not in a
Winston Cup Points race. He regularly wins a lot of races like the Busch
Clash and the like which don't count toward the points.

Also, unlike the Sox, he manages to be awarded enough points to win the
championship even though he's Goose Eggs Baby!~ in Daytona.

Now, extending this backwards, if'n the Sox were like Earnhardt they
cause the Yankees to crash. Come up from behind and take the air out or
just run 'em into the wall. (cf Bobby Hamilton at Rockingham)

TTom

      I'll give an example that works against me (being a Packer fan).
    
      In 1965, the Packers and Colts tied in the regular season and 
      thus met in a playoff.  Starr was injured and so the Pack relied
      on Zeke Bratkowski.  Unitas was injured as was their other QB 
      (who I believe was Gary Cuozzo, but not sure).  They had to resort
      to Tom Matte at QB.
    
      Now, right off the bat, the Colts are in worse shape through no
      fault of their own.  Add to this that the game was played in 
      Milwaukee, i.e. a home game for the Pack and factor in that the
      Packers did not 'earn' the home field.  Neither team did.
    
      The Pack was down by a FG with time running out.  Chandler kicked
      a FG that was called good, but anyone knows it really wasn't.
      It was close, but it was wide.  But, they called it good.  The
      Pack won the game in OT.
    
      Consider these facts...
    
      1) Home game for Pack (though not any more earned for them than
         for Colts).
    
      2) Colts minus BOTH QB's; Pack only minus Starr.
    
      3) Pack is losing and in last minute has a missed FG called good.
         
      4) Pack goes on to beat the Browns in the NFL championship.
    
      Can I honestly maintain that the Packers (by far my favorite team
      in all of sports) were the best team in 1965???  No!!!  I mean...
      how can I necessitate they were better than the Colts?
    
      I'm not trying to agree with George.  I just do!  And the example
      I used here is one that works AGAINST me (being a Packer fan).
    
      Sometimes things happen.  Sometimes the team that is the best team
      doesn't win.  Another example was that guy called safe in the 
      Royals/Cards world series.  There are other valid examples in my
      mind.
    
    						Tony

Wow.  A week ago I opined that George had made a statement that was self-
evidently, obviously correct, and that I didn't know what you were arguing
about.  Then I packed up to carry the Digital flag at the customer site.

A week and more than 100 notes later, this string has set the record for
the highest ratio of heat to light, and about the only ones of you who
did not contribute to the record were Ron Erickson (with only a single note)
and Tony Barbieri.  The rest of you have achieved heights (or depths) un-
precedented even in this unique forum.

Chappy, Billl, and (especially) Cadzilla misinterpreted what George wrote so
thoroughly as to cast doubt on their reading ability.

TTom stated a position he described as the center, but which was virtually
identical to George's.  George proceeded to assign TTom to "the other side",
a spectacular misunderstanding that TTom then elevated to the status of "lie".

George seized on the "wearing the ring" metaphor and threw up a smokescreen
about selling the ring, a style of argumentation he has himself skewered on
any number of occasions.  He also didn't cover himself with glory when he
jumped on Tommy for identifying Dave Winfield as "not a big game player".
What did Winfield have, six hits in four postseason series?

But Tommy was the champ.  I don't know what it is about the way George jerks
Tommy's chain, but he drives him to make arguments that, respecting his
intelligence as I do, I cannot believe he doesn't reject as he types them.
There were numerous examples, but the Affaire Garvey was the pick, as Tommy
pasted texts from George (whose gist was unambiguously a comparison of a
post-season slump with a post-season tear) and, while they stared back at
him from the screen, asserted that they said something completely different
(namely that Garvey was the reason the Dodgers won).  In addition, he seems
to be claiming that luck plays no role in determining champions (I'm sure
Tony Kubek's Adam's Apple would tell a different story) or that the 1988
Dodgers were not considerably weaker than Oakland (even before the rash
of injuries that decimated the roster as the Series progressed--and, no,
I don't buy the "gamer" smokescreen.  Who were they, after Gibson [who came
to bat exactly once] and Hershiser?).

It was also Tommy who made the only positive contribution to his side of
the debate.  He asserted that "by definition" the champion is the best
team.  From Brydie's First New International:

	best team (noun phrase), the winner of the championship

Now that's a position, a useful counterpart to George's.  If we simply
accept the definition, the argument goes away.  Unfortunately, I can't
accept it.  It requires us to declare the '88 Dodgers "better" than the A's,
the '60 Pirates "better" than the Yankees, the '82 LA Kings "better" than
Edmonton (despite 50 points in the standings), and by extension Buster
Douglas better than Mike Tyson or Leon Spinks the equal of Muhammad Ali.

I'd like to propose an alternative definition:  the best team is the one
that is expected to win, barring injuries, adverse fortune, and brainlock.
We've had examples of the first two; the '88 A's are a perfect instance of
the third, a team of young, immature sluggers who at the first sign of
resistance decided they had to hit a five-run homer every at bat.

Now that's quantifiable:  you look at the eve of game line.  My guess (and
this is part of the answer to Billl's question) is that, about half the
time, there is a wide enough spread for the favorite that you would say
that one team is perceived to be the best.  And my next guess (the rest
of Billl's answer) is that that favorite wins about 85% of the time, while
the not so clearly fancied favorites win just over 50% of the time.

Of course, my guesses (let's promote them to "hypotheses") are empirically
testable.  You simply check out the eve of game (or series) lines for the
major sports' postseasons for the past N years, identify the heavy favorites,
and determine how often they (and the not so heavy favorites) have won.  I
unfortunately do not have access to the raw data.  Anybody interested?

Now I have a decision to make.  Writing this has been a satisfactory
catharsis after reading the entire string at a sitting, but do I really
want to post it?  Shouldn't I let this dog, sleeping since Tuesday, lie?

Naah.

Steve

Oh, and PS:  if I had used a smiley every time irony or humor was intended,
I'd have worn the right paren off the keyboard.  I trust this will be taken
in the spirit intended.

  >> (whose gist was unambiguously a comparison of a post-season slump with 
  >> a post-season tear) and, while they stared back at him from the screen, 
  >> asserted that they said something completely different (namely that 
  >> Garvey was the reason the Dodgers won).  

     First of all, you never should have performed a seance on this dead
     horse. Secondly, (now that you've resurrected it) you can't tell me
     that Garvey played poorly and the Dodgers lost and then that Garvey 
     played well and the Dodgers won but that you don't mean he was the
     difference. Especially when you've stated that series can turn on 
     a player getting hot and players having no control over that. I ain't
     buying.

  >> Who were they, after Gibson [who came to bat exactly once] and 
  >> Hershiser?).

     How much more did they need?

  >> and by extension Buster Douglas better than Mike Tyson or 

     Perfect example. Buster Douglas, a hungry nobody vs. Mike Tyson, 
     a fat and happy party animal who was probably more concerned
     with the post-fight party than the fighter in front of him. 
     Buster fights a perfect fight and wins. Was he the better fighter? 
     He was when they met and that's all that counts. He didn't have 
     to be the better figyter his entire career. He didn't to be the
     10-1 favorite (Tyson was) he only had to be the best when it counted 
     and he was. He'll always be the guy who stopped the unstoppable force 
     and to call it luck or a fluke or whatever is to diminsih what he 
     did and it's grossly unfair. He fought a beautiful fight, give 
     him credit. He rose to his greatest challenge and if that ain't a
     champion then nothing is. Nothing.

  >> I'd like to propose an alternative definition:  the best team is 
  >> the one that is expected to win, barring injuries, adverse fortune, 
  >> and brainlock.

     Why don't we just let the bookies crown the champs and not even
     bother playing the games?
    

not totally dead, just mostly dead...

re: best team.

Absent from most of this discussion is the situation that occurs
frequently which is one team is better'n the other by simple objective
measurements of that sport. The Bulls won 72 and the Sonics not that
many. The Bulls going into the series has lost a grand total of 1 playoff
game while Seattle had been pushed significantly more.

I say that the Bulls were the better team and they won the series. Nuff
said.

I expected them to win.

>     Why don't we just let the bookies crown the champs and not even
>     bother playing the games?

Apples and oranges. The bookies do not attempt to predict the outcome,
who's better'n who or anything of the like.

They are simply predicting the betting on the event. The SBIII line of
17 or so was a very good line cause it din't move meaning the money was
pretty much even on both sides.

TTom

    
    
       Hey Steve,
    
    
        Thanks for sharing that with us.
    
    
    
    Chap

>        Thanks for sharing that with us.

That doesn't make you any better'n us. Both of you :=]

TTom

    
    
    
    
    ?????

> A week and more than 100 notes later, this string has set the record for
> the highest ratio of heat to light, and about the only ones of you who
> did not contribute to the record were Ron Erickson (with only a single note)
> and Tony Barbieri.  The rest of you have achieved heights (or depths) un-
> precedented even in this unique forum.
    
    Since I didn't read any of the string, I'd like to thank Steve for
    his highly entertaining synopsis...
    
> Tony Kubek's Adam's Apple would tell a different story) or that the 1988
> Dodgers were not considerably weaker than Oakland (even before the rash
> of injuries that decimated the roster as the Series progressed--and, no,
> I don't buy the "gamer" smokescreen.  Who were they, after Gibson [who came
> to bat exactly once] and Hershiser?).
    
    Mickey Hatcher...
    
    
    glenn
    

    Glenn, wasn't there a misplay by Jim Coates where he failed to cover
    first base on a play to the right side.  This was not act of god like
    Kubek's bad hop but a boner.  You have the entire last three innings
    committed to memory including strike and ball counts, correct?  I'd
    expect no less.
    
    So what's the itinerary this week?  Seven Flags?

    
>    Glenn, wasn't there a misplay by Jim Coates where he failed to cover
>    first base on a play to the right side.  This was not act of god like
>    Kubek's bad hop but a boner. 
    
    Clemente reached in the huge 5-run eighth on a 2-out infield single 
    where Coates was late in covering first (I've seen the film many 
    times; Clemente may have beaten it anyway).  Coates then surrendered 
    the near-fatal 3-run homer to Smith.
    
    The Pittsburgh papers also made note that Rocky Nelson's decision to
    take the force at first instead of tagging or forcing Mantle first and 
    then completing the DP, allowing the tying run to score in the 9th, 
    was a play worthy of goat horns (these were the days when the writers 
    actually knew the game).  So it may have been a deadlock on the 
    brainlock, although only Stengel got fired... ;-)
    
    glenn
    

    Glenn the critique of Nelson is patent hindsight.  Rocky caught the
    ball on the trap hop intending to tag first base and throw to second
    and make the dp via tag.   Mantle who is credited with one of the great
    headsup plays of legend may very well have thought that Nelson caught
    the line drive in the air and was trying to get back to the bag. 
    Nelson tagged the base as Mantle was landing; no one knew what happened
    for awhile.
    
    As I have since come to understand, Nelson could have tagged Mantle
    standing on the bag for an out and then touched the base for the dp. He
    simply went with instinct and has never been faulted.
    
    I have heard Coates name taken in vain for not "being there".
    
    Billte

    
>    Glenn the critique of Nelson is patent hindsight.  Rocky caught the
>    ball on the trap hop intending to tag first base and throw to second
>    and make the dp via tag.
    
    Which removes the force and allows the run to score even if the DP
    is completed...
    
>    As I have since come to understand, Nelson could have tagged Mantle
>    standing on the bag for an out and then touched the base for the dp. He
>    simply went with instinct and has never been faulted.
    
    Like I said, hindsight or not, Rocky was criticized in the papers the
    very next day, albeit mildly in victory, especially as he had also 
    contributed with a HR of his own...
    
    
    If this "best team" debate continues, I may be forced to dig up and
    publish the immortal late great Don Hoak's thoughtful essay on "luck",
    as pertained to the 1960 World Series...
    
    [From the movie "City Slickers"]:
    
    Woman:	Sure, I like baseball as much as the next person, but I've
    		never understood this need for men to know who played 3B for
    		the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates...
    
    Crystal, Stern,
    other New York-
    dweeb [in unison]:
    
    		Don Hoak... Don Hoak... Don Hoak...
    
     

    
    
  >> If this "best team" debate continues, I may be forced to dig up and
  >> publish the immortal late great Don Hoak's thoughtful essay on "luck",
  >> as pertained to the 1960 World Series...
    
     Sounds like some kind of threat.     
    

    Glenn are you saying the tieing run scored on that play?  I didn't
    think so.  Has the last three innings survived on film?

    
>    Glenn are you saying the tieing run scored on that play?  I didn't
>    think so.  Has the last three innings survived on film?
    
    Yes, the tying run scored on that play to make it 9-9 (I don't know
    if the entire game survives on film).  Which also makes me re-evaluate
    Mantle's supposed headiness in making that baserunning decision.  
    Maybe he did correctly read Nelson's intentions, but more likely he 
    wasn't sure if the ball was caught in the air or was likewise just
    reacting to the situation.  Because the worst possible play for the
    Yanks in that situation would have been for Mantle to be tagged out
    and then the force executed at first for the quick and easy DP to 
    prevent the tying run from scoring.  I've seen the film of this play
    too and Mantle was definitely heading back to first before Nelson 
    made the force.  Maybe Mantle was just "lucky"... ;-)
    
    glenn
    
                                                         

      re: .158
    
      Try using an imperfect example (.156).

     >> -< Perfect Examples Usually Work >-

        And imperfect ones usually don't. You cite two teams,
        neither one having its future HoF QB available and
        you want to use that to support your case that champ-
        ionships are not always won by the better team. Ob-
        viously the waters are muddied but you still don't
        make a very strong case for either team because the 
        game came down to a field goal attempt. That you had 
        to go back 30 years to find such an example shoots George's 
        statement that 'luck has everything to do with who wins
        championships' all to hell.

        I'm not being purposely obtuse, Tony. I know what your 
        point is. In 1985 the Georgetown Hoyas met Villanova, who 
        they had beaten twice already that season, in the NCAA 
        finals. Georgetown had three players who would have long
        NBA careers, one of them a perennial all-star, Pat Ewing.
        Georgetown was a huge favorite. What happens? Villanova
        plays way over their heads, shoots 79% from the field and
        wins the title. Who was the better team all season long?
        Georgetown hands down. No question. Not even close. Who
        was the better team when they absolutely needed to be?
        Villanova. Which would you rather be? 

        I agree with you and even with George that the team that
        is perceived to be the best does not always win the title.
        I'm saying that it's not right to put a qualifier on some-
        one winning a title. "Yeah, the 1988 Dodgers won the World
        Series but..." "Yeah, Wisconsin beat UCLA in the Rose Bowl
        but..." No "buts" about it. They won when the money was on
        the line and that's all there is to it. Personal rooting 
        interests aside.
    

      I think we agree a lot closer than we want to admit!!!   ;-)
    
      I totally accept the factor of playing big in the big games.
      But, I do agree with George that sometimes players just get 
      in zones for reasons other than clutch - call it biorhythms,
      whatever.  Villanova is a good example (to me).
    
      We're not that far apart.
    
      My going back 30 years had much more to do with being a Packer
      buff.
    
    						Tony

    
    Gee, I'm glad I started this note... now read the rules of noting in my
    note!  see 280.0 and 280.1
    

    
      Why would we start paying attention to you now, Groaner?

    
    I don't know, why?  
    
    :-)