Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector
Understood, but in your argument it doesnt matter if the dodgers won their last 15 games of the year or lost the last 15 if we are just going on what we believe certain pitchers do in the postseason and talking about unknown surprises Last year though Kershaw was very good in the postseason by the way if not great.
Thus, basically it doesnt matter then if a first place teams ends up losing their last 50 games..if their best player are great in the post season and the many many unknown surprises of players who could suck in the regular season be great in the postseason
If kershaw and Darvish win 6 games in the post season etc, that would further show who cares how the #3 to #5 pitchers did for them in many losses..we shall see..
However my point was that if you think regular season record matters during the last 30 games or whatever i would be more concerned how the #1 and #2 pitchers did not the rest of them. In post season #1 pitchers pitch more often as well
.
|
The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.
No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.
Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.
