File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
...are you fucking kidding me?

Sure, the Phillies just one the World Series, but are they REALLY the best team in the league?
>> Anonymous
>>440681
Every team that has won the WS was the best team in their particular year.
>> Anonymous
OP here. That came out wrong.

What I meant was, why the fuck is this even a poll question?
>> Anonymous
>>440692
To justify all the "experts" picking the Rays because MOMENTUM
>> Anonymous
>>440681
Not even close.

Of course, I'd rather win a championship than be the best team in baseball.
>> Anonymous
>>440684
LOLWUT
>> Anonymous
>>440854
>>440855
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
HURTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Your tears are delicious.
>> Anonymous
>>440860
Um. . .

Why would I be butt hurt. . . since I'm a Phillies fan and all. . .
>> Anonymous
Because ESPN is a bunch of fucktards. Most people with blind loyalties are going to vote "No"
>> Anonymous
>>440862
. . . or people who realize the best teams don't always win championships. . .
>> sage
>>440865
All trolling aside, 18-1 proves that.
>> Anonymous
PROTIP: The best team in baseball wasn't in this World Series. They lost a two run game 7 in the ALCS.

(And don't try Sox Fag stuff, since my team just won the World series so: LOLOLOL@BAWSTON but they were still the best. Not that it matters.)
>> Anonymous
>>440865

Did I rule out that possibility? I'm just saying that alot of the team fans are in denial, and vote for their team, despite them being terrible.
>> Anonymous
>>440869
I'd think it would be doing a lot worse then. I think about 90% of all fans are blind homers.
>> Anonymous
>>440868

I hope that is a joke. Explain to me how a team with a 3 man rotation and players like Varitek, Lowrie, and Crisp starting are the best team. Nice trollin'
>> Anonymous
>>440872
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php

Also, while I wouldn't trade Ruiz for Varitek, Varitek was better this year, so that's a weird statement.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>440868
soxfag disguised as Philsfag. 18-1. The best team in baseball didn't even make the playoffs.
>> Anonymous
>>440879

i'll play devil's advocate;

if the best team didn't make the playoffs, how can they be considered the best team?
>> hurleyhurley
>>440879
Then wouldn't he say being the better team is more important?
>> hurleyhurley
>>440883
Flukes, poor luck and other such things that can give a slightly lesser team a slightly better record.

With wild card, though, this is pretty hard. And does not apply to the Yankees (who were still better than the Phillies, though).
>> Anonymous
>>440886
this
>> Anonymous
25 handicapped kids could make the playoffs in the NL. The Yanks just had an assload of injuries(Wang, Joba,Posada,Matsui) they still had a better record than 2 of the postseason teams. Next year ESPN will be cock gobbling the Yanksand whatever free agents they bring in worse than ever just enjoy this yankeeless October for what its worth.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Soxfags and Yanksfags can't come to grips that for once their teams aren't the best in baseball.
>> Anonymous
>>one the world series

Can't unsee
>> Anonymous
>>440902
ITT: Philliesfags can't come to grips with the fact that the best teams don't always win championships.

I'm pretty sure the only person in here acknowledged to be a Red Sox fan said he'd rather win the championship, anyway, so I'm not sure why it matters. I'm with him, I'd much rather be the Phillies than the Red Sox. That doesn't mean the Red Sox aren't better, it means that, in October, being better doesn't always work out.
>> Anonymous
>>440883samefag here

>>440886
i can accept that. i may not entirely agree, but i just wanted to see where you were coming from.
>> Anonymous
>>440927

>ITT: Philliesfags can't come to grips with the fact that the best teams don't always win championships.

There was once a league full of baseball teams.

One day, they decided they wanted to see which one of the teams was the best.

So, they devised an elimination tournament to find out which one it was.

They called this tournament the "playoffs".
>> Anonymous
>>440927
What are the standards for a team to be "the best"? I'm not a Philliesfag (Yankeesfag here) but I think if a team wins the championship, then they were the best in that season, period. Regular season doesn't matter at all past qualifying for playoffs, and if you choke were it counts then you weren't the best.
>> Anonymous
>>440929
lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>440931
The best team is the best team at winning baseball games. Not the best team at winning a couple short series.

Thinking that the best team always wins a best of 7 series is so hilariously naive.
>> Anonymous
>>440935

>Thinking that the best team always wins a best of 7 series is so hilariously naive.

SO, WHAT'S THE REASONABLE SCALE OR STRETCH OF GAMES WITH WHICH TO DETERMINE THE BEST TEAM?

200 GAMES?

1,200 GAMES?
>> Anonymous
does the best team win every series every time in the regular season? the only way this is true is if there is a team that wins every series all season.

this has never happend, therefor its not true. teams lose series to lesser teams all the time.

what makes you think suddenly this becomes untrue in october?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>440937
The most possible. The most we have is 162 (and I could see looking at the playoffs in very close situations).

If there were 2,000 games we could make an even better judgement, but that wouldn't be very entertaining.

Which is the point: entertainment. That's why there are playoffs. Not because they're good at determining the best team, because they're not. They're entertaining. Deterimining the best team is unimportant.
>> Anonymous
>>440935
If they are the best team, they win the series. The only plausible excuse would be injuries, everything else (bad pitching, not batting, bullpen suddenly sucking) is choking, and if you choke you weren't the best team. Good teams win regular baseball games. The best team wins under pressure and takes the championship.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The Pirates were the best team in the league this season.

But, 162 games was too small of a sample size.

The Pirates greatness would've revealed itself over the span of 8,000 games.
>> Anonymous
>>440941
>If they are the best team, they win the series.

This. This is impossibly naive.

Did the Phillies win every series in the regular season?
>> Anonymous
>>440941
butthurt philliesfag can't just accept a championship and be happy. has to try and convince everyone to be narrow minded, too.
>> lolvid beckmans
to bring up the 06 series again, theres no way in hell the Cards were the best team that year. They were just the best team in the world series.
>> Anonymous
>>440945
Except I'm a yankeesfag and couldn't care less about the phillies. Good try though.
>> Anonymous
Playoffs are the only tangible way with which to determine a "best" team.

There is no valid way to determine a "best" team otherwise.

A World Championship is irrefutable.
>> Anonymous
>>440940
OH THANKS NOW I DON'T HAVE TO HOLD DOWN SHIFT
>> Anonymous
The best teams win when it matters. For example...NFL last season. Where the Patriots the best team? No. Then won the most games but FAILED to win the only game that matters!

The best team wins the games that matter. End of argument. Anyone who says this is "naive" is just a failfag because their team is a failure.
>> Anonymous
There was a study showing that 15% of the time, the worst team in baseball can beat the best team in baseball.

The worst team in baseball is not in the playoffs, so upsets are even more possible.
>> Anonymous
>>440956
Then switch to european soccer leagues formats.
>> Anonymous
>>440956
You may be right with that. But that's the reason the playoffs are series. If the series came down to 7 games, even 6 games you can claim it was a complete fluke. The Red Sox could be truly the "best" team in the AL. I don;t think anyone would argue the Rockies weren't the best team in the NL at the end of the season given how they went through divisional and NL Championship. The Phillies won all of their series only losing 1 game, which could be attributed to the randomness. True, it could be that the Phillies could have lost the remainder of their games for the rest of the playoffs and at the end their championship could be peddled off as chance. But they played consistently better than the Rays, which again could be proof that they are the better team.
>> Anonymous
This is why i hate my Division. The A.L East is so gay, and as a jaysfag we have to contend with the redsox and yanks, usually missing out by 6-10 games in the wildcard. We even had a fucking sweet rotation this year, but noooooooooooooooooooo the shitsux rays just had to have their breakout year. Oh well, we got back at them....... we got back at them indeed!

Protip:
Arrive
Hit homeruns
Leave
>> Anonymous
>>440967
You can at least troll rays fans (lol) because they lost to the same team you beat in 93.
>> Anonymous
>>440970

Thats because we had black matt stairs.
>> Anonymous
>>440949
likely
>> Anonymous
>>440950
wrong

It's a terrible way to determine the best team. Upsets and flukes happen, and in a tournament they have dramatic, skewing impact.

You think any scientist would take a tournament format as an appropriate sample size in any test? lol
>> Anonymous
>>440955
>NFL last season. Where the Patriots the best team? No.

So if the refs decided to say Eli Manning was in the grasp on the David Tyree play and blew the play dead -- something that happens frequently -- suddenly the Giants aren't the best team? Because of the call of a referee?

Yeah, that makes sense. Let's throw out 19 games of evidence and make our decision based on a flukey, tiny sample. That's critical analysis there.
>> Anonymous
>>440957
What if people find tournaments more entertaining?

Haven't people said time and time agian in this thread that being the best doesn't matter? Someone already said it's about entertainment.

Is it so hard for you to understand the concept of people not caring who is the best?
>> Anonymous
>>441008
You are correct. We can then conclude that American sports format are not fair, but who cares. Seeing the best tema choke is always more fun than fairness.
>> Anonymous
>>440961
They played consistently better than the Rays? They beat them four times out of five. Anyone who thinks five games is a large enough sample size to determine anything is ridiculous.

Sure, in a series an upset is less likely than in one game, but it's still extremely possible.

Beyond that, what if one team just matchups up well against a better team?
>> Anonymous
>>441013
Agreed.

I think playoffs are a terrible way to determine the best team. I don't care, though, because they're entertaining.

I'm a Rangers fan, and while I'm quite certain the Rays were a better team, I'd rather be a Phillies fan than a Rays fan right now. Easily.
>> Anonymous
>>441008
But there is also the fact that teams will/can fluctuate in their performance over the season in a matter that is not normal. That is why the playoffs are from the top 8 teams in the sport in terms of consistent performance over the season. At the end they are in a tournament setting in which they must perform. You can argue that the Rays during their best seven game stretch could beat the Phillies during their best seven game stretch. But such a match up is impossible to do. And really, records are scewed based upon the teams they play. If you are going to bring in sample sizes and scientific method into this then each team would need to play each other team an equal amount of time, or a randomized schedule in which match-ups are as likely between the Rays and Red Sox and Rays and Phillies.
>> Anonymous
>>441016
>But there is also the fact that teams will/can fluctuate in their performance over the season in a matter that is not normal.

And the same thing can happen in the post season. With much more dramatic consequences. Typically you have three off games and you're done. Take the Rays. A one-run game, something that tends to balance out over a large sample, went to the Phillies and it became 2-1. They had a bad game three and then faced a matchup problem in Cole Hamels. A larger series you don't know they don't bounce back and win. Fortunately, we have a larger sample size to look at.


>And really, records are scewed based upon the teams they play.

This is why third-order record is a great way to evaluate teams.


>If you are going to bring in sample sizes and scientific method into this then each team would need to play each other team an equal amount of time, or a randomized schedule in which match-ups are as likely between the Rays and Red Sox and Rays and Phillies.

This would undoubtedly be better than what we have at determining which team would is better, but it's also boring.

That would be better than the current 162 game schedule for evaluation purposes, but the current 162 game schedule is also better for INTELLIGENT evaluation than looking at a collection of short series arranged as a tournament.
>> Anonymous
>>441014
All I was trying to say is that it does lower the chance of a fluke victory. Really you need to analyze the matchups themselves to determine. Pena and Longoria weren't hitting. That could be due to the pitchers or the hitters. Really I don't have a TV so I was listening to the radio and can't make that call. Also you need to take margin of victories and what led to them into consideration.

>>441011
The only real winning argument is that it is impossible to truly determine a better team. Rays played more consistently better during the season. Phillies were up and down. When they played each other the Phillies came out on top. That should be all that matters.
>> Chocolate Hitler !!WCFvcOo5Pka
WE NEED A BCS FOR BASEBALL, THAT'LL SOLVE EVERYTHING
>> Anonymous
>>441022
I think the bats going cold (and that's what it was) is another argument against saying the Phillies were the best.

Yes, they won the World Series. That's all anyone should actually care about, but it doesn't make them the best. They hit the Rays at the right time.
>> Anonymous
>>441025
This is one reason I like the BCS. Not that I want it in every sport, but I like every sport having different post season formats.
>> Anonymous
American sports format aren't fair. They're fun. /thread
>> Anonymous
>>441026
Really I am just pissed at Red Sox and Yankees fans I know saying that because they won this year doesn't mean they are actually a good team. And I can't argue with them, mainly the Red Sox fan, because I already have anger to them and it will come spewing out from this. Yes, childish, I know. But does a team getting better over the last 2 years, culminating in winning the World Series count the Phillies as a fluke, because the team they expect to win fails to perform while the Phillies deliver? Granted I believe they are bias because "AL is the better League" and the sweep over the Rockies was _purely_ from the might of the Red Sox.
>> Anonymous
the only thing i care about at this point is the fact that the phillies won the world series. I don't care if they are/aren't considered the best. they won, i'm happy, and for a year the phillies are the team that will be announced as the reigning world series champs.
>> Anonymous
>>441039
I am as happy as you are, but I go to school near Albany NY. I know no other Phillies fan. All my friends are Yankees or Red Sox fans who have already made comments tonight about it being a fluke or it won't happen again so I should calm down. Granted I yelled "PHUCK YEAH PHILLIES!" outside their dorm at 11 when calm down comment was made. Its mainly that I have to deal with the Red Sox fans, who have the 2 complexes I mentioned earlier, along with the 18-1 "we still are the best" attitude.
>> Anonymous
>>441041
As a yankeesfag, I find it deliciously ironic that after all the shit they talked about us, the soxfags turned out to be worse than us after only 2 WS victories.
>> Anonymous
>>441046
Yeah. I have yet to point out their "we have been good consistently" argument is also saying their team sucks compared to the Yankees. I know I will have to deal with them calling me a bandwagon fan because I only started paying attention after last fall, when everyone I was hanging around were in Red Sox - Yankees rivalry mode. What sucks is I have anger because one lead me on over the summer hardcore, then we get back and she goes back to dating the other Sox fan, so I can't have any logical discussion with them when it comes to something I care about.
>> Anonymous
>>441039
This is a good attitude.
>> Anonymous
They won the World Series. They're the best team. Deal with it.
>> Anonymous
>>441078
That doesn't work with Boston fans who can't accept that the Phillies beat a team that beat them.
>> Anonymous
The Angels and Cubs were the best teams, which they proved by winning the most games in the regular season
>> Anonymous
>>441097

True fact. Both teams were mega in the regular season.
Then both teams fukken failed in post-season. I lol'd.
>> Anonymous
>>441097

We've seen it time and time again. Regular season really means nothing. If you can't show up in the playoffs, it's all for shit. Cubs will never win a world series, they won't ever be able to handle the pressure they get from the fans and franchise.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Clearly the Cubs were the best team in baseball this season.
>> Anonymous
So much sand in faggot vagina in this thread. Phils won. Your teams didn't. So your teams are faggots and you are gay just for liking them.

Gays.
>> Anonymous
>>441208
I have never seen so much weeping and butthurt and excuses over one choke before. And it's THE RAYS.

WHAT THE FUCK??
>> Anonymous
>>441097
>The Angels and Cubs were the best teams, which they proved by winning the most games in the regular season

>The Angels

>best team

The team with an 84-78 third order record was the best?

LOLOLOL you're killing me!
>> Anonymous
>>441208
Sounds like a Philly fan.

"DA STEREOTYPE IS UNDESERVED!!!!!!!!"
>> Anonymous
Phillyfag here: there is no damn way the Phillies were even close to the best team in baseball this year.

But they are the World Champs and that's all that matters, so LOLOLOLOLOL.
>> Anonymous
>>442475
the whole is great than the sum of the parts. i know you hardcore numberfags dont believe in stuff like that because you cant quantify it easily, but it exists. there's a reason your stats dont add up, and lets just say that any number system is far from flawless.
>> Anonymous
>>442483
Prove it.
>> Anonymous
>>442486
The better team won the 2008 World Series.
>> Anonymous
>>442490
The better team over 5 games.
>> Chocolate Hitler !!WCFvcOo5Pka
>>442498
BAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW
>> Anonymous
>>442500
Why would a Phillies fan bawww? I couldn't be happier.

And it gives me even less reason to kid myself. I don't need sour grapes, I'm the happiest I've been in my life.
>> Anonymous
>>442500
>>442501
lol deflated
>> Anonymous
>>442475
You are a fucking retard... The angels went 100-62 this year...

You are thinking of the Dodgers you fucking cunt
>> Anonymous
If the team the wins the World Series isn't the best team, than who is?