We're In

by Ben Buchanan on Sep 30, 2009 12:58 AM EDT

It's not the way any of us wanted to get in--on the back of a 5 game losing streak thanks to a LA win...

But the playoffs are the playoffs, and we're in. That's all that matters. The regular season is officially a success.

For many of us, this is an unexciting and even disappointing conclusion. We're once again the benefactors of the Wild Card and not division leaders. We didn't end up making a miracle run to top the Yanks and do, in fact, seem to be finishing the season with a whimper.

But keep in mind that on August 18 we were a game back in the Wild Card, and as recently as September 11th we were nursing a 2 game lead over the Rangers. Were it not for a significant slump on the part of the rangers, nobody would be quite so apathetic. So let's count our blessings and avoid looking a gift horse in the mouth.

We're in.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Woo?

This post has left me feeling slightly forlorn.

by BigRedDog42 on Sep 30, 2009 1:46 AM EDT reply actions

Woulda been a lot more awesome if we'd won our way in.

by Ben Buchanan on Sep 30, 2009 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions

and if we hadnt yet again

fallen a million games back of the yankees

by revived0103 on Sep 30, 2009 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions

The worst post season bound team that I can remember

I’m happy we’re in, but I don’t have the post season excitement that I’ve felt in years past. This team has just not jelled the way it should have and it shows. We are definitely lucky to be playing in Oct. Frankly, I’d like to see some more critical postings out here. I doubt seriously that we’ll get past the Division series, but I certainly hope I’m wrong.

by 75bandwagon on Sep 30, 2009 3:35 AM EDT reply actions

Let’s relax with the negativity. We’re in.

by BOSPORTS on Sep 30, 2009 7:05 AM EDT up reply actions

How are we lucky?

We’re better than most of the teams in the postseason. The Tigers are lucky to be sitting in playoff position right now. The Angels are lucky their division is easier.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 30, 2009 7:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah?

I certainly hope I’m wrong.

I find that unlikely. Seems to me you’d rather hoist a great big “I TOLD YOU SO” over your head than a World Series Trophy.

Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.

by Bloggy on Sep 30, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions

AL East is a combined 29 games over 500

AL West is a combined 40 games over 500.

Just saying……

by MH252525 on Sep 30, 2009 9:54 AM EDT reply actions

I'll assume you meant to reply to me

The AL West is +112 in run differential
The AL East is +223.

Just saying …

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 30, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions

So 40 games over 500, and 112 run differential

and you want to try to say the Angels are lucky because of their division???? I’ll buy your argument for the Tigers but not the Angels.

by MH252525 on Sep 30, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions

The West is way stronger than the Central

no one would argue otherwise, I think.

by Buzzy on Sep 30, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions

The Central sucks

No sane person questions that.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 30, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions

That's also the product of...

1) Less teams in your division.
2) Teams playing their own division for basically half of their games.

@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation

by bdalebs on Sep 30, 2009 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait, how does teams playing in their division for basically half their games account for them all being a total of 40 over .500?

That logic makes sense for maybe two teams being above .500 but not necessarily all four…

RIP Nick Adenhart.

"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5

by Clutch on Oct 1, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm saying it reduces the chance of having a lot of good records in one division.

The really good teams beat each other up, costing each other wins that they would earn if they played in other divisions.

@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation

by bdalebs on Oct 1, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Still don't really follow that fairly-extensively-twisted logic, but OK!

RIP Nick Adenhart.

"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5

by Clutch on Oct 1, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Neither do I, really.

It makes sense to me, but I can’t explain it properly.

@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation

by bdalebs on Oct 3, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Hi

Welcome to OTM. Looking at the W-L record in a single year really means little. Last year the ALEast was +67 and the West was -7! I will assume you agree that the difference in the year to year wins totals do not make a strong case for West superiority, the teams are very similar this year and last and wins fluctuate by circumstance a lot. However several other things do make a stronger case for East superiority, even this year. First is Pythag yields a much better expected record (as it does every year) for the East. Second is that taking league aggregate metrics like WAR also shows the East to be clearly superior.

by Buzzy on Sep 30, 2009 10:37 AM EDT reply actions

reply fail-to MH252525

by Buzzy on Sep 30, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Yea I'd agree with you that the AL East is a bit better than the West

but I also bet you’d agree that by any metric the AL West is above average. The Rangers have a good record and decent run differential. The M’s have some great pitching which helps explain to a small degree their winning % compared to their run differential and the A’s have a positive run differential. There are no easy teams in the AL West.

by MH252525 on Sep 30, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree.

by Buzzy on Sep 30, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

The Rangers are a good team

Not so sure about the M’s.

BTW, MH252525, I commented on the Angels in response to 75bandwagon. Since you’re not a regular here, you can’t really know the context. My response wasn’t meant to knock the Angels.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 30, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions

We're in

That’s all that matters, folks. Once the playoffs start, it’s all about who hits, pitches and fields the ball the best…

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Sep 30, 2009 12:37 PM EDT reply actions

And who pays the umps the most!

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Sep 30, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Ah, yes!

And it’ll be a challenge, because many high-payroll teams are in the ’yoffs this year…

OverTheMonster.com

by Randy Booth on Sep 30, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

by Kinslerhomer on Sep 30, 2009 6:41 PM EDT reply actions

Thanks

my fear is that you can’t really do that with 100% certainty-sooner or later a team as good as the Angels will win a short series. Hope it is not this year…

by Buzzy on Sep 30, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions