|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 31, 2021 16:04:04 GMT -5
You are in awe of Faraimo's performance, but not Garcia's performance in Game 3? Faraimo in Game 2: O runs, 1 hit, 2 walks, 11 strikeouts. Garcia in Game 3: 0 runs, 2 hits, 0 walks, 13 strikeouts. Faraimo's came after Virginia Tech lit Garcia up the game before, and VTech's offense had not been shut down all postseason. Nothing even close to that actually - and Virginia Tech wasn't even touching her. Tech had all the momentum coming into that match and it was a close game -- Rochard mostly held UCLA down again that game. It was very impressive re: Faraimo. Doesn't take anything away from G3 Garcia. I mean, one of those players is the 2x defending NPOY who got lit up in G1. I expected her to bounce back, and she did do it even better form than expected. I was just more in awe of a player coming in, who many people didn't expect to start, completely shutting down that red-hot team in a must-win game where that team had the mo. To your edit - 'Fortunate' is respect for Vtech. UCLA was down to a must win situation in back-to-back games and yes, delivered. A 2-0 win is not dominant, except for the performance on the mound. Yeah, honestly, if you look at Virginia Tech's and UCLA's performances in the first four games of the postseason, the Hokies were clearly better: Virginia Tech5-2 win over BYU 8-2 win over Arizona State 11-3 win over BYU 7-2 win over UCLA UCLA8-0 win over Long Beach State 5-4 win over Fresno State in extra innings 2-1 win over Minnesota 7-2 loss to Virginia Tech Virginia Tech had just lit up UCLA's ace, and Faraimo came in and shut down their powerful offense in a must-win game in which her team only gave her two runs of support. Maybe Garcia's performance in game 3 was better in a vacuum, but given the circumstances, Faraimo's was more impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2021 18:41:13 GMT -5
No. The point of a championship is not actually to find "the best team". It is to determine a champion. The champion does not have to be the best team, just the one that wins the championship. But ... most tournaments do in fact try to have the best teams meet as late as possible. That's what seeding is for. Questions like "what happens if the best two teams meet in the first round" are valid questions when discussing the design of the tournament structure, and that's what we were discussing. Well, generally speaking, most fans view the champion and the "best team" as one and the same. If you can't win the championship, you weren't really the best team, at least not when it mattered. The entire point of the regular season in most sports is to qualify for the playoffs and earn advantages (home field, byes, etc.) in the postseason. At any rate, the format of the WCWS does seem like it's designed to not match the two best teams in the first round. The No. 1 seed, Oklahoma, is set to play the winner of the super regional that if the seeding held, would have been between the No. 8 and No. 9 seeds. If they win, in the next round, they'd face the winner of the game between the two super regionals featuring the 4 and 5 seeds. Etc. The crossover thing and the double elimination make it more complicated than a standard single-elimination tournament, but it still seems designed to avoid such first-round matchups. If so, then most fans are stupidly wrong. But I don't actually think that's so. I think "most fans" easily understand the difference between "the best team" and "the champion". Not all tournaments are seeded. Sometimes they use random draws. And everybody knows that seedings aren't always right, or else why even play the tournament? But I'm talking more about the theory of tournaments. Double-elim is very clearly designed for two purposes -- 1) to make sure if a team has one bad game that they have a chance to make up for it, and 2) to try to allow the two strangest teams to reach the final even if they happen to face each other earlier. Both of those goals are arguable. Some people like the idea of a long single-elim tournament and argue that consistency is a quality all of its own. And some feel like second place doesn't matter, so who cares if a team gets knocked out early or late. |
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on May 31, 2021 19:04:28 GMT -5
I'm speaking more in terms of pro sports than college but the best team is the one that has the best record during the regular season. If that's not the case then why bother to have a season in the first place? In this case the European soccer leagues clearly have a superior way to determine their champs. The team at the top of the table is the champion. No ifs ands or buts. Playoffs in the USA isn't about identifying the best team...merely to enrich themselves financially. I largely quit watching the postseasons for that reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 31, 2021 19:08:08 GMT -5
Well, generally speaking, most fans view the champion and the "best team" as one and the same. If you can't win the championship, you weren't really the best team, at least not when it mattered. The entire point of the regular season in most sports is to qualify for the playoffs and earn advantages (home field, byes, etc.) in the postseason. At any rate, the format of the WCWS does seem like it's designed to not match the two best teams in the first round. The No. 1 seed, Oklahoma, is set to play the winner of the super regional that if the seeding held, would have been between the No. 8 and No. 9 seeds. If they win, in the next round, they'd face the winner of the game between the two super regionals featuring the 4 and 5 seeds. Etc. The crossover thing and the double elimination make it more complicated than a standard single-elimination tournament, but it still seems designed to avoid such first-round matchups. If so, then most fans are stupidly wrong. But I don't actually think that's so. I think "most fans" easily understand the difference between "the best team" and "the champion". You're entitled to your opinion, but most people don't think of the 2007 Patriots, 2001 Mariners, 1996 Red Wings or 2016 Warriors as the best teams in those respective years. They all had record-setting regular seasons, but they all came up short in the playoffs. The point of most sports is to win the playoff title. It's not to be the "best team" in the regular season, as the main reason to do that is to put yourself in a better playoff position. When the 1996 Bulls won a record 72 games in the regular season, their mantra was, "72-10 don't mean a thing without the ring." They understood what truly matters. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2021 19:15:26 GMT -5
I'm speaking more in terms of pro sports than college but the best team is the one that has the best record during the regular season. If that's not the case then why bother to have a season in the first place? In this case the European soccer leagues clearly have a superior way to determine their champs. The team at the top of the table is the champion. No ifs ands or buts. Playoffs in the USA isn't about identifying the best team...merely to enrich themselves financially. I largely quit watching the postseasons for that reason. European soccer often has both "cups" and "leagues". Yes, usually the winner of the league is whoever has the best record in the season. (Since there is no postseason, it's not "the regular season". It's just the season.) But they also have cups, which are knockout tournaments. The World Cup, for example. In US pro sports, we tend to value the playoff winners over the regular season winners. In the cup and league model, those would be different competitions, and winning a league might well be more valued than winning a cup. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2021 19:21:37 GMT -5
If so, then most fans are stupidly wrong. But I don't actually think that's so. I think "most fans" easily understand the difference between "the best team" and "the champion". You're entitled to your opinion, but most people don't think of the 2007 Patriots, 2001 Mariners, 1996 Red Wings or 2016 Warriors as the best teams in those respective years. They all had record-setting regular seasons, but they all came up short in the playoffs. The point of most sports is to win the playoff title. It's not to be the "best team" in the regular season, as the main reason to do that is to put yourself in a better playoff position. When the 1996 Bulls won a record 72 games in the regular season, their mantra was, "72-10 don't mean a thing without the ring." They understood what truly matters. "They understood what truly matters"? Family, happiness, and making the world a better place? It's completely arbitrary to say that the playoffs are more important than all the other games that have been played. And there very definitely are arguments (books written, TV specials, whatever) about which teams were really "the best". For many people, not winning the championship is not an automatic disqualification, but it's generally considered at least a tick mark against them. The fact that you can rattle off teams like that and still remember them goes to show that even with your point of view you don't instantly dismiss these great non-champion teams. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 31, 2021 19:27:54 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion, but most people don't think of the 2007 Patriots, 2001 Mariners, 1996 Red Wings or 2016 Warriors as the best teams in those respective years. They all had record-setting regular seasons, but they all came up short in the playoffs. The point of most sports is to win the playoff title. It's not to be the "best team" in the regular season, as the main reason to do that is to put yourself in a better playoff position. When the 1996 Bulls won a record 72 games in the regular season, their mantra was, "72-10 don't mean a thing without the ring." They understood what truly matters. "They understood what truly matters"? Family, happiness, and making the world a better place? It's completely arbitrary to say that the playoffs are more important than all the other games that have been played. And there very definitely are arguments (books written, TV specials, whatever) about which teams were really "the best". For many people, not winning the championship is not an automatic disqualification, but it's generally considered at least a tick mark against them. The fact that you can rattle off teams like that and still remember them goes to show that even with your point of view you don't instantly dismiss these great non-champion teams. I don't know what to tell you. It's clear that that your view on this is completely incompatible with mine. As I said, you are entitled to your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 31, 2021 19:37:22 GMT -5
I'm speaking more in terms of pro sports than college but the best team is the one that has the best record during the regular season. If that's not the case then why bother to have a season in the first place? In this case the European soccer leagues clearly have a superior way to determine their champs. The team at the top of the table is the champion. No ifs ands or buts. Playoffs in the USA isn't about identifying the best team...merely to enrich themselves financially. I largely quit watching the postseasons for that reason. From a competition standpoint, the point of the regular season is to qualify for the playoffs and position yourself well for playoff success by earning advantages (home field, byes, more favorable matchups, etc.). Though the point of the regular season (and playoffs too) in general is obviously to make money. European soccer definitely has a different system, and it is true that with no playoffs, the team that has the best record during the season is also the champion. I don't agree that this is a "superior" way to do it (European soccer seasons are also about enriching themselves financially), but it has some merit. |
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on May 31, 2021 20:25:20 GMT -5
I'm speaking more in terms of pro sports than college but the best team is the one that has the best record during the regular season. very few leagues have balanced schedules where you play EVERYONE else in the league an equal number of times. So a team that gets to play bad teams a bunch of times might have a better W/L record than a team that had to play better teams more often. But the team that played better teams more often (thus possibly incurring a few more losses than the team in the cupcake division) may very well be the "better team", despite having a lower regular season win % |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2021 22:47:24 GMT -5
I'm speaking more in terms of pro sports than college but the best team is the one that has the best record during the regular season. If that's not the case then why bother to have a season in the first place? In this case the European soccer leagues clearly have a superior way to determine their champs. The team at the top of the table is the champion. No ifs ands or buts. From a competition standpoint, the point of the regular season is to qualify for the playoffs and position yourself well for playoff success by earning advantages (home field, byes, more favorable matchups, etc.). LOL. Let me suggest something to you. I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you might stop "telling" us and start talking *with* us. We all understand what you are saying, but you are describing only one point of view that only some competitions ascribe to, not an immutable law of sport. |
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on May 31, 2021 22:58:35 GMT -5
I'm speaking more in terms of pro sports than college but the best team is the one that has the best record during the regular season. If that's not the case then why bother to have a season in the first place? In this case the European soccer leagues clearly have a superior way to determine their champs. The team at the top of the table is the champion. No ifs ands or buts. Playoffs in the USA isn't about identifying the best team...merely to enrich themselves financially. I largely quit watching the postseasons for that reason. From a competition standpoint, the point of the regular season is to qualify for the playoffs and position yourself well for playoff success by earning advantages (home field, byes, more favorable matchups, etc.). Though the point of the regular season (and playoffs too) in general is obviously to make money. European soccer definitely has a different system, and it is true that with no playoffs, the team that has the best record during the season is also the champion. I don't agree that this is a "superior" way to do it (European soccer seasons are also about enriching themselves financially), but it has some merit. The owners of the teams really don't give a damn about determining the best team. The playoffs are merely another avenue for them to get rich by selling the fans on the idea that the more games they get to watch the better. Well I refuse to fall for their sales pitch. It's a joke. I just think when team A clearly beat Teams B through H in the regular season, that they should have to do it again. RIdiculous. money is the only thing that matters to these people. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 31, 2021 23:00:53 GMT -5
From a competition standpoint, the point of the regular season is to qualify for the playoffs and position yourself well for playoff success by earning advantages (home field, byes, more favorable matchups, etc.). LOL. Let me suggest something to you. I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you might stop "telling" us and start talking *with* us. We all understand what you are saying, but you are describing only one point of view that only some competitions ascribe to, not an immutable law of sport. Okay, I find your argument to be largely without merit, but it's obvious that you won't change your mind, which is fine, so I don't want to waste my time. I believe I have already explained why I don't buy what you're selling, and I don't feel like belaboring the point. Edit: I'm not even sure how to respond to your first comment, which was comprised entirely of "lol," which is not exactly enlightening. I mean, that literally is the purpose of the regular season from a competition standpoint. I don't even really think that's debatable. I suppose that some leagues like the NHL award a trophy to the team that has the best regular season record, but virtually all players would rather have the Stanley Cup. And yes, there are some sports that don't have playoffs, but I already acknowledged that in that case, the team with the best record is obviously the champion. So when you say that my point of view only applies to sports that do have postseasons, I feel like that is just stating the obvious. Of course that is the case. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 31, 2021 23:12:36 GMT -5
From a competition standpoint, the point of the regular season is to qualify for the playoffs and position yourself well for playoff success by earning advantages (home field, byes, more favorable matchups, etc.). Though the point of the regular season (and playoffs too) in general is obviously to make money. European soccer definitely has a different system, and it is true that with no playoffs, the team that has the best record during the season is also the champion. I don't agree that this is a "superior" way to do it (European soccer seasons are also about enriching themselves financially), but it has some merit. The owners of the teams really don't give a damn about determining the best team. The playoffs are merely another avenue for them to get rich by selling the fans on the idea that the more games they get to watch the better. Well I refuse to fall for their sales pitch. It's a joke. I just think when team A clearly beat Teams B through H in the regular season, that they should have to do it again. RIdiculous. money is the only thing that matters to these people. I mean, that's fine. No one is forcing you to watch the postseasons if you don't want to. But do you think that the owners of European soccer leagues (e.g. the EPL) that don't have postseasons are any less motivated by money than the owners of sports leagues that do? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 31, 2021 23:43:02 GMT -5
I mean, that literally is the purpose of the regular season from a competition standpoint. I don't even really think that's debatable. The LOL is because we have been debating it for pages now, but you still "don't even really think that's debatable". It's clear that IN YOUR MIND this is an absolute, undebatable, 100% truth. You don't seem to be noticing that many of us are suggesting that we think you are being a little bit conceptually rigid here. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 1, 2021 0:06:55 GMT -5
I mean, that literally is the purpose of the regular season from a competition standpoint. I don't even really think that's debatable. The LOL is because we have been debating it for pages now, but you still "don't even really think that's debatable". It's clear that IN YOUR MIND this is an absolute, undebatable, 100% truth. You don't seem to be noticing that many of us are suggesting that we think you are being a little bit conceptually rigid here. The comment you quoted was the first time I made that particular argument, which was in response to someone asking what the point of having a regular season was if it wasn't to determine the best team. I explained what the competitive purpose was. This really isn't hard to follow: I'm speaking more in terms of pro sports than college but the best team is the one that has the best record during the regular season. If that's not the case then why bother to have a season in the first place? In this case the European soccer leagues clearly have a superior way to determine their champs. The team at the top of the table is the champion. No ifs ands or buts. Playoffs in the USA isn't about identifying the best team...merely to enrich themselves financially. I largely quit watching the postseasons for that reason. Though the point of the regular season (and playoffs too) in general is obviously to make money. European soccer definitely has a different system, and it is true that with no playoffs, the team that has the best record during the season is also the champion. I don't agree that this is a "superior" way to do it (European soccer seasons are also about enriching themselves financially), but it has some merit. Oh, and I didn't actually say that it wasn't debatable in that comment, which was the one you responded to with "lol," so I find this a bit disingenuous. |
|
