Twins now in 2nd

> Bill Kawalec wrote:

> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup.


Except for the niggling fact that the first tie breaker in determining
a division winner is the head-to-head records. So, these games could
have the ultimate importance.
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

Brian Matthews wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <brink.TakeThisOut@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each head-to-head
> >is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the net
> >difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent and
> >winning.
> >
> >brink
>
>
> Each game is of equal importance. Think about it;
>
> When the Tigers won yesterday, the Twins lost. We extended our lead by
> a game, same as if we played them and won. At the end of the year,
> it's the team with the most wins that wins the division. Just ask
> Bill, he'll explain it better. (this is NOT a slam at you Bill, I see
> your point now. If only the Tigs could have swept the Indians......)
>
There is a sense in which you are right. But in another way, the head
to head games are more important. On Sunday, the Twins lost and the
Tigers won. That is the same result in the standings as if they had
played each other. But it took 2 games to achieve that result, whereas
if the teams were playing each other, it would happen in one game.

Brian Jones
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

<snip>
..
>
> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup. They don't get
> credit for two wins for beating some teams, and only one for others. Even if
> the Tigers take the reamaining three from the Sox, they will have a poor
> record against them overall for the season, yet they will have to take a
> serious dive, while the Sox do the opposite, to lose the division. See, if
> the games where Detroit met Chicago head on had more "value," the Sox would
> already be out in front. A win in April counts as much as a win in
> September. A win against KC counts as much as a win against Chicago or
> Minnesota, or New York or Boston, or Oakland or Anaheim.

I agree with a win is a win, but aren't there other things --
psychologically -- related to some victories. A sweep of the yankers
this week has to be a moral victory and three wins in the win column.

Or the Win against the BoSox was good moral victory, a win in the win
column, but losing Polanco added a little bitters to the sweetness.

To get to the post-season you need to win, but when you get there you
have to have the mindset that you can win and your players healthy.

monk

chew 'em up Tigers
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

"Bill Kawalec" <billkawalec DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bLqdnRJeqNwt-W7ZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "brink" <brink DeleteThis @invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4lh4n4F1strkU3@individual.net...
>>
>> "Brian Matthews" <noonecares DeleteThis @ddd.com> wrote in message
>> news:tkh6f2hae6d3i6ot5fvb10b6rf96h9586l@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <brink DeleteThis @invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each
>>>>head-to-head
>>>>is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the
>>>>net
>>>>difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent
>>>>and
>>>>winning.
>>>>
>>>>brink
>>>
>>>
>>> Each game is of equal importance. Think about it;
>>
>> I respectfully disagree; if the Twins and White Sox have identical
>> records
>> heading into the last game of the season with the Tigers already
>> clinching
>> the division and Minny and Chicago essentially playing for all the
>> marbles
>> of the wild card berth, then I submit that the last game of the season
>> will
>> by far be the most importnat game of the season.
>
>
> Nope! It would be the one the Twins lost to the W Sox yesterday. The last
> game, as a result of that loss, is no more dramatic, but no more
> important.
>

Well, a key game at the end of the season IS (or can be) more dramatic, but
no more important than any other game.
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

"brink" <brink DeleteThis @invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lh8olF1uf3oU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bill Kawalec" <billkawalec DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Z4udnefOxL_T-G7ZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>> "brink" <brink DeleteThis @invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4lh646F1tht8U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Brian Matthews" <noonecares DeleteThis @ddd.com> wrote in message
>>> news:aln6f29hr17p410j5i4jisah6o16qdvuj5@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:15:07 -0700, "brink" <brink DeleteThis @invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I respectfully disagree; if the Twins and White Sox have identical
>>>>>records
>>>>>heading into the last game of the season with the Tigers already
>>>>>clinching
>>>>>the division and Minny and Chicago essentially playing for all the
>>>>>marbles
>>>>>of the wild card berth, then I submit that the last game of the season
>>>>>will
>>>>>by far be the most importnat game of the season.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not if The Twins or Chicago would have won 2 more games in any other
>>>> month. Those games were JUST as important. If either team had beat
>>>> K.C. just 2 more times, that last "most important" game would be
>>>> meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Thus......each and every game has the same importance.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, if it takes 99 wins to win a division, it doesn't matter
>>>> whom they come against. The Twins could go 0-19 against Chicago and
>>>> still walk away with the division title.
>>>
>>> Sure. And a guy who hits with a .189/.211/.287 line could just so
>>> happen to get all his hits close and late with RISP and have 30 game
>>> winning RBIs. How likely do you suppose that is to happen?
>>
>>
>> uhhhh, I'm sorry, but there is no logic to that. A win IS a win. You
>> don't get less than a "1" in the win column because your win came against
>> KC, nor do you get more than "1" for beating the Yankees. There is no
>> other residual effect of a win, as there can be with a base hit. A win is
>> a win, and nothing can change its value.
>
> Hmmm. So you don't think there's marginal value in the fact that you can
> accomplish two things with one win? I.e. giving yourself a W (and more to
> the point, avoiding a L) while giving your top rival a L?
>
> In other words, it doesn't matter to you whom your favorite team is
> playing? I'm assuming your a Tigers fan, those 4 games vs Minny won't have
> any extra signifcance, importance, or value?
>
> I'm not debating absolute value, I'm debating relative/marginal value.
>
>

You are confusing the word important with drama. Much more drama if the
last game of the season is a winner take all. But important? Same value,
as if you won another game in April, this game would not be that dramatic.
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

"Brian J" <firstpres RemoveThis @turtlecreek.net> wrote in message
news:1156865413.090024.72630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Matthews wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <brink RemoveThis @invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each
>> >head-to-head
>> >is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the
>> >net
>> >difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent
>> >and
>> >winning.
>> >
>> >brink
>>
>>
>> Each game is of equal importance. Think about it;
>>
>> When the Tigers won yesterday, the Twins lost. We extended our lead by
>> a game, same as if we played them and won. At the end of the year,
>> it's the team with the most wins that wins the division. Just ask
>> Bill, he'll explain it better. (this is NOT a slam at you Bill, I see
>> your point now. If only the Tigs could have swept the Indians......)
>>
> There is a sense in which you are right. But in another way, the head
> to head games are more important. On Sunday, the Twins lost and the
> Tigers won. That is the same result in the standings as if they had
> played each other. But it took 2 games to achieve that result, whereas
> if the teams were playing each other, it would happen in one game.
>
>

Yeah, you could make a case for this, as you will always have a 1 game swing
when playing another team, vs, playing 2 different games. But
fundamentally, each game is stil the same 1/162 important.
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

> Bill Kawalec wrote:

> In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game scheclue, a win is a win.

Just so we understand you, the upcoming four game Detroit series vs.
the Twins at the Metrodome is no more important of a series than the
Tigers' four game series vs. the Devil Rays in mid-June. At that time
the Tigers had a 12 game lead on the Twins; now they have a 5 game
lead.

Why don't you just admit that the only time a win is just a win is on
March 31st?

(I wonder why the schedule makers have unbalanced schedules within
divisions?)
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"Monkey" <never DeleteThis @spam.net> wrote in message
news:never-B13134.08592229082006@news.northnet.org...
> <snip>
> .
>>
>> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
>> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup. They don't
>> get
>> credit for two wins for beating some teams, and only one for others. Even
>> if
>> the Tigers take the reamaining three from the Sox, they will have a poor
>> record against them overall for the season, yet they will have to take a
>> serious dive, while the Sox do the opposite, to lose the division. See,
>> if
>> the games where Detroit met Chicago head on had more "value," the Sox
>> would
>> already be out in front. A win in April counts as much as a win in
>> September. A win against KC counts as much as a win against Chicago or
>> Minnesota, or New York or Boston, or Oakland or Anaheim.
>
> I agree with a win is a win, but aren't there other things --
> psychologically -- related to some victories.



maybe





A sweep of the yankers
> this week has to be a moral victory and three wins in the win column.
>
> Or the Win against the BoSox was good moral victory, a win in the win
> column, but losing Polanco added a little bitters to the sweetness.
>
> To get to the post-season you need to win, but when you get there you
> have to have the mindset that you can win and your players healthy.
>
> monk
>
> chew 'em up Tigers
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

"powrwrap" <powrwrap.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156857751.939128.104620@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Bill Kawalec wrote:
>
>> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
>> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup.
>
>
> Except for the niggling fact that the first tie breaker in determining
> a division winner is the head-to-head records. So, these games could
> have the ultimate importance.
>


IMO, that game would have no importance at all. HYPOTHETICALLY, let's say
the Tigers were one game back, playing the first place team on the last day
of the season, and that team clearly has head to head already wrapped up,
AND, the second place team is clearly the wild card winner. What is the
value of that game? ZERO! I would forfeit it if I had to, but, with
September call-ups, that's unnecessary. I would send out a lineup of nothing
but AA and AAA call-ups.




--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

> Bill Kawalec wrote:

> > powrwrap:

> >> Bill Kawalec wrote:
> >
> >> In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game scheclue, a win
> >> is a win.



> > Just so we understand you,
>
>
> "WE"???


Yes, we, the people that are arguing against you. Brink, Brian J., and
me.


> the upcoming four game Detroit series vs.
> > the Twins at the Metrodome is no more important of a series than the
> > Tigers' four game series vs. the Devil Rays in mid-June. At that time
> > the Tigers had a 12 game lead on the Twins; now they have a 5 game
> > lead.
>
>
>
> that's right. a win is a win.


Ever hear of magic numbers as it relates to baseball? I wonder why the
team cracks open crates full of champagne after that win that puts them
in the playoffs? Could it be that after that point it doesn't matter if
they win another game during the regular season or not? That any win
after that point doesn't matter?
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

"Brian J" <firstpres.RemoveThis@turtlecreek.net> wrote in message
news:1156865413.090024.72630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Matthews wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <brink.RemoveThis@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each
>> >head-to-head
>> >is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the
>> >net
>> >difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent
>> >and
>> >winning.
>> >
>> >brink
>>
>>
>> Each game is of equal importance. Think about it;
>>
>> When the Tigers won yesterday, the Twins lost. We extended our lead by
>> a game, same as if we played them and won. At the end of the year,
>> it's the team with the most wins that wins the division. Just ask
>> Bill, he'll explain it better. (this is NOT a slam at you Bill, I see
>> your point now. If only the Tigs could have swept the Indians......)
>>
> There is a sense in which you are right. But in another way, the head
> to head games are more important. On Sunday, the Twins lost and the
> Tigers won. That is the same result in the standings as if they had
> played each other. But it took 2 games to achieve that result, whereas
> if the teams were playing each other, it would happen in one game.
>
> Brian Jones
>



....but it's still a win and aloss, and YOUR team only played one.




--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

> Brian Matthews wrote:

> Games in April and May are just as important as games in September, no
> matter WHO the opponent is.
>
> The Twins started out horrible. They were 24-28 on May 31st.
> A .462 winning percentage.
>
> Since then, they have won at a 52-25 record.
> A .675 winning percentage.

> So, in this case, if the Twins don't make the playoffs, it will be
> because of all the games they lost early in the season. And you don't
> think those games were of equal importance?


Conversely, if the Twins do make the playoffs, all those losses in May
didn't make any difference.
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Twins now in 2nd