Author Topic: ORIOLES  (Read 477648 times)

hutch

  • Guest
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #270 on: September 20, 2012, 03:07:59 pm »
Exactly. Jamesy, take some personal responsibility man... don't play the victim!

K8teebug

  • Member
  • Posts: 4124
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #271 on: September 20, 2012, 03:22:46 pm »
103 consecutive innings without an error!


So exciting!


James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #272 on: September 20, 2012, 03:24:48 pm »
Sure, I'm judgemental, and so are you if you're judging my behavior. I'm not sure how being judgemental makes a person a dick. If so, I guess that makes most of us dicks.

judgmental, judgemental [dʒʌdʒˈmɛntəl]
adj
of or denoting an attitude in which judgments about other people's conduct are made

challenged

  • Member
  • Posts: 3116
    • Instagram
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #273 on: September 20, 2012, 03:41:36 pm »
Sure, I'm judgemental, and so are you if you're judging my behavior. I'm not sure how being judgemental makes a person a dick. If so, I guess that makes most of us dicks.

judgmental, judgemental [dʒʌdʒˈmɛntəl]
adj
of or denoting an attitude in which judgments about other people's conduct are made


Most of us are indeed dicks.  You are just the clearest example of a dick on this board.  And its okay.  In fact, it's entertaining most of the time. 

But in this case, you told me that I make judgmental political comments and that I threw a hissy fit, when neither had happened.

bringing us back to baseball.....Once in a while you even throw out a positive comment, and its a real change-up.... it clears the bases....etc.

Go O's and Nats.


James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #274 on: September 20, 2012, 04:00:17 pm »
Ok, good point. Indeed you did not make any judgements, except to judge me. My point was that it's kind of pointless to call someone a dick for something that we all do in one way or another.

I guess I find the conflicts that occur on the board because of people (judgementally) stating their opinion more entertaining than if all of us were sittting around singing kumbaya. Hence, my propensity for making inflammatory remarks. Where it crosses the line is when I make fun of Hutch's Members Only jacket, or when you call me a name.

Although, to be honest, I didn't really think mocking grown men who walk around town  in full sports gear was inflammatory. I would tend to think most people would probably agree with me.

I think it's also pathetic when people refer the their team as "we", as if they were on the team or something. Like I'll hear 35 year old UVA graduates who never played college ball in their lives say "We've gotta start playing better." after UVA loses a game.

Sure, I'm judgemental, and so are you if you're judging my behavior. I'm not sure how being judgemental makes a person a dick. If so, I guess that makes most of us dicks.

judgmental, judgemental [dʒʌdʒˈmɛntəl]
adj
of or denoting an attitude in which judgments about other people's conduct are made


Most of us are indeed dicks.  You are just the clearest example of a dick on this board.  And its okay.  In fact, it's entertaining most of the time. 

But in this case, you told me that I make judgmental political comments and that I threw a hissy fit, when neither had happened.

bringin

« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 04:08:49 pm by James Ford »

gaaaaaaaaah

  • Member
  • Posts: 1084
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #275 on: September 20, 2012, 04:08:52 pm »
I think it's also pathetic when people refer the their team as "we", as if they were on the team or something. Like I'll hear 35 year old UVA graduates who never played college ball in their lives say "We've gotta start playing better." after UVA loses a game.
I have few bigger pet peeves than this. Can't stand it. I can kinda understand it if it's your school/alma mater, but it's still embarrassing to act like you're a part of what the team does. Even worse when it's a pro franchise.

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #276 on: September 20, 2012, 05:37:39 pm »
My husband does not want to go to the wild card.  I don't know what's wrong with him!

Honestly, I don't blame him.  This Wild Card idea is great for baseball.  Unless your team is in the game.
27>34

shemptiness

  • Member
  • Posts: 3318
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #277 on: September 20, 2012, 05:42:37 pm »
The one game playoff is idiotic.

gaaaaaaaaah

  • Member
  • Posts: 1084
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #278 on: September 20, 2012, 06:07:45 pm »
id rather it be just one wild card (way too many teams still alive that have no right to be) but i dont think id have much of a problem with a play-in series between wild cards.

baseball should never be a one game sport

hutch

  • Guest
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #279 on: September 20, 2012, 06:19:23 pm »
I like it.. the old system sucked...the wildcard should somewhat be disadvantaged with respect to division winners... this way they are.. they have to play a do or die game..and you know what? those can be fun.... wasn't there a great one last year?


i mean what is the problem? that it is tough on the worst team to make the playoff??? tough luck.. win the division next time!

gaaaaaaaaah

  • Member
  • Posts: 1084
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #280 on: September 20, 2012, 06:33:22 pm »
oh it should be fun to watch, yeah. i'd just think differently as a player/fan of a team playing in it

and if anything the wildcard game winner gets the advantage this year, by opening at home against the division winner. thats the real headscratcher in all this.

anyway i do agree that its a good thing that it forces teams to play for the division instead of merely settling for the wild card. i might be fully sold on the one game thing after seeing it happen

James Ford

  • Member
  • Posts: 5620
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #281 on: September 20, 2012, 06:55:42 pm »
I think the three teams with the best record should get the top three seeds. It's crap that Chicago or Detriot might be a top three seed and teams with better records could conceievably miss the wild card round.

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #282 on: September 20, 2012, 07:20:57 pm »
Coming off the heels of last year with essentially two one game playoffs in both leagues (if you remember the last day of the regular season and then the actual one game playoffs to break the ties) it was a no brainer.  That was two amazing days of baseball.

That being said, baseball had to do something after the Yanks tanked in the regular season of 2010 to set their pitching staff up for the playoffs because winning the division meant nothing (it could be argued that they also wanted to face the Twins in the playoffs and let the Rangers and Rays hash it out).

Rewarding the division winners was needed, and the playoffs schedule was already set for 2012.  The only way to do it this year was a one game playoff and reduce the first series to 5 games.  They're going back to a seven game series next year and keeping the one game playoff.  I think they may consider a 3-game WC series then a 5-game series ALDS series in the future, but who knows.

The one game playoff is not my preference, bu I'm glad baseball is doing something to make winning the division mean something.
27>34

hutch

  • Guest
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #283 on: September 20, 2012, 08:36:32 pm »


and if anything the wildcard game winner gets the advantage this year, by opening at home against the division winner. thats the real headscratcher in all this.



yeah I didn't mention this on purpose as I didn't want to muddy the waters...BUT I THINK THIS IS A JOKE..


as my friend said the Nats could win teh division, the Phillies sneak in, win the 1 game playoff and the Nats would have to play the first two games - of a five game series- up in Philly

I don't know if I am missing something but that seems insane.

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: ORIOLES
« Reply #284 on: September 20, 2012, 11:55:00 pm »
Relax everybody.  It's only for this season and only happened because MLB changed the playoff format after the 2012 post season schedule was set (READ: TV was arranged around it).

To play the extra game, they needed to eliminate the travel day before game 5.  It was the only way to assure that a game five of the AL/NLDS wouldn't go up against college football or the NFL.  The owners were given the option of the first 3 at home or the last 3, and they unanimously chose the last 3.
27>34