ZoomSlowik Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Guess my ranting after the previous game is a bit pointless right now. The US losing to South Africa with Roger Clemens starting might be a bigger upset than the first time US basketball lost with the pros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Canada W VS South Africa 11-8 W VS USA 8-6 L VS Mexico 1-9 Total Earned Runs = 23 Mexico L Vs USA 2-0 W VS South Africa 10-4 W VS Canada 9-1 Total Earned Runs = 5 USA W Vs Mexico 2-0 L VS Canada 6-8 South Africa ? So, mexico is in. The US needs to beat South Africa By allowing 14 runs or less and they are in. Canada will most likely get eliminated as cheat stated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:57 PM) Canada W VS South Africa 11-8 W VS USA 8-6 L VS Mexico 1-9 Total Earned Runs = 23 Mexico L Vs USA 2-0 W VS South Africa 10-4 W VS Canada 9-1 Total Earned Runs = 5 USA W Vs Mexico 2-0 L VS Canada 6-8 South Africa ? So, mexico is in. The US needs to beat South Africa By allowing 14 runs or less and they are in. Canada will most likely get eliminated as cheat stated The runs allowed against South Africa don't matter. They only count the earned runs against the other teams involved in the tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:13 PM) The runs allowed against South Africa don't matter. They only count the earned runs against the other teams involved in the tie. so, it's just a win and your in type of deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) so, it's just a win and your in type of deal? for tommorow, yessir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:19 PM) so, it's just a win and your in type of deal? In this situation, yes. In the case of a 3-way tie, earned runs allowed against the other teams involved in the tie is the tie-breaker. Mexico would advance with 3 earned runs, and so would the US at 8. Canada would be eliminated because they allowed 15 runs to Mexico and the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) so, it's just a win and your in type of deal? Yes. If we win tomorrow, we're in. Which is absolute bulls***, and it's a ridiculous way to deal with it, I think. If I were a Canadian tomorrow when Roger Clemens knocks South Africa to hell, I'd be furious at the Tournament's ridiculous rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:22 PM) In this situation, yes. In the case of a 3-way tie, earned runs allowed against the other teams involved in the tie is the tie-breaker. Mexico would advance with 3 earned runs, and so would the US at 8. Canada would be eliminated because they allowed 15 runs to Mexico and the US. I can't belive a game like this won't be telivised (for me anyways) until 2 am. I dont know what the hell espn deportes is. I don't get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:25 PM) Yes. If we win tomorrow, we're in. Which is absolute bulls***, and it's a ridiculous way to deal with it, I think. If I were a Canadian tomorrow when Roger Clemens knocks South Africa to hell, I'd be furious at the Tournament's ridiculous rules. I don't think it's ridiculous in my opinion. They Beat us. We Beat mexico. Mexico owned them. You need some sort of tie breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:25 PM) Yes. If we win tomorrow, we're in. Which is absolute bulls***, and it's a ridiculous way to deal with it, I think. If I were a Canadian tomorrow when Roger Clemens knocks South Africa to hell, I'd be furious at the Tournament's ridiculous rules. What would you propose be the tie-breaker in a 3-way tie? There isn't really an easy method of evaluation without relying on something like what they have. Even if you did something like run differential, Canada would still get screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:28 PM) I don't think it's ridiculous in my opinion. They Beat us. We Beat mexico. Mexico owned them. You need some sort of tie breaker. You need a tie-breaker, sure, but this one just reeks of cheapness, IMO. QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:29 PM) What would you propose be the tie-breaker in a 3-way tie? There isn't really an easy method of evaluation without relying on something like what they have. Even if you did something like run differential, Canada would still get screwed. I haven't got a counter proposal to it. I'm sure, now that that's said, that there must be one, I just haven't come across it. All I'm saying is that it seems like Canada is getting the Shaft unfairly, and that these rules seem a bit archaeic to me. Makes me almost want to hope that South Africa beats us tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The silly part is that of all sports, baseball is probably the one where the better team is least likely to win. Each pool should have at least had a home and home where each team could play six games and get a larger sample size. It might make for some "exciting" baseball down the stretch but could you imagine a single-elimination MLB playoff round? I guess there's the wildcard play-in game but I've always hated that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) You need a tie-breaker, sure, but this one just reeks of cheapness, IMO. I haven't got a counter proposal to it. I'm sure, now that that's said, that there must be one, I just haven't come across it. All I'm saying is that it seems like Canada is getting the Shaft unfairly, and that these rules seem a bit archaeic to me. Makes me almost want to hope that South Africa beats us tomorrow. I don't know. I have a hard time feeling sorry for canada. They knew coming in not to give up 9 runs and lose. They knew it was basically a must win. Because A) The US created a cusion when they pitched a shutout the first game and B ) Canada only beat the US by 2 when it was all said and done. Edited March 10, 2006 by rangercal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:33 PM) The silly part is that of all sports, baseball is probably the one where the better team is least likely to win. Each pool should have at least had a home and home where each team could play six games and get a larger sample size. It might make for some "exciting" baseball down the stretch but could you imagine a single-elimination MLB playoff round? I guess there's the wildcard play-in game but I've always hated that too. A double round robin would definitely be better, that's the setup the use in the Champion's League. There'd almost certainly be more seperation that way. You can't really come up with a solid tie-breaker for only 3 games like this unless you only have a 2 team tie where you could use head to head results. Run differential might be a little better, but Canada would still be the odd team out. I think the only thing Canada would win would be runs scored, and that's probably the worst way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:39 PM) I don't know. I have a hard time feeling sorry for canada. They knew coming in not to give up 9 runs and lose. They knew it was basically a must win. Because A) The US created a cusion when they pitched a shutout the first game and B ) Canada only beat the US by 2 when it was all said and done. You're right that they should've played better, but I still lose my starry eyed love for the WBC with things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 10:42 PM) You're right that they should've played better, but I still lose my starry eyed love for the WBC with things like this. meh. the tiebreaker rule is fine for what it is. What i think would have been better is a home and home round robin, which would have given some more seperation. But with that, comes more games and more chances of injury. Kind of a lose/lose situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 08:33 PM) The silly part is that of all sports, baseball is probably the one where the better team is least likely to win. Each pool should have at least had a home and home where each team could play six games and get a larger sample size. It might make for some "exciting" baseball down the stretch but could you imagine a single-elimination MLB playoff round? I guess there's the wildcard play-in game but I've always hated that too. reminds me of the College World Series.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The pitcher from the netherlands just threw a 7-inning mercy rule no-hitter. He didn't strike out a single batter, and his 65th pitch was a double play to end the 7th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 03:30 PM) The pitcher from the netherlands just threw a 7-inning mercy rule no-hitter. He didn't strike out a single batter, and his 65th pitch was a double play to end the 7th. George Steinbrenner is already of the phone trying to sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Just read he is a Giants farmhand, so there goes the Yankees trying to sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Wear your damn hat straight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 First time I've watched Zambrano pitch since last season, and it's amazing how much weight he's lost. I'd estimate around 20 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I just caught the replay of Papi's homerun vs. Cuba. That bat flip was ridiculous and he appeared to have words for the Cuban catcher too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthsideBlitz Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I just caught the replay of Papi's homerun vs. Cuba. That bat flip was ridiculous and he appeared to have words for the Cuban catcher too. Saw that myself, I frown when player's do something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts