chippewastud79 09:39 PM 09-08-2010
Originally Posted by andysutherland:
Man, we are in a funk right now. We've lost four of the last five (providing we lose tonight, which is looking to be a sure thing).
They just can't compete with good teams on a regular basis. Not looking good for the playoffs.
:-)
[Reply]
hotreds 08:16 AM 09-09-2010
Back into the playoffs then 3 and out.
[Reply]
elderboy02 08:29 AM 09-09-2010
hotreds 08:30 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by elderboy02:
Love the realism in this thread :-)
Fixed for ya!
[Reply]
elderboy02 08:36 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by hotreds:
Fixed for ya!
Very clever
:-)
[Reply]
chippewastud79 10:23 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by elderboy02:
Love the optimism in this thread :-)
I'm sorry we just can't all leave our blind faith in the World Series predictions. Have you even been watching any games? They are completely non-competitive against good teams.
:-)
[Reply]
elderboy02 10:31 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by chippewastud79:
I'm sorry we just can't all leave our blind faith in the World Series predictions. Have you even been watching any games? They are completely non-competitive against good teams. :-)
No, I never watch the games
:-)
[Reply]
chippewastud79 10:52 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by elderboy02:
No, I never watch the games :-)
The way you talk about the team, you would think you haven't watched them in the last few or any game they lost for that matter. I know you only post when they win, but maybe you could be a bit objective.
:-)
[Reply]
elderboy02 10:55 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by chippewastud79:
..you would think you haven't watched them in the last few...
Good teams have losing streaks. It happens. Look at the Padres.
[Reply]
688sonarmen 11:18 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by elderboy02:
Good teams have losing streaks. It happens. Look at the Cardinals.
:-)
[Reply]
chippewastud79 11:19 AM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by elderboy02:
Good teams have losing streaks. It happens. Look at the Padres.
Good teams can also win a series against some other good teams, something the Reds can't do. They had 25 games against winning teams this half and I am not sure they have won 5 of them.
:-)
[Reply]
Starscream 01:44 PM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by chippewastud79:
Good teams can also win a series against some other good teams, something the Reds can't do. They had 25 games against winning teams this half and I am not sure they have won 5 of them. :-)
The top 2 teams in each division are:
ATL 66-48
PHI 64-50
STL 64-49
CIN 64-51
SD 67-46
SF 66-50
Against these teams, the Cardinals are 20-13 (ATL - 4-0, PHI - 4-4, CIN - 10-5, SD - 1-2, SF - 1-2)
and the Reds are 12-20 (ATL - 2-3, PHI - 2-5, STL - 5-10, SD - 1-2, SF - 2-2)
Of course the head-to-head match-up between STL and CIN affects these records a lot. If you don't include those games, the Cardinals are 10-8 and the Reds are 7-12.
Opponents with winning records would also include: FLA 57-56, NYM 57-57, COL 59-55, and LAD 59-56.
Record against all NL teams with a .500 winning percentage or better:
STL - 29-24
CIN - 23-30
Record against all teams (incl. AL) with a .500 winning percentage or better:
STL - 35-27
CIN - 26-30
Record against all NL teams with a losing record:
STL - 26-19
CIN - 33-14
Record against all teams (incl. AL) with a losing record:
STL - 29-22
CIN - 38-21
This data was taken on 8-13. It does not reflect the last series against the Cards or San Fran.
[Reply]
688sonarmen 02:11 PM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by andysutherland:
The top 2 teams in each division are:
ATL 66-48
PHI 64-50
STL 64-49
CIN 64-51
SD 67-46
SF 66-50
Against these teams, the Cardinals are 20-13 (ATL - 4-0, PHI - 4-4, CIN - 10-5, SD - 1-2, SF - 1-2)
and the Reds are 12-20 (ATL - 2-3, PHI - 2-5, STL - 5-10, SD - 1-2, SF - 2-2)
Of course the head-to-head match-up between STL and CIN affects these records a lot. If you don't include those games, the Cardinals are 10-8 and the Reds are 7-12.
Opponents with winning records would also include: FLA 57-56, NYM 57-57, COL 59-55, and LAD 59-56.
Record against all NL teams with a .500 winning percentage or better:
STL - 29-24
CIN - 23-30
Record against all teams (incl. AL) with a .500 winning percentage or better:
STL - 35-27
CIN - 26-30
Record against all NL teams with a losing record:
STL - 26-19
CIN - 33-14
Record against all teams (incl. AL) with a losing record:
STL - 29-22
CIN - 38-21
This data was taken on 8-13. It does not reflect the last series against the Cards or San Fran.
Wow, it was just a rough guess of mine that the Cards did crappy against sub .500 teams and ok (but still not good enough for a W.S shot) against above .500 teams. Nice job on the Stats
:-)
[Reply]
Starscream 02:14 PM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by 688sonarmen:
Wow, it was just a rough guess of mine that the Cards did crappy against sub .500 teams and ok (but still not good enough for a W.S shot) against above .500 teams. Nice job on the Stats:-)
I just cut and paste from another site. I can't find any newer info than that.
Weird how we can't beat winning teams, but the Cards can't beat losing teams and vice versa.
[Reply]
688sonarmen 02:41 PM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by andysutherland:
I just cut and paste from another site. I can't find any newer info than that.
Weird how we can't beat winning teams, but the Cards can't beat losing teams and vice versa.
And the Yankees win another WS. Seriously if, well when the Cards are out of it I'll be rooting for Cincy or who ever comes out of our leauge.
[Reply]
Starscream 02:43 PM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by 688sonarmen:
And the Yankees win another WS. Seriously if, well when the Cards are out of it I'll be rooting for Cincy or who ever comes out of our leauge.
Exactly. Always pull for the NL.
:-)
[Reply]
elderboy02 08:16 PM 09-09-2010
Originally Posted by andysutherland:
Exactly. Always pull for the NL.:-)
:-)
[Reply]
Starscream 11:40 AM 09-10-2010
hotreds 11:44 AM 09-10-2010
Hopefully you'll continue to say that after the weekend!
[Reply]
chippewastud79 05:46 PM 09-10-2010
Good thing another losing team comes to town, maybe we can win a game of two.
:-)
[Reply]