In the Last 2 Years the Tigers and Rockies have Sweeped the LCS but are usless in the WS.
Sweeping the LCS does not Work
Printable View
In the Last 2 Years the Tigers and Rockies have Sweeped the LCS but are usless in the WS.
Sweeping the LCS does not Work
1) There is no such thing as a curse.
2) This World Series is not over.
3) One and a half postseasons is not even an inadequate sample size. It's flat out irrelevent.
4) The last LCS to be swept was the 1995 NLCS, in which the sweepers - the Braves - went on to win the World Series.
5) All together, there have been 12 LCS sweeps. Of those, 6 of the "sweepers" went on to win the World Series. (In 1969 and 1970, all the LCS's were sweeps. Since obviously this will result in one team winning the World Series and one team losing, I've kept those out of the data) What this tells me is that the result of your LCS - sweep or not - has zero effect on your chances of winning the World Series.
Well Here in Australia before the this Decade we did not get much Baseball, Sorry I just don't have the much info in my head about baseballQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I AM HERE TO DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
lol. Disagree? Are the facts accurate or not? I suspect they are. So you disagree with......what, exactly?
It wasn't in my head :) I looked it up (well, 4 and 5...1-3 was in my head;))Quote:
Originally Posted by BM_MAN
1. You can PROVE this how - or are you stating your opinion as fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
2. - It might as well be. The Rockies might not win 1 game as bad as they look.
3. Don't you ever weigh recent performances heavier than ancient ones?
4. Who cares? That was 12 years ago.
5. You say 1.5 series is not even inadequate but 12 series is enough to base an opinion? How very arbitrary of you. Besides, your conclusion that result of the lcs has zero effect based of off WS titles is weak. You don't know what the results would have been if there hadn't been a sweep. If you can prove what they would be please do so.
1) How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
2)*rolls eyes*
3. So we should take statistics from other eras and expect similar data between those eras and the current era?
4) NO. The last LCS to be swept was by the 2007 COLORADO ROCKIES
5. He was talking about in the current decade!! He never said that was true historically...
I love the fact there appears to be debate over whether or not curses are real.
See, this is what I'm talking about. People just HAVE to argue with me, regardless of what I'm saying, even if I'm right or even if they agree with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
I highly doubt that anybody believes that the Tigers sweeping the ALCS and losing is the World Series is evidence that sweeping the LCS is bad for your World Series chances.
I'm not even going to dignify the above two posts with responses. It's painfully obvious that people just love to try and pick fights with me over absolutely anything they can find, meticulously picking apart posts to no end, and arguing things just for the sake of arguing. The one thing I will state from the above posts is the absolute pinnacle of this unnecessary, pathetic phenomenon:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I wasn't saying I personally disagree. I was just distilling his post into one all-caps sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
I thought that the Rockies looked great in Game 2. I'm still betting that they win at least 2 games in Denver, and the series goes 7 games.
This is the same **** you always pull. The reason people argue with you is because of the inane **** you post. Know this - you aren't always right.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You just disregarding anyone else's opinion is becoming hillarious. I'm serious. I was serious in my post and was just as shocked about what you wrote as you were when you read mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
This just in, from AP sources; the center of the universe has been discovered, it's..............:rolleyes:
I didn't post anything that was inane.Quote:
Originally Posted by WATERY
Nor am I disregarding anybody's opinion. Disagreeing, stating that I disagree, and providing evidence backing my stance is not disregarding someone's opinion.
I posted evidence that showed that there has never been a relationship between sweeping the LCS and winning the World Series. Without even looking at the history of the playoffs, this should be logical, as the team you play in the LCS is made up of 25 entirely different players than the team you play in the World Series.
For 1, fine, you can go ahead and believe in mystical powers that "curse" things, whatever.
For 2, there is nothing inane about "The World Series isn't over." It's not.
For 3, I'm saying that the Tigers sweeping the ALCS and losing the World Series has absolutely no connection to the Rockies sweeping the NLCS and possibly losing the World Series. I'm talking about playoff series, and then you try to be clever and retort with something that was entirely irrelevent.
The performance of the Tigers in 2006 has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the Rockies in 2007.Quote:
3. Don't you ever weigh recent performances heavier than ancient ones?
For 4, there is nothing inane about pointing out that the last LCS (PRIOR TO THE TIGERS AND ROCKIES) that was swept produced a World Series winner. And who cares if it was 12 years ago? Why? Because it was 12 years ago, so it has no meaning in 2007? True. And the Tigers in 2006 have nothing to do with the Rockies in 2007.
For 5, it shows that there has never been a connection between sweeping an LCS and winning the World Series. If there was some mystical powers surrounding the outcome of two entirely different series that somehow connected them, than LCS sweepers wouldn't have gone 50/50 in their World Series bids.
I doubt you believe that the Tigers of 2006 give any indication to what the Rockies of 2007 will do. I doubt you believe that there is an "LCS sweep curse". You're arguing for the sake of arguing with me.