LCS Sweep Curse

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

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 baseball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

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.

---

I AM HERE TO DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID!

lol. Disagree? Are the facts accurate or not? I suspect they are. So you disagree with......what, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BM_MAN

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 baseball

---

It wasn't in my head :) I looked it up (well, 4 and 5...1-3 was in my head;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

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.

---

1. You can PROVE this how - or are you stating your opinion as fact?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

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.

---

1) How do you know?
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

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.

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

4) The last LCS to be swept was the 1995 NLCS, in which the sweepers - the Braves - went on to win the World Series.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

4) NO. The last LCS to be swept was by the 2007 COLORADO ROCKIES

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

lol. Disagree? Are the facts accurate or not? I suspect they are. So you disagree with......what, exactly?

---

I wasn't saying I personally disagree. I was just distilling his post into one all-caps sentence.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

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.

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:

---

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.

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

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.

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:

---

This just in, from AP sources; the center of the universe has been discovered, it's..............:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

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.

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.

---

I didn't post anything that was inane.

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.

Quote:

---

3. Don't you ever weigh recent performances heavier than ancient ones?

---

The performance of the Tigers in 2006 has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the Rockies in 2007.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I didn't post anything that was inane.

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.

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.

---

First of, wow. Just wow. You're telling me what I do and don't think. That is not only ignorant - it's also rude.

Secondly, the original post was only talking about recent history. Anything you used to 'back up' your opinion that talks about the entire history of the LCS is off-topic and not pertinent to this thread.


1. I do believe in curses - the Cubs for example.

2. The Rockies look horrible. It's not mathematically over but being down 2 games to a much superior team is not an enviable position.

3. You would be correct except that you are dismissing the premise of the original theory without basis. That isn't how you disprove a theory.

4. It would mean everything - as 12 years is a long time and I think the original poster's theory would have said curse start 11 years after the Braves - and thus has zero bearing on this thread.

5. Once again, no bearing on anything to this thread.

Your summary is very ignorant, arrogant, and rude. Before you start flinging allegations over assumptions, why not ask me what I believe before you slander me?

OK...

Quote:

---

1. I do believe in curses - the Cubs for example.

---

That's yor right. Who cares.

Quote:

---

2. The Rockies look horrible. It's not mathematically over but being down 2 games to a much superior team is not an enviable position.

---

not an enviable position != time to give up. Are you serious? You do realise how many teams have come back from 2 game deficits, don't you? There's a reason it's a best 4 out of 7 game series.
Did you even watch Game 2?

Quote:

---

3. You would be correct except that you are dismissing the premise of the original theory without basis. That isn't how you disprove a theory.

---

This makes no sense.

Quote:

---

4. It would mean everything - as 12 years is a long time and I think the original poster's theory would have said curse start 11 years after the Braves - and thus has zero bearing on this thread.

---

Again... huh?

Quote:

---

5. Once again, no bearing on anything to this thread.

---

Since it directly slaughters your original argument, I'm not surprised you don't have anything to say about #5.
:rolleyes:

You're really not that good at this.

this is the focking dumbest thing ever...i'm sorry, but two examples (Detroit and Colorado) does not make a curse..You know what the real answer is..the teams just plain weren't that good...Detroit met a St. Louis team that was more determined and got better pitching than they did...and Colorado has overachieved with a shoddy pitching staff. I mean one of their best relievers is Matt Herges...Matt f'n Herges...

Everyone knew that Boston was going to tear them a new one...

When talking about curses, you should talk about the Curse of the Billy Goat and other things along those lines that lasted many, many years. Of course, I agree with Houston here...there is no such thing as a curse, it's just in the players minds. Does anyone here really believe that a "curse" caused the Boston relief pitchers to forget how to pitch in the 10th inning of game 6 in the 1986 World Series...no...does anyone think that a "curse" caused Alex Gonzalez to boot that ball in 2003 for the Cubs? No...the guy just plain choked...

If there was such a thing as curses, than they would never be broken like they always are almost every year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

OK...


That's yor right. Who cares.


not an enviable position != time to give up. Are you serious? You do realise how many teams have come back from 2 game deficits, don't you? There's a reason it's a best 4 out of 7 game series.
Did you even watch Game 2?


This makes no sense.


Again... huh?


Since it directly slaughters your original argument, I'm not surprised you don't have anything to say about #5.
:rolleyes:

You're really not that good at this.

---

Dude. Try to concentrate. The original poster suggested a curse that started in 2006. How would anything prior to 2006 be relevant? Oh it wouldn't. Besides, his whole argument that says that half the teams won the world series is meaningless too. You have no idea what would happen if those teams hadn't swept. You can only ASSUME that it would have no effect. An assumption isn't evidence supporting a fact, its well someones opinion. Opinions are like ... bellybuttons.

Everything he used to back up his point was ancient history. As far as your defendal of point 2 - I never said it was enirely over - I said it might as well be. (Yes I watched that stupid Rocky get picked off of first in a 1 run game by someone who had never picked off anyone before - that's a sign your team is running on all cylinders for sure.)

Also, I could be using the term 'curse' loosely to describe a phenomenom that is yet unknown to the reason why LCS sweepers recently have had zero success. There may be a scientific reason (teams getting rusty, media exposure and pressure) but it is unknown. If there is a reason, then it is likely that the trend of LCS teams winning half may switch to them winning none. You must realize that past performance of YEARS AND YEARS ago would have zero bearing on any of this, since the circumstances aren't equal.

You aren't very good at moderating a discussion are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skudplayr

this is the focking dumbest thing ever...i'm sorry, but two examples (Detroit and Colorado) does not make a curse..You know what the real answer is..the teams just plain weren't that good...Detroit met a St. Louis team that was more determined and got better pitching than they did...and Colorado has overachieved with a shoddy pitching staff. I mean one of their best relievers is Matt Herges...Matt f'n Herges...

Everyone knew that Boston was going to tear them a new one...

When talking about curses, you should talk about the Curse of the Billy Goat and other things along those lines that lasted many, many years. Of course, I agree with Houston here...there is no such thing as a curse, it's just in the players minds. Does anyone here really believe that a "curse" caused the Boston relief pitchers to forget how to pitch in the 10th inning of game 6 in the 1986 World Series...no...does anyone think that a "curse" caused Alex Gonzalez to boot that ball in 2003 for the Cubs? No...the guy just plain choked...

If there was such a thing as curses, than they would never be broken like they always are almost every year

---

Curses can't be broken? Are you serious? Almost every story I've read that involved curses had curses with finite spans ( 7 years bad luck or 7 generations, etc) or a way to break the curse.

By the way, your post was almost unreadable. While researching curses, how about you research punctuation as well?

lol

Keep going, this is interesting. Tell me more about baseball, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

Curses can't be broken? Are you serious? Almost every story I've read that involved curses had curses with finite spans ( 7 years bad luck or 7 generations, etc) or a way to break the curse.

By the way, your post was almost unreadable. While researching curses, how about you research punctuation as well?

---

First off, the reason these "curses" are always broken are because they are not truly real. Bad luck is not a curse, it's just an infortunate situation.

Secondly, where do you get off attacking my grammar? I never even said anything to you. I'd love to have a little intellectual debate with you, since you're so smart. Where did you go to college, Mr. Genius? Did you study with world class English professors who taught you that you should always use excellent and proper grammar and punctuation, even when talking online about sports?

Wow, WATERY and me are the only people making any sense around here...

The original poster of this thread was saying LATELY (i.e. NOT 1995) teams who swept the LCS lost the World Series to teams who did not sweep.

Oh, that's right. We're living in that alternate universe where past history sheds absolutely no light on future possibilities. Sorry, apparently the rest of us must have forgotten about that.

I'd agree with you that it's possibly true. But I don't think it's a curse. I think it has a lot more to due with the fact that whenever you sweep a team in the LCS and the other league's series goes 6-7 games, there is such a layoff that the team will lose that edge that they had throughout the postseason.

So if it's that you're aiming for, I agree. But I do not think it's a curse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Oh, that's right. We're living in that alternate universe where past history sheds absolutely no light on future possibilities. Sorry, apparently the rest of us must have forgotten about that.

---

Your main problem here that causes everything you have written to be off-topic is the original poster suggested a curse and only used examples from 2006 on. If there was a curse, the past would have to have ZERO effect on the future possibilities since the curse would alter the future anyway.

The 'rest of you'? There were only a handful of dissenters - the majority of people seem to be able to not make the same assumptive flaw you made, then made again and again.

Wow, since Dave only used examples from 2006 does that mean that the rest of baseball history never existed at all? Since he's not aware of what has happened previously, I guess we should all forget about 136 years of history as well. Brilliant!

Wait, so are you guys saying that there is an LCS sweep curse because based on 2006-2007 there could be a curse in the future?

It doesn't make sense basing a curse off two years

Why not? It hard to start at some point, why not 2006? You guys are really overthinking this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Wow, since Dave only used examples from 2006 does that mean that the rest of baseball history never existed at all? Since he's not aware of what has happened previously, I guess we should all forget about 136 years of history as well. Brilliant!

---

I think he's aware baseball existed, but making theories about 2006 on up. Since you cannot ever disprove his theory because there is no agreement whether or not curses exist, just say 'I don't believe in curses' and leave it at that. Your techinique for trying to disprove his theory is flawed and you and HGM are making yourselves look silly using your technique. I am quite sure you don't understand why, but just don't worry about it.

pick any of these sports. (baseball baseket ball hockey)
youre down to the final 4.

1 set plays a a 4 game blowout.(team a)

1 set plays a heart wrenching 7 game series feturing 3 extra inning games.
(or double overtimes or whatever)

You will hear comments made about whether or not
" team a is at a disadavantage because theyve had nothing to do but watch and wait ".

Its a normal , if debateable, effect of having no choice but to interrupt ones own positive momentum.

<< You're arguing for the sake of arguing with me >>

with all due respect maybe if one doesnt reply to a
kind of funny 2 line statement
with a blistering defense,
and continue to support said defense by writing a thesis

maybe , just maybe,
none of these things would happen.

hmmmm

just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeetDaMets

pick any of these sports. (baseball baseket ball hockey)
youre down to the final 4.

1 set plays a a 4 game blowout.(team a)

1 set plays a heart wrenching 7 game series feturing 3 extra inning games.
(or double overtimes or whatever)

You will hear comments made about whether or not
" team a is at a disadavantage because theyve had nothing to do but watch and wait ".

Its a normal , if debateable, effect of having no choice but to interrupt ones own positive momentum.

---

Exactly. The term 'curse' can mean anything not scientifically understood (yet). There are probably reasons why the long layoff has hurt current teams more than it did years and years ago. The point is I want to keep this limited to current times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeetDaMets

<< You're arguing for the sake of arguing with me >>

with all due respect maybe if one doesnt reply to a
kind of funny 2 line statement
with a blistering defense,
and continue to support by bringing writing a thesis

maybe , just maybe,
none of this would have happened.

hmmmm

just a thought.

---

Exactly. It was more than likely a flip observation that didn't require someone to break down into thesis form. (Then be defended !?!?!?!?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

Exactly. It was more than likely a flip observation that didn't require .... break down into thesis form.

---

yep, in a nutshell thats where the problems begin.

but thats just my subjective opinion.
i could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

Also, I could be using the term 'curse' loosely to describe a phenomenom that is yet unknown to the reason why LCS sweepers recently have had zero success.

---

Because the sample size of recent LCS sweepers is ONE.

This is like saying that if the Rockies eat chicken before game 3 and win, and so does next year's World Series Game 3 winner, that there is a connection between eating chicken and winning game 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

The original poster of this thread was saying LATELY (i.e. NOT 1995) teams who swept the LCS lost the World Series to teams who did not sweep.

---

THAN THERES DEFINITELY NO CURSE. "Lately" as in "only once, last year"? That's just plain ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WATERY

Exactly. The term 'curse' can mean anything not scientifically understood (yet). There are probably reasons why the long layoff has hurt current teams more than it did years and years ago. The point is I want to keep this limited to current times.

---

Because the sample size of recent LCS sweepers is ONE.

You guys are talking like there's some recent trend here. There was one recent sweeper that lost the World Series. Stop saying "there are reasons why recent LCS sweepers have had no success." There has been ONE recent LCS sweeper. The reason they had no success was because the Cardinals got great pitching, and their pitching made like 6 errors.

How the heck are you going to make any assumption based on ONE freaking series?

Let me try.

There is now a "reverse curse" that results in the winner of a 7 game LCS winning the World Series.

Quote:

---

1. I do believe in curses - the Cubs for example.

---

Now, what do you mean by "curses"?

Do you mean that there's some mystical power that prevents teams from winning? In that case, how could a curse ever be broken? What? Does the mystical power just say to itself "Okay, I'll give it up now."?

Or do you mean "curse" as in "string of bad luck"? In which case, yes, curses exist.

This reminds me of one of the most bizarre 'sports' stories I have read in awhile...

http://ipsnews.net/africa/Focus/religion/note_5.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Now, what do you mean by "curses"?

Do you mean that there's some mystical power that prevents teams from winning? In that case, how could a curse ever be broken? What? Does the mystical power just say to itself "Okay, I'll give it up now."?

Or do you mean "curse" as in "string of bad luck"? In which case, yes, curses exist.

---

Since you already claim to know what I think, 'than' figure it out for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Because the sample size of recent LCS sweepers is ONE.

This is like saying that if the Rockies eat chicken before game 3 and win, and so does next year's World Series Game 3 winner, that there is a connection between eating chicken and winning game 3.


THAN THERES DEFINITELY NO CURSE. "Lately" as in "only once, last year"? That's just plain ridiculous.


Because the sample size of recent LCS sweepers is ONE.

You guys are talking like there's some recent trend here. There was one recent sweeper that lost the World Series. Stop saying "there are reasons why recent LCS sweepers have had no success." There has been ONE recent LCS sweeper. The reason they had no success was because the Cardinals got great pitching, and their pitching made like 6 errors.

How the heck are you going to make any assumption based on ONE freaking series?

Let me try.

There is now a "reverse curse" that results in the winner of a 7 game LCS winning the World Series.

---

Maybe there is. Thanks for joining the winning side.