LCS Sweep Curse

[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.

[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 said defense by writing a thesis

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

hmmmm

just a thought.

[WATERY]

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.

[WATERY]

<< 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 !?!?!?!?)

[MeetDaMets]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[Arctic Blast]

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

[WATERY]

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.

[WATERY]

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.

[robinhoodnik]

Boston was cursed by bad management, and an owner who didn't change with the times. No curse created by a bug eyed, red headed, Boston Globe sportswriter, nothing to do with selling the all time greatest single player. Just bad decisions, repeated decade after decade. How would history have looked if Boston had spent more on pitching? They were usually great offensively, just one problem. you need more than one or (sometimes) two good pitchers to win anything in the pros.

[ltt]

You do realise how many teams have come back from 2 game deficits, don't you?

I don't.

I do know that since 1905, 49 teams have gone up 2-0 in the World Series. Only 10 went on to lose.

And, in the last twenty years, only one team has overcome a 2-0 WS deficit in 13 tries.

Looks to me like saying the series was over after game two was a fairly statistically accurate description of Colorado's chances.

[ltt]

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."?

nope.

You must appease the mystical power through strange and ineffable rituals. These may involve walking goats around on leashes, blowing up baseballs, or ingesting single-ounce portions of specific spirits at prescribed intervals throughout an athletic confrontation.

I'm shocked that any sports fan doesn't already know this.

[HoustonGM]

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

Do you think that the outcome of the 2006 Tigers facing the 2006 Athletics and the 2006 Cardinals has an impact on the outcome of the 2007 Rockies facing the 2007 Diamondbacks and 2007 Red Sox?

Maybe there is. Thanks for joining the winning side.

So basically, everything is a curse.

Boston was cursed by bad management, and an owner who didn't change with the times. No curse created by a bug eyed, red headed, Boston Globe sportswriter, nothing to do with selling the all time greatest single player. Just bad decisions, repeated decade after decade. How would history have looked if Boston had spent more on pitching? They were usually great offensively, just one problem. you need more than one or (sometimes) two good pitchers to win anything in the pros.

Exactly. There were no mystical forces at work.

Looks to me like saying the series was over after game two was a fairly statistically accurate description of Colorado's chances.

"The series is over" isn't an accurate description - because there is a possibility of the Rockies winning. Saying "The Rockies have a low chance of winning" would be a statistically accurate description.

nope.

You must appease the mystical power through strange and ineffable rituals. These may involve walking goats around on leashes, blowing up baseballs, or ingesting single-ounce portions of specific spirits at prescribed intervals throughout an athletic confrontation.

I'm shocked that any sports fan doesn't already know this.

Aha! So that's how the Red Sox won in 2004. Hahaha.

[MeetDaMets]

dude, its pointless , just let him argue with himself.

the time and energy wasted is simply not worth it.