MLB Daily Thread: 09/13/17 Red Sox Cruise, Yankees lose, Indians WOW, Dodgers win

[soxfan1468927]

1. Yes, it literally does matter, because they did not win. You can't say something doesn't matter is a fact when it's actually just your opinion.

That's not an opinion. The game isn't in the standings and therefore does not matter. That is a fact.

2. Just because what I say proves you wrong, it doesn't mean it's asinine. The game was a tie; it was not a win. The league ruled it a tie. As in, that's the end of the game.

How does that prove me wrong? Back then, the rule was that if a game was suspended due to darkness, weather, etc., the game was replayed. You comparing that to not counting games played on the commissioner's birthday is asinine.

3. I do love facts. I'm not ignoring what MLB recognizes, I just don't care. They played a 9 inning game. The game ended. They did not win. That hasn't happened to Cleveland yet, so if we win tonight, we own the longest actual winning streak in MLB history. Sorry you don't like it for whatever reason, but it's a fact. When you play a game and don't win it and it's ruled not in your favor at the end, it doesn't count as a win.

Okay so you love facts unless they don't show you exactly what you want. You are ignoring the reason that the game ended, which isn't that 9 innings was over. I don't care if the Indians have the longest winning streak. I think it would be great for them to get to 27 in a row. At least it would be entertaining. Also, they are dominating their opponents more than the Giants (or Athletics) did while playing multiple games on the road, as opposed to just playing home games like the 1916 Giants. You don't have to put down the 1916 Giants and attempt to re-write history, to prop up the Indians so I don't know why you are doing that. You say that the game was "not ruled in their favor" and yet ignore the fact that the game was ruled as having to be replayed.

 

[Across The Field]

You're confused. They didn't play 9 innings and then called the game because they didn't play extra innings back then. They called the game after 8 innings because it got dark. If the Indians were tied in the 8th inning, and it started raining and the game had to be played the next day, would you say their winning streak ended?

No, they called it after 9 innings due to rain. Then MLB declared it a tie. That's the point you keep avoiding. It wasn't decided that the game would be postponed. It was actually declared a tie. That is not a win.

 

[soxfan1468927]

No, they called it after 9 innings due to rain. Then MLB declared it a tie. That's the point you keep avoiding. It wasn't decided that the game would be postponed. It was actually declared a tie. That is not a win.

No, it was called after 8 innings due to darkness. The MLB declared it a tie, and then, per the rules, discounts the game and replays it. It's no different than if a game was played today, tied, suspended in the 8th inning, and then replayed the next day. The only difference is that back then, they restart it from the beginning and today they would restart it from where they left off.

 

[Across The Field]

That's not an opinion. The game isn't in the standings and therefore does not matter. That is a fact.

Well, except it does matter in this context. It was a game that was played and they did not win it. So, it's not a win. Therefore, it doesn't count in a winning streak.

How does that prove me wrong? Back then, the rule was that if a game was suspended due to darkness, weather, etc., the game was replayed. You comparing that to not counting games played on the commissioner's birthday is asinine.

Back then, there were tons of weird rules that were changed for obvious reasons. It's arbitrary to call a game a tie and then replay it. They should have said the game was suspended. Instead, they called it a tie and they then played an extra game. The tie happened, you can't just wash it away as if it didn't.

Okay so you love facts unless they don't show you exactly what you want. You are ignoring the reason that the game ended, which isn't that 9 innings was over. I don't care if the Indians have the longest winning streak. I think it would be great for them to get to 27 in a row. At least it would be entertaining. Also, they are dominating their opponents more than the Giants (or Athletics) did while playing multiple games on the road, as opposed to just playing home games like the 1916 Giants. You don't have to put down the 1916 Giants and attempt to re-write history, to prop up the Indians so I don't know why you are doing that. You say that the game was "not ruled in their favor" and yet ignore the fact that the game was ruled as having to be replayed.

I'm not ignoring it, and 9 innings were over.
AP Was There: NY Giants set baseball win streak mark in 1916

The record includes a quirk: a 1-1 tie against the Pittsburgh Pirates in a game that was rained out after nine innings.

I'm not putting them down, you're going a little far here. I'm simply saying their streak isn't the same as ours, as it involved a tie and ours didn't. A tie is not a win, therefore they simply had a non-losing streak, not a true winning streak, by definition.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Well, except it does matter in this context. It was a game that was played and they did not win it. So, it's not a win. Therefore, it doesn't count in a winning streak.

It was a game that was is not an official game as it was not completed based on the rules of the time. Just like if a 4-inning game is called due to rain now, it is not an official game even though the players did play.

Back then, there were tons of weird rules that were changed for obvious reasons. It's arbitrary to call a game a tie and then replay it. They should have said the game was suspended. Instead, they called it a tie and they then played an extra game. The tie happened, you can't just wash it away as if it didn't.

Sure, they shouldn't have had that rule back then and have changed it accordingly. And washing it away as if it it didn't happen is exactly what they did based on the rules of the time.

I'm not ignoring it, and 9 innings were over.
AP Was There: NY Giants set baseball win streak mark in 1916

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.83667450833c
Really? Then what happened to the Giants in the bottom of the 9th? Funny how both pitchers for the game have "8 innings" listed if the game finished after the 9th.

I'm not putting them down, you're going a little far here. I'm simply saying their streak isn't the same as ours, as it involved a tie and ours didn't. A tie is not a win, therefore they simply had a non-losing streak, not a true winning streak, by definition.

It's not the same as yours for a myriad of reasons. By the definition of MLB they did have a winning streak as tie games were not counted as such. They did not go 26-0-1 in that streak. They don't have a 27 game "non-losing streak". They have a 26 game winning streak with an extra unofficial game in there. Just like if the Indians were rained out before 5 innings were up. The game was played, but is not an official game.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I see both sides.

The game was declared a tie (ties in sports are for faggots, I'm looking at you, soccer), so they didn't win 26 games in a row. However, MLB didn't count that game in the standings (which is less gay than a tie, but still gay), so there's the catch. Their record wasn't 86-66-1, it was 86-66.

When working on a win streak, having MLB decide that a game you didn't win won't count is a hell of an advantage. I'm happy for the Giants.

 

[Across The Field]

It was a game that was is not an official game as it was not completed based on the rules of the time. Just like if a 4-inning game is called due to rain now, it is not an official game even though the players did play.


Sure, they shouldn't have had that rule back then and have changed it accordingly. And washing it away as if it it didn't happen is exactly what they did based on the rules of the time.

Really? Then what happened to the Giants in the bottom of the 9th? Funny how both pitchers for the game have "8 innings" listed if the game finished after the 9th.

It's not the same as yours for a myriad of reasons. By the definition of MLB they did have a winning streak as tie games were not counted as such. They did not go 26-0-1 in that streak. They don't have a 27 game "non-losing streak". They have a 26 game winning streak with an extra unofficial game in there. Just like if the Indians were rained out before 5 innings were up. The game was played, but is not an official game.

Alright. Well this has been argued ad nauseum. The game was ruled a tie in the official record books so it's not the same sort of winning streak that Cleveland has. Nothing you say will negate that. It doesn't matter anyhow since Cleveland isn't going to lose again until some time in 2019 anyhow.

 

[Across The Field]

I see both sides.

The game was declared a tie (ties in sports are for faggots, I'm looking at you, soccer), so they didn't win 26 games in a row. However, MLB didn't count that game in the standings (which is less gay than a tie, but still gay), so there's the catch. Their record wasn't 86-66-1, it was 86-66.

When working on a win streak, having MLB decide that a game you didn't win won't count is a hell of an advantage. I'm happy for the Giants.

Bingo.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Alright. Well this has been argued ad nauseum. The game was ruled a tie in the official record books so it's not the same sort of winning streak that Cleveland has. Nothing you say will negate that. It doesn't matter anyhow since Cleveland isn't going to lose again until some time in 2019 anyhow.

Not the same sort, I can agree with.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I see both sides.

The game was declared a tie (ties in sports are for faggots, I'm looking at you, soccer), so they didn't win 26 games in a row. However, MLB didn't count that game in the standings (which is less gay than a tie, but still gay), so there's the catch. Their record wasn't 86-66-1, it was 86-66.

When working on a win streak, having MLB decide that a game you didn't win won't count is a hell of an advantage. I'm happy for the Giants.

Well it would be 85-66-1 since they replayed the game instead of just throwing the game out and not playing it again.

But having your winning streak end because of something outside of your control, like stadiums not having lights back then, seems a disadvantage.

However, it's probably the 2nd most impressive winning streak of the year for the 1916 Giants. They won 17 straight games earlier, all on the road that year.

 

[Cyder]

I'd like to talk to the conductor of that.

To me, the message is unclear.

Is it an indictment of America, baseball, or possibly even the combination of the two and racism.

My guess is it's a college kid who doesn't understand nearly as much as he or she thinks.

I agree, college kids that are too young to realize their leftist professors gave up on telling the truth after they were granted tenure.