Arizona Diamondbacks Ongoing Thread

[CatsTopPac]

Hahaha, MY BAD NOGI!!!! I just tried to get the AZ/DBacks fans all riled up, just to throw it in their faces that it's ridiculous when a team who is watching the postseason talks crap about a team in the playoffs. I get it, but it just doesn't make sense to me. As a fan, I can't talk any crap about a team that went farther than mine in a particular year. I just feel that I don't have leg to stand on.

I just think that simply basing it off the fact that AZ has one more Div title and the WS is a pretty directed effort at establishing success. I just don't think that it paints an accurate picture. If we are really going to talk about a complete picture of success, we can't narrow the last 15 years of baseball down to one more division title and a WS. It really does completely comb over the fact that a team who doesn't even have a .500 record for their franchise, can't be labeled a success. I think overall it's a wash. Again, AZ has one more division title, one more playoff win (as of right now) and the WS, but LA has the better head to head, overall record, far more winning seasons, and one more NLCS appearance.

 

[CatsTopPac]

College Basketball and the MLB are so hard to compare. Only reason I'm using the "more recent title" is because we've only been around since 98'. I have nothing else to base it off of.

So then the Marlins are as successful of a franchise because they won it in '03? I just think that it's far more comprehensive than that.

 

[Jonas_steven]

Puig is such a little bitch! He whines about anything that doesn't go his way! Grow up little man!

 

[Arizona_Sting]

So then the Marlins are as successful of a franchise because they won it in '03? I just think that it's far more comprehensive than that.

Being a Suns fan (they have the 4th highest wining percentage in NBA History) with NO TITLES to show for, I can say this. I'd sure as hell rather win a title once in 15 years and have 5 division titles than go 15 years with no WS titles, 4 division titles but have a better W-L record overall. Championships/WS/Super Bowls are the ultimate goals in sports, aren't they?

 

[Arizona_Sting]

So I guess what I'm saying is... are the Suns a more successful franchise than say... the Miami Heat? PHX has a better winning percentage than them, more division titles, and a longer playoff appearance streak than them. But Miami has 3 titles. Phoenix 0.

 

[Orange602]

At the end of the day, the best teams are the ones that have the most fun. That's what sports are all about, guys.

 

[The Derski]

At the end of the day, the best teams are the ones that have the most fun. That's what sports are all about, guys.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

Yeah! The Suns were so nice last year and had lots of fun! It was great to see them build up other teams' confidence by letting them win. Such a classy organization. So many good times!

 

[Arizona_Sting]

Don Baylor is gone.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Sure, it's the ultimate goal, but especially when you only have one WS as opposed to none, then it can't really be an accurate indicator. The Heat have 3 titles, that is better than having one truly significant team in your franchise's history. I think that having one WS is having a successful team, not a successful franchise. If other than that one year, you have been extremely mediocre, then that statistically cannot determine that you are a more successful franchise. Franchise success, over a 16 year period, cannot rest on one season. Think about it, other than 2001, the DBacks in the other 15 years have only won 6 playoff games in four appearances. They would not have won a single NLCS win in their history. That is such a huge difference, and so much to determine a successful based on that year. Other than 2001, they are horrible in the last 15 years. Take any one season away from the Dodgers, they would still be the overall statistical leader against the DBacks in the other 15 years.

For example: let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that the Dodgers had won the next 7 games they played and won the WS this year. Each would have a WS ring. So they would be tied in WS, the Dodgers have one more NLCS, more playoff wins, tied in playoff appearances, one back in division titles, lead head to head, winning %, and winning seasons. So being that you say that the DBacks are more successful, does that mean that the Dodgers winning the next 7 games would make the Dodgers the more successful team in the last 16 years? I just can't see that 7 games is the difference between the Dodgers being the more successful team, and the DBacks. Again, I know it's the playoffs, and the difference between 0 rings and 1. But thousands of games have been played in the last 16 years by these two, there is no way that 7 games is the difference. DBacks have definitely had the best season, that doesn't mean that they are the better franchise over the last decade and a half.

 

[The Derski]

Top moments of 2013
Video: Highlighting D-backs' top moments from 2013 season | MLB.com

 

[Orange602]

Don Baylor is gone.

I won't miss him.

 

[nogicat]

glad baylor is gone

 

[Arizona_Sting]

Sure, it's the ultimate goal, but especially when you only have one WS as opposed to none, then it can't really be an accurate indicator. The Heat have 3 titles, that is better than having one truly significant team in your franchise's history. I think that having one WS is having a successful team, not a successful franchise. If other than that one year, you have been extremely mediocre, then that statistically cannot determine that you are a more successful franchise. Franchise success, over a 16 year period, cannot rest on one season. Think about it, other than 2001, the DBacks in the other 15 years have only won 6 playoff games in four appearances. They would not have won a single NLCS win in their history. That is such a huge difference, and so much to determine a successful based on that year. Other than 2001, they are horrible in the last 15 years. Take any one season away from the Dodgers, they would still be the overall statistical leader against the DBacks in the other 15 years.

For example: let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that the Dodgers had won the next 7 games they played and won the WS this year. Each would have a WS ring. So they would be tied in WS, the Dodgers have one more NLCS, more playoff wins, tied in playoff appearances, one back in division titles, lead head to head, winning %, and winning seasons. So being that you say that the DBacks are more successful, does that mean that the Dodgers winning the next 7 games would make the Dodgers the more successful team in the last 16 years? I just can't see that 7 games is the difference between the Dodgers being the more successful team, and the DBacks. Again, I know it's the playoffs, and the difference between 0 rings and 1. But thousands of games have been played in the last 16 years by these two, there is no way that 7 games is the difference. DBacks have definitely had the best season, that doesn't mean that they are the better franchise over the last decade and a half.

I don't like playing the what if game or using hypotheticals at all. I see where you're coming from but you can't say winning 5 division titles in 15 years in mediocre. Also, taking away one season just doesn't make sense... that season happened, and it will be in the history books forever. I still take the Diamondbacs last 15 years over the Dodgers last 15 years and I'm sure most AZ fans on here would agree.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I'm just saying that if the Dodgers win the next 6 games, then the Dodgers will have the same amount of WS, more NLCS, playoff wins, same amount of playoff appearances, better head-to-head, better winning %, and far more winning seasons.

The only thing the Dbacks will have is one more Div title. So it's safe to say that LA would have more success. I just don't think, that out of the more than 5,000 games that the two teams have collectively played in the last 16 years, that the next 6 games in a row would turn the tides from the DBacks being the more successful franchise, to the Dodgers. You can't just throw all of that away if the Dodgers don't win 6 games in the next two weeks.

I'm not using a hypothetical to take away the DBacks WS. I'm just saying that it's really the only thing that really separates the two teams. That means that the DBacks certainly had the best team in the last 16 years. But you can't just pick that, and one more div title (while ignoring every other meaningful playoff and regular-season stat), to say that AZ is the better franchise. I'm not saying that it's only about the regular season, but you can't ignore that. I'm not saying that the WS series isn't the obvious goal in baseball, but there are other playoff success factors. The Dodgers are consistent, the DBacks had one great team, and a bunch of mediocrity. And yes, if you've had 5 division titles, and 8 seasons where you didn't even have a winning season, then yes, they cancel each other out and it's pretty mediocre; especially when you compare that to 4 division titles and only 3 non-winning seasons. 2001 is the only real success that the DBacks have ever had. Other than that, they have some nice division titles, but have done horrible in the playoffs and don't even have a .500 winning %.

 

[AZ Sun]

This isn't math class, you don't cancel out stuff like that. You complain about us cherry picking stats but that's exactly what you're doing.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

I have to disagree with you, CTP. Don't really feel like continuing this discussion because it's basically going nowhere.

 

[Orange602]

The Diamondbacks have had more fun than the Dodgers in the last decade. Therefore, the Diamondbacks have been the better team. It's not that hard, guys.

 

[CatsTopPac]

This isn't math class, you don't cancel out stuff like that. You complain about us cherry picking stats but that's exactly what you're doing.

No worries Sting, agree to disagree.

Sun, how is that cherry-picking? He was saying that 5 division titles in 16 years isn't mediocre. He's trying to convey success in a regular season by a division title. It is a marker of success. But when you add in that half of those seasons (more than the number of season where they won the division) they didn't even have a winning season, you have to account for that. It's not cherry-picking, it's providing a MORE accurate picture of regular season (or the lack thereof). It's saying that in 16 years, 5 of those seasons they did well enough to go over .500 and win the division, THREE other seasons they got over .500, and EIGHT seasons they didn't have a winning season. The Dodgers had 4 seasons where they did well enough to go over .500 and win the division, another NINE other seasons where they still went over .500, and only THREE that they didn't have a winning season. That is the opposite of cherry-picking.

If (for the sake of quantifying the stats) you gave 2 points for a winning record and a div title, one point for only going over .500, and zero points for a non-winning season:

DBacks - 13
Dodgers - 17

It's saying that you can't just determine success by talking about 5 division titles when you also had 8 seasons where you failed to have a winning record. Especially when comparing the success to a team that has 4 division titles and 13 winning seasons over the same span. There is no way that one more division title can have more weight than an extra 5 winning seasons. You have to include both positive and negative markers of success. When you have more seasons where you fail to even get a winning record than the seasons that you win the division, that is a big deal. The two combine equals a very inconsistent AZ franchise who hasn't even won half of the games it's EVER PLAYED, and a very consistent Dodger team who wins about as many divisions as the DBacks, but even in the majority of years that a team doesn't win the div, the Dodgers still almost always have a winning record. Sorry man, but that's extremely important.

 

[AZ Sun]

Well that's a load of horse shit. What good is a winning season if you don't make the playoffs? There are no moral victories in baseball so you can't possibly tell me the Nationals think they had a successful season just because they had a winning record, they know that it doesn't mean shit and holds no weight in determining team success. I'm not arguing over which of our teams has had more success, I'm just stating that a world series and a division title should hold more weight than simply a winning season.