Sorry ..but I am laughing too hard right now

[Band of Brothers]

Just checked the odds for next years WS Champions.

BEAT L.A. 7-1

Washington 7-1

Angels 10-1

Tigers 12-1

Orioles 14-1

THREE TIME CHAMPS Giants 15-1



Now I know no NL team has repeated since the Big Red Machine in the mid 70's but if any team can do it it's the Band of Brothers. Another slap in the face to put the Giants at 15-1. You know what though the underdog roll has been berry berry good to us here in SF. Bring em' all on !!

Go Giants !!

 

[calsnowskier]

Dude, take off your orange-colored glasses. Those odds look about right to me. 1/15 is about twice the chance if the average team.

 

[Band of Brothers]

Come on Cal ...the Dodgers at 7-1 and the favorites. They don't know how to win a Championship. Giants .
should be no higher odds than 10-1.

BEAT L.A. !!


I have to laugh at your comment on me wearing orange colored glasses. It's worked pretty good for me so far. I am thinking of having the orange color tinted even more for next year.

Go Giants !!

 

[cmc_rebar]

3 time champ, in 6 years, so they do have a history of winning one year then failing the next.


I don't see all the FA's being back next year either, so I would say 15-1 is a fair assessment

 

[Band of Brothers]

Already the naysayers and non believers are out in force. I love it. Bring it on !!

 

[calsnowskier]

So you think instead of 15-1' the IDs should be about 2-3? Heck, let's go an even 1-2.

You want a bet at those odds? I will take the field. Heck, just because I am a giving sort of guy, I will give you even odds.

Better hurry and take that deal. I may sober up soon.

 

[msgkings322]

Come on Cal ...the Dodgers at 7-1 and the favorites. They don't know how to win a Championship. Giants .
should be no higher odds than 10-1.

BEAT L.A. !!


I have to laugh at your comment on me wearing orange colored glasses. It's worked pretty good for me so far. I am thinking of having the orange color tinted even more for next year.

Go Giants !!

OK, seriously, this is literally not even possible.

 

[msgkings322]

Just checked the odds for next years WS Champions.

BEAT L.A. 7-1

Washington 7-1

Angels 10-1

Tigers 12-1

Orioles 14-1

THREE TIME CHAMPS Giants 15-1


Now I know no NL team has repeated since the Big Red Machine in the mid 70's but if any team can do it it's the Band of Brothers. Another slap in the face to put the Giants at 15-1. You know what though the underdog roll has been berry berry good to us here in SF. Bring em' all on !!

Go Giants !!

Most of those teams need way better bullpens to be contenders: LA, Anaheim, Detroit, even Baltimore. All potential destinations for Romo I'm sad to say.

 

[The Derski]

It's an odd numbered year. Wait for 2016

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

"Don't know how to win a championship"

 

[Montalban]

It's an odd numbered year. Wait for 2016

There it is.

 

[SF11704]

Already the naysayers and non believers are out in force. I love it. Bring it on !!

In general I find BoB's stories and poetry an asset to our community. It's generally not confrontational and is always upbeat. But this is the side of BoB that I find somewhat confrontational. If one doesn't believe in his specific point of view you're deemed a naysayer and an unbeliever. I think that odds of winning a WS are somewhat ridiculous to post at anytime. Most of what I see are numbers that reflect how strong your team looks on paper ... and generally they reflect what they think your success will be over the course of 162 games. I have no issues with 15-1. I have no issue with the Doggies at 7-1. In general I do think they are a stronger team than us over 162 games. But in the end we will make the playoffs and then it becomes a crap shoot for everyone. We CAN be very dangerous over a set of 20 games. We have some pitching. This year we had one DOMINANT pitcher throughout the playoffs. Not good ... dominant ....

Over a 162 game schedule we will be competitive .... over a 20 game schedule we can be dominant. This is why I don't care about projects and odds. Doesn't matter. You just need to get to the playoffs and then let the chips fall where they may.

Sort of like looking at the differences between a marathon runner and 5000 meter runner.a sprinter. Just get us to the playoffs is all that counts

 

[Mays-Fan]

In general I find BoB's stories and poetry an asset to our community. It's generally not confrontational and is always upbeat. But this is the side of BoB that I find somewhat confrontational. If one doesn't believe in his specific point of view you're deemed a naysayer and an unbeliever.

I gotta agree with BoB here, although I think his comment was directed to the board in general, and not with malice toward any particular poster.

We do have a surprisingly high percentage of posters here who are too quick to go negative, IMHO, and who then too often double down on that negativity when challenged. How many championships in a compressed time frame do we have to win before the negativity subsides? At some point you have to rationally, consciously trust and believe that we have an intangible edge here that fosters success, esp come playoff time. Although I also understand it is simply human nature for some people to have a negative bias no matter what the subject or venue or outcome, and that is never going to change.

The answer to polarized optimism/pessimism lies somewhere in the middle:

“You're never as good as you think you are when you win; and you're never as bad as you feel when you lose.”

― Joe Paterno

 

[Mays-Fan]

“You're never as good as you think you are when you win; and you're never as bad as you feel when you lose.”

― Joe Paterno

Although for the nattering nabobs of negativism, perhaps it should read:

“You're never as bad as you think you are when you win; and you're never as bad as you feel when you lose.”

 

[SF11704]

I gotta agree with BoB here, although I think his comment was directed to the board in general, and not with malice toward any particular poster.

We do have a surprisingly high percentage of posters here who are too quick to go negative, IMHO, and who then too often double down on that negativity when challenged. How many championships in a compressed time frame do we have to win before the negativity subsides? At some point you have to rationally, consciously trust and believe that we have an intangible edge here that fosters success, esp come playoff time. Although I also understand it is simply human nature for some people to have a negative bias no matter what the subject or venue or outcome, and that is never going to change.

The answer to polarized optimism/pessimism lies somewhere in the middle:

“You're never as good as you think you are when you win; and you're never as bad as you feel when you lose.”

― Joe Paterno

I see your point and it is valid but I also think you 'hit' on the core of the discussion ... it's all about balance. Just as someone can be overly negative .... one can be overly positive. Bob is the most positive person on this board. Not a bad thing at all. But as Cal stated earlier there are times the glasses are 'orange colored'.
I prefer that to negativity but it shouldn't make everyone else a naysayer either. Has to be balanced.
IMHO ... the 10 best teams reach the playoffs .... who finishes on top is the one that plays the best ball for the next 20 games. I also feel this is where the manager becomes a huge influence on the outcome. Pure talent wins games but a great manager can 'steal' one every now and then. There is none better than Bochy in that arena.

 

[calsnowskier]

I gotta agree with BoB here, although I think his comment was directed to the board in general, and not with malice toward any particular poster.

We do have a surprisingly high percentage of posters here who are too quick to go negative, IMHO, and who then too often double down on that negativity when challenged. How many championships in a compressed time frame do we have to win before the negativity subsides? At some point you have to rationally, consciously trust and believe that we have an intangible edge here that fosters success, esp come playoff time. Although I also understand it is simply human nature for some people to have a negative bias no matter what the subject or venue or outcome, and that is never going to change.

The answer to polarized optimism/pessimism lies somewhere in the middle:

“You're never as good as you think you are when you win; and you're never as bad as you feel when you lose.”

― Joe Paterno

Really?

Have you been to other Giants boards? This is, by a rather large margin, I think, the most positive Giants board on the net. Sure, there are some occasional flare-ups, but generally this is a realistic-to-positive board here.

Calling this a predominantly negative board is one of the last things I would say about this place.

 

[tzill]

In general I find BoB's stories and poetry an asset to our community. It's generally not confrontational and is always upbeat. But this is the side of BoB that I find somewhat confrontational. If one doesn't believe in his specific point of view you're deemed a naysayer and an unbeliever. I think that odds of winning a WS are somewhat ridiculous to post at anytime. Most of what I see are numbers that reflect how strong your team looks on paper ... and generally they reflect what they think your success will be over the course of 162 games. I have no issues with 15-1. I have no issue with the Doggies at 7-1. In general I do think they are a stronger team than us over 162 games. But in the end we will make the playoffs and then it becomes a crap shoot for everyone. We CAN be very dangerous over a set of 20 games. We have some pitching. This year we had one DOMINANT pitcher throughout the playoffs. Not good ... dominant ....

Over a 162 game schedule we will be competitive .... over a 20 game schedule we can be dominant. This is why I don't care about projects and odds. Doesn't matter. You just need to get to the playoffs and then let the chips fall where they may.

Sort of like looking at the differences between a marathon runner and 5000 meter runner.a sprinter. Just get us to the playoffs is all that counts

POST...OF...THE...DAY

 

[tzill]

I gotta agree with BoB here, although I think his comment was directed to the board in general, and not with malice toward any particular poster.

We do have a surprisingly high percentage of posters here who are too quick to go negative, IMHO, and who then too often double down on that negativity when challenged. How many championships in a compressed time frame do we have to win before the negativity subsides? At some point you have to rationally, consciously trust and believe that we have an intangible edge here that fosters success, esp come playoff time. Although I also understand it is simply human nature for some people to have a negative bias no matter what the subject or venue or outcome, and that is never going to change.

The answer to polarized optimism/pessimism lies somewhere in the middle:

“You're never as good as you think you are when you win; and you're never as bad as you feel when you lose.”

― Joe Paterno

I'm thinking 3 in 5 years ought to do it.

 

[tzill]

Although for the nattering nabobs of negativism, perhaps it should read:

“You're never as bad as you think you are when you win; and you're never as bad as you feel when you lose.”

Ok, Spiro.

How'd that work out for him and his boss, btw....:rollseyes:

 

[Mays-Fan]

Ok, Spiro.

How'd that work out for him and his boss, btw....:rollseyes:

They were pikers compared to some of their successors, certainly. And many of their forerunners as well...