Thoughts on Broncos-Pats AFC Championship game

User avatar
oldecapecod11
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:45 am
Location: Cape Haze, Florida

Re: Thoughts on Broncos-Pats AFC Championship game

Post by oldecapecod11 »

by Jay Z » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:16 pm
"They probably didn't walk Thomson because it would have put the winning run on base, which is something most teams don't like to do..."

The smart play is to set up the force at any base. Runners were on 2nd and 3rd.
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
Jay Z
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Thoughts on Broncos-Pats AFC Championship game

Post by Jay Z »

oldecapecod11 wrote:by Jay Z » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:16 pm
"They probably didn't walk Thomson because it would have put the winning run on base, which is something most teams don't like to do..."

The smart play is to set up the force at any base. Runners were on 2nd and 3rd.
But that has been a cardinal rule of baseball, never put the winning run on base. If they do that and Mays hits a double, Thomson could score.

Of course, the Polo Grounds was a bandbox down the lines, and Thomson was white hot and Mays wasn't. A case could be made even with foresight that Thomson should have been walked.
User avatar
Bryan
Posts: 2531
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Thoughts on Broncos-Pats AFC Championship game

Post by Bryan »

Jay Z wrote: Of course, the Polo Grounds was a bandbox down the lines, and Thomson was white hot and Mays wasn't. A case could be made even with foresight that Thomson should have been walked.
I have to mention one of my all-time favorite "dumb sports stories". The Dodgers actually won the coin flip to determine home field advantage for the 1951 3-game playoff with the Giants, but the Dodgers gave up the option of hosting games 2 and 3 and instead elected to host game 1 and go on the road for games 2 and 3. The rationale given for this was a few years prior to 1951, the Dodgers had a 3-game playoff with the St. Louis Cardinals and were the home team for games 2 and 3. They had a long train ride to St. Louis for Game 1, lost game 1, then had a long train ride back to Brooklyn, lost game 2, and were thus eliminated. The Dodgers did not want the travel time to affect their performance in Game 1 of the 1951 playoff, so they chose to play that game at home and go on road for the remaining 2 games.

The distance from Brooklyn to New York was just a short subway ride.
John Grasso
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 1:01 pm
Location: Guilford, NY

Re: Thoughts on Broncos-Pats AFC Championship game

Post by John Grasso »

Bryan wrote:
Jay Z wrote: Of course, the Polo Grounds was a bandbox down the lines, and Thomson was white hot and Mays wasn't. A case could be made even with foresight that Thomson should have been walked.
I have to mention one of my all-time favorite "dumb sports stories". The Dodgers actually won the coin flip to determine home field advantage for the 1951 3-game playoff with the Giants, but the Dodgers gave up the option of hosting games 2 and 3 and instead elected to host game 1 and go on the road for games 2 and 3. The rationale given for this was a few years prior to 1951, the Dodgers had a 3-game playoff with the St. Louis Cardinals and were the home team for games 2 and 3. They had a long train ride to St. Louis for Game 1, lost game 1, then had a long train ride back to Brooklyn, lost game 2, and were thus eliminated. The Dodgers did not want the travel time to affect their performance in Game 1 of the 1951 playoff, so they chose to play that game at home and go on road for the remaining 2 games.

The distance from Brooklyn to New York was just a short subway ride.
That's known as superstition - if it didn't work before don't do it again.
rhickok1109
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Thoughts on Broncos-Pats AFC Championship game

Post by rhickok1109 »

Bryan wrote:
Jay Z wrote: Of course, the Polo Grounds was a bandbox down the lines, and Thomson was white hot and Mays wasn't. A case could be made even with foresight that Thomson should have been walked.
I have to mention one of my all-time favorite "dumb sports stories". The Dodgers actually won the coin flip to determine home field advantage for the 1951 3-game playoff with the Giants, but the Dodgers gave up the option of hosting games 2 and 3 and instead elected to host game 1 and go on the road for games 2 and 3. The rationale given for this was a few years prior to 1951, the Dodgers had a 3-game playoff with the St. Louis Cardinals and were the home team for games 2 and 3. They had a long train ride to St. Louis for Game 1, lost game 1, then had a long train ride back to Brooklyn, lost game 2, and were thus eliminated. The Dodgers did not want the travel time to affect their performance in Game 1 of the 1951 playoff, so they chose to play that game at home and go on road for the remaining 2 games.

The distance from Brooklyn to New York was just a short subway ride.
I can see a rationale for that, though. In a three-game series, that first game is a lot more important than it is in a longer series. If you win it, you only have to win one out of two; if you lose it, you have to win two in a row. If I were in a similar situation,I think I might well choose to play that first game at home.
Jay Z
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Thoughts on Broncos-Pats AFC Championship game

Post by Jay Z »

rhickok1109 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
Jay Z wrote: Of course, the Polo Grounds was a bandbox down the lines, and Thomson was white hot and Mays wasn't. A case could be made even with foresight that Thomson should have been walked.
I have to mention one of my all-time favorite "dumb sports stories". The Dodgers actually won the coin flip to determine home field advantage for the 1951 3-game playoff with the Giants, but the Dodgers gave up the option of hosting games 2 and 3 and instead elected to host game 1 and go on the road for games 2 and 3. The rationale given for this was a few years prior to 1951, the Dodgers had a 3-game playoff with the St. Louis Cardinals and were the home team for games 2 and 3. They had a long train ride to St. Louis for Game 1, lost game 1, then had a long train ride back to Brooklyn, lost game 2, and were thus eliminated. The Dodgers did not want the travel time to affect their performance in Game 1 of the 1951 playoff, so they chose to play that game at home and go on road for the remaining 2 games.

The distance from Brooklyn to New York was just a short subway ride.
I can see a rationale for that, though. In a three-game series, that first game is a lot more important than it is in a longer series. If you win it, you only have to win one out of two; if you lose it, you have to win two in a row. If I were in a similar situation,I think I might well choose to play that first game at home.
Couple of other notes on this playoff:

Neither the Giants nor the Dodgers had much home field advantage (Giants were only two games better at home, Dodgers only one game better).

Of course, the Dodgers win in the three game playoff came at the Polo Grounds. They lost the Ebbetts Field game.

In the regular season, there did seem to be a home field advantage between the two teams. Dodgers won the series 9-2 at Ebbetts, while the Giants won 7-4 at Polo Grounds. This didn't carry over to the playoff games, with the road team winning two of three.
Post Reply