Prediction
Smith, Brad
Having said that, I'm much less confident than I was with the Yankee series pick. With the Yankees, I really liked our match-ups, believe it or not. And the Yankees just seemed ripe to pick for a host of other reasons. This one is tough, and I was tempted to go with Tigers in 7, but that seems too cautious. It's just one step from saying "no pick."
Roger King
the dangers of underestimating the opposition but I'm going out on a limb
and predict the sweep for the Tigers! (I'm really only doing this because
it looks like I'm going to Game 4 in Detroit and I'm hoping it will be for
the pennant!)
I just think the Tigers have more offensive weapons than the A's and better
pitching. I mean, despite all the talk about Yankee pitching, Wang &
Mussina were both in the Top 10 in ERA. Only Zito was for the A's, though
Harren was 15th.
My one fear though is the Tigers may have peaked emotionally by beating the
Yanks. It may be tough to get fired up to beat the A's, especially when the
Tigers are no longer such longshot underdogs.
Roger
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006
Jeremy Pulcifer
The A's have better corner infielders, DH, bench, and
#1 starter. The Tigers are clearly better at every
other position. I don't think the A's are a pushover
by any means, but on paper the Tigers are clearly the
better team. I can't figure out why everyone
(nationally) is picking the A's; the Yankees at least
had a cachet about them (recent success, potentially
tremendous lineup). The A's, though, are more like the
Tigers than any other playoff team this year, and I
can't see where they are markedly superior in any
phase of the game.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
GrnW...@aol.com
Rob Hawks
the Yankees, the Tigers now are eager to play more. It has to
be a fabulous feeling to have gotten on a roll of the scope
and nature that was those last three games, and who would want
that to end? Maybe they are raring to go again!
rob
Perry, John
I’m picking the Tigers to win in 5 or 6.
I think it’s preposterous to think the team won’t be “up” for winning the next series and then going to the World Series, since they’ve already beaten the Yankees. I can see how a Yankees fan could believe that but I can’t.
From:
listmgr...@lists.ibl.org [mailto:listmgr...@lists.ibl.org] On Behalf Of GrnW...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006
1:22 PM
To: tig...@lists.ibl.org
Subject: Re: Prediction
>>Roger wrote: My one fear though is the Tigers may have peaked emotionally by beating the Yanks. It may be tough to get fired up to beat the A's, especially when the Tigers are no longer such longshot underdogs
I am concerned about that also. In fact, I feel like Friday's game was THE game. Prior to the start of the playoffs, my thought was either the Tigers would get blown out in 3 (and it looked bad after day one), or they could get hot and blow through the playoffs, like the Sox did last year.
Now, I worry that they've already "proven" they belong, and won't be as emotionally high. I know I'M not as pumped as I was for the Yankees.
Of course, there's the possibility that they are just better than the rest so they don't have to be as pumped to still win.
Who knows?
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and
contains information that may be confidential and/or privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply e-mail
immediately. Use, disclosure or reproduction of any information in this
e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
prohibited. Sterling Commerce is not liable for any loss or damage arising
in any way from transmission of the message or use of its attachments.
This email may contain links to third party web sites. Sterling Commerce is not
responsible for the content or privacy policies of such other sites and the
existence of a link in this email does not imply an endorsement of the linked
web site or the goods or services offered therein.
Roger King
Roger
GrnW...@aol.com
I think it’s preposterous to think the team won’t be “up” for winning the next series and then going to the World Series, since they’ve already beaten the Yankees. I can see how a Yankees fan could believe that but I can’t
Dave Perry
up after what they went though, however, i'm very sure
Leyland will have them ready as they can be.
My prediction: SWEEP....you read it here first.
Dave
--- GrnW...@aol.com wrote:
Dave Perry, GM
Chandler Security
US Navy (Ret)
(912)265-1377 - office
(912)265-4037 - fax
See Chandler Security website at:
See my personal website at:
http://www.triplelhorserescue.com/
Roger King
hour ago :)
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Perry" <yn1per...@yahoo.com>
To: "tigers email list" <tig...@lists.ibl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Prediction / Am i the only one talking Sweep??
>I don't think it's preposterous to think they wont be
> up after what they went though, however, i'm very sure
> Leyland will have them ready as they can be.
>
> My prediction: SWEEP....you read it here first.
>
> Dave
>
> --- GrnW...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 10/10/2006 10:48:54 A.M. Pacific
>> Daylight Time,
>> John_...@stercomm.com writes:
>>
>> I think it�?Ts preposterous to think the team
>> won�?Tt be �?oup�?� for winning the
>> next series and then going to the World Series,
>> since they�?Tve already beaten
>> the Yankees. I can see how a Yankees fan could
>> believe that but I can�?Tt
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Dave Perry
something!!!
Dave
Go tigs
Tanvir R. Shaikh
> --- Roger King <pnag...@pnagency.com> wrote:
> > Actually you didn't read it here first Dave as I
> > predicted a sweep about an hour ago :)
>
> something!!!
You can still change your prediction, Dave. I probably would.
Gabriel Schwartz
me, the belief that the Tigers are going to play poorly because
they've hit some sort of peak emotionally makes no more sense than
the idea that they were going to be easily swept by the Yankees
because they were depressed about losing to Kansas City. They may
win the series and they may lose the series, but what they did
yesterday or three days ago or a week ago is not going to have
anything to do with it.
Gabriel
On Oct 10, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Roger King wrote:
> I agree John that they should still be pumped to a degree but when
> Kenny Rogers says (about Friday night's game vs. the Yankees) "I
> wanted this game more than any in my life", it's hard to take that
> up another level emotionally. I think the combo of factors -
> Tigers poor end to the season/comments that they don't belong in
> the playoffs; everyone picking the Yankees; it *being* the Yankees;
> Detroit not having won a post-season series in 22 years etc. - made
> for an amazing weekend that will be hard to top emotionally.
>
> Roger
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Perry, John
> To: tig...@lists.ibl.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:47 PM
> Subject: RE: Prediction
>
> I�m picking the Tigers to win in 5 or 6.
>
>
>
> I think it�s preposterous to think the team won�t be �up� for
> winning the next series and then going to the World Series, since
> they�ve already beaten the Yankees. I can see how a Yankees fan
> could believe that but I can�t.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date:
> 10/10/2006
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
Jeremy Pulcifer
> They may win the series and they may lose
> the series, but what they did
> yesterday or three days ago or a week ago is not
> going to have anything to do with it.
Ding! Wrong, thanks for playing. Pick up your
consolation prize on your way out.
OF COURSE THE PAST WEEK WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH
THE OUTCOME OF THIS WEEK. If you don't think that's
true, then methinks you know little or nothing about
human psychology.
However, what we can't do is PREDICT what that affect
is, or how significant it will be. It might be a minor
irritant, or a motivating factor. It might be the
difference that leads to the Tigers winning the whole
thing, or that blocks their progression from here on
out. Or, the Tigers may just get enough breaks that it
doesn't matter. Or the A's pitchers get frickin' hot
like the Tiger's staff did, and again, it won't matter
how "up" or "down" the Tigers are. I don't know, and
you(plural) don't either.
Which is why predicting the series is, *ahem*, a waste
of time.
Gabriel Schwartz
> --- Gabriel Schwartz <gab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> They may win the series and they may lose
>> the series, but what they did
>> yesterday or three days ago or a week ago is not
>> going to have anything to do with it.
>
> Ding! Wrong, thanks for playing. Pick up your
> consolation prize on your way out.
>
> OF COURSE THE PAST WEEK WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH
> THE OUTCOME OF THIS WEEK. If you don't think that's
> true, then methinks you know little or nothing about
> human psychology.
Fair enough, I can agree with that. I'll rephrase myself to say that
what happened in the past will have little impact on what happens from
now on and - along the lines of what you write below - nobody has any
idea what that impact will be, so let's not bother even considering it.
> However, what we can't do is PREDICT what that affect
> is, or how significant it will be. It might be a minor
> irritant, or a motivating factor. It might be the
> difference that leads to the Tigers winning the whole
> thing, or that blocks their progression from here on
> out. Or, the Tigers may just get enough breaks that it
> doesn't matter. Or the A's pitchers get frickin' hot
> like the Tiger's staff did, and again, it won't matter
> how "up" or "down" the Tigers are. I don't know, and
> you(plural) don't either.
>
> Which is why predicting the series is, *ahem*, a waste
> of time.
I definitely agree with that, and have made that disclaimer when making
my picks. I do it for fun, and have no illusions about the
meaningfulness of my choice. Even the longer best of 7 series is just
much, much too short for the better team to come out ahead a high
percentage of the time.
Gabriel
Steve Bielawski
From: "Gabriel Schwartz" <gab...@comcast.net>
> I think that, like last week, some people are overthinking this. To
> me, the belief that the Tigers are going to play poorly because
> they've hit some sort of peak emotionally makes no more sense than
> the idea that they were going to be easily swept by the Yankees
> because they were depressed about losing to Kansas City. They may
> win the series and they may lose the series, but what they did
> yesterday or three days ago or a week ago is not going to have
> anything to do with it.
Gabriel, I hope that you are right, and a large part of me wants to agree.
But you must realize that the poster boys for an emotional peak leading to a
disappointing playoff series are the 1987 Detroit Tigers. They beat the
Blue Jays in the last week of the year, but after that division
championship, they lost to the Twins in the playoffs. A lot of people said
that, after winning the division, the Tigers figured that they would win the
playoffs easily. Obviously, that didn't happen. The common explanation is
that the Tigers hit their emotional peak during the end-of-season series
with the Blue Jays, and were emotionally spent by the time that they met up
with the Twins in the playoffs.
I'm not convinced that the 1987 Tigers lost because they were emotionally
spent, but I will say that it probably had something to do with the outcome
of that series.
Smith, Brad
________________________________
From: listmgr...@lists.ibl.org on behalf of Jeremy Pulcifer
Sent: Tue 10/10/2006 5:48 PM
To: tig...@lists.ibl.org
Subject: Re: Prediction