The Past Decade: Revealed

[Brian Piccolo]

The fact that you're downplaying winning national titles is, well...they haven't created a word for that yet.

I didn't. You just suck at comprehension.

I said winning the national championship makes you the national champion.

It doesn't make you the best team.

To say otherwise is so stupid as to be insulting to stupid people.

 

[BWCD]

why is 1-4 the outlier the past 2 years?

Because we went 99-27 in all the other games and we went 10-2 in all the other NCAA Tournament games.

That's an easy one.

No, that's the numerical answer. Give me some nuance that's not a freaking statistic. Discuss the actual game of baseball, and quit being a robot.

 

[BWCD]

Again - too bad that's when the chips were down, and we were one of 8 teams playing for a national title. I still cannot see how that doesn't matter in even a small way to you.

It does matter. I'd like to win it again. But I just understand that a lot of it is luck and we've had great teams that didn't win in Omaha.

So, when we win, it's brilliance by Morris & Co. because he's so great. When we lose in Omaha, it's bad luck, and aw shucks...a lot of teams (7 per year!!!) lose in Omaha. We should just be happy to be there.

Do you even hear yourself?

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Strip away all of the qualifiers, and you just said that "results have nothing to do with ability/success".

Wow.

Yeah.

Jim Morris going 1-2 in 1994 had nothing to do with his ability to be within 1-pitch of winning it in 1996.

Going 1-2 in 1998 had nothing to do with his ability to win it in 1999.

And going 1-4 in back-to-back seasons has nothing to do with his ability to coach and/or win CWS games in the past, present or future.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Pointing out a problem is useless without offering a solution.

I'm not sure that there is a solution.

The season is so short as it is and next week is July 4th.

This is basically what we've got.

Doesn't mean it's very good.

 

[BWCD]

So now you're dismissing Omaha because you don't like the format of the CWS.

I don't dismiss it.

I watch it.

It's good fun.

But I know that it's all over the place.

So...you're a completely impartial viewer, no emotion in it to root for the Canes to win whatsoever?

Sounds like your wood is wet. You couldn't start a fire in yourself for the Canes with lighter fluid, sounds like.

 

[BWCD]

The fact that you're downplaying winning national titles is, well...they haven't created a word for that yet.

I didn't. You just suck at comprehension.

I said winning the national champion makes you the national champion.

It doesn't make you the best team.

To say otherwise is so stupid as to be insulting to stupid people.

No, to say otherwise is to call it like it is. You win the title at the end? You're the best. You get to claim that, period.

Others like you who want to play revisionist statistician are what the kids today I believe call "haters".

 

[Brian Piccolo]

No, that's the numerical answer. Give me some nuance that's not a freaking statistic. Discuss the actual game of baseball, and quit being a robot.

We were by consensus one of the four best teams this year.

Two of those teams didn't even get to Omaha. The other two didn't win a game there.

It's the outlier almost all the time.

 

[BWCD]

Strip away all of the qualifiers, and you just said that "results have nothing to do with ability/success".

Wow.

Yeah.

Jim Morris going 1-2 in 1994 had nothing to do with his ability to be within 1-pitch of winning it in 1996.

Going 1-2 in 1998 had nothing to do with his ability to win it in 1999.

And going 1-4 in back-to-back seasons has nothing to do with his ability to coach and/or win CWS games in the past, present or future.

So, everything is in a vacuum to you, and we can just excuse away bad losses on the biggest stage with randomness/bad luck.

Why has anyone at any level of competition ever changed coaches in any sport ever, then? If this is all just unrelated and random?

Copout. Again.

 

[BWCD]

Pointing out a problem is useless without offering a solution.

I'm not sure that there is a solution.

The season is so short as it is and next week is July 4th.

This is basically what we've got.

Doesn't mean it's very good.

So, you have no solution, and you're whining.

Good, that's settled.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

So, when we win, it's brilliance by Morris & Co. because he's so great.

When we've won we were the # 1 (1999) and # 2 (2001) overall seed.

So we basically were the best or close to it teams in the country.

In fact we won as the # 1 overall seed in 1999. How many # 1 national seeds have won it since?

Zero.

Nada.

Zip.

 

[BWCD]

No, that's the numerical answer. Give me some nuance that's not a freaking statistic. Discuss the actual game of baseball, and quit being a robot.

We were by consensus one of the four best teams this year.

Two of those teams didn't even get to Omaha. The other two didn't win a game there.

It's the outlier almost all the time.

That post suspiciously has an awful lot of stats in it, and little substance about the game.

I'm not sure you're capable of what I asked of you.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

So...you're a completely impartial viewer, no emotion in it to root for the Canes to win whatsoever?

Where do you get this stuff from?

You're just rambling.

I love the Canes.

But I can also be reasonable unlike you apparently.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

You win the title at the end? You're the best.

Unbelievable stupidity.

 

[BWCD]

So, when we win, it's brilliance by Morris & Co. because he's so great.

When we've won we were the # 1 (1999) and # 2 (2001) overall seed.

So we basically were the best or close to it teams in the country.

In fact we won as the # 1 overall seed in 1999. How many # 1 national seeds have won it since?

Zero.

Nada.

Zip.

And the teams that did were, by winning or losing on the field, the best team at the end of the year. That's the goal. Those #1 's that didn't win it? Well, they were the top national seed, so they were the best team at that point...but the team at the end that wasn't #1 going in was the best when all the games in the ENTIRE sample were played (since you like that) was the best team.

Them's the facts, jack. Deal with it.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

So, everything is in a vacuum to you, and we can just excuse away bad losses on the biggest stage with randomness/bad luck.

You keep asking questions because you know so little about this and therefore have so few answers.

When a 50-win team goes 0-2 against teams the caliber of Arizona and UCSB then yes. It's a reason. Not an excuse.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Why has anyone at any level of competition ever changed coaches in any sport ever, then? If this is all just unrelated and random?

Because you're bad at comprehension once again.

A large sample size is not unrelated and random. Good coaches can make a difference. That difference can get you real tangible advantages in the postseason......up until Omaha.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

So, you have no solution, and you're whining.

No. Just explaining to ignorant people.

Whining is saying that random stuff is unacceptable.

 

[BWCD]

So...you're a completely impartial viewer, no emotion in it to root for the Canes to win whatsoever?

Where do you get this stuff from?

You're just rambling.

I love the Canes.

But I can also be reasonable unlike you apparently.

I'm not sure if you'd pass the Turing test. ****, you're cold.

If loving the Canes means being an unemotional bystander like you claim to be when it comes to watching them compete, then ****...why bother?

 

[Brian Piccolo]

I'm not sure you're capable of what I asked of you.

I can't dumb it down any more for you.

It's an outlier because the consensus far-and-way best four teams didn't win a CWS game this year.