You swept the worst team in the NL at home. Wouldn't get too excited. Pirates are still on the outside looking in when it comes to the playoffs.

---

You swept the worst team in the NL at home. Wouldn't get too excited. Pirates are still on the outside looking in when it comes to the playoffs.

And the Brewers are still in free fall mode...what's your point?

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

I'm not a Brewers fan so I could care less. Wanna talk Tigers?

---

Just some random BB thoughts:

   - Boston press seems to be giving Farrell a pass on Betts, for now, but I agree with TMD's post too

   - When I hear Berman's voice, I change channels.

   - My money is on the Tigers. With that pitching staff, they should blow through the playoffs; if Austin

     Jackson becomes the player he should be, he'll be terrific

   - Matt Adams (StL) is a solid player; I like Cody Asche from the Phils too.

   - Jason Heyward is up to .257, here's hoping he continues back to the .280-.290 range

   - What's wrong with the Rays? Joe Maddon's post game interviews are always good, though.

   - Who woke up Aramis Ramirez?

 

I remain a huge BB fan but can last no more than 2 TV innings now b/c it's so boring. Looking forward to going to the Daytona Cubs game this Thursday, though ($1 beers too).

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

I'm not a Brewers fan so I could care less. Wanna talk Tigers?

No thank you, I could care less about them.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

No thank you, I could care less about them.

 

Well, I can't stand the Brewers. Where I live, there are as many Packers fans as Lions fans and I can't stand them. I don't see the team finishing below .500, but if they do I will be ecstatic. Your deflection to the Brewers free-fall is something I'm happy about. Good try, though.

 

I'm also happy to be a Tigers fan rather than a Pirates fan.

---

Well, I can't stand the Brewers. Where I live, there are as many Packers fans as Lions fans and I can't stand them. I don't see the team finishing below .500, but if they do I will be ecstatic. Your deflection to the Brewers free-fall is something I'm happy about. Good try, though.

 

I'm also happy to be a Tigers fan rather than a Pirates fan.

I'm glad you at least are admitting to the fact that the Brewers are currently in free fall mode now.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Never said they weren't falling. I said I don't see them falling off. Falling off means completely out of contention, trade-deadline sellers, etc. They were obviously falling off the #2 in the National League perch, but I don't see the Brewers competing with the Cubs for cellar-dwellar. The Brewers aren't THAT bad. They are a ~.500 team that was playing over their heads.

---

Never said they weren't falling. I said I don't see them falling off. Falling off means completely out of contention, trade-deadline sellers, etc. They were obviously falling off the #2 in the National League perch, but I don't see the Brewers competing with the Cubs for cellar-dwellar. The Brewers aren't THAT bad. They are a ~.500 team that was playing over their heads.

That's not falling off. That's completely imploding.


That just put a HUGE caveat on your original statements.

---

Never said they weren't falling. I said I don't see them falling off. Falling off means completely out of contention, trade-deadline sellers, etc. They were obviously falling off the #2 in the National League perch, but I don't see the Brewers competing with the Cubs for cellar-dwellar. The Brewers aren't THAT bad. They are a ~.500 team that was playing over their heads.

 

 

That's not falling off. That's completely imploding.


That just put a HUGE caveat on your original statements.

I said the same thing when this discussion was first started. He doesn't see it, or want to. There's a pattern here.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

That's not falling off. That's completely imploding.


That just put a HUGE caveat on your original statements.

 

That is semantics. I thought Milwaukee is a ~.500 coming into the season. Baseball is a game of large sample sizes played over a 162 season. I think Milwaukee was playing over their heads and now their record is reverting back to the mean. I don't consider Milwaukee finishing as a ~.500 team as "Falling Off", I consider it expected outcomes based on what I always thought they were. Falling off, to me, is free-falling past what I expected.

---

That is semantics. I thought Milwaukee is a ~.500 coming into the season. Baseball is a game of large sample sizes played over a 162 season. I think Milwaukee was playing over their heads and now their record is reverting back to the mean. I don't consider Milwaukee finishing as a ~.500 team as "Falling Off", I consider it expected outcomes based on what I always thought they were. Falling off, to me, is free-falling past what I expected.

Baloney.

---

All I said is that "I don't think Milwaukee is going to fall off", as in they are not going to fall out of contention. I'm not sure why you took issue to that.

 

 

Never said they weren't falling. I said I don't see them falling off. Falling off means completely out of contention, trade-deadline sellers, etc. They were obviously falling off the #2 in the National League perch, but I don't see the Brewers competing with the Cubs for cellar-dwellar. The Brewers aren't THAT bad. They are a ~.500 team that was playing over their heads.

 

 

Like I said before, I never expected Milwaukee to have the 2nd best record in the National League. A reversion was due and this free-fall is that reversion. Milwaukee was never as good as they were playing before but they aren't as bad as they are playing now.

---

Baloney.

 

What's baloney? I've been consistent with my opinion on Milwaukee throughout. I hate the team, but I think they are a .500 club. If the team plays .500 ball for the rest of the year, they will finish with 85 or 86 wins. With that many wins, they would be in the wildcard race up to the end of the season, so I don't consider that "Falling off".

---

What's baloney? I've been consistent with my opinion on Milwaukee throughout. I hate the team, but I think they are a .500 club. If the team plays .500 ball for the rest of the year, they will finish with 85 or 86 wins. With that many wins, they would be in the wildcard race up to the end of the season, so I don't consider that "Falling off".

 

That's a pretty damn liberal 'falling off'.  Falling out of contention and your last definition are nothing close.  That's ridiculous.

---

That's a pretty damn liberal 'falling off'.  Falling out of contention and your last definition are nothing close.  That's ridiculous.

 

Um, what? Falling out of contention = falling out of the playoff race. I don't think Milwaukee will fall out of the playoff discussion. As long as they play .500 ball the rest of the season (which I think they are capable of) they will be in the discussion. I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say here?

 

Do I, or have I ever thought Milwaukee was one of the best teams in the NL? No.

Do I, or have I ever thought Milwaukee was one of the worst teams in the NL? No.

 

I think Milwaukee is a middle of the pack team that played above their level for the 1st half of the season. Now, if they play .500 (middle of the pack) baseball, they will stay in contention and not completely fall off like I originally stated.

 

 

If you think I'm wrong about Milwaukee finishing with ~85 ish wins, that's fine. They very well might continue their free fall and struggle the rest of the season. I have no problem with that opinion. However, my opinion and comments on Milwaukee have all been consistent.

---

Um, what? Falling out of contention = falling out of the playoff race. I don't think Milwaukee will fall out of the playoff discussion. As long as they play .500 ball the rest of the season (which I think they are capable of) they will be in the discussion. I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to say here?


Do I, or have I ever thought Milwaukee was one of the best teams in the NL? No.

Do I, or have I ever thought Milwaukee was one of the worst teams in the NL? No.


I think Milwaukee is a middle of the pack team that played above their level for the 1st half of the season. Now, if they play .500 (middle of the pack) baseball, they will stay in contention and not completely fall off like I originally stated.



If you think I'm wrong about Milwaukee finishing with ~85 ish wins, that's fine. They very well might continue their free fall and struggle the rest of the season. I have no problem with that opinion. However, my opinion and comments on Milwaukee have all been consistent.

This is the last time I'll respond.


Your definition of 'falling off' is ridiculous. You say you've been 'consistent' which is easy when you supply such a ridiculous definition of falling off.


A team can fall out of contention (fall off) and still not have to gut their roster and fall below .500. This is what the vast majority of people would call falling off.


It's impossible to tell if you've been consistent with your ridiculous definition of falling off.


As I said earlier. Your definition of falling off is imploding.

---

Wait, so aren't we in agreement then? I agree that falling off = falling out of contention. I don't think Milwaukee falls out of contention and thus I don't see them falling off. I think Milwaukee finishes the year with about 85 wins and that would keep them in contention for a wild card spot right up to the end of things.

 

Anyways, I really don't care about the Brewers. In fact I'd rather Milwaukee not make the playoffs so I can give crap to all of the Brewers fans I live by. I also can't stand that their franchise player is a cheater. However, I think their team is good enough to stick around and not bite the dust.

---

nm

---

This is the last time I'll respond.


Your definition of 'falling off' is ridiculous. You say you've been 'consistent' which is easy when you supply such a ridiculous definition of falling off.


A team can fall out of contention (fall off) and still not have to gut their roster and fall below .500. This is what the vast majority of people would call falling off.


It's impossible to tell if you've been consistent with your ridiculous definition of falling off.


As I said earlier. Your definition of falling off is imploding.

You got it.


Definitely a pattern forming here.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"