Quote: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.

---