Twins aren't that good. Good teams don't get their asses handed to them in the playoffs. Good teams don't fail to win a postseason game in consecutive seasons. Good teams manage to at least win one game.See what I did there?

In all seriousness, Twins had a good season. Sox were less good. Their starting pitching was just way too weak. And they couldn't hit.

He of course proceeded to explain how good they are and how close they came to winning the division because at one point they led the division?

I then explained to the great philosopher that if the Twins are not that good and they beat the Sox's collective asses, then by the transitive properties of reasoning the Sox couldn't be the good by his own admission.

It says that even though the Sox have their issues, the Twins are not some insurmountable force that cannot be overcome.

Of course the Twins were better than the Sox. They won the division and the Sox didn't. That seems simple but obviously it isn't. I mean I hear little danny bernstein say all the time that the only thing that matters is winning the championship. He'll often talk as if losing in the first round of the playoffs is equivalent to finishing last. I don't believe that, but many fans these days seem to. B&b will discuss Chicago baseball by saying.... BAD. Well, the Cubs were bad. The Sox weren't. They won 88 games and had a pretty good season. Not as good as Coztansa and I would have liked, but still pretty good. I've seen more than one thread in this very forum about "bad Chicago baseball". This year Chicago baseball had one bad team and one good one. If you don't acknowledge that and actually believe they were somehow equally bad because neither won a championship, I don't see what the difference is in thinking the Twins were equally bad as well.

It seems that every one of your sports assessments (in every sport) somehow involves an attempt to refute a B&B theory. Why not just give your own opinion? Why is it always about them and how they feel?

Kid, why do you always feel a need to take up for B&B if someone dares to not see them in the same light as you?

I don't do that and you know it. I don't care if people like them or not. It was an observation. I just noticed that JORR often goes back to referencing B&B whenever he has a sports thought and I was wondering why. He's the only guy here who does that so of course it's gonna be noticeable. His point was completely intact without the reference to Bernstein.

I'll ask you, do you agree with it? If not, why are you defending him rather than simply agreeing with me? Or are you going to suggest that he has never made the statement that winning championships is all that matters? If the 2010 Cubs are the same as the 2010 Sox, then aren't the 2010 Sox the same as the 2010 Twins? They're all just non-champions, right?

I don't necessarily agree with it. I agree with him that as an organization you build a team to win a championship. But as a fan, understanding that every year there is a 1 in 30 chance of your team winning the championship, no I don't think winning a championship is all that matters. It's obviously the ultimate goal but not necessarily the only goal. I enjoyed the season overall. Late August was very painful watching them slide, but it was a fun season.

1 in 26. The Pirates, Royals, Orioles, and Cubs have no chance at winning.

The Twins are really testing the "win a long season enough times and you'll win a short postseason" theory of baseball, aren't they?