Why the Astros Will Win the World Series
The Houston Astros have climbed to the top of the National League by using powerful starting pitching and late inning heroics. Both of those things are what make World champions. As long as the Astros keep it up, they will find themselves to be the 2005 World Champions.
The Astros won 89 games; the third most in the National League this season. They won those games on the strength of great starting pitching. As a team, the Astros posted a 3.51 ERA, the second lowest in the league. The Astros offense was mediocre, and they weren’t a particularly clutch hitting team. What they were was a great pitching team.
Teams change over the course of the season - players get better and worse. Newcomers produce. Starters and bullpens tire. Injuries happen. The Astros key to success hasn’t wavered.
The Astros are bringing their strongest feature to the World Series in high gear.
The Astros top three starters, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Roy Oswalt, combined for 675 IP, a 2.43 ERA and 540 strikeouts. That will spell trouble for any lineup.
Roger Clemens, the greatest pitcher in the history of MLB, led the National League and the majors with a 1.89 ERA. He went 13 starts covering 87 innings allowing just five runs on the road. Until September, where Clemens gave up nine earned runs in 8 2/3 IP. Roger got his rest and rediscovered his form for the playoffs, and he is likely to be too tough on the White Sox at Comiskey II. Clemens is familiar with the park and the atmosphere, and should dominate in his appearances.
Andy Pettitte turned on the afterburners after his June 14 loss to the Baltimore Orioles. Pettitte lost 6-1, allowing six runs in 7 2/3 innings, raising his ERA to 3.77 and dropping his record to 3-7. Pettitte dominated from there on out. He drove his ERA down to 2.39 and went 14-2 the rest of the season. Pettitte won a handful of Championships with the New York Yankees. His postseason experience and his experience with the AL will only help his strong pitching performance.
Roy Oswalt looks like a number three pitcher behind stars like Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, but Roy isn’t a number two pitcher behind anyone. Oswalt eats innings, he throw hard and wins games. Oswalt went 20-12 and threw 241 innings. He was the NLCS MVP with two outstanding performances against a top offense. Oswalt is at the top of his game.
Having three pitchers of this caliber will make any team a favorite, but can the offense get the three runs they need to win games?
The offense is weak - relatively. They didn’t hit a lot of home runs. They didn’t excel late in the game. They did hit well with men on base and they are scrappy, just like the manager.
The Astros offense will probably struggle. The White Sox staff is strong against right-handed hitters, and the Astro lineup is full of them. However, the best hitter, Lance Berkman, is not and he is going to be the difference.
Even as the Astros offense may struggle, what will put the Astros over the top in the Series are the White Sox struggles against right-handed pitchers. The White Sox hit much worse against RHPs in general, and now they will be facing two of the toughest in the majors.
The games will be low scoring, with the White Sox beating Pettitte and getting handcuffed by Clemens and Oswalt, with Lidge closing the door.
I am not a big fan of the saying “Pitching wins championships”, but this year, great pitching is going to win the championship.
Astros in 7.
Chris Dial
Posted: October 21, 2005 at 03:56 AM |
70 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Anthony Giacalone Posted: October 21, 2005 at 04:09 AM (#1695763)Which of the great pitchers will lose the 3 games you predict?
It seems that the Bullpen is stronger than the starting pitching. I don't expect the bullpen to lose three games.
Lidge needs to stop being so afraid to throw his fastball, or he could experience more trouble like he did in the STL series. I figure him, Wheeler, and Qualls (the non-game blowing version of the second half) will all be very good though.
I think Backe should only have to pitch 1 game, if at all now. That is big for Houston, even though he pitched well in the NLCS.
In conclusion, I agree. I look for Houston to win in 6 or 7. It should be a great series.
strong silence Posted: October 07, 2005 at 04:57 PM (#1669511)
I will go out on a limb and say the White Sox will be least affected by luck this postseason. IOW, luck will least likely be a factor in their victories and losses.
The Astros will need a peak Clemens to win -- if he gives up three or four runs apiece in his starts, they're in real trouble. It's hard to see this team scoring more than four runs or so against the White Sox starters and defense.
White Sox in six.
Which team shows up? The Game 6 team, or the team in Games 1-4?
If the Game 6 team shows up, I take the Astros in 6.
Best Regards
John
More likely, "Chris Dial is too busy to write this article now because of work, family, etc.; he will get to it on November 1st".
There's enough good (and hot) hitters on both of these teams that they should get to the pitchers. The White Sox offense has looked pretty good this postseason (except when they're busy running into outs). I predict at least 2 offense slug-fest type games, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Konerko hit 4 or 5 homers at Ten-Run field.
Sox in 6 (too many predictions for the series to go 7 also).
Pettitte. The Sox will rough up Pettitte a little. Plus he'll match up against the Sox best pitcher.
1. Defense. Chicago's defense is better than Houston's, especially in the outfield.
2. Offensive depth. Houston's offense is concentrated in a couple of key hitters; the White Sox get production from more lineup slots.
3. Power. The White Sox have a bit more power than do the Astros, and can sustain a short offensive sequence better. In a relatively low-offense environment, the ability to put runs on the board quickly becomes important.
I think the Sox will win, and I think the Series will go at least six games.
-- MWE
Looking? More like leering. Cut it out--you're making me nervous. ;-)
Best Regards
John
Happy baseball.
Seriously, the difference in offense (which is big) will help the Sox.
- a seven game series
- that neither manager turns in a performance that my eight year old could outperform
- that Mike Piazza is allowed one more turn in the booth to inform the viewers about "El Dookie"
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5009824
Thanks for jinxing them, paper-pusher. I'm sure the White Sox fit your description of how "good teams become great" to the last man in the pen. And I am sure you'll devote 3 chapters to Scotty Pods. How he's a god.
Now excuse while I go barf.
The fact that the Astros' pitching was superior to the Astros' hitting should have no impact on MM's Park Factor unless it was more better at home than it was on the road. Right?
That's not why I'm expecting it though, I'm expecting it because it's unexpected and goes against common opinion. Absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.
Also, much like Jeff Kent, I refuse to believe that any team with Carl Everett can win the World Series.
I just say that it should be a fun series. Unless the White Sox lie down and take a beating, I'll take it as a win.
I'm flying out to Chicago tonight - there's about a .001% chance that I'll go to either game, but it'll be worth it just to hang out with old friends and watch the games.
The WS hit almost exactly what the Astros hit against RHP:
Chicago: .259/.318/.417/.735
Houston: .259/.322/.414/.736
-- MWE
The biggest reason for the platoon split is the bottom of the lineup - Rowand, Uribe, and Crede were all much better against lefties than against righties this season.
However, the two bats the White Sox will really be counting on (Konerko and Dye) had no significant platoon splits.
I don't doubt that they'll struggle against Oswalt, at least, and probably Clemens, but the fact that they're right-handed won't have much to do with it.
Chicago: .259/.318/.417/.735
Houston: .259/.322/.414/.736
I know. With a DH instead of a pitcher.
However, the two bats the White Sox will really be counting on (Konerko and Dye) had no significant platoon splits.
And Crede and Rowand will be the difference makers. If they happen to hit well this week against RHP (the crapshoot part of all this), then the ChiSox will score more.
Astros win.
Astros win.
Astros score by putting the ball in play and putting pressure on the defense. The White Sox defenders are pretty good at catching the ball.
White Sox win.
Seriously, this series could go either way.
Predicting one team to win in 7 games is essentially saying "pick 'em".
Well du'h. But don't let that stop you from taking all the fun out of predictions... : )
I would point out:
1. Garcia vs. Backe should be the one game where one team is heavily favored, and that would be in favor of the White Sox. All the other games are practically toss-ups.
2. White Sox have home field advantage. Houston was not good on the road all season.
3. Clemens had a hamstring problem. He seemed to be laboring after the first few innings in his last start, perhaps because of it?
4. The White Sox do seem to hit LH'ers well, and Andy P. is left-handed.
Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Warren Spahn and Tom Seaver say hi.
Then I heard that the White Sox would have trouble with LAofA's strong right-handed pitching (Lackey/Byrd/Santana/Escobar/Shields/Rodriguez).
Not that the point isn't valid, but it's a short series. Anything can happen.
None of those pitchers is close to the calibre of Clemens and Oswalt. Not even close.
You only have to lose to Clemens and Oswalt twice and you're out.
This doesn't take anything away from the Astros, but what the White Sox pitching and defense has done over the last three weeks is just stunning. Since getting bombed at home by Cleveland, they have given up 4,1,1 and 1 runs to Minnesota; 4,3,2 and 2 runs to Detroit; 2,3 and 1 runs to Cleveland; 2, 4 and 3 runs to Boston; and then 3,1,2,2 and 3 runs to Los Angeles. Say what you will about the offenses of the Tigers, Twins and Angels but that's 44 runs in 19 games (without allowing a single opponent to score five runs in a single game), when they needed it. That's just amazing.
None of those pitchers is close to the calibre of Clemens and Oswalt. Not even close.
You only have to lose to Clemens and Oswalt twice and you're out.
Of course, the Astros are dangerous. Nothing is set in stone.
It's just that pretty much any analysis goes out the window when it comes to looking at a short series.
The White Sox might lose to Oswalt 7 times out of 10 that they face him, but they're not facing him 10 times, they're facing him (at most) twice. All it takes is a misplay by one of his fielders behind him or a mistake that gets killed, and he loses.
The same codicil is true on the other side - the White Sox might beat Clemens and Oswalt three games out of four and still lose the series, if Buehrle gives up homers at the wrong time and Backe gets hot.
Anything at all can happen over the next four-to-seven games.
It may help that the Pujols homer did not lose the series for Houston. They were, however, only one out away from going to the Series.
Some guys seem to recover and go on to nice careers (Ralph Terry, Armando Benitez). Some do not (Mitch Williams, Donnie Moore.)
Most likely I'm making something out of nothing. Just thought it worth watching.
Go Sox!!!!
Dennis Eckersley
Some do not (Mitch Williams, Donnie Moore.)
Tom Niedenfuer
I'll take the Astros' starting pitching and I think the bullpens are close as long as the Astros starters go relatively deep into the games. The White Sox clearly have better pitching depth.
After all that though, I wouldn't be surprised with any outcome in this series.
In a low-run scoring environment - which this series is likely to be - the ability to score runs *quickly*, without the need for a long offensive sequence, is important. The White Sox out-homered the Astros by 39 during the regular season, with eight guys who will be playing in double-digits to the Astros' 6 (one of whom, Mike Lamb, will likely be sitting against Buehrle). That's where Chicago's offensive advantage resides.
-- MWE
That's actually the 3 year PF, not this years. MM is just a quirky park. Arguably the smallest park in baseball from foul pole to power alley and the largest park in baseball between the alleys (except maybe Denver).
Of course the Astros are likely to have a significant HFA in such unique park, but my random theory as to the PF is that our pitchers (using CF) and defenders (esp in left field) have taken better advantage of those quirks than our hitters. Makes some sense as pitchers initiate the action and hitters react. That would also explain why the PF has gone down every year as the pitchers (all around the league) have learned the park. Also, perhaps opposing hitters get taken out of their game by trying to pull everything to left.
Garcia vs. Backe should be the one game where one team is heavily favored, and that would be in favor of the White Sox. All the other games are practically toss-ups.
In terms of the vegas line I would expect a pick 'em at worst for Backe at MMP. I guess if someone actually remembers the lines against Thompson and Suppan it would probably be right in between those. The Astros were 0-3 (the small sample is part of the point) in cold weather games this year and are sending out a 43 year old with hamstring problems. Also they are generally very similar to the Angels offensively in style in that they really swing away. I'm more worried about those angles than Backe.
21 hours....
He'll be swarthed in those Ben-Gay stick ons that will keep him loose.
Clemens is better than any of them.
Warren Spahn?! Give me a frickin' break.
Fixed that for you.
Nearly everything said about the Astros could be said about the Sox. The Astros had a staff ERA+ of 118, which is mighty impressive. The Sox had 123.
With game 1 in the bag, and Clemens possibly out or at best, much less effective, the Sox have to be huge favorites now.
They've gotten lucky for sure, especially with injuries to the other team's key players. But their pitching is still lights out, Cotts and Jenks showed no rust (5 of 6 outs by K), the D is phenomenal, and they get just enough offense.
Clemens is better than any of them.
Really? I'll give you Spahn and Mathewson (even though they both won more games than Roger), but:
Johnson: 417 W, 5914 IP, 146 ERA+
Young: 511 W, 7354 IP, 138 ERA+
Grove: 300 W, 3940 IP, 148 ERA+
Clemens: 341 W, 4704 IP, 143 ERA+
You could maybe argue Rocket is better than one of them, but all three? Come on.
Clemens is (was? I sure hope he's not done) a great, great pitcher, one of the best ever. But to be in Johnson/Young's class he'll need about five more years like 2005...
Or pitch against blacks and during a much higher talented era. Oh.
Blacks also play defense and pitch, and would have been opponents and teammates of these players. I'll grant the eras are hard to compare, but the absence of blacks does not mean either that the numbers are bath water or that modern numbers get an automatic boost for the absence of a color line.
ERA+ is already an era-adjusted stat.
Another thing to consider is that Walter Johnson completed 80% of his starts and had over 130 career regular-season relief appearances. Roger Clemens has completed 17.5% of his starts and has one career regular-season relief appearances. The simple fact is that Johnson and Young were worked much harder than they'd ever dream of working Clemens, and they still dominated just as much as he did.
It's really hard to compare players, particularly pitchers, across eras - the game is completely different now. I'd say that just mentioning Clemens in the same breath with Johnson and Young is enough. There's no need to try to figure out if he's better.
If you want to acknowledge that pitchers are used much differently today, and that there are good reasons for this, then I would say Roger is the greatest ever for some of the reasons listed (integration) and some that haven't been mentioned (the MUCH livlier HR era.) But you have to admit that pitchers of today are in no way as valuable as pitchers from the early part of the 20th century.
Yes, they do get an automatic boost. The talent level - *the baseline* is higher.
No, it isn't. Not in the manner I am describing. For Johnson to dominate AAA with a 240 ERA+ is *NOT* equivalent to Clemens posting a 240+ in MLB.
The variability of players was much larger in the 1910s than it is today. It is easier to dominate under those circumstances.
Another thing to consider is that Walter Johnson completed 80% of his starts and had over 130 career regular-season relief appearances. Roger Clemens has completed 17.5% of his starts and has one career regular-season relief appearances. The simple fact is that Johnson and Young were worked much harder than they'd ever dream of working Clemens, and they still dominated just as much as he did.
No they didn't work as hard. They faced notably weaker hitters.
No, I don't. Of course they are valuable today. The game is harder.
Please note - I am only refering to the pre-1930s.
But you have to admit that pitchers of today are in no way as valuable as pitchers from the early part of the 20th century.
No, I don't. Of course they are valuable today. The game is harder.
Please note - I am only refering to the pre-1930s.
Maybe I better define what I mean by value. How much influence on winning and losing does a given player have? Pitchers who throw 100 to 150 more innings than whoever you are comparing them to, make a much larger contribution to their team's winning and/or losing.
That's all I meant by valuable.
Okay, but the extra 100+ innings they worked per season at least clouds the issue, doesn't it?
I think Clemens has a strong argument for the honor of "Best Pitcher Ever", but it's not as straightforward as you're making it out to be.
Also, I'm not convinced he is "the greatest" - but the arguemtn for him is strong. Is Bonds better than Williams? Does hte quality of opponent matter?
Different point. I don't have an informed opinion on the better level of play point. I recall you wrote a piece on it, right? With better baseline of defense, maybe Johnson pitches as well. Maybe his own level of performance is enhanced by modern advances in health, training, competition, etc.
I wonder what the impact of the racial composition point could be. If blacks improve the level of play, that's better offense, pitching and defense? The net impact on a great pitcher such as Johnson in terms of his greatness within his own context is unclear.
When Koufax or Carlton pitched well over 300 innings, they could do so because they always had at least one Hal Lanier and the opposing pitcher who they could ease up on. This does not change the fact that a team that gets 330 innings of Koufax quality pitching is getting a contribution to winning from their pitcher that is greater than the contribution the '98 Blue Jays got from Clemens when he threw 80 or 90 innings less.
This doesn't make Koufax the superior pitcher in my eyes just as it doesn't make Cy Young the superior pitcher because he trumped them all with over 400 innings a season.
But a man who throws 100 more innings over the course of a season is the more valuable to his team in that given season. Would Koufax be Koufax throwing 325 innings in 1997 or 2002? I say hell no! That is why the argument for Clemens being the greatest pitcher ever is a sound one, but you have to accept the caveat that no pitcher of today has the influence on winning and losing over the course of a full season that pitchers from the past had.
I still pick the Big Train as the greatest ever, but I wouldn't argue that it's not Roger. Roger is a very sound choice.
I assume you are arguing a different point. What Johnson did is easier to do under his circumstances than what Clemens did under his circumstances.
That Johnson may or may not have been just as great is teh different point. What Johnson did do, while all he could, simply wasn't as difficult to do.
Pete Maravich's scoring vs college players simply isn't as great Wilt's in the pros.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main