User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 11.4980 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
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.
because this playoffs he has sounded like a petulant little cry baby who makes the jeter worship by mccarver appear tame in comparison. All Espn analyst looked at w/l record only in their predictions, and when Keith was wrong he started all this "worse team in post season" crap. Everything the Cardinals has done has been a reason for him to cry about luck, bad play by the opposition, and heck he actually really believes Suppan is a '4th starter' You don't post 2.22 era in the second half being a 4th starter, you don't post a 120 era+ the previous season being a 4th starter.
If it's any consolation, most Red Sox fans were equally repulsed.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Harveys in 94.
Maybe we're just getting old.
I had a long discussion a few weeks ago with a friend who grew up in Europe, and we discussed the difference between American and European sports (particularly soccer). One of the themes is that American sports are generally optimistic -- you play to win. Soccer is pessimistic -- you play to tie, if you are inferior, or you play to gain a lead and then play not to lose.
Also, Americans in general believe in the power of redemption, and this is reflected in their sports. No team is ever out of it, there is always time for one last comeback or one last charge at the playoffs. Of course, eventually the season ends, but while it lasts, we like to keep hope alive for as many teams as possible.
So what? And why did you need this proof? The system has been broken for a long time. The people in charge broke it on purpose, and they knew damned well that they were breaking it. And so did we. Look, you've got a god-given right to ##### about anything at all that knots your shorts, but if you want my advice, just watch the games and hope you get to see something good here and there along the way.
Ok, I agree. That's not very predictive.
Not only is Suppan a 4th starter, he's a journeyman 4th starter.
Of course people understand this. Just as you seem to understand that "hope" in this context explicitly means that you don't have to be anywhere near the best team to win a WS. You just have to make it into the tourney, where anything can happen. Like you said, get in and you have a chance -- a chance of grabbing the brass ring, which is not the same thing as a chance of being the best. It may not be exactly the system that I would choose, but it's not an affront to nature either. OTOH, it really isn't that hard to understand why it wrankles a lot of folks.
Let's just play the season, seed the teams, and let everyone in for a single elimination tournament. Everyone should have the chance to win! Instead of the national anthem before every game, they can sing "One Moment in Time."
You just made a tone of #### lists, bud.
Not mine, of course.
European soccer rewards sustained regular-season excellence with championship hardware. Its "one shining moment" tournament where everyone in the country gets a chance is a completely separate competition.
Nah. Too simple. I'm thinking round robin pool play, with a bunch of obscure tie-breakers based on stuff like run differential after the seventh inning in night games against common opponents. Then a double elimination round and finally a best of three championship series, with all three games played on the same day.
What is the problem again?
I really do wonder about people around here. Is it mandatory that you complain about EVERYTHING? This is not meant as sarcasm. This is a legitimate question. What does it take for you to ENJOY something?
And don't give me some ham-handed breakdown of the teams and/or the Series in question. I know the participants, and I have been following the games. Tell me in simple terms what you expect from a World Series, or ANY spectacle, to walk away saying "I enjoyed that."
I'd much rather that they be played in the daytime in order to get a better overall brand of baseball, but other than that, I have no problems with this or any other World Series. I think some people here just want to can the real postseson or change it into some sort of a computer simulation. They're plssed off because they don't hold parades for Pythagorean pennant winners.
Getting old? Son, I got old some time ago. I was born in a year in which the Washington Senators made their final World Series apperance.
The World Series disappointing? How about 1994? As in NO World Series? THAT'S disappointing.
wow, totally wow. Seriously wow? what the heck is your definition of a number 1, number 2, number 3. (finishing in top 45 in era each of the past three seasons...and pitching 188+ innings each of those seasons isn't a number two? nor a number three? Your hatred is extreme)
Close and exciting games and/or my team winning.
Actually, before the series started, I thought the Cards were going to get dominated by Detroit's pitching and it would be a terribly boring series because the Cards were outclassed. The Cardinals have done everything they needed to do up to this point and deserve what they've got. But two of the games have been blowouts: Game 1 was over in the top of the 6th with a 7-1 lead; Game 3 might have been closer than it looked, but it still was a 5-0 victory.
This isn't an interesting series unless you are a big fan of one of the two teams. And if you're a Tigers' fan, it's probably pretty painful.
Completely and wholeheartedly agree that the bulk of the games be played during the day. If someone is going to insist that we have multiple playoffs at least throw us a bone by playing baseball under the autumn sun.
A pipedream with television networks calling the shots. But it would be a pleasant throwback.
Like this:
Dan Patrick: Hi there. I'm Dan Patrick.
Kenny Mayne: And I'm Kenny Mayne.
Dan Patrick: With the first seven months of the BASEketball postseason out of the way, the playoff picture is now starting to emerge.
Kenny Mayne: So, with last night's victory over Boston, next week the Beers must beat Indianapolis in order to advance to Charlotte. That's in an effort to reduce their magic number to three.
Dan Patrick: Right, and then the Beers can advance to the National Eastern Division North to play Tampa.
Kenny Mayne: So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, the two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.
Dan Patrick: Right.
Someone who doesn't bounce around through five organizations until he can get a permanent gig more because of his ability to eat innings than get people out. The guy's got a 4.60 career ERA and 1.41 career WHIP. His picture is permanently etched next to the term "journeyman" in the dictionary.
A pipedream with television networks calling the shots. But it would be a pleasant throwback.
The biggest problem with baseball these days is that it's totally in the control of people who don't really give a damn about anything else other than their bottom line. By this I mean most everyone: the owners, the players, and above all the networks.
All this is understandable and natural and makes perfect economic sense, but the inevitable byproduct of this insatiable greed is night games played in freezing rain on late October nights.
It does seem more than a bit melancholy, since in the 55 years I've been watching the World Series the game itself on the field has progressed enormously (thank you, Latin America and Asia), while at the same time nearly every year its presentation brings some new atrocity. It's as if the whole enterprise of baseball is involved in some cosmic zero-sum game.
And I know the counter-argument: No prime-time TV, less money, less buzz, less likelihood that you'll attract the same level of worldwide talent, etc., and inevitably the game on the field might regress to its 1952 levels, with all the talent concentrated in a handful of franchises and drawing from a much smaller base. I know you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle.
But the playing conditions of the postseason still stink, and there's no getting around it.
And if the Yankees or Red Sox lose in the first two rounds they get to come back into the quarterfinals anyway because everyone just loves watching them play.
It's been said a lot better by a lot of other people but I'm going to say it anyway:
I don’t think it’s possible to broadcast baseball worse than Fox broadcasts baseball. With essentially no exceptions every pitch sequence is close-up pitcher, close-up hitter, five crowd shots, three replays. After every hitter a reprise of pitch sequence. With essentially no exceptions, every wider shot is of the crowd waving towels. No context, no shots of the outfield or infield alignment, way too little attention to live action.
The talent is also sub-par, though I won't get personal and it's not their fault.
Doubt it.
If the World Series is not how you measure a season (and its champion), then leave it alone. Let sportswriters and otherwise-uninvolved citizenry celebrate the World Series winner, and be smug in your confidence that the best team was the Yankees / Mets / Twins / whatever.
But you can't sit here and actively complain that the Cardinals are going to win, because you are in essence implying that only the most worth team (however you define it) should be allowed to host the trophy. So why are you validating the playoffs at all? If you don't like that metric of determining championships - and nobody says you have to - just deny it. Just point to small sample sizes, or playoff crapshootery, or whatever mitigating circumstances you like, and say, "the playoffs are not valid, and the best team was the Yankees, because they won the most games in the tougher league." And stick by your guns. Don't let the playoffs or the World Series cloud your judgment. Don't make excuses for the Yankees - they lost in the playoffs. Simply saying, "well, they should've won" isn't good enough (it's why you play the games.)
So, no, the best team in baseball this year is not going to hoist the World Series trophy. So quit acting like the epithet "the best team in baseball this year" is up for grabs. The more you do, the more it looks like the Cardinals really are the best team in baseball, because they are taking home the trophy you are validating by your whinging.
--five weekend doubleheaders a year (REAL doubleheaders where you get 2 games for one price, not that come in, watch, get out, come back in bullsh*t)during the regular season
--play 162 games
--all weekend playoff games played during the day
--all World Series games played during the day
I dont' care if you use Excel's Go seek, Optquest, solver, SAS, SPSS, or some other funky optimization application. Just figure it out and get the answer to Bud.
MLB NEEDS YOUR HELP!!!
A way to keep everyone happy!
MLB Idol! People vote on the World Champions!
And, though not exclusive to Fox, frequent replays of what happened in the fourth inning, or Tuesday night, or in 1996. There are more different timelines in these broadcasts than in Memento or The Usual Suspects.
No.
IMHO, having the best overall record in your league during the regular season should be rewarded with a World Series berth, not merely a chance at a World Series berth. I don't see the World Series as a determinant of the "best" overall team, and I don't think it ever was. I see it as a showcase for champions, and champions should be the team that accomplished something over the six months of the regular season, not the team that accomplished something over two weeks in October.
gotcha, because this site is dedicated to praising GM's ability to recognize talent that they have, because everyone on this site has approved every move a gm has ever made, and none of them have made a mistake in their life. I understand now.
I mean we all know the vazquez, pavano and burkett signings were pure brilliance. (imagine for the cost of one years of any of those guys you could have had three years of suppan and 400 more innings pitched--exagerration for effect of course)
the guy isn't an ace, but to think he is a number 4 is just extremely radical, that means you really think there are 90+ pitchers out there that you feel had a better season than him this year, last year and the year before...just seems kinda radical to me.
The counter-counter argument is that 2-3 times as many eyeballs watched the WS on TV in 1980 as do today so why not make the WS on TV more like 1980 than less?
Part of the decline is the rise in choices - principally from zillions of cable channels and DVD's, but also home computer use, video games, and more. WE can't make those go away, so we'll never get most of those eyeballs back.
To me, "#4 starter" doesn't mean "worse than all the #1-2-3 starters in baseball;" it's more of a general term referring to where he'd fit in an average or better rotation. And yes, I think that's what Suppan is.
I'm also a little skeptical of veterans who don't find success until they get to St. Louis - will they be able to hold on to that success when they leave Dave Duncan?
Suppan's a 4 to me because I don't think his stuff (below-avg fastball, no plus pitch, can't/won't come inside to RHB) would play in the AL; he'd be a fifth starter, a variation on Josh Towers. The Cards deserve credit for getting so much production from him for a reasonable cost, but from a pure evaluation perspective, I don't see the argument that he's a 2 or a 3. CFB is pointing largely to his durability, which is valuable, but isn't a reflection of quality.
Pete Rose's hair would be a strong argument against this strategy.
Great, a way for Paula Abdul to nail Derek Jeter.
gotcha, because this site is dedicated to praising GM's ability to recognize talent that they have, because everyone on this site has approved every move a gm has ever made, and none of them have made a mistake in their life. I understand now.
Geez, cfb, are you easy to tweak or what?
Would those four seasons of ~105 ERA+'s in Kansas City reflect on Suppan's quality?
--Why in the name of all that is good and holy do folks keep throwing inside to Molina? The guy has the Disco Danny Ford open stance, he's begging to turn on a fastball inside half of the plate, and if you throw him ANYTHING but an inside fastball he pops up to left field.
--Is Carlos Guillen the modern day Vern Stephens?
--Does Preston Wilson swing the bat in only one plane?
--Does Polanco's teammates call him Pistachio? His pigmentation plus his head shape cry out for this nickname.
I'd guess the scouting report says he likes to slap the ball the other way.
Does Preston Wilson swing the bat in only one plane?
Yes.
That and the inside fastballs to Rolen. I mean, how many times does Rolen have to pull that pitch down the left field line before they stop doing it. The strange thing is how carefully they've pitched to Pujols, yet to Rolen and Molina, they've been grooving pitches.
Suppan: 107
Weaver (@STL): 85
Bedard: 120
Cabrera: 95
Benson: 94
Yeah, the Cards are pretty clearly better.
Which is exactly what I argued. I was saying that they didn't TOWER over the O's my statement doesn't look all that wronig especially since Weaver's ERA + doesn't include his AL performance.
But Rolen is a good hitter. Bonderman got inside last night and while Scott did drive Monroe to the track you have to come into his kitchen to keep him honest. It's just pretty clear right now that Rolen is locked in and no matter WHAT you throw him he has a chance to rip it somewhere. I think Scott has hit some real good pitches. Whatever they injected into his shoulder is some serious pixie dust. He's night and day relative to the dead hitter walking of mid-September when he was getting jammed on 83 mph fastballs.
Molina, however, is a different story. The guy is SITTING on inside fastballs. Period. That's it. End of story. If you do ANYTHING else he will get himself out.
There is no way Molina creams a 92 mph Bonderman fastball into the corner unless he is setting dead red from the get go. I have seen Yadier plenty and the young man hits like Roseanne Barr sings. Badly.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just hope you were complaining about this last year when the Cardinals had to play the Astros in a short series after the Cardinals beat the Astros by 10 games in their division during the regular season.
That's definitely the scouting report. Unfortunately that scouting report became outdated about a week ago.
It's interesting that on the homer he hit off Heilman to win the NLCS Yadi said he was sitting on a changeup, and that's what he got. Who sits on a changeup?
They'll be the worst team in history with 10 World Series wins.
AO
I most certainly was. I've got nothing against the Cardinals, per se.
I think you're underestimating how impressive a 143 ERA+ is. Bedard was closer to 100 than to Carpenter. That's a huge lead, and if you adjust for league quality, it's only an impressive lead.
Also, don't forget that the Orioles have a better closer and Loewen, who was probably a lot better than Weaver over the last couple months.
Actually Weaver's been pretty good over his last 6-7 starts, especially impressive given that many of them have come in the playoffs against teams like the Mets and Tigers.
What is unfortunate is that the Tigers have no chance of getting back.
Disagree. The Tigers still have a deeper staff. If Verlander can outpitch Weaver (which he should be able to), then they send it back to Detriot. Kenny Rogers is scheduled to pitch game 6, and he's been pretty doggone good this postseason. Then they have to figure out how to stop Chris Carpenter. That's a tough one, but his ERA was 3.09, not 0.00.
No, I don't think the Tigers will come back, but they certainly have something better than "no chance."
I think baseball's a lot more fun when you focus on all the stuff you don't know, instead of whining when the things you think you know don't always accurately predict reality. Statistically illiterate econometrics are run amok.
A-freakin'-men. I think an 83-win team taking the crown would be the coolest thing to happen to baseball since the Giambi-Mabry trade.
What about the Royals?
They gained when he removed their ace.
Worst overall starting rotation: The Nationals.
And the best.
What's unfortunate is people keep making absolute statements like this.
Harvey's, I understood this. But I fear that it was lost in the generation gap.
I look at the numbers as rankings of a guy in comparison to other starters in baseball.
number ones are top 30, etc.(with hedges based upon injuries and other personal opinions) Pretty much anyway you look at it, Suppan was a top 60 pitcher this year, was a top 40 pitcher the year before, was a top 60 pitcher the year before that, was probably top 70 even in kc...so you have a guy that routinely finishes among the top 60 pitchers in baseball yet he is a number four? I just don't get it. I mean prior is classified as an ace and hasn't pitched 25 games or so in a season in like three years(not looking it up right now)
if you want to talk talent level, that is a different story, but ranking of starters is three things to me, quality, reliability and projectability with confidence.
Suppan has been an above average starting pitcher for 4 consecutive seasons factor in his above average innings pitched/reliability and I just can't see him being a back of the rotation type of guy, at worse he is a number three, a borderline number two. How many teams have guys who post 105 era+ while posting 170+ innings as their number two?
Geez, cfb, are you easy to tweak or what?
I thought that was pretty common knowledge.
I just thought it was funny that as evidence of a guys point, that he pointed to things which are made fun of by a vast majority of this site(gms and their inability to sometimes recognize talent or value)
One of my favorite comments ever made on primer was when someone (forgot who) said that people who think league average players have no value are the stathead version of Skip Bayliss.
Starting pitchers, on the whole, have an ERA+ of 96. That's true of 2006 AL, 2006 NL, and 2005 AL. (Noticing a trend, I stopped checking after that).
Jeff Suppan is superior to that. He's been superior to that for about a decade. A better than average starter is, in fact, not a fourth starter. Suppan's a dependable, if unspectacular, second starter. On a strong rotation he'd make a very nice third starter.
His picture is permanently etched next to the term "journeyman" in the dictionary.
Journeymen isn't a synonym for fourth starter. Hell, a lot of teams don't even have a fourth starter. Many just have a revolving door. Find someone who can take the hill every fifth day and give you decent if unspectacular innings from the #4 hole is incredibly rare. How many of the 30 teams in baseball do you think had 4 starters with over 162 IP and an ERA+ over 100?
I don't get where this is coming from. The Tigers haven't been dominated and certainly could have won last night but for the slip and error. The Tigers have Verlander and Rogers going the next two games against Weaver and probably Reyes. One would have to give the Tigers the edge in those two matchups (unless Verlander's arm is really dead tired).
And, I've said it before and I'll keep saying in hopes to drive away the possibility, the last three times the Cardinals were up 3-1 in a best of seven series, they've lost the series. Clearly those teams have nothing to do with this team, but it's not like it's unpossible.
I interpreted this as the Tigers having no chance to get back to the Series next year. Or in the near future. IOW, they need to win this one, because they aren't getting another chance anytime soon. Which is probably true.
As whiners like me have said, the Cardinals have nothing to apologize for, winning under the same system that has screwed them in the past.
I'd like to take issue with this statement too. I guess "journeyman" is a subjective term, but I think it more accurately portrays a player who goes from team to team as a filler. Suppan is coming off a three year, $9M deal. Suppan was traded by the Pirates in a deadline deal as a player the Red Sox believed would help them get over the edge. He was with the Royals for four years and pitched over 200 innings each year. He's not flashy, he's not an ace, he's pretty close to average, he wants Michael J. Fox to die, but he's no journeyman.
I said it in another thread - no team's window of opportunity is largely open. I think the Tiggs have a better chance than the Cards of going back to the WS in the next few years.
C: McCarver (forget the actual post-season, we know what kind of hitter Molina is):
1B: Pujols. If Chris Duncan plays OF now, if McCovey played OF in SF, then neither Pujols nor Cepeda is moving off 1B.
2B: Javier, I guess. It's not a conspicuous strength either way. Can't even do that convincing of a platoon, but be aware that Javier has a big platoon split - he's the one you want vs. LHP.
3B: Rolen
SS: Eckstein. Maxvill may have had an anomalously good year in '68, but Eckstein is the better hitter, and while he may not be Maxvill with the glove (who is?), he can survive.
LF: Brock. And we go ahead and have Brock bat leadoff.
CF: Flood
RF: Edmonds. (The better glove in CF, the better bat in RF). Neither team's RF combinations are worth keeping in the starting lineup.
DH (when available): Cepeda
LHPH: Duncan (or maybe Roger Maris)
2nd C: Johnny Edwards (sorry, Yadier)
IF/PH: Scott Spiezio?? (better him than Ed)
UT IF/ defensive replacement: Maxvill
UT OF/defensive replacement: Bobby Tolan (better all-around than Taguchi)
SP #1: Gibson, of course.
SP #2: Carpenter
SP #3: Carlton. Note, however, that Carlton only had a 97 ERA+ in '68. He was better in surrounding years.
SP #4: Ray Washburn?
Long relief/swing start: Nelson Briles. But Weaver, Suppan, or Reyes could figure as well.
Co-closer, R/L: Wainwright/Hoerner
Setup: Ron Willis, although he didn't have a good year in '68.
The team's got stronger points and weaker points- they're not wall-to-wall solid. But any team with Gibson in the #1 starter spot is a threat.
It's hard to understand why people waited to bring it up until the Cardinals were up 3-1, when it was obvious that neither the Cardinals or the Tigers were the best team during the regular season?
Is it just pissy NY fans? That would explain a lot.
But in general I'm surprised that people feel that having the Tigers lose to the Cardinals is a tragedy, yet having a two seed lose to a 15 seed is what makes the NCAA tournament so great.
European soccer rewards sustained regular-season excellence with championship hardware. Its "one shining moment" tournament where everyone in the country gets a chance is a completely separate competition.
Which was my point. Slow, patient, workmanlike efforts are what should be rewarded, not brief flashes of brilliance. American fans, however, tend to the latter view. At least, everywhere but here.
Carpenter is clearly superior over Bedard but after that pair there's not a huge difference.
Actually Weaver's been pretty good over his last 6-7 starts, especially impressive given that many of them have come in the playoffs against teams like the Mets and Tigers.
Don't forget that Loewen was actually very respectable the last two months of the season. And all of his starts came against playoff teams excpet for two starts against the TB. That's 9 starts all against playoff teams.
I believe I heard the same thing about the Astros in 2004, with Beltran a mercenary headed to New York (wrong team) and Clemens likely to retire.
I haven't thought enough about how the Cards' & Tigers' chances of returning to the WS compare to each other, but I don't think the Tigers are too bad off at all. Decent young pitching (with a few more promising minor leaguers in the wings), a passable offense, an owner willing to overpay for free agents if necessary, and Dave Dombrowski getting a chance to maintain a winning team rather than run a going-out-of-business sale...I'll take those odds.
So yes, the Cardinals are in the driver's seat and have looked eons better than the Tigers in these last few games (I know the last game was close, but the Cards certainly seemed more comfortable). But TLR needs to give Weaver an extremely short leash (keeping in mind, that theoretically the bullpen will have no rest days).
The Tigers need a rain delay to make Rogers into this year's Mickey Lolich, using pine tar instead of doughnuts.
Good point. I also forgot to mention how much I liked Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me."
During his tenure with the Cardinals, Suppan has generally bounced around between being their second and fourth most effective starter. I would have no problem with a guy like him in my team's rotation, but as you note, I'd be a lot happier with him as my #3 than as my #2. Calling him a "fourth starter" is a bit of hyperbole to be sure, but hyperbole is a legitimate rhetorical device, and it's really not a particularly outlandish statement. If he were a Tiger, he might be the fifth starter. But that says more about Verlander, Bonderman, Rogers and Robertson than it says about Suppan.
Which was my point. Slow, patient, workmanlike efforts are what should be rewarded, not brief flashes of brilliance. American fans, however, tend to the latter view. At least, everywhere but here.
Except that European soccer largely is a battle of the wallets.
Huh?
They didn't.
Is it just pissy NY fans?
It's not.
1. As others have said, I think it's important NOT to forget that the Cardinals went 83-78 in part because they were running Ponson, Marquis and Mulder out there, and Isringhausen was having trouble. Those guys are gone right now, replaced by better pitchers.
2. Suppan pitched well down the stretch, and Weaver was showing signs of righting himself, too. Given LaRussa/Duncan's track record with 30something SPs, this was not unexpected.
3. People (including me) tend to look at the regular season record as a locked, indelible read of team quality. But teams are fluid entities and a 162-game sample is not a one million game sample. So, the constant 83-win refrain isn't really relevant, except to some extent in the playoff system discussion. The team the Cardinals have on the field TODAY, is, I think, a 90-93 win team--not a strong WS team, but not a joke, either.
4. To their credit, I have not heard many of the hardcore Tiger fans I have seen around here complaining, but if you are going to complain about the system, complain about the Tigers, too. I think the Tigers have proven, clearly, that they are as good as, if not better than, the other top teams in the AL and deserve to be here. That said, they choked down the stretch and blew it. You could argue that if there were no wild-card the last third of the season and the KC series would have been played differently, but you could also say the Tigers backed in due to a "broken" system. We are not talking about a 110-52 powerhouse here.
5. As I learned in the 1990 series, when everyone told me the A's would crush the Reds, and again in the 2004 Series, when it seemed likely the Red Sox and Cardinals would play 6 or 7 tough games for the title, matchups are often more importnat in post-season play than W-L record. This series illustrates that as well.
C: Freehan, although Pudge is a possible alternate and might be an interesting debate. No worries about a 2nd catcher.
1B: Cash
2B: Polanco, I think.
SS: Hmmm...Carlos Guillen or Ray Oyler? Guillen.
3B: Inge
LF: Monroe or Horton? Flip a coin.
CF: Stanley over Granderson, I think.
RF: Kaline over Ordonez, I think.
DH: Horton, Kaline/Ordonez, Northrup
PH: DHs plus Gates Brown, Thames, Casey...we're good here.
util IFs: McAuliffe, Oyler (defensive)
util OF: Granderson as defensive replacement
SP: McLain
SP: Lolich
SP: Rogers
SP: Bonderman
spot: Robertson, Verlander
closer: John Hiller, maybe Todd Jones
set-up: Rodney, Zumaya, Walker (I'm not sold on the '68 Tigers bullpen)
I like their chances.
It's not.
I don't know about Yankee fans, but Mets fans have been anything but pissy the last two weeks. In spite of what they taught us Cardinal fans in elementary school, maybe they're actually decent human beings (thinks about Rob Base) or maybe it's easier when you know you're on the way up.
I don't think they're too bad off either, but their offense has been pretty badly exposed by the Cardinals. And they're really not that young either. The only regular position player on that team who is a reasonable bet to improve is Granderson. The pitching should be fine for a good while barring injury or trading away too much of it for offense, but Dombrowski's got work to do. If they stand pat in that division, they won't be back unless somebody else does some backsliding. And if Dombrowski replaces popular players who were part of this year's magic, it'd better work out or he's gonna get killed by the fans.
THEN THINKING MIGHT NOT BE YOUR STRONG POINT!!! LOOKING AT "AVERAGE" TEAMS (AND THE CARDS REGULAR SEASON RECORD, BY DEFAULT, PUTS THEM IN THIS GROUP) I THINK YOU'LL HAVE A TOUGH TIME CONVINCING FOLKS THAT SUP IS A WORSE PITCHER THIS YEAR THAN MARQUIS (STL), EDINSON VOLQUEZ (TEX), OSCAR VILLAREAL (ATL), JASON HIRSH (HOU), KYLE LOSHE (CIN), LENNY DINARDO (BOS), GUSTAVO CHACIN (TOR), AND AT THIS POINT IN HIS CARREER, JAMIE MOYER (PHI)....
INTERESTING TO NOTE: THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE CARDS WERE PICKED BY ESPN ANALYSTS TO BE IN THE W.S. IN PRE-SEASON PROGNOSTICATION... MORE THAN ANY OTHER TEAM.... DELPHI ANALYSIS IT AIN'T, BUT IT'S INTERESTING...
My guess is they're not going to do anything to change your mind.
For a guy who's not a journeyman, he certainly has journied a lot.
Please...one Vaux is enough.
Happy birthday, comrade.
Game 7 of the 2001 WS was played on my son's seventh birthday. It was the first time he stayed awake for an entire WS game. When the game ended the way it did... well, he cried like a seven year-old, but everybody was just fine in the morning.
Watch the game. Whatever happens, you'll get over it.
Maybe everybody else already knew this, but BRef shows Suppan's most similar at ages 25 and 26 as Carpenter!
http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/suppaje01.shtml
Their career shapes changed a bit after that. Suppan was the number one starter for the Royals, but of course this doesn't make him a major league #1 starter. Suppan's lifetime ERA+ is 101.
I interpreted this as the Tigers having no chance to get back to the Series next year. Or in the near future. IOW, they need to win this one, because they aren't getting another chance anytime soon. Which is probably true.
I don't really think so; Detroit best players are all in either their early or at most late twenties.
Look at the pitching staff; minus Rogers, the ages go 23,28,23,24.
And you've got a 21-year-old Joel Zumaya as your future closer.
You'll be back a hell of a lot sooner than the Cardinals; our team's based around Albert Pujols and a bunch of old guys (compared to DET.)
Looking it up then .. .
In 2006 Jeff Suppan posted a 107 ERA+ in 190 IP. Here's how many teams got at least 162 IP and an ERA+ of 100 from their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th best pitchers (please note the standards 162/100 are considerably lower than what Suppan actually did):
Ace: 26 teams at least 162/100
#2 pitcher: 19 teams
#3 pitcher: 6 teams
#4 pitcher: 1 team
#5 pitcher: 0 teams
It gets even better -- of the six teams who were 162/100 in the #3 slot, four of them actually weren't as good as Suppan. San Diego (Peavy), Anaheim (Santana), Cleveland (Lee), and the ChiSox (Garcia) all had a third starter with an ERA+ between 100-106.
Actually, the second starter for Cleveland, Westbrook, could only match Suppan's 107 ERA+, and Chicago's 2nd starter, Garland, was worse than Suppan.
He gives you what most teams get from their #2 starter (only 13 teams had an ERA+ of 107 or better from the #2 hole, and St Louis was one of those 13) and is demonstratably superior to most teams' third starter.
Saying he's a fourth starter is just stathead Skip Baylissism.
Are you saying that their best players are the pitchers? 'Cause if that's not what you're saying, you're wrong. The Tigers had 13 players who got more than 100 ABs this year. Only four of them will be under 30 next season. The only guy who could even be in the discussion of best position player on the team who is under 30 this year is Granderson.
Happy game 5 everyone.
Looking it up then .. .
What's your take on the league differences point (i.e. Suppan's ERA+ would be very different in the AL)?
It would take a very significant league/schedule adjustment to accomodate that much of a difference. Swap those two teams and the Cardinals still finish ahead of the Orioles.
That is a bit misleading, as Guillen and Polonaco are both 30. I know you did not chose the end points, but they are both in their primes.
Also, as I am an optimist, I am hoping that Shelton, being only 26, gets things back together and improves.
1982 WS Champion Cardinals: barely beat weak Milwaukee team minus Rollie Fingers, and the Brewers fliked their way past the Angels in the ALCS despite a team OPS of just .636, hitting just .219 vs. the Angels .255. Verdict: Lame competition compromises legitimacy of title.
1967 WS Champion Cardinals: barely outlast tired, emotionally beat-up Cinderalla Red Sox in 7-game series, despite winning 101 regular-season games (albeit in a clearly inferior NL). Cardinals hit just .223 in series, losing twice to a dentist. Verdict: Lack of convincing pasting suggests team is weaker than its record indicates (similar to '04 Cards), and that the Red Sox, who overcame so much, were more-deserving of the title.
1964 WS Champion Cardinals: against 99-win AL champ Yankees, upstart Cardinals use fluke error/Grand Slam combo to score their only runs in 4-3 series-turning win in Game 4. Verdict: Just as in the current Series, the Cardinals get all the lucky breaks. The Cardinals didn't win this series---the Yanks just lost it.
1946 WS Champion Cardinals: against the 104-win Red Sox, the Cardinals again fluke out a 1-run Game 7 win as "Pesky holds the ball." Verdict: When a series is best known for the goat who blew it, you can't really give the other team too much credit. Hardly a convinving champion.
1944 WS Champion Cardinals: World War II---nuff said. If that doesn't convince you, remember that they faced the St. Louis Browns. Verdict: A joke, and with the entire country making sacrifices, not a very funny one.
1942 WS Champion Cardinals: See 1944 above. Verdict: see 1944.
1934 WS Champion Cardinals: another match-up against the Tigers, who, after 9 straight 4th-place-or-worse finishes, shock the world and make it to the series. Verdict: Worst 7-game series ever, as boring 11-0 blowout win in finale leaves critics clamoring to "fix the system."
1931 WS Champion Cardinals: After being dominated by the powerhouse 107-win AL Champion A's in Games 1, 4 and 6, scoring a total of just three runs, the Cardinals continue their weasely tradition of having to rely on fluky errors by a superior team to prevail in unconvincing fashion: their two 1st-inning runs (the margin of victory) in Game 7 score on a wild pitch and an error. Verdict: the sloppy Game 7 win is hardly enough to outshine the luster of the A's regular-season brilliance over 154 games, and the consensus among knowledgeable fans is that Connie Mack's team is still better.
1926 WS Champion Cardinals: ridiculous 89-win St. Louis team makes it to the series---its first ever---with the fewest wins ever by a WS team in a full-length season. In probably the flukiest, luckiest, weaseliest Game 7 win ever, the Cardinals score all three of their runs when the Yankees make two errors, and then, with Bob Meusel up and Lou Gehrig on deck and the Yanks down by a run, Babe Ruth misreads a sign and is caught stealing to end the series. Verdict: the Cardinals establish the template for their brand of World Series title: lucky undeserved wins over better teams, unless they happen to be playing a crappy team (see '44, '82) that hardly represents any kind of real challenge needed to define a True Chmpion.
KEITH LAW-ISM???!!!
The problem is the system MLB has set up that decides which teams get the chance to take advantage of the "that's baseball" phenomenon.
Nobody is saying that the O's are better than the Cards.
It would take a very significant league/schedule adjustment to accomodate that much of a difference.
I think that's sort of the point. The difference between the two leagues seem to be pretty significant. Put the Cards in the AL East, and the O's in the NL Central, and I don't know if the Cards finish with a record above .500.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main