And how long has it been since the best team won the World Series? The Yankees in 2009 might have been the best team. The Red Sox in 2004 probably were, though the Cardinals were close

I think that the Red Sox in 2007 were as comprehensive a champion as we've had in a while. Tied for the best record in the majors, and taken to seven in the ALCS by the team they were tied with, but otherwise clearly superior.

For this year, why not the Giants? They won 94 games in the regular season, after all; it's not like they came out of nowhere. They can "beat you in a lot of ways": power, defense, manufacturing runs, fine pitching (though with some puzzling off-years like Lincecum's). It was a very close season, with as many as ten teams not much behind whoever was best.

I'd bet this will have been the lowest-rated WS in history

Isn't it always?

Here's the latest version of the "World Series on FOX sucks, ain't nobody watching" story.

Both the Astros in '05 and the Tigers, in this edition, assumed a pitiful posture, seemingly overwhelmed by both the moment and the opposing pitching staffs.

Sorry, but this is just uniformed. Anyone who has watched the Tigers knows this is par for the course. They can be very good offensively, yet turn around and show ineptitude just like this (see losing 6 of 7 against the Royals, Angels, and White Sox, never scoring more than 2 runs in the losses). The fact is that Detroit is a good but flawed team. They were only 11th in runs this year. The idea that they were overwhelmed by the moment is just silly.

My big irritation is the "experts" calling this a upset. SF is also a good team, and I thought they were pretty evenly matched. I think the Tigers were favored because people assumed that sweeping the Yankees (even though they are not the Yankees people think they are) meant something more than it did. I thought it was pretty insulting to SF.

Congrationaltions to the Giants. Great season.

This is the least engaged I've been in a baseball season since 1982, when I became a baseball fan. As a lifelong Red Sox, one can probably understand why I've just wanted to look away from the hometown implosion that was the 2012 Red Sox.

However, in the past, I've turned some of my "Red Sox" bandwidth to other baseball team or stories. In 2012, that has not been the case.

I think the most interesting team of 2012 was probably the Washington Nationals. Between Harper, Strasburg, Gonzalez, the whole return of playoff baseball to Washington, the rebuilding of the franchise, etc., it was a very entertaining story to follow all year. The problem there: once Strasburg was shut down, you got the sense that the playoff version of the Nats was different enough from the regular-season version to dramatically lower their chances of winning it all.

The Orioles were a good story, I guess, but they were such a statistical outlier that I still don't take them seriously. They should gone about .500, and outside of having an excellent bullpen, this team was not much better than, say, Toronto. Tampa is a lot better than Baltimore.

I wondered what it would be like to see a Triple Crown winner in my lifetime, as I was not born when Yaz did it in '67. Cabrera's effort, while extremely impressive, did not captivate me whatsoever. He's not a compelling personality or player, and he is - in my opinion - obviously neither the best player of 2012, nor the most valuable "property" in baseball. If you were building a team for 2013, would he be one of the first five guys you'd pick?

The most important, lasting story of 2012 is summed up in two words: Mike Trout. What he did was truly singular and amazing.

The last three games were 2-0, 2-0, 4-3. The other game was historic in that it included three home runs by one player. What exactly are you complaining about? Need more dingers?

I agree. As I mentioned at the beginning of the game 4 chatter, I like low-scoring games, I like pitching, and I really enjoyed watching the series (even if it was on starting after midnight here). For me, this has been one of the more fun seasons in general in recent memory (especially the last couple of months), even with the fact that my Cubs were really, really awful for pretty much the whole year (clarification EDIT: obviously, I've had more fun with the Cubs recently, but not in general in baseball). Opinions diverge, though, clearly (*looks at post directly above*).

For this year, why not the Giants? They won 94 games in the regular season, after all

Absolutely. Division winner. Win total within a game or two of best in the game. They aren't cheap in any way.


As to the Triple Crown being captivating, I'd never considered it - since I, too, had never seen one - but, of course, it isn't captivating. You can't really know until the last week or two if the guy will even be in those three races and, by then, you have the larger, and much more important, narrative of the pennant races. It's really cool and I'm glad he did it. But I can't see a way that becomes something upon which to hang a season.

The Giants are a better and more complete team than the Tigers. I'm not sure we needed the "World Series" to know that.

So was the best series Detroit-Oakland, Cards Nats, Giants-Reds, or Yankees -O's? I only saw all the games for Detroits -As, and the last one was no nail biter. I saw a bunch of the Giants -reds, but I don't remember them being real close either apart from game 3. I guess it's down to Yanks -O's and Cards-Nats... But the bad guys won those series.

I will say this though, the party's in the street last night in my neighborhood were pretty impressive. Bars giving everyone champagne, and some crazy 300 lb dudes with over 30 minutes of fireworks. One sent flaming sparks right over my head.

Good times.

For four game sweep, that was a pretty fun series. Tigers should be just as good next year, and they'll have Victor Martinez back.

For four game sweep, that was a pretty fun series.

Right. There is just a limit to as how fun and exciting a sweep can be.

I wouldn't say I didn't enjoy it - it's baseball and the last we'll see for awhile. It's just that I could have enjoyed it more.

For this year, why not the Giants? They won 94 games in the regular season,

\

...in the tougher league. :)

If you were building a team for 2013, would he be one of the first five guys you'd pick?

Assuming no pitchers:
Trout
McCutchen
Harper
Braun
Posey

Any other candidates? I'd take Cabrera over Tulo, Castro, Hanley, Longoria, Pedroia, Mauer, probably Cano. Miggy's durable, consistent, and still in his prime.

One reason the series wasn't that much fun is the lack of sustained rallies. It seemed like every run was scored on a home run which was followed one minute later by the end of the inning.

The last game was the only one it seemed like the Tigers might win, and, you know, their hopes were already mostly gone.

I think the Tigers were favored because people assumed that sweeping the Yankees (even though they are not the Yankees people think they are) meant something more than it did.

I think the Tigers were favoured because they had better starting pitchers. They would still have been favoured if the ALCS had gone to seven games.

EDIT: And three of those starting pitchers did fairly well against the Giants.

Sorry, but this is just uniformed ... The idea that they were overwhelmed by the moment is just silly.

Yeah. To paraphrase Buck Showalter, you guys just don't understand how hard this is, do you?

The fact is that Detroit is a good but flawed team.

All the good teams this year were also flawed. That's what balance looks like.

My big irritation is the "experts" calling this a upset. SF is also a good team, and I thought they were pretty evenly matched. I think the Tigers were favored because people assumed that sweeping the Yankees (even though they are not the Yankees people think they are) meant something more than it did. I thought it was pretty insulting to SF.

I think it was more a case of the "experts" thinking that Verlander was unbeatable, meaning that the series was just a matter of winning two out of five for the Tigers. Had Verlander dominated game 1 and games 2-4 gone the same way, a lot of "experts" would be talking about the Giants 3-1 lead being pretty tenuous this morning.

Had Verlander dominated game 1 and games 2-4 gone the same way, a lot of "experts" would be talking about the Giants 3-1 lead being pretty tenuous this morning.

I agree with this completely. We'd be hearing about how Cabrera was now going to bust loose, and once that happened, Fielder would likely follow suit. The Tigers are at home, Verlander is pitching, they were only down by 2 runs with the same pitchers in games 2 and 3, etc.

Sweeps since the playoffs expanded in 1969: 2012, 2007, 2005,2004, 1999,1998, 1990,1989, 1976. Pre-1989 it was rare

Sweeps in 27,28,32, 38, 39 all by the same team. good times, those.

I'm surprised to learn that the 7 (or so) most boring World Series of all time all happened to take place over the past 15 years. What were the odds?!?

The player's union would never allow it, and if they did, somebody would get hurt, and that would be the end of that.

In 1946, this is essentially what happened. The Red Sox had to wait for the outcome of the Cardinals/Dodgers pennant playoff and to stay sharp they scheduled some exhibitions against a team of AL All-Stars. In the second of those games, Ted Williams was hit on the elbow by Washington pitcher Mickey Haefner, and although Williams always denied that it impacted his WS performance, he did hit poorly in the Series, especially against St. Louis's left-handers.

-- MWE

Let's see: weren't excited by the chance that a hitter actually came up to the plate in a game with a chance to do something never done before in a WS (hit 4 HR in a game)?

Put off by the fact that the team with the most wins in either league didn't wind up in the WS (as if this has never happened since the creation of divisional play)?

Bored by tense, low-scoring pitching duels because there's not enough "action"?

Grinding one's teeth because your team continues to underperform frustratingly in the WS?

Or just needing a way to spread a little ill will as we go off into the long, cold night of the off-season?

The Tigers absolutely needed to win Game 3. The historical record indicates that (the Red Sox miracle in '04 notwithstanding) you are doomed if you go down 0-3. In the WS, only three teams who've been down 0-3 have managed to win Game 4 and none of them were able to win Game 5. It is what it is, and we await another glorious exception.

It would have been nicer to have a longer WS--it's always worth it when it comes down to Game 7. Being deprived of those three games is always disappointing.

I actually prefer sweeps where the losing team is throughly demolished, like the '07 Rockies,

The 2007 World Series was actually an awful lot like this one: A blowout in Game One, followed by close games in the next three. Two of the last three games were one-run losses, and the other one was 6-5 in the eighth, before the Red Sox pulled away.

Cabrera's effort, while extremely impressive, did not captivate me whatsoever. He's not a compelling personality or player

Are you thinking of Jolbert Cabrera or something? Daniel Cabrera? Cause you can't be talking about Miguel Cabrera here.

Back-to-back shutouts, for the first time since 1966. Utterly inept hitting. A pervasive sense of gloom. Need more?

Time to do away with steroid testing so we can get back to 90's levels of offense, apparently...

I think it was more a case of the "experts" thinking that Verlander was unbeatable, meaning that the series was just a matter of winning two out of five for the Tigers. Had Verlander dominated game 1 and games 2-4 gone the same way, a lot of "experts" would be talking about the Giants 3-1 lead being pretty tenuous this morning.

And it would still be ill-informed. If Verlander dominates in game 1, the Tigers at best win 1-0, and still could have lost that game. The problem was not the Tiger pitching, it was their hitting. Offensively, the Tigers are just not that good.

Cabrera's effort, while extremely impressive, did not captivate me whatsoever. He's not a compelling personality or player

I don't get this at all. For the last 9 years, Miggy's been one of the most durable and consistently awesome hitters in MLB. He continues to do what he does every year without fail, while playing almost every game, switching positions, gaining 150 pounds, etc. I'd put him on a very short list of the most impressive hitters I've ever seen. And I'm glad that when the Triple Crown was finally won, it was done by a perennial contender for the accomplishment rather than a flukishly great season by a lesser hitter (like it may have been if Kemp had won it last year).

So who won the WS MVP? I'm guessing Pablo. Did he do anything outside of the first game? I really have idea because I haven't been paying attention and for a moment there I thought it was Miguel who hit 3 home runs.

And it would still be ill-informed.

Yep. Just differently-ill-informed.

So who won the WS MVP?

Panda.

EDIT:

Did he do anything outside of the first game?

4-for-12 with a walk; no runs or rbi.

Are you thinking of Jolbert Cabrera or something? Daniel Cabrera? Cause you can't be talking about Miguel Cabrera here.

Daniel Cabrera was pretty compelling in his day.

I haven't seen any mention of it, but 2012 put Miguel Cabrera into the Hall of Fame, right? He's got ten seasons under his belt now, and I think he passes the bus test. This year will mark the sixth time in ten years that he's in the Top Five for the MVP vote. He's not exactly a poor man's Albert Pujols - maybe a mortal Albert Pujols is the best way to look at it.

Cabrera has gotten MVP votes every single year of his career, with the streak at ten as of this year's voting. What's the most consecutive seasons from the start of one's career to be mentioned in the MVP voting? DiMaggio had 12. Williams had 10, broken only by the 1952 season where he played only six games; he even got votes in 1953, when he played in 37 games. Pujols is at 11, but I imagine he'll probably break the string this year.

I think Cabrera is a great and interesting player. I just think there can be no real build up to the Triple Crown. No one really talked him up much up until three or so weeks left. By which time we were all paying a lot more attention to division and wild card races. Notably, Detroit wrapped up a little earlier than the others. Not to mention he took the lead with a week or more left and never let go. It just wasn't terribly compelling in the way that we imagine it to be. My guess is none of the others were, either.

tom

hank had votes in 19 straight seasons

but not from the start of his career.

I haven't seen any mention of it, but 2012 put Miguel Cabrera into the Hall of Fame, right? He's got ten seasons under his belt now, and I think he passes the bus test. This year will mark the sixth time in ten years that he's in the Top Five for the MVP vote. He's not exactly a poor man's Albert Pujols - maybe a mortal Albert Pujols is the best way to look at it.

I remember watching Cabrera hit homers in the 2003 postseason with the Marlins and hearing people say that he's going to be the next Manny Ramirez, so that's always the comp that sticks in my mind - a more durable Man-Ram without the failed PED tests. That puts Miggy in the "near-lock" category for the HOF, no?

2012 put Miguel Cabrera into the Hall of Fame, right?

Here's a quick bus list for Cabrera, similar hitters ranked by WAR Fielding Runs. There aren't many similar careers because players that good tend to stick around a lot longer:



The cases of Strawberry and Belle would seem to indicate that it's not a guarantee that a player that good would waltz into the HOF if hit by the bus. Both of their careers were hit by injury and illness, and though they wouldn't win any citizenship awards either, they weren't given much sympathy by HOF voters for careers truncated through no fault of their own. Flick was, though only in his extreme old age, as a Veteran's selection.

Why not just wait for the rest of his career before trying to figure it out?

Miggy's personal life is a little rough around the edges, but he comes to play every day and rakes.

#79 Pujols had the worst season of his life but still went 30 HRs/100 RBI. I've gotta think he'll get some down-ballot votes.

As to the Triple Crown being captivating, I'd never considered it - since I, too, had never seen one - but, of course, it isn't captivating. You can't really know until the last week or two if the guy will even be in those three races and, by then, you have the larger, and much more important, narrative of the pennant races. It's really cool and I'm glad he did it. But I can't see a way that becomes something upon which to hang a season.

Cabrera is a player who does everything, hitting wise, to an outstanding level but is not otherworldly/notable at any one particular facet. He wasn't a monster home run hitter who lucked into a high average, or a high average medium power guy who uncharacteristically hit a lot of home runs. He did what he always does and kind of just got their by default because no one was better at any of the individual facets to beat him. Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that while an outstanding player, Cabrera just isn't that interesting in any way.

Why not just wait for the rest of his career before trying to figure it out?


Because the World Series just ended and there is nothing else to do for the next five months :)

ha, fair enough!

The cases of Strawberry and Belle would seem to indicate that it's not a guarantee that a player that good would waltz into the HOF if hit by the bus.

We all love Darryl Strawberry, but I don't think he's a very good comp. For one thing, 13 points of OPS+ is kind of a lot. For another, Strawberry's weakness as an offensive player was has batting average, which isn't a good weakness to have if you want to get into the Hall of Fame. Cabrera is, to this point, outhitting Strawberry by 60 points of BA. (Note too that Miggy already has more plate appearances than Strawberry would get in his entire career.)

Belle is a better comp, but then again, Cabrera is not the Most Hated Man in Baseball.

Belle is a better comp, but then again, Cabrera is not the Most Hated Man in Baseball.

No, but he's not Kirby Puckett either. A career ending injury would most likely leave Cabrera on the outside looking in. All he needs to do is play pretty well for several more years, but I don't think he's a dead lock yet.

Besides, while Miggy had high expectations, I don't think they were as high as Strawberry's. People don't think back to Strawberry's career and think he was very good, maybe great, they think, damn, he should have been Willie Mays.

Sorry, but this is just uniformed

I thought all the teams had to wear uniforms.

We all love Darryl Strawberry, but I don't think he's a very good comp. For one thing, 13 points of OPS+ is kind of a lot

True; he's on the list because I had to keep widening the range even to get seven careers as comps. His defense and speed do make up some of the gap, I reckon, but Cabrera has 44 WAR right now to Strawberry's total 39. That gap would be narrower if we zeroed out the "years" where Strawberry had considerable negative WAR in a handful of games. Opinions differ on whether one should do that in judging players, I know, but one might not think it matters too much that Tommy Lasorda gave Strawberry 100 AB to hit .140 in 1993, any more than if Strawberry had played in the indie minors or not at all that year.

Fortunately the odds are great that no bus will hit Cabrera, and he'll pull down another 35 HR and 120 RBI next year, and move into a different part of the bus :)

Cabrera is a player who does everything, hitting wise, to an outstanding level but is not otherworldly/notable at any one particular facet. He wasn't a monster home run hitter who lucked into a high average, or a high average medium power guy who uncharacteristically hit a lot of home runs. He did what he always does and kind of just got their by default because no one was better at any of the individual facets to beat him.

That's actually what I DO find interesting about him though. He didn't just have a Triple Crown season; he's a Triple Crown type of player. This was a pretty typical season for him (well, the homers and rbi's were career highs, but not by much). According to OPS+, he was a better hitter in each of the last two seasons.

To me, winning the TC just seems a little more legit when it's won by a player who's always amongst the league leaders in all 3 categories rather than if it were done by someone having a career year that's well beyond his normal level of performance, like say Fred Lynn in 1979 or Adrian Beltre in 2004 (though Beltre's performance the last few years has started to make that season look at least slightly less flukey).

The WS and LCS weren't super exciting, but the LDS round was the most exciting we've had yet. I also really like the play-in game and the consequences it added to losing the division- the A's running down the Rangers was HUGELY exciting and mainly because of the play-in game.

the A's running down the Rangers was HUGELY exciting and mainly because of the play-in game.

I guess people will never stop saying this, facts be damned. Without the second WC the losers of the east and west division races would have been facing the very real possibility of missing the playoffs completely. And ofc ourse, as it turned out the losers of those two divisions finished with identical records and would have played a tie-breaker anyway. I don't doubt that the new format will have the desired effect on some divisional races in the near future, but how on earth does anyone conclude that the play-in game consolation prize made this year's AL races any more compelling?

We've had the Miggy hit-by-bus discussion earlier this year. The Triple Crown would presumably help him with the current crop of voters if it happened and he might win an MVP this year which would be a big step but ignoring the TC (because I find it really hard to guess how much it would help) my memory from my last look at this is something like:

If he has Nomar's (or Belle's or similar) "late" career then he doesn't make it.
If he has Cepeda's late career, he's at least borderline. (111 HR, 116 OPS+, 429 RBI)*
If he has Griffey's late career, he sails in**

Obviously it's rare and the sign of a great hitter, but what Cabrera has done through age 29 isn't so phenomenal as to be in hit-by-bus territory. He's got a career 151 OPS+ but that's 24 points behind Mantle and 21 points behind Pujols. As a hitter, he's basically the same as Aaron and Robinson through those ages but those guys are GREAT because they never declined. Cabrera's 151 OPS+ career is also very similar to Mathews (154), Griffey (149) and ARod (145) but those guys played more defensive positions (yes, Miggy is back at 3B so Mathews is debatable) and Griffey and ARod added some baserunning speed too.

If you expand that list to "first 10 years of career" from "through age 29" (and first 10 years is the hit by bus crowd), you can also add that he's 18 points behind Thomas, 8 points behind Bagwell (who brought running and D), 8 behind Bonds (same), 7 behind Mays, 6 behind DiMaggio and 1 ahead of Reggie.

The best comp to the hit-by-bus Cabrera on that list is Kiner who's one of the HoF's true "HBB" candidates, helped by winning 7 HR titles. This is where the TC and an MVP might push HBB Miggy over the line. Kiner did make it but in his last year of eligibility, thanks to a 17(!) point jump in a very weak ballot year (1975).

Now, before anybody misunderstands, his list of comps is dominated by HoFers. Obviously Miggy having an age 30+ career that's at least as good as Cepeda's is a very high probability and he may not even need one that good. He is undeniably on an HoF track. It's just really, really hard, maybe impossible, to build an ironclad HoF case in 10 years.

*Cepeda's 30+ leaves him short of 450 HR and only about 2500 hits, but maintaining the 300 BA and over 1500 RBI. Billy Williams give or take. The TC and a MVP would be more than enough to push him over I'd think. Actually Williams is an interesting comp -- Cabrera is younger and therefore better but from ages 25-34, Williams had a 141 OPS+, 300/366/519 line, nearly 1900 hits, 1000 runs, 1000 RBI, 307 HR. Those are pretty comparable stats to Cabrera ... what Cabrera has done in 10 years is not that different than what a lot of outer-circle HoFers did for 10 years and it seems almost certain to me that Williams doesn't make it without padding his counting stats even though those extra years were pretty average (116 OPS+ in 5-6 seasons worth of PA).

** Griffey's 30+ puts him at about 550 HR, 1800 RBI, 2800 hits, might lose the 300 BA. That's Frank Robinson by counting stats.

Prince Fielder is a key component of the Tigers' offense and had one atrocious at-bat after another. I don't see how its 'uninformed' of me to observe he was pressing. I want to make it clear that I'm not questioning the Tigers' fortitude. I think they had a rough four games, and their psyches played a role. Were they a superb offensive team all season? Nope. Overrated, sure. But if you think my analysis is simplistic, I feel the same about the sheer laziness of saying "that's baseball," "bad week." Come on. Of course Buck Showalter, a manager, is going to spout that kind of accountability skirting rationalization. It protects the players. When Prince Fielder is swinging at a fastball on his fists while ahead of the count, its not just "good pitching beats mediocore hitting." All due respect for Detroit, as well. Great year, winning the Pennant.

I think the objection was primarily to the phrase "overwhelmed by the moment." The implications of that statement go well beyond "they had a rough four games, and their psyches played a role" IMO. If that wasn't your intent, fair enough, but it sure sounded like you were questioning their fortitude.

99. You are right. I actually wanted to add that to my comment above, but my internet is out and my phone isn't responding to the 'edit post' button. Yes, my first post was way too hard on the Tigers. Now I think my second post is way too hard on the posters who took my post to task. Sigh. The futility.