MLB Playoffs 2005

[sluggo]

The time has come. Choose!

ALDS: Yanks over Angels in 5 | Red Sox over White Sox in 4
NLDS: Cards over Padres in 3 | Astros over Braves in 5

ALCS: Yankees over Red Sox in 7
NLCS: Cards over Astros in 5

WS: Cards over Yankees in 5

[Marcus]

Go A's!

Oh wait.... :(

[steve]

ALDS: Angels over Yankees in 5 | Red Sox over White Sox in 5
NLDS: Cards over Padres in 4 | Astros over Braves in 4

ALCS: Red Sox over Angels in 6
NLCS: Astros over Cards in 6

WS: Astros over Red Sox in 6

It's hard not to like the Astros with that starting pitching. That said, they probably won't win, but what the hell.

The Yankees could easily beat the Angels if they choose to "Bonds" Vladimir Guerrero. Ozzie's "Small Ball" will wilt under the Red Sox offensive onslaught. The Cards are somewhat vulnerable, and the Padres are better than their record indicates. Beyond Jake Peavy, they have no starting pitching, though. And the Braves have an aching Smoltz and a history of coming up short in the playoffs. If Houston can score runs, they win.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I agree with sluggo's picks except for the Astros/Braves series. That goes to Atlanta in 4.

Troy

[sluggo]

Wow, I don't think the Red Sox are done by any stretch, but I didn't think they'd go home down 2-0.

[dannimal]

Tony "Boggs" Graffanino. Yowch.

I think Houston has too much pitching. Even with their crappy offense, they should be able to beat Atlanta. Too many rookies. Plus, Atlanta never wins in the playoffs. People knock the As and Moneyball as building a regular season team that can't win a short series...

I WANT the Angels to win, but I'm not sure they will. Johnson vs. Paul Byrd? Ew.

I don't care who wins the Sox/Sox series, as long as whoever does beats the Yankees. I'd have said Boston before the series, but I'm a Tigers fan and don't like the White Sox. Plus, I have XM and I LOATHE the White Sox radio team. They're such homers, they make Dave Long look like a Nintendo hater.

[Jason Levine]

Plus, I have XM and I LOATHE the White Sox radio team. They're such homers, they make Dave Long look like a Nintendo hater.

Yeah, it's almost funny to hear Ed Farmer call the play by play when the other team is scoring runs. His intonation is so flat you'd think he was reading a 5-day old wire report.

The worst, however, is their TV team, specifically Ken "Hawk" Harrelson. Not only is he so much of a homer that he can be fairly described as a cheerleader, his whole shtick is nothing but stupid catch phrases, e.g. "He gone!" It's too bad, because when he started out in broadcasting with the Red Sox he was actually informative, but he devolved into a lazy doofus.

[Alan Dunkin]

Hawk is quite simply awful. His catchphrases are needlessly childish (and churlish) and he frequently makes you want to root for the other team.

--- Alan

[sluggo]

Hawk is quite simply awful. His catchphrases are needlessly childish (and churlish) and he frequently makes you want to root for the other team.
Funny you should say that. I'd never heard the guy before last week, when I caught a few White Sox games on Extra Innings, and couldn't decide which was worse -- his biased playcalling, or his annoying catchphrases. Either way, I instantly found myself pulling for the other team. Minor league stuff.

[Brooski]

Hawk is quite simply awful. His catchphrases are needlessly childish (and churlish) and he frequently makes you want to root for the other team.
Funny you should say that. I'd never heard the guy before last week, when I caught a few White Sox games on Extra Innings, and couldn't decide which was worse -- his biased playcalling, or his annoying catchphrases. Either way, I instantly found myself pulling for the other team. Minor league stuff.
Hawk and DJ are really awful, but I like Rooney & Farmer. USA Today even called them the top MLB radio team (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-07-26-announcers-al_x.htm). They're nothing like Harwell & Carey were when I was a kid, but I still like them.

Anyway, it's another "White Sox winner!" Time to start hitting people up for playoff tickets.

[sluggo]

Wow. So the Red Sox are gone, and Randy Johnson is getting pummeled at Yankee Stadium, 5-0 in the 3rd.

I can just imagine the Fox folks comtemplating an Angels / White Sox ALCS ... and crying.

[Jason Levine]

I can just imagine the Fox folks comtemplating an Angels / White Sox ALCS ... and crying.

That's two of the three largest markets in the country. I don't think they'll cry too hard.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I can just imagine the Fox folks comtemplating an Angels / White Sox ALCS ... and crying.

That's two of the three largest markets in the country. I don't think they'll cry too hard.

Yeah, but they have to draw fans nationwide, not just in the hometowns. Is there a national fan following of either of these teams? This isn't exactly Yankee/Sox or Braves/Cubs territory (then, few matchups are).

Troy

[steve]

I can just imagine the Fox folks comtemplating an Angels / White Sox ALCS ... and crying.
Or how about an Angels/White Sox vs. Astros World Series.

White Sox/Cardinals! Big ratings in the midwest!

[triggercut]

I've heard 'em all, and Rooney and Farmer are two of the best, if not *the* best radio guys in baseball.

Are they "homers"? Well, duh. Like every single other Major League franchise in the country, their salaries are paid by the team that they broadcast for. WMVP 1000 doesn't pay Rooney and Farmer, Jerry Reinsdorf does.

That being said, I've heard them be *plenty* critical of the team and specific members. Sweeping the Red Sox though would seem to invite a lot of non-criticism.

Meanwhile, this just in: The Cardinals are really, really good at baseball. I'm just sayin'.

[Brooski]

Or how about an Angels/White Sox vs. Astros World Series.
I agree: I think a World Series where the Angels and White Sox combine teams to play the Astros would be pretty neat. Or take turns playing the Astros. Either one.

[triggercut]

Cardinals' magic number reduced to 8. (http://media.putfile.com/KoolandtheGang-06-Celebration71)

[sluggo]

Two great games today. :)

It was quite a sight to see Clemens swinging for the fences in the 18th inning of a playoff game. Now we'll see if the Astros can give the Cards a series.

Chacon and Lackey pitched two fantastic games tonight for the Yankees and Angels. I was a little surprised when both pitchers were taken out -- they were both pitching extremely well, and the Yankees middle relief in particular hasn't been great, but they pulled it out. Hopefully we'll get a good Game 5 Monday night.

[Alan Dunkin]

What a great baseball day on Sunday... two great games - well, really three great games, if you saw the second game extension of the Astros game.. I had this gut feeling that the Astros were gonna win it after they tied. Not just momentum.. but because the Braves bullpen was awful. I just didn't think it'd take that long. Then the Astros brought in Clemens in the 16th.. what a way to give your game up to a "reliever." Great stuff.

And speaking of bullpens.. of course the idiot announcers gush all over the Angels bullpen, and Shields gives up the game-tying hit to "the Golden One," Ruben Sierra, and Posada gets home the next play on a grounder. Man. This game simply amazed me.. frankly the teams didn't have much going to the 6th, and Posada was a monster. But when they had an early base runner and opportunity.. they immediately capitalized. That was friggin' great. And while I hate NY and their stupid fans, the Bernie Williams cheers was awesome. I realize they've probably been doing that all year, but it's still good to hear. Unfortunately game five has to be tonight.. and then the ALDS starts Tuesday. Ouch.

--- Alan

[Jason Levine]

And while I hate NY and their stupid fans, the Bernie Williams cheers was awesome. I realize they've probably been doing that all year, but it's still good to hear.
--- Alan

Heh, I lived in New York for 10 years, and learned that Yankee fans aren't stupid, just incredibly arrogant (of course, they have reason to be arrogant) and have a distorted sense of reality where certain popular Yankee players are concerned. Want to drive a Yankee fan crazy? Tell him that Don Mattingly doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. He doesn't, but just to find a Yankee fan who doesn't think Donnie Baseball was God's gift to the game.

[VegasRobb]

Well with the Braves out, I'd like to see Astros - Yankees so I can listen and read countless interviews about Clemens.

[balut]

And while I hate NY and their stupid fans, the Bernie Williams cheers was awesome. I realize they've probably been doing that all year, but it's still good to hear.
--- Alan

Heh, I lived in New York for 10 years, and learned that Yankee fans aren't stupid, just incredibly arrogant (of course, they have reason to be arrogant) and have a distorted sense of reality where certain popular Yankee players are concerned. Want to drive a Yankee fan crazy? Tell him that Don Mattingly doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. He doesn't, but just to find a Yankee fan who doesn't think Donnie Baseball was God's gift to the game.

INFIDEL! If you want definitive proof of Mattingly's worthiness of the Hall of Fame, let me just point out the Simpsons Season 3 Episode, "Homer at the Bat", in which Mattingly was one of Mr. Burns' softball ringers, along with the likes of Clemens, Boggs, Griffey Jr., and Ozzie Smith, among others. That alone should qualify him for Cooperstown.

[sluggo]

just [try] to find a Yankee fan who doesn't think Donnie Baseball was God's gift to the game.
A guy who was one of baseball's dominant hitters for the better part of the '80s, won the MVP in 1985, was a 6-time all-star, batted over .340 twice, won 9 Gold Gloves in 10 years, and spent his entire career with one team.

Yeah, guys like that don't belong in the Hall of Fame. :)

Donnie's big drawback, obviously, was that he only played 12 full years and retired before 35, never giving him a chance to build up HoF stats. I always thought it was a shame that he retired the year before the Yankees started their current run.

[Jason Levine]

just [try] to find a Yankee fan who doesn't think Donnie Baseball was God's gift to the game.
A guy who was one of baseball's dominant hitters for the better part of the '80s, won the MVP in 1985, was a 6-time all-star, batted over .340 twice, won 9 Gold Gloves in 10 years, and spent his entire career with one team.

Yeah, guys like that don't belong in the Hall of Fame. :)

Donnie's big drawback, obviously, was that he only played 12 full years and retired before 35, never giving him a chance to build up HoF stats. I always thought it was a shame that he retired the year before the Yankees started their current run.


Mattingly Career Totals:
BA .307 (good)
HR 222 (Meh)
OBP .358 (For a first baseman who hit only 222 HRs? Very meh)
SLG: .471 (Meh)
RBI: 1099 (Meh)

Considering that he hit only 58 homers over the last six seasons of his career, I don't see how playing longer would have helped much. These simply are not HOF numbers for a first baseman.

[steve]

A guy who was one of baseball's dominant hitters for the better part of the '80s, won the MVP in 1985, was a 6-time all-star, batted over .340 twice, won 9 Gold Gloves in 10 years, and spent his entire career with one team.
Um, check out his career. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mattido01.shtml)

Three dominant seasons, very early in his career before his back problems zapped him of any power. If you look at that site, one of his closely career matches is Wally Joyner. Is Wally a hall-of-famer too? John Olerud?

[sluggo]

I'm not arguing that Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame. By current standards, he shouldn't. He was really only a dominant player from '84-'88, and didn't play anywhere near long enough to get the numbers he needed for serious consideration -- he really needed another solid 5 years to get in range, and his back wouldn't allow it.

It just kinda irks me that, anytime someone brings up Mattingly and the Hall of Fame, the argument focuses on nothing but numbers and other players with similar stats. Is that all Mattingly was? Another Wally Joyner? John Olerud? The guy was a baseball icon, and there's still a mythical quality that surrounds him when you see him in the Yankee dugout today. It's a shame that people look at him today and just see math.

[Alan Dunkin]

All I know about Mattingly is... he needs to shave off his sideburns!

--- Alan

[Jason Levine]

Is that all Mattingly was? Another Wally Joyner? John Olerud? The guy was a baseball icon, and there's still a mythical quality that surrounds him when you see him in the Yankee dugout today. It's a shame that people look at him today and just see math.

Let's say Mattingly came up with the Angels and Joyner with the Yankees. Which one do you think would have that icon status? I loved Mattingly's approach to the game, but Joyner's or Mark Grace's in Chicago wasn't a whole lot different. Yes it's valid to consider intangibles, but it's also valid to note that the guy wouldn't have that status if it weren't for the New York media.

[wildpokerman]

Personaly I'm hoping for an Astros/White Sox series. Hometown hero pitchers essentialy coming out of retirement to take one last shot at the title vs. a team that's "Due". How could you beat that story?

Probably it will be a lame Yankees/Cards big budgetfest though, reminding me that the soul was sucked out of baseball when the owners caved to the players in the last strike and didn't put in a salary cap.

[steve]

It just kinda irks me that, anytime someone brings up Mattingly and the Hall of Fame, the argument focuses on nothing but numbers and other players with similar stats. Is that all Mattingly was? Another Wally Joyner? John Olerud? The guy was a baseball icon, and there's still a mythical quality that surrounds him when you see him in the Yankee dugout today. It's a shame that people look at him today and just see math.
Yes, he was just a Wally Joyner or John Olerud. A good player that was great a few seasons. And ask Anaheim fans if Wally World was "mythical" for a few seasons. Wait, I was an Angels fan. He was that kind of player, and is still beloved by fans.

Almost all long-term Yankees obtain "mythical" status. Bernie Williams, hall of famer? No way, but Yankee fans will argue this. Derek Jeter? For sure, right? Not quite. (Yet.) Mariano Rivera? Absolutely, no question. Best reliever ever.

If you want the hall of fame to have any meaning, the numbers have to be almost everything. There are tons of mediocre or crappy "mythical" players, and some of them are in the hall. Let's not lower the bar for good players. Leave it for great ones.

Another good example of mythical: Jeter again. Post-season hero, right? Big-time clutch?

The reality? His post-season numbers are slightly below his regular season ones.

[balut]

First Mattingly, and now Jeter? Have you no shame!

[Phil_Stein]

Probably it will be a lame Yankees/Cards big budgetfest though, reminding me that the soul was sucked out of baseball when the owners caved to the players in the last strike and didn't put in a salary cap.

While the Cardinals have a high-ish payroll, it typically only floats around #10 out of the 32 teams - so they don't blow their competition out of the water with payroll, unlike the Yankees. And the Cardinals are the closest thing baseball has to the Packers - an old time team with a storied history in an undersized market that still vociferously supports the team. Admittedly, St. Louis is a lot bigger than Green Bay, but I think it's only around the 20th biggest market both in metro population and in media market.

[triggercut]

Probably it will be a lame Yankees/Cards big budgetfest though, reminding me that the soul was sucked out of baseball when the owners caved to the players in the last strike and didn't put in a salary cap.

While the Cardinals have a high-ish payroll, it typically only floats around #10 out of the 32 teams - so they don't blow their competition out of the water with payroll, unlike the Yankees. And the Cardinals are the closest thing baseball has to the Packers - an old time team with a storied history in an undersized market that still vociferously supports the team. Admittedly, St. Louis is a lot bigger than Green Bay, but I think it's only around the 20th biggest market both in metro population and in media market.

...and like the Packers, they depend on regional support thanks to the KMOX blowtorch radio signal all those years (I can pick it up on the Dulles Toll Road and Key Bridge here in DC at night...in fact that's how I learned of Jack Buck's passing back in 2002, via a staticky radio signal from home). The Cardinals also spend their money pretty wisely, getting fellows like Scott Rolen, Albert Pujols, Jim Edmonds, Chris Carpenter, and Jason Isringhausen locked up into longterm deals with a hometown discount.

[sluggo]

Almost all long-term Yankees obtain "mythical" status. Bernie Williams, hall of famer? No way, but Yankee fans will argue this. Derek Jeter? For sure, right? Not quite. (Yet.) Mariano Rivera? Absolutely, no question. Best reliever ever.
See, I disagree there on a few different points. First, I think Mattingly has achieved a special level of sainthood among Yankees, even more than guys who have won rings, like Bernie and Posada.

Second, if I have a vote, I put Jeter in the Hall right now. Jeter's numbers alone certainly aren't there yet, but you lead your team to enough playoffs, you perform in October and win enough rings, and I think that should mean something. Jeter's arguably been the heart and soul of one of the greatest sports dynasties of the past 50 years -- if he hung up his cleats after the season, I think Cooperstown should clear a spot for him right next to Rivera. But the HoF doesn't work that way, so Jeter will just have to keep it up for another 5-8 years to prove himself. (sheesh.)

[Ex-S Woo]

Wow, so both the Red Sox and the Yankees are out...does anyone care about the World Series anymore? :P

[sluggo]

I'll be rooting for whoever wins the NLCS. :)

[steve]

See, I disagree there on a few different points. First, I think Mattingly has achieved a special level of sainthood among Yankees, even more than guys who have won rings, like Bernie and Posada.
Oh sure, no arguments. Race might play some role in that, but it's also a style of play. Bernie was mellow and smooth, Posada... well, he's a catcher. Mattingly seemed more blue collar.

Regardless, he's no hall of famer. He's barely above league average for a 1B for his career.


Second, if I have a vote, I put Jeter in the Hall right now. Jeter's numbers alone certainly aren't there yet, but you lead your team to enough playoffs, you perform in October and win enough rings, and I think that should mean something.
Man, you've been listening to too much Tim McCarver.

Jeter is a bad defensive shortstop, one of the worst over the last few years by most fielding metrics. (He's improved a ton over the last year or so, though.) Yet most people think he's great because whenever he does make a good play, he gets on Sportscenter. What they don't see is what he doesn't get to. Fielding stats are tough, but his range factor has been the lowest of all shortstops for a few years.

As a hitter, he's terrific. I'd love to have him on my team. He's a great baserunner, he has a good OBP, he's got some pop, etc. But he's not a hall of famer when you compare his stats to Tejada, A-Rod (when he was an SS), or Nomar over similar periods. Those guys set the bar for offensive performance by a shortstop, and they are/were all WAY better offensively and defensively than Jeter. Bobby Crosby will also be a better SS, and watch out for BJ Upton and some other kids.

The "lead your team" argument assumes the Yankees didn't have the biggest payroll all of those years, and didn't employ a bunch of the best players at other positions. They won because they fielded the best team, not because Jeter was some superduper player. In fact, his playoff and WS stats are slightly lower across the board than his seasonal stats. He hits around .300, and if spread out over a season, he'd have 15 or so dingers, 60-80 RBI... he's just Derk Jeter in the postseason, not DEREK JETER!, despite his reputation.

If you took Jeter away from the Yankees, they'd have problems but would still win because they have so much talent. (In fact, they have a better SS playing 3B, heh.) And if he is such and important X-factor, why haven't they won anything for the last few years? Did he forget how to win?

(I'd also argue that the biggest reason the Yankees won so often was due to one guy: Mariano Rivera. He's just impossibly good. AND HE HAS ONE PITCH.)

Jeter will probably get to 3000 hits, which will make the discussion moot. He'll be in the hall, and deserving. I have tons of respect for him, but the reality is if he played for anyone but the Yankees, he'd just be a good ballplayer. He'd be Barry Larkin, not DEREK JETER.

For fun, here's a batch of shortstops this season
Michael Young: .331/.385/.513/.898
Jhonny Peralta: .292/.366/.520/.886
Miguel Tejada: .304/.349/.515/.864
Derek Jeter: .309/.389/.450/.849
Felipe Lopez: .291/.352/.486/.838
Bobby Crosby: .276/.346/.456/.802

So why doesn't anyone talk about Young, Peralta, and Lopez being top shortstops in MLB? Particularly Peralta, who's only 23 for the Tribe. Yow.

[sluggo]

This is why I say numbers aren't everything. :)

Down 5-2 in the 7th tonight, with the season on the line, Jeter -- hardly a power hitter -- jacks one out of the park to pull the Yanks within range. Then, in the 9th, desperately needing a baserunner, Jeter pulls through with a leadoff hit. And who's surprised? No one. The guy's done it for 10 years. And then A-Rod, who I'm sure will end up with way better lifetime stats... promptly hits into a double play that effectively ends the Yankee rally before it could begin.

Numbers or not, there isn't a single guy I'd want starting at shortstop for the Yankees next year but Derek Jeter. He's like Messier was for the Rangers 10 years ago -- there may be guys with better stats, but he's the leader that holds everything together and constantly seems to come up big in the clutch.

[triggercut]

Speaking of shortstops, here's a cool stat about my favorite ss in the playoffs right now:

As of 9-17-05 (and sorry for not having anything to update since then, but this isn't the kind of thing you can research too easily unless you're a STATS, Inc. Employee) David Eckstein had taken 1062 swings this season and failed to make some kind of contact exactly 52 times.

Jayson "Worst Free Agent Signing Of The Offseason" Stark can blow me.

[Alan Dunkin]

I'd love to talk about Young, being a Rangers fan, but he has yet to go to the postseason and frankly hasn't been a shortstop that long.

That being said he's a very good shortstop after transitioning from second base and an awesome hitter. Won the AL batting title this year.

--- Alan

[sluggo]

As of 9-17-05 (and sorry for not having anything to update since then, but this isn't the kind of thing you can research too easily unless you're a STATS, Inc. Employee) David Eckstein had taken 1062 swings this season and failed to make some kind of contact exactly 52 times.
He made contact on 1010/1062 swings?

I have no idea what that stat is like for the average player, and maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but my first reaction is ... holy crap.

[triggercut]

As of 9-17-05 (and sorry for not having anything to update since then, but this isn't the kind of thing you can research too easily unless you're a STATS, Inc. Employee) David Eckstein had taken 1062 swings this season and failed to make some kind of contact exactly 52 times.
He made contact on 1010/1062 swings?

I have no idea what that stat is like for the average player, and maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but my first reaction is ... holy crap.

My reaction, too.

I also have no idea what the average is, but I do know that Eckstein is maybe the toughest strikeout in the league. I assume that 52 misses of 1062 swings is significant enough for Jim Henzler of STATS to call the Cardinal play-by-play booth with the stat.

[Alan Dunkin]

Eckstein only has 44 strikeouts in 630 at bats this year. That's pretty damn good.

--- Alan

[triggercut]

Eckstein only has 44 strikeouts in 630 at bats this year. That's pretty damn good.

--- Alan

Yeah, his OBP is only average for a leadoff hitter, and there aren't a lot of stolen bases on his resume this year...but the one thing he's done very well is make the other team's starter work. He'll get to two strikes and then just start fouling off pitch after pitch and run the other guy's pitch count up.

[wildpokerman]

Probably it will be a lame Yankees/Cards big budgetfest though, reminding me that the soul was sucked out of baseball when the owners caved to the players in the last strike and didn't put in a salary cap.

While the Cardinals have a high-ish payroll, it typically only floats around #10 out of the 32 teams - so they don't blow their competition out of the water with payroll, unlike the Yankees. And the Cardinals are the closest thing baseball has to the Packers - an old time team with a storied history in an undersized market that still vociferously supports the team. Admittedly, St. Louis is a lot bigger than Green Bay, but I think it's only around the 20th biggest market both in metro population and in media market.

Actualy you would be wrong, they're 6th overall, less than half of the Yankees but so is everyone else:

2005 link here:
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005

Also smallish areas are the ideal locations for sports teams, that's why LA doesn't have an NFL team and probably won't for a while. If a team is doing poorly people in a smaller market will still go to the games because there isn't a whole lot else to do. Try to convince someone from NY or LA to go and see the local team lose their 90th game when they could spend that couple of hundred bucks on a show or a night in a club or something.

Why do you think the 49ers are in panic mode firing anyone and everyone while the bengals and browns are content to suck year after year?

[Phil_Stein]

Probably it will be a lame Yankees/Cards big budgetfest though, reminding me that the soul was sucked out of baseball when the owners caved to the players in the last strike and didn't put in a salary cap.

While the Cardinals have a high-ish payroll, it typically only floats around #10 out of the 32 teams - so they don't blow their competition out of the water with payroll, unlike the Yankees. And the Cardinals are the closest thing baseball has to the Packers - an old time team with a storied history in an undersized market that still vociferously supports the team. Admittedly, St. Louis is a lot bigger than Green Bay, but I think it's only around the 20th biggest market both in metro population and in media market.

Actualy you would be wrong, they're 6th overall, less than half of the Yankees but so is everyone else:

2005 link here:
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005

Also smallish areas are the ideal locations for sports teams, that's why LA doesn't have an NFL team and probably won't for a while. If a team is doing poorly people in a smaller market will still go to the games because there isn't a whole lot else to do. Try to convince someone from NY or LA to go and see the local team lose their 90th game when they could spend that couple of hundred bucks on a show or a night in a club or something.

Why do you think the 49ers are in panic mode firing anyone and everyone while the bengals and browns are content to suck year after year?

Yeah, I guess their payroll has drifted up a bit - they've got all their key players (notably Pujols) signed to long-term deals. But over the last decade (when they've had pretty good success), their payroll has been a bit less. Here's a great site with all payrolls for the last 30 years:

http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/data.htm

In 2000 - the Cards were #11 in opening-day payroll.

As for market size, if it's so favorable for St. Louis to be small market, why do other cities of comparable size struggle in baseball?

According to this:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml

St. Louis has the 24th largest market of the 32 teams, yet their attendance this year was #3 (admittedly goosed by last year's Series appearance and lots of hooplah about this being the stadium's final season). I don't have stats handy, but I'd imagine their average attendance over the last 25 years is probably around #5 of all teams. The teams clustered around them, in terms of market-size, are:

2,968,806 Minnesota Twins
2,945,831 Cleveland Indians
2,813,833 San Diego Padres
2,603,607 St Louis Cardinals
2,581,506 Colorado Rockies
2,395,997 Tampa Bay Devil Rays
2,358,695 Pittsburgh Pirates
(only Cincinatti, Kansas City and Milwaukee are smaller)

None of the others draw as consistently well as the Cards (though some of the other teams do have spikey-good years. Look at Pittsburgh - similar city size, old team, etc, but always a struggle to draw fans.

[Jason Levine]

For fun, here's a batch of shortstops this season
Michael Young: .331/.385/.513/.898
Jhonny Peralta: .292/.366/.520/.886
Miguel Tejada: .304/.349/.515/.864
Derek Jeter: .309/.389/.450/.849
Felipe Lopez: .291/.352/.486/.838
Bobby Crosby: .276/.346/.456/.802

So why doesn't anyone talk about Young, Peralta, and Lopez being top shortstops in MLB? Particularly Peralta, who's only 23 for the Tribe. Yow.

Yow, indeed. There was a lot of anguish in Cleveland, and understandably so, when they let Omar Vizquel go, but Mark Shapiro sure as hell has been making the right moves. Yeah, they spit the bit the last week of the season, but, holy shit, their payroll this year was 1/5 of the Yankees.

When Jim Thome took a little more money to sign with the Phillies a couple of years ago, he said it wasn't the money, it was that the Phils would win before the Tribe. Guess what, Jim?

[steve]

This is why I say numbers aren't everything. :)
Especially when you ignore them. Numbers aren't everything, but our eyes often lie to us. A perfect example is the "Derek Jeter is a great defensive shortstop" line, which has pretty much stopped over the last couple of years.

And for crying out loud, JETER ISN'T A MAGICAL CLUTCH HITTER. The numbers don't lie: here's merely Derk Jeter in the post-season.

His line in post-season:

.306/.380/.456.

His line for his career?

.314/.386/.461.

Amazing consistency, for sure, but not superhuman performance. And his average with runners in scoring position is actually quite poor, which goes against the "Jeter is clutch" argument. Or to do another comparison, "MVP candidate" Andruw Jones hit around .200 with RISP, whereas someone like David Ortiz or Vlad Guerrero is well over .300.

And where was Jeter during the historic Yankee collapse last year vs. the Sox? His line for the series: .200/.333/.233. In the 2001 world series loss, he hit .148/.179/.259. Yet he's magical Mr. Clutch? Yikes. And it's not just when the Yankees lose; against the Sox in 2003, he pulled a .233/.281/.400.

Anyway, you look at his peformance tonight and it reinforces your beliefs, but you somehow forget all of the times he took that called third strike or didn't come through in some other way. It's natural for fans to do that, but this is why you look at the numbers. They don't lie: he's a very good baseball player.

But is he the third best player in the league, as his $20 million/year salary implies he is? Hardly. He's not even the third best shortstop in the league. He's the second best SS on his own team.

Would I want him on my team? Absolutely. At half the salary.

[steve]

Numbers or not, there isn't a single guy I'd want starting at shortstop for the Yankees next year but Derek Jeter.
Oh, and just to comment on this: I'd take Miguel Tejada over Jeter. By any metric, he's a better player. You get better defense, better offense (less OBP but way more slugging), and all of the same "intangibles": hard work, leadership, etc.

Tejada is also younger, and hasn't missed a single game in the last six years.


I'd love to talk about Young, being a Rangers fan, but he has yet to go to the postseason and frankly hasn't been a shortstop that long.
Well, I don't know what not going to the postseason has to do with discussing a player's performance. It's not like he can pitch, which is the only problem with the Rangers considering that offense.

[steve]

There was a lot of anguish in Cleveland, and understandably so, when they let Omar Vizquel go, but Mark Shapiro sure as hell has been making the right moves. Yeah, they spit the bit the last week of the season, but, holy shit, their payroll this year was 1/5 of the Yankees.
And let's face it, they were a year early. People knew they were getting really, really good, but that second half was ludicrous. They sort of regressed to the mean in one week.

But with Peralta, Hafner, Sizemore, Martinez, Sabathia, Westbrook, etc., and a still-stocked farm system, this is going to be a good team again for a while. Shapiro doesn't get enough credit.


When Jim Thome took a little more money to sign with the Phillies a couple of years ago, he said it wasn't the money, it was that the Phils would win before the Tribe. Guess what, Jim?
Yeah, good move there. (Did you hear, the Phils dumped Ed Wade.) And now Thome is odd man out, with Ryan Howard a likely rookie of the year in the NL and a complete masher in the Thome mold.

And Thome's injury history says "DH," but at his salary who would want him? Maybe the Yankees. They seem to want to corner the market on overpriced, gimpy 1B.

[Phil_Stein]

One more data point on fan support. Here's the attendance (02-03 average) on the smallest market teams (excluding KC, Milw, and Cinc, which are smaller and have worse attendance)


Att. Market Size
21,704 2,968,806 Twins
26,101 2,945,831 Indians
26,861 2,813,833 Padres
36,994 2,603,607 Cardinals
32,586 2,581,506 Rockies
22,163 2,358,695 Pirates
12,906 2,395,997 Devil Rays

[Jason Levine]

And Thome's injury history says "DH," but at his salary who would want him? Maybe the Yankees. They seem to want to corner the market on overpriced, gimpy 1B.

Yep, his contract is something on the order of $45 million with three years remaining. Maybe the Yankees will build an all-1B lineup. The strange thing about Thome is that intuitively you'd think a power-hitting lefty like him would be a perfect fit for Yankee Stadium, but he isn't. He pulls his ground balls, but his power is as a spray hitter.

[steve]

Yep, his contract is something on the order of $45 million with three years remaining. Maybe the Yankees will build an all-1B lineup. The strange thing about Thome is that intuitively you'd think a power-hitting lefty like him would be a perfect fit for Yankee Stadium, but he isn't. He pulls his ground balls, but his power is as a spray hitter.
With that kind of approach, he'd probably be killer at Fenway, and the Sox do need a 1B... they'd never do it, unless they managed to trade Manny to the Mets. Of course then they'd have Ortiz and Thome for power, two lefty/DH types. That wouldn't be ideal.

I've always loved watching Thome hit, because he has that old fashioned look, the way he points the bat at the pitcher, and the way he just lets rip with a beautiful uppercut swing. Shame about the back; I'd steer way clear of someone with that health problem and that contract.

[balut]

I hate comparisons between Jeter and A-Rod. Numerically, of course A-Rod is superior, with his power and slugging and what-have-you. But if you've followed the team this season, you'll realize that A-Rod may be the deadliest power hitter in the league when it DOESN'T MATTER. I don't know how many games I've seen where the Yanks are up 4 or 5 or 6 runs, and A-Rod will hit a 3-run homer or 2 homers or something like that, and it'll only serve to turn a blowout into a bigger blowout. But when the Yanks are down 1 or 2 or 3 runs, and A-Rod is up and can spark a rally, or homer in the tying or go-ahead runs, invariably he'll either strike out or GIDP or something completely fucking useless.

Sure, it's easy for a fan to have on blinders and only see when Jeter comes through in the clutch, but when you compare Jeter and A-Rod, Jeter DOES seem to come through in the clutch (of course, not always), while I don't recall ever seeing A-Rod come through as the hero when he's needed most. Numerically, A-Rod may be king, but he's invisible whenever it matters most.

[steve]

Numerically, A-Rod may be king, but he's invisible whenever it matters most.
There's some truth to this, and you're certainly seeing it come up more thanks to his performance this playoff and in the MVP discussions vs. David Ortiz. (A-Rod should win, and likely will.)

But it's hard to ignore overall performance when looked at over 162 games. Those "garbage time" homers still count, and help put his team in a situation to win. If he choked every time in the clutch, he'd still be more valuable than the guy who only hits when the game's on the line.

But here's something funny: A-Rod's career post-season line is seriously good, at 330/.395/.583 (this excludes this year's results).

[balut]

What's funny is that I almost don't want the Yankees to win it all with their current crew of mercenaries. Their offensive power is probably the highest it's been in 20 or 30 years, and statistically they should've had a real star pitching rotation, but the team just doesn't seem to have neary as much "heart" as the World Series teams of the past several years.

Look at the players that made up their World Series run teams: Jeter, Posada, Bernie, Rivera, Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, Chuck Knoblauch, Joe Girardi, David Wells, David Cone, Jeff Nelson, Mike Stanton, Graeme Lloyd, hell, even Shane Spencer and Chad Curtis. Oh, and Mr. Clutch off the Bench, Luis Sojo. These were hard-working, professional players, with no one or two big stars to eclipse everyone (rememeber that Jeter was just starting out these seasons). Sure, they still had a high payroll, but Steinbrenner rewards performance.

But look at them now - they're a motley collection of "marquee" players cobbled together from other teams: A-Rod, Sheffield, Giambi, Big Unit, Mussina, etc. They have the names and the statistics, of course, but none of them have shown the heart and dedication of any of the players from the World Series' teams (Sheffield comes the closest, playing a whole season with an injured shoulder a year ago). None of these guys are Yankees.

Look at who saved the Yanks' season this year - Aaron Small, Chien-Ming Wang, Robinson Cano, Shawn Chacon - little-known players that are making the most of their opportunity with the Yankees. These guys are the future of the organization.

Unfortunately, Steinbrenner is going to go berserk in the off-season and do completely idiotic bullshit to fuck up the team, like fire Torre and Cashman, spend another hundred million on mercenaries, and gut the Yankees farm system in stupid trades.

If the past few years have shown anything, it's that you don't need insane-budget teams to win it all, as long as you home-grow your talent, recognize and hire the right players, and play with heart and teamwork. As long as Steinbrenner remains a complete fuckwit, the trend won't reverse and the Yankees are going to be stuck more in 80s form than 90s form, and another championship will be a long time coming.

[sluggo]

Wow, it looks like the Angels just got competely jobbed in Game 2. I don't understand that call at all. The ump clearly signaled a strikeout -- isn't he supposed to signal that it's a passed ball so the catcher knows it's a live play?

[jeffd]

This makes no sense to me - but I'm not a baseball nerd. The guy struck out, but he wasn't really out? The ump changed his mind? wf?


Wow, it looks like the Angels just got competely jobbed in Game 2. I don't understand that call at all. The ump clearly signaled a strikeout -- isn't he supposed to signal that it's a passed ball so the catcher knows it's a live play?

[triggercut]

This baseball nerd's opinion...and I have no dog in this fight, as I'm not rooting for either team.

The umpire signaled: 1. Swing and a miss, and then, 2. Strike three. Those signals are his "mechanic".

Neither Josh Paul (the Angels' catcher) nor AJ Pierzynski (the White Sox batter) see that signal. Instead, they go on the homeplate umpire's verbal cadence.

Now then, it's interesting, but Pierzynski, the batter, is the Sox catcher. Clearly as he swung, missed, and stepped towards the dugout, something pulled him back. He knew the pitch was low and *possibly* in the dirt (which means the catcher must tag the batter out or throw to first before the batter gets there). He also knew that he didn't hear the verbal "out" call he'd been hearing from that ump all game while catching his own pitcher back there. So he took off towards first.

Significantly, Pierzynski was involved in a play almost exactly like this one a year or so ago when catching for the Giants, only he was on the bad end. He was catching, and like tonight with Josh Paul, he caught or perhaps trapped a low swinging strike three and headed towards the dugout assuming the out was recorded....but the umpire signaled, again "clean swing and miss" and then "Strike three" without the verbal call of "Out!" and in this earlier case, it was Pierzynski who looked like a dork for not thinking to tag the runner or throw down to record the out.

I'm not sure if it was the right call or not....but in the ninth inning of a close game and it looks like you might've trapped the ball, you'll see pretty much every big league catcher pop up and tag the batter just to be safe.

Paul ganked it.

[sluggo]

This makes no sense to me - but I'm not a baseball nerd. The guy struck out, but he wasn't really out? The ump changed his mind? wf?
Baseball rules: if the catcher drops the 3rd strike, the batter can try to run down to first. All the catcher has to do is pick up the ball and throw it to 1st for the out, but if the ball happens to get far away from the catcher, the batter might be able to make it in time. It's not common, but you'll see it a few times a year, most often because of a bad throw down to first.

The guys on Baseball Tonight are still trying to figure this out -- the umpire seems to have been consistent with his signals on strike calls throughout the game, but no one seems to know what made Pierzynski think the play was still alive. The catcher clearly thought he caught the ball cleanly (and replays seem to back that up), and the ump didn't seem to make any signal otherwise, so I suspect we're going to hear a lot about this as the ALCS gets an off day on Thursday.

[christopher]

no one seems to know what made Pierzynski think the play was still alive.

Perhaps triggercut just provided us with the explanation. It happened to AJ before, only on the wrong end.

[jeffd]

Baseball rules stuff

Thanks for the explanation. That being said wtf with the complex rules and exceptions - this sounds like Dungeons and Dragons, not a professional sport.

[triggercut]

Baseball rules stuff

Thanks for the explanation. That being said wtf with the complex rules and exceptions - this sounds like Dungeons and Dragons, not a professional sport.

It's a complicated rule, but there's a very easy way to avoid ever having it come into play.

From little league onward, catchers are taught: ball in the dirt on strike three, you *don't* wait for the ump's call or anything else: you hop up and either slap a tag on the batter or throw the ball down to first. Watch a bunch of major league games and you'll see this happen a couple of times a game. I remember in high school ball, our manager had a rule: even in practice, if one of our catchers failed to slap a tag on a batter on a pitch in the dirt for strike three, they had to run two laps around the field in full gear. And they had to do it even if they (the catcher) thought they'd picked the ball cleanly.

In other words, regardless of whether he caught it cleanly or not, or what the ump signaled or didn't, Josh Paul still should've jumped up and slapped a tag on Pierzynski. He fucked up on his fundamentals, and got burned. It's a cruel game like that.

[Mark Asher]

Eckstein only has 44 strikeouts in 630 at bats this year. That's pretty damn good.

--- Alan

Yeah, his OBP is only average for a leadoff hitter, and there aren't a lot of stolen bases on his resume this year...but the one thing he's done very well is make the other team's starter work. He'll get to two strikes and then just start fouling off pitch after pitch and run the other guy's pitch count up.

He's been a good player for the Cards. He's not in Renteria's class, but only a handful of SS's are.

[triggercut]

Eckstein only has 44 strikeouts in 630 at bats this year. That's pretty damn good.

--- Alan

Yeah, his OBP is only average for a leadoff hitter, and there aren't a lot of stolen bases on his resume this year...but the one thing he's done very well is make the other team's starter work. He'll get to two strikes and then just start fouling off pitch after pitch and run the other guy's pitch count up.

He's been a good player for the Cards. He's not in Renteria's class, but only a handful of SS's are.

Oh?

Offensive stats:

Renteria:

623 AB, 36 doubles, 4 triples, 8 HR, .276 BA, .335 OBP, .385 SLG

Eckstein:

630 AB, 26 doubles, 7 triples, 8 HR, .294 BA, .365 OBP, .395 SLG

Defensive stats:

Renteria:

655 Chances, 30 errors, 90 double plays, 4.35 Range Factor, .809 Zone Rating

Eckstein:

766 Chances, 15 errors, 123 double plays, 5.11 Range Factor, .833 Zone Rating

They're about a wash, offensively, although I'll take Eckstein's numbers over Rent's. Defensively, those of us who fretted last year about Renteria's amazing shrinking range at SS saw him just fall off the map with Boston. Eckstein emerges as a clear winner in this category.

Oh...and Eckstein makes just under a third of Renteria's salary.

[Phil_Stein]

Eckstein could be a new Ozzie Smith. Not in the sense of Ozzie's amazing athleticism or status as perhaps the best defensive shortstop ever. But when the Cards traded Garry Templeton for Ozzie in '82, Ozzie was an all-glove, no-bat shortstop (career BA around .245), and a lot of people thought (Garry's obscenity issues aside) we would lose a lot in the trade. Ozzie looked very small and underpowered, just like Eckstein.

But of course, Ozzie's offensive skills got much better, and it was one of the Cards' best trades ever.

Eckstein looks like a guy who couldn't make a single A team, but his stats are actually quite good. If he can maintain them (or, dare I say, improve further), he could be a 10-year shortstop for the Cards and much better than Renteria.

[triggercut]

Eckstein could be a new Ozzie Smith. Not in the sense of Ozzie's amazing athleticism or status as perhaps the best defensive shortstop ever. But when the Cards traded Garry Templeton for Ozzie in '82, Ozzie was an all-glove, no-bat shortstop (career BA around .245), and a lot of people thought (Garry's obscenity issues aside) we would lose a lot in the trade. Ozzie looked very small and underpowered, just like Eckstein.

But of course, Ozzie's offensive skills got much better, and it was one of the Cards' best trades ever.

Eckstein looks like a guy who couldn't make a single A team, but his stats are actually quite good. If he can maintain them (or, dare I say, improve further), he could be a 10-year shortstop for the Cards and much better than Renteria.

Well, even though Eckstein looks like he needs a parent's permission slip to be out there (to borrow a phrase from ESPN), he's actually 30, so forget the 10 year thing. Maybe five, although I think the Cardinals will hope to have him playing second by the last year of his contract.

What's very nice is that Eckstein's total three year contract money is about exactly what the Red Sox paid Renteria for just this season, with Rent getting more cash through the next two years in a back-loaded deal. That's a lot of cash to be paying a guy who seems to have lost interest in playing defense.

The biggest knock on Eck coming over was that he had a noodle for an arm; Cardinal coach and former SS Jose Oquendo has completely changed Eckstein's throwing motion and mechanics now; he still isn't Shawon Dunston or Rafael Furcal over there, but watching him throw from SS doesn't make me throw up in my mouth anymore, either....

[Alan Dunkin]

I was watching the Cards-Astros game then turned it off so I didn't even get to see what happened till this morning - wow that's pretty messed up.

The umpire apparently believed the catcher trapped the ball in the dirt - the catcher just assumed that the umpire thought so but since he didn't actually make the correct signal, he should have attempted to tag or throw to first like it's pounded into your brain to do that since at least the minor leagues if not before. Especially if you're in a tied playoff game in the 9th.

Almost nearly as bad was the blown call earlier when a White Sox player was thrown out at 2nd by an outfielder. The Sox guy was safe by a friggin' second and he was thrown out. That was really bad.

--- Alan

[steve]

Almost nearly as bad was the blown call earlier when a White Sox player was thrown out at 2nd by an outfielder. The Sox guy was safe by a friggin' second and he was thrown out. That was really bad.
Oh no, you're wrong. The Fox replays clearly showed the ball arrived before the player.

The strike three call was bad and wrong, but the catcher should have instinctually tagged the batter out because the pitch was near the dirt.

[Alan Dunkin]

Really? Ah from everything I saw it looked like he was clearly in but the angle I suppose makes it look wonky. And I think I only saw it once.

Though the play at the plate on the triple... definitely out.

--- Alan

[steve]

Really? Ah from everything I saw it looked like he was clearly in but the angle I suppose makes it look wonky.
Yeah, there was only one angle that showed him clearly out. And it was pretty much the same view the umpire had.

[dannimal]

From Paul's perspective, there was zero doubt that he caught the ball cleanly. It's not like a tag at 2nd or a close potential ball 4 where you can react like you got the outcome you wanted (tag in time, ball 4) and sell the ump on it (See: Vlad getting thrown out at 2nd late in game 2 or 3, Jeter didn't tag him, but sold it and got the call from a blocked ump).

Anyway, because he's actually throwing the ball away to where nobody can field it, he can't be trying to sell a clean catch. The risk is too great.

The crowd was loud, it's entirely possible that Paul assumed that since he caught the ball cleanly, the ump verbally called A.J. out and he didn't hear it.

If the ball is in the dirt, you hop up and tag the batter. It's silly to get on Paul about this because as far as he was concerned, the ball wasn't in the dirt. He caught it.

What bothers me most about all of this is that the Umps, in the post game press conference, said they had seen the play in the truck and were able to see either some shot nobody else did, or had some special technology that allowed them to see that the ball clearly changed direction, thus justifying the call.

Bullshit.

First, even if that's the case (and it's not), the ump is just guessing, because there's no way he could have seen that in real time, and no way he heard it.

Second, every replay/blow up/recap has been of the opinion that it was a clean catch. There's no need to come up with a "magic replay" theory. Just stick with the "I signalled swing - no contact" then I signalled "strike three". I never verbally announced the batter was out. I wasn't sure if the ball was caught cleanly, so by not verbally announcing "out" the catcher can tag the runner or throw to first to record the out"

That's it. That's all you need to say, and you're covered.

That said, they need a better/more uniform signalling system. It doesn't matter to the announcers/fans that the ump had been using that same mechanic all game, that 2nd hand gesture is a universal "out" sign. It's not "strike three, you're not out yet", and fans/announcers can very rarely hear the ump verbally declare out. There's no reason not to have a strike signal seperate from the out signal for people watching. The ump will still make verbal declarations for the catcher/hitter who can't see him.

If there were a stirke signal (or if there is one and the guy had used it), there's no debate/confusion. The problem is that everyone watching who had no chance to hear the ump (radio/tv announcers, fans there live and watching on TV, basically, everyone but A.J. and Josh Paul) saw the universal out sign.

[NatCox]

I'm not a big baseball fan, so maybe some of you guys can explain this to me. Why do they have the 3rd-strike-in-the-dirt-means-live-runner rule anyway? I just don't understand the reason for it.

[steve]

What bothers me most about all of this is that the Umps, in the post game press conference, said they had seen the play in the truck and were able to see either some shot nobody else did, or had some special technology that allowed them to see that the ball clearly changed direction, thus justifying the call.

Bullshit.
It's mostly bullshit, but not entirely. There was one head-on shot from over the pitcher, in super slow-mo, that showed the ball changing direction. However, it appeared the webbing was still under the ball, which means it changed direction in the glove (it probably hit the webbing part, then moved toward the center, or it hit the ground on the webbing and basically bounced in the glove itself).

While the Angels did get screwed, Paul should have tagged Pierwhatever. It's what catchers are taught to do from day 1: when it's even close to the ground, tag the hitter.

[triggercut]

The "how could they hear" thing is kinda silly.

Two outs, no one on, White Sox are the home team. I doubt the crowd is going crazy because one of their guys just struck out to end the ninth and send the game into extra innings.

The players can hear what's being said and called on the field. Eddings (the umpire) was three to six feet away from the two guys. Converging fielders are quadruple that distance when calling each other off fly balls in much louder situations all game long.

[Alan Dunkin]

I'm not a big baseball fan, so maybe some of you guys can explain this to me. Why do they have the 3rd-strike-in-the-dirt-means-live-runner rule anyway? I just don't understand the reason for it.

My understanding is that for a third strike to be considered an out, the ball must be caught by the catcher. If the ball is not caught, the batter must advance to first base as the ball is currently in play. Whether that means the catcher just drops the ball on the ground or it whizzes by him and hits the backstop. In that case, he batter must either be tagged with the ball or thrown out at first.

--- Alan

[Alan Dunkin]

The "how could they hear" thing is kinda silly.

Two outs, no one on, White Sox are the home team. I doubt the crowd is going crazy because one of their guys just struck out to end the ninth and send the game into extra innings.

The players can hear what's being said and called on the field. Eddings (the umpire) was three to six feet away from the two guys. Converging fielders are quadruple that distance when calling each other off fly balls in much louder situations all game long.

You'd think so, except covering outfielders don't hear each other a lot. I've seen it happen many a time, even when they are called off. The white noise level down on the playing field when you have 50k screaming people can be incredible.

I'm not saying that Paul should have assumed he didn't hear the call, ultimately he assumed that what he thought and what the umpire thought were the same thing. Since he can't even see the hand signals... and with a lot of noise, he should have tried to tag the hitter or throw to first. It's just the safe play, and you see vet catchers do that all the time.

The ball was sufficently down enough for the umpire to possibly believe it was trapped, I have no problem with that. The magic replay thing is kinda funky.

--- Alan

[steve]

Since he can't even see the hand signals... and with a lot of noise, he should have tried to tag the hitter or throw to first. It's just the safe play, and you see vet catchers do that all the time.
And Paul is 30 years old, with 8 MLB seasons under his belt. He definitely should have known better. And so should Scioscia.

[Jason Levine]

I've always loved watching Thome hit, because he has that old fashioned look, the way he points the bat at the pitcher, and the way he just lets rip with a beautiful uppercut swing. Shame about the back; I'd steer way clear of someone with that health problem and that contract.

Mark Shapiro confirmed yesterday that the Tribe definitely won't be interested in reacquiring Thome. Hardly suprising with that contract and that back. As Steve pointed out, his back makes him best suited to DH, and even at his best he'd hardly be better than a much more expensive Travis Hafner.

[sluggo]

Two more things on the Angels incident:

1) The ump was interviewed by the NYT, and while he maintains he made the correct call, he says he didn't do a good job communicating it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/sports/baseball/14sox.html


...Eddings criticized himself for not being more emphatic in signaling that the ball was in the dirt. After the pitch, he made a hand motion to his right before pumping his fist, which most observers thought was his sign that Pierzynski was out.

"The only thing I'm down on myself is I should have sold it either way," Eddings said. "I should have either said, 'No catch,' or, if I did have a catch, that he was out. Which I never said: 'He's out.' "

Eddings reiterated that he pumped his fist after every strike and said it was his mechanism for calling strikes. He said he would change his style and would likely just put his hand to the side to indicate a strike and eliminate the potential for confusion.
2) One of the ESPN guys brought up an interesting point: in the entire argument, no one asked to see the ball to see if it had scuff or dirt marks on it. That might actually have gotten the ump to overturn the call, something Scioscia, a former catcher, should have thought of.

[Alan Dunkin]

2) One of the ESPN guys brought up an interesting point: in the entire argument, no one asked to see the ball to see if it had scuff or dirt marks on it. That might actually have gotten the ump to overturn the call, something Scioscia, a former catcher, should have thought of.

In the heat of the moment? That's something you usually think of in various stages of hindsight, and besides which balls may be scruffed up just from a couple of pitches (and pitchers would rather prefer them to be scruffed - makes them easier to grip and manipulate).

--- Alan

[dannimal]

There's no way the ump would have overturned the call, regardless. What if it hit the ground but didn't get scuffed? No scuffing doesn't mean it didn't hit the ground.

Veteran catchers don't tag the runner on any "close" pitch, they tag the runner when either they think there's a chance the ball might have hit the ground or they've got some information that it wasn't a clean catch (the ump declaring it).

Josh Paul believed there was no chance the ball hit the ground. He believed with 100% certainty that he caught the ball cleanly. There was no reason to worry about tagging the runner, in his mind. The reflex of a guy who's caught hundreds or thousands of innings when they cleanly catch a 3rd strike that ends an inning is to flip the ball to the mound (or, I've seen catchers carry the ball into the dugout).

[sluggo]

I think, had Scioscia been able to show the ump a completely clean ball, he might have been able to convince the ump the ball never hit the dirt in the first place and get the call overturned. Kind of like when tennis players show marks in the clay or chalklines to show where the ball hit.

But yeah, in the heat of the moment, that's hard to remember, and since we have no idea if the ball Paul caught was actually clean and unscuffed after he caught it, it's a moot point anyway. But I thought it was still an interesting point to bring up. :)

[Jason Levine]

Four straight complete games. Absolutely friggin' amazing.

[sluggo]

The White Sox ALCS was indeed impressive. 44 1/3 out of 45 innings from starting pitching. Wow. When was the last time anyone did that in the regular season, let alone the playoffs?

What will the fallout be in St. Louis if the Astros manage to close them out?

[dannimal]

If the Astros beat St. Louis, they'll destroy Busch Stadium.

Granted, they'll do that even if the Cards win the WS, but hey. :)

[steve]

Four straight complete games. Absolutely friggin' amazing.
I think what people should take from that is that, unless pitch counts are off the charts, you're better with what you know than with the unknown.

Any time you bring in a relief pitcher, you have no idea if they're throwing well or not. So keep your starter in there until he's obviously tiring, and don't go nuts with the left/right matchups.

Of course this is much easier when you're facing such a crappy offense. Question: Is Houston's better than LAnaheim's? The Cards are obviously #1 of the teams left.

[Jason Levine]

The White Sox ALCS was indeed impressive. 44 1/3 out of 45 innings from starting pitching. Wow. When was the last time anyone did that in the regular season, let alone the playoffs?



I think one of the news shows said that the last time four straight complete games were pitched in the regular season was by the Rangers in 1983 or thereabouts. The last time it was done in the post-season was by the Yankees in the 1956 World Series, which included Don Larsen's perfect game.

[steve]

Wow, I'd almost typed my, "Hey, I picked the Astros" message.

Oops. I'm a hanging slider to Albert Pujols.

[sluggo]

That was a helluva rally, starting with -- who else -- Eckstein's single with two outs.

Was it me, or did Pujols just not seem that excited by that HR? From his reaction, you'd never know he'd just had the biggest hit of this year's playoffs. No smile, no cheer, no fist pump, no clapping. Just another routine 9th-inning, 2-out, 3-run HR to save your team from elimination.

[Toddy]

I liked that. Guy looked all business, and he knows there's a long way to go yet before any fist-pumping, etc. Gonna be one hell of a game six. Momentum in baseball is always a hard thing to grasp because of all the factors in there that can screw everything up, but this finish really swung everything over to the Cards.

[triggercut]

That was a helluva rally, starting with -- who else -- Eckstein's single with two outs.

Was it me, or did Pujols just not seem that excited by that HR? From his reaction, you'd never know he'd just had the biggest hit of this year's playoffs. No smile, no cheer, no fist pump, no clapping. Just another routine 9th-inning, 2-out, 3-run HR to save your team from elimination.

Like Mr. Pujols said tonight (and yeah, he's earned the "Mr. Pujols" thing I think) there's 2 more wins to get to the World Series for this club.

Still....the restaurant was empty, and about 8 of us Cardinal die-hards were gathered in my bar to watch the bitter end. It sure looked like it was all over when Johnny Wad and then Mabry Babry both struck out and looked bad doing so.

And then Eck. Balls of cast iron lead. Goddamn I love him. And then Jimmy Eyelinerbaseballhollywoodeyeshadow remembered the situation and his role.

And then the only guy in baseball fit to wear the mantle of The Man. I'm not sure it's possible to be laughing, crying, and hugging relative strangers all at once...but there I was.

http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/HTA139101800_1024x768.jpg

My new desktop wallpaper, replacing Stanley Frank Musial in that capacity.

I have no idea if we'll win another game in this series...but after the way this team went down without a fight in the World Series last year, to see them not go gently into that good baseball night was a beautiful thing.

[steve]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why they pitched to Pujols in that particular situation. Reggie Sanders was on-deck. REGGIE SANDERS. A post-injury Sanders, who despite earlier heroics really isn't any good any more.

Pujols is just awesomely talented. Smartest move of the Cards was locking him up with a big contract. He's already the cheapest superstar in the league. If he was a free agent this year, what would the Yankees be paying him? $15-20 million/year?

[Phil_Stein]

Walking Pujols probably would have been a statistically negative move. given that Litch was showing control problems (he walked Edmonds), it's not inconceivable that a walk of Pujols would have been followed by a bases loaded walk of Sanders. And Sanders has been VERY hot for the last ~20 games.

The real mistake was walking Edmonds. After the first two balls to Edmonds, they should have thrown him nothing but fastballs. Edmonds isn't THAT much of a power threat, and even if he had homered, it would have only tied the game, not put the Astros behind.

[dannimal]

Sanders has been hitting well throught he playoffs and is well known as the epitome of streaky hitter. When he's hot, he's hot.

I'm not saying he's better, or that I wouldn't rather pitch to him, but I don't think not pitching to Pujols with 2 on is a super obvious call.

[steve]

I'm not saying he's better, or that I wouldn't rather pitch to him, but I don't think not pitching to Pujols with 2 on is a super obvious call.
Normally I'd say yes, but Sanders got injured and missed a game, so I'm still going to challenge him instead of Pujols.

[steve]

Walking Pujols probably would have been a statistically negative move. given that Litch was showing control problems (he walked Edmonds), it's not inconceivable that a walk of Pujols would have been followed by a bases loaded walk of Sanders. And Sanders has been VERY hot for the last ~20 games.
I agree that walking Edmonds was the real problem (or giving up the hit to Eckstein), but at that point the winning run was already at the plate. Sure, walking Pujols puts the tying run in scoring position, but... it's Albert Pujols. Outside of Bonds, he's the best hitter on the planet. There's just no way I'm letting him hit in that situation, even against someone like Lidge. (He was also as hot as Sanders, and hadn't just missed a game with an injury.)

Even if he walks Pujols and Sanders (making the score 4-3), I still like my chances against Walker.

I liked what I read on one baseball blog this morning: It's too bad that crappy and gimmicky Minute Maid Park diminished the majestic awesomeness of Pujols' blast. Though it did allow the most extreme silencing of a crowd I've ever seen.

Even if the Astros win (which they should, considering their starters the next two games), they screwed up their World Series chances in a big way by losing Oswalt for Game 1.

[Ben]

steve- There's no way walking Pujols is a good idea there. Then Sanders only needs to single to tie the game, instead of forcing Pujols to hit a long double or better. It'd take a situation like Bonds hitting before a pitcher before I'd say intentionally putting the tying run in scoring position is a good idea.

Pujols' chance of getting a single, unintentional walk, or double that doesn't score Edmonds are pretty high, not even counting the chance that Pujols makes an out.

[steve]

Pujols' chance of getting a single, unintentional walk, or double that doesn't score Edmonds are pretty high, not even counting the chance that Pujols makes an out.
I don't disagree. It'd be very unconventional and generally a bad idea.

But we're talking Albert Pujols vs. Reggie Sanders. I like Lidge vs. Sanders in any situation way more than Pujols against anyone at any time. It's certainly easy to say this after-the-fact, but Lidge's stuff against Edmonds looked bad. I would have gone with all sliders away from Pujols and hoped he'd chase. If it went 2-0, he'd be on first.

[Phil_Stein]

I think if Pujols walks and Sanders doubles in any way, Pujols scores (he's reasonably fast, and with 2 outs, he'd be running on any contact with the ball).

So, you have the following:

Pitch to Pujols - results:
Out - Game over
Single, Walk - puts tying run on 2nd/3rd, winning run on first. Fairly similar outcomes
Double, Triple - ties the game, Pujols in scoring posiition
Homerun - Cards go ahead

Pujols stats for the year:
Out - 57.6% of Plate appearances
Walk/Single 30.7% of Plate appearances
Double/Triple 5.8% of Plate appearances
Home Run 6.0% of Plate appearances

Disregarding the Walks/Singles (which is close to the same as the alternative - an intentional walk), you get

Out 57.6%
Double/Triple 5.8%
Homer 6.0%

So the chances for a more positive outcome than an intentional walk versus a less positive one are 57.6/(5.8+6.0) or about 4.9 to 1

If Pujols walks, then Sanders needs a single to tie the game. He's hitting .270, and when you include the chances of a Sanders walk extending the inning, I think the odds are significantly in favor of pitching to Pujols.

The above analysis isn't perfect. Litch is a better pitcher than average (making it more positive to pitch to Pujols), but Houston is a hitter-friendly park, I don't include errors and passed balls, and Pujols is hot (all making it less positive to pitch to Pujols), but I think all that extra stuff roughly balances out. The Astros made the percentage play, it just didn't work for them.

[sluggo]

Hey, White Sox win.

[Jason Levine]

Hey, White Sox win.

Um, yeah. What a magical run. To me, proof positive that the stars were aligned for the White Sox was Uribe's catch of that foul pop in the stands. It was like the anti-Bartman. Here he was in the visitor's park and everyone gets out of his way! Note to Astros fans: It's OK to knock the ball away from the oposing player when he's in your stands, especially when your team is on the brink of elimination.

[Dave Long]

I thought it was pretty classy of those fans, myself.

--Dave

[Jason Levine]

Classy. But dumb. :wink:

[dannimal]

Yeah. *yawn*

I mean, it's nice that they finally won a WS after 80+ years, but there was no giant release of apprehension/stress like with the Red Sox last year. Mostly because the White Sox had only one decent playoff run in the last 5+years, so there wasn't any repeated buildup of "Will they? No!" like the Red Sox had. It was just "The White Sox haven't won a (home?) playoff game in 50 years!" then "They won a playoff game" then "they won the World Series!"

If they hadn't played .500 ball for the last two months (which made for an intersting AL Central race with Cleveland playing out of their mind), it would have been an epic season. They could have threatened 110 wins, there would have been no "White Sox played so bad late, that we're not giving them much chance" buzzkill, and they would have been remembered for winning 11 of 12 playoff games and leading wire-to-wire.

With the exception of the game 3 Houston home run that was mis-called (and even that was so close that nobody really questioned it, and it took Fox 10 minutes to find a solid replay), they got almost every break possible (Colon getting hurt, Clemens being sub-par, goofy 3rd strike call, the Pujols HR forcing Oswalt to pitch game 6 and shifting the WS rotation...) so there's focus on that.

Even though they probably didn't need them. They just seemed (and I know it's perception rather than an innate skill) to be able to will their way to wins. From 4-0 in Game 3 to 5-4, then giving up the tie but winning in 14, to having had the lead at least once in every one of their first 40 games or so.

Ozzie Guillen may not be an excellent game manager (he might, I haven't really stuided it), but he is an *excellent* team manager. He does what every good manager (in or out of baseball) does: Shields his team from the bullshit, and lets them do their job. I don't know if it's a concsious effort from him, or if he's just a "speak before thinking" outgoing, loudmouth type, but his "happy to be the focus of media attention" persona was perfect.

He'd let the media keep calling his team a "small ball" team (or correct them with "smart ball"), when they hit more HRs than the Red Sox during the regular season. They were a Moneyball team that added in the desire/ability to steal/bunt. Which I guess makes them a balanced team.

It'll be real interesting to see how this team does next year. How much of it stays together, and if there's reversion to the mean (record in 1 run games, and such). The Angels had a very similar team when they won in 2002 (get on base, don't strike out, pitch and play defense), but had many career years and came back to earth in 2003.

[Jason Levine]

Ozzie Guillen may not be an excellent game manager (he might, I haven't really stuided it), but he is an *excellent* team manager.

I'm not sure of this either. But my impression, and it's just a subjective impression so far, is that he has a good feel for handling his pitching staff. Unlike his counterpart on the North Side, he doesn't seem to leave his starters in until their arms fall off, but on ther other hand, he doesn't jump the gun on yanking them either. Last night, for example, he let Garcia work out of the bases loaded situation (I forget whether it was in the 6th or 7th inning), where a lot of managers would have gone right to the bullpen.

[Toddy]

Yeah. *yawn*

I mean, it's nice that they finally won a WS after 80+ years, but there was no giant release of apprehension/stress like with the Red Sox last year. Mostly because the White Sox had only one decent playoff run in the last 5+years, so there wasn't any repeated buildup of "Will they? No!" like the Red Sox had. It was just "The White Sox haven't won a (home?) playoff game in 50 years!" then "They won a playoff game" then "they won the World Series!"

I think the umpiring had something to do with it. I mean, the succession of crappy calls were really the top story of the 2005 MLB playoffs. Which is pretty damn sad, considering how big a White Sox WS victory is.

BTW, glad to see them win it finally, but disappointed that this is another kick in the teeth for the family of Buck Weaver. They're still trying to get his lifetime ban commuted, and were speaking about a curse not letting the White Sox win the World Series until Weaver was exonerated from any role in throwing the series in 1919. Well, there goes that bluff. Sorry, Buck.

[Brian Minsker]

Um, yeah. What a magical run. To me, proof positive that the stars were aligned for the White Sox was Uribe's catch of that foul pop in the stands. It was like the anti-Bartman. Here he was in the visitor's park and everyone gets out of his way! Note to Astros fans: It's OK to knock the ball away from the oposing player when he's in your stands, especially when your team is on the brink of elimination.

Perhaps further proof of divine intervention: From what I heard on the Chicago sports radio station, that foul ball ended up in a little pocket of Sox fans. Some woman from the south side called in saying she recognized several people from her parish there.

I've been an Astros fan all my life, but I have to admit that the White Sox played just enough better to win. I'll be happy if I never see Jermaine Dye managing to get the bat on a ball well out of the strike zone for a little Texas Leaguer or 15-hopper up the middle.

[mtkafka]

It'll be real interesting to see how this team does next year. How much of it stays together, and if there's reversion to the mean (record in 1 run games, and such). The Angels had a very similar team when they won in 2002 (get on base, don't strike out, pitch and play defense), but had many career years and came back to earth in 2003.

Imo, the White Sox have a better rotation than the 2002 Angels AND a solid young bullpen with Jenks as the anchor. And with up and coming Brandon McCarthy (lil Prior? with less velocity) the Sox will likely have winning season the next two or three years. As well I don't buy the 'small ball' thing... this is a team that hit TWO HUNDRED homeruns. They are deceptively strong for a 'small ball' team. Hell, I could easily see Rowand and Iguchi hitting 25 homeruns every year... considering theyre not the premier power hitters on the team... thats pretty good.

The achilles heel for next years White Sox will be starting rotation injuries. Guillen REALLY ate up alot of inning with his top 4...who ALL pitched over 200 innings. Its bound to get at least one of them on the DL... 236,228,221.. for Buerhle, Garcia and Garland... and even Contreras at 204. An injured rotation can wreak havoc to the whole pitching staff... just ask the stupid Cubs.

etc

[mtkafka]

Also amazing stats for there 'small ball' lineup... the White Sox were 11th (out of 14) in OBP, Average and Walks in the AL. Thats near the bottom. They had FIVE guys near or above 100 k's. Then you look at the rotation and the bullpen stats... pitching made this team.

etc

[Alan Dunkin]

White Sox's arms are very experienced and are possible of doing 200+ innings a year, with the exception of maybe Buerhle, long-term arm quality is a little questionable.. but I think the others are golden. Garcia, Contreras and Hernandez are proven 200+ inning pitchers. This is very different then the stupid Cubs, who put their young talented pitchers into the grinder and always appear shocked when they blow out their arms.. every friggin' year. Many think there is something seriously wrong in their organization's training, endurance, and rehabiliation programs.

--- Alan

[mtkafka]

White Sox's arms are very experienced and are possible of doing 200+ innings a year, with the exception of maybe Buerhle, long-term arm quality is a little questionable.. but I think the others are golden. Garcia, Contreras and Hernandez are proven 200+ inning pitchers. This is very different then the stupid Cubs, who put their young talented pitchers into the grinder and always appear shocked when they blow out their arms.. every friggin' year. Many think there is something seriously wrong in their organization's training, endurance, and rehabiliation programs.

--- Alan

Eh, I don't know about Contreras or Garland being 200 + guys year in, year out. I actually think Buerhle is a lock for 200 ... hes pitched 200 + for FIVE straight years AND hes only 26! Rubber arm.... plus his mechanics are good. Alot has to do with pitcher mechanics. You can just watch Wood and see his arm obliterate itself the way he pitches. Whereas a guy like Zambrano and Maddux... it looks alot less stressful to them. Yes the Cubs are dumb... but I don't know if I can blame Wood's injuries on them... the guy throws with his arm on fire.

Law of averages tells me the Sox rotation WILL have one injury next year... not because of bad management or whatever... its just how it goes these days. I would be VERY surprised if they had 4 guys pitch over 200 innings next year.

etc