Ach, I knew I couldn't stay away! I have checked out, analytically speaking, until the World Series, but here are some purely emotional reactions before tonight's game:
* I want the Yankees to win. There, I said it. Sure, I share in the baseball community's mutual dislike for the financial juggernaut that buys whoever they want and builds a stadium to comically enhance their offense. But as a team, no matter who they sign, no matter what the dimensions are down the right field line, I will always root for the Yankees over the Angels.
Yeah, Mike Scioscia's club has a scrappy makeup and a never-say-die attitude, but to me, they'll always just be the Anaheim Scum, with a marketing department that tries to muscle in on the Dodgers' demographic, and fans that spit on anyone who shows up at "The Big A" wearing A's gear. That's just how I feel about the matter.
* If (goffabid) the Angels were to go to the World Series against the Phillies, I would be forced to root for the Phils despite what they did to the Dodgers. That's how deep my dislike of the Angels goes. I don't want to root for the Phillies because they beat up on the Dodgers, ergo I'm pulling for the Yankees so I'll have someone to support in the Fall Classic.
* The only reason I was pulling for the Angels yesterday is so C.C. Sabathia could get an extra day's rest before his Game 1 start against the Phillies. I know the man can pitch on three (or probably even two if he wanted to) days rest, but it would be nice to have Ace vs. Ace to start off the Series.
* The Yankees were a better team than the Angels this year, so I have absolutely no qualms about supporting them. Whenever my favorite team is up against a better team, I always pull for my fave, but I also (sometimes) feel a little guilty about it. I like when the best teams are rewarded with a spot on the biggest stage, and I have little to no sympathy for the underdog. And in this particular ALCS, I don't feel enough animosity towards the cash crazy Yankees to make me change my position on this.
Here's hoping for a Marquee Matchup in Game 1....
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The END of the NLCS
As I sit here watching the Phillies score runs like jackhammers and the listen to the TBS Announcers talk like jackasses, I have little positive to say about Baseball in this moment. It's now 8-3, scratch that, 9-3, Jayson Werth just hit his second home run, and it doesn't look like the Dodgers are even playing in the same league.
The Dodgers were simply overmatched this series. They didn't have to be, though. Nothing about how they played all season could have predicted that they would be. Many predicted that the Dodgers would be very far from overmatched in the NLCS. But I guess the Big Man upstairs just had a thing for the Phillies this year: they do both share a similar color scheme.
The most obvious and basic reason for the Dodgers' loss has been the futility of their offense. Sure, the Phillies scored the most runs in the league this year (820, the Dodgers had 780), but the Dodgers had the best batting average (.270, the Phillies hit .258, good for just 10th) and on base percentage (.346, vs. .334 for the Phils). The Phillies had a commanding lead in slugging percentage (.447 vs. .412), giving them a slim lead in OPS (.781 vs. .758), which bespeaks a whole damn lot of home runs. Which, to my dismay, doesn't have all that much to do with them playing 81 games in hitter happy Citizens Bank Park: they hit 108 home runs at home, but 116 on the road. Who would'a thunk?
During the NLCS, the Dodgers have outhit the Phillies 38 to 36, but have been out walked 23 to 12, and out homered 10 to 6. The Dodgers just weren't getting enough runners on base nor coming up with the big hits to score them. Their bats just didn't wake up for this series, simple as that.
Another uncharacteristic reason for the Dodgers losing was the collapse of their erstwhile stellar bullpen. George Sherrill gave up 3 runs in 2 innings. Belisario gave up 3 runs in 3.1 innings. Then of course Jonathan Broxton's historic Game 4 blown save/loss. Troncoso and Kuo have been on, but in those high leverage situations, the big boys just can't seem to hold down leads. But, again, if the hitters could have scored some more runs in key situations, instead of leaving the bases loaded however-many times, their relief corps wouldn't have been under such pressure to perform.
Now that the series is officially in the books, I'd like to bitterly lash out at the powers that be. Everyone has been talking about how lousy the umpiring has been over the course of the entire post-season, and we've all heard the stories about how 12 umpires (including 7 crew chiefs) are unavailable due to injury, but some of the more flagrant missed calls during Game 4 got me riled up enough to do a little research. Behold: photographic evidence of a wildly inconsistent strike zone courtesy of home plate umpire Ted Barrett:
(Before I show these pictures, however, I want to re-acknowledge what I've said all along: the Dodgers were simply outplayed this series. Even if every questionable call throughout the entire series went the Dodgers' way, it wouldn't have made up the 17 runs by which the Dodgers were outscored. It might have translated into a crucial out, or a crucial run, or even a crucial win here and there, but overall, the team that played better won the series. These are just simply some observations on some rotten umpiring to keep in mind when the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the Umpires' Association expires this off-season.)
1st Inning
Ryan Howard vs. Randy Wolf (1 on, 2 out)
Result: Home Run (2 RBI)
Pitch 1 is hidden there behind pitch 3, and as you can see, both were called balls despite appearing to have caught the edge of the strike zone. Pitch 2 was a swinging strike. But check out pitch 4: clearly in the strike zone, but called a ball. Pitches 1 and 3 are questionable - if Barrett isn't calling the high strike or if he's confused by how close Howard stands to the plate, those could be balls. But there's no arguing about pitch 4, which, had it been called correctly, would have made the count 2-2 rather than 3-1. But the count did become 3-1, and we all know what happens to 90 mph 3-1 belt-high fastballs.
3rd Inning
Jimmy Rollins vs. Randy Wolf (0 on, 1 out)
Result: Flyball out
Pitches 1, 2, and 3: in the strike zone? I think so. Called strikes? By no means. Rollins made an out here, but it's the principle of the thing.
5th Inning
Carlos Ruiz vs. Randy Wolf (0 on, 2 out)
Result: Walk
I'll give you 2 and 4, but 1 and 6 were clearly strikes. Ruiz swung at pitch 5, so that's what's going on there.
Now let's look at some pitches called strikes against the Dodgers.
5th Inning
Rafael Furcal vs. Joe Blanton (0 on, 1 out)
Result: Groundout
This is just the first pitch, but, COME ON! I mean, it was a slider, so it may have looked like it passed through the strike zone, but looking at the pitches that landed in the strike zone and were called balls against Dodger pitchers, you can't help but wonder a little.
6th Inning
Russell Martin vs. Joe Blanton (2 on, 1 out)
Result: Strikeout looking
All three of those strikes were called, by the way. All are borderline pitches, to be sure, but pitches in the exact same location coming from Randy Wolf were called balls in the same game. It's clear that Barrett is just simply not calling the same game for each team.
7th Inning
Andre Ethier vs. Chan Ho Park (0 on, 2 out)
Result: Walk
What we have here is a case of the umpire shifting the strike zone two or three inches further towards third base than it should be: pitch 5 is clearly outside, but is called a strike. Noticing this, Ethier takes pitch six, which catches the inside corner of the plate, but is called ball four. Ethier realized that the strike zone can only be 17 inches across, and if it starts two inches further outside than it should be, it must also end two inches further inside than it should be. Ethier's a special player and was able to adapt in this situation, but he shouldn't have had to.
8th Inning
Russell Martin vs. Ryan Madson (1 on, 2 out)
Result: Walk
Just in the interest of fairness, here are some close pitches called in the Dodgers' favor. While you may think this piece of evidence nullifies all my rants about a clear anti-Dodger bias, it really just makes what you're about to see next even more infuriating...
9th Inning
Andre Ethier vs. B(r)ad Lidge (1 on, 2 out)
Result: Strikeout looking
Seriously? Pitch 5 is strike three called in the ninth inning with a runner on third and two outs? When was that pitch called a strike all night, even against the Dodgers? I have nothing more to say.
Except this: I don't mean to suggest that the umps were biased against the Dodgers or that they were on the take or that the boys in blue are being blacklisted because of Manny's steroid mess this season. I just want to point out that of the myriad missed calls during this game, the vast majority went against the Dodgers. I will, however, suggest a slight broadcasting bias. Whenever TBS's pitch trax showed a pitch in the strike zone that was called a ball against a Phillie pitcher, Chip Caray would undoubtedly cry out, "Pitch trax clearly thought that pitch was a strike, but called a ball..." but would remain blissfully silent whenever clear strikes were not called for Dodgers pitchers. Also, note that every time the Phillies scored a run or made a key out, Chip would make an elated outburst. But for a Dodgers big play: Nothing. Crickets. Just frustration on every level from a Dodger fan used to enjoying Vin Scully's Hall of Fame caliber broadcasts.
Okay, just some food for thought. I'll be signing off until the World Series....
The Dodgers were simply overmatched this series. They didn't have to be, though. Nothing about how they played all season could have predicted that they would be. Many predicted that the Dodgers would be very far from overmatched in the NLCS. But I guess the Big Man upstairs just had a thing for the Phillies this year: they do both share a similar color scheme.
The most obvious and basic reason for the Dodgers' loss has been the futility of their offense. Sure, the Phillies scored the most runs in the league this year (820, the Dodgers had 780), but the Dodgers had the best batting average (.270, the Phillies hit .258, good for just 10th) and on base percentage (.346, vs. .334 for the Phils). The Phillies had a commanding lead in slugging percentage (.447 vs. .412), giving them a slim lead in OPS (.781 vs. .758), which bespeaks a whole damn lot of home runs. Which, to my dismay, doesn't have all that much to do with them playing 81 games in hitter happy Citizens Bank Park: they hit 108 home runs at home, but 116 on the road. Who would'a thunk?
During the NLCS, the Dodgers have outhit the Phillies 38 to 36, but have been out walked 23 to 12, and out homered 10 to 6. The Dodgers just weren't getting enough runners on base nor coming up with the big hits to score them. Their bats just didn't wake up for this series, simple as that.
Another uncharacteristic reason for the Dodgers losing was the collapse of their erstwhile stellar bullpen. George Sherrill gave up 3 runs in 2 innings. Belisario gave up 3 runs in 3.1 innings. Then of course Jonathan Broxton's historic Game 4 blown save/loss. Troncoso and Kuo have been on, but in those high leverage situations, the big boys just can't seem to hold down leads. But, again, if the hitters could have scored some more runs in key situations, instead of leaving the bases loaded however-many times, their relief corps wouldn't have been under such pressure to perform.
Now that the series is officially in the books, I'd like to bitterly lash out at the powers that be. Everyone has been talking about how lousy the umpiring has been over the course of the entire post-season, and we've all heard the stories about how 12 umpires (including 7 crew chiefs) are unavailable due to injury, but some of the more flagrant missed calls during Game 4 got me riled up enough to do a little research. Behold: photographic evidence of a wildly inconsistent strike zone courtesy of home plate umpire Ted Barrett:
(Before I show these pictures, however, I want to re-acknowledge what I've said all along: the Dodgers were simply outplayed this series. Even if every questionable call throughout the entire series went the Dodgers' way, it wouldn't have made up the 17 runs by which the Dodgers were outscored. It might have translated into a crucial out, or a crucial run, or even a crucial win here and there, but overall, the team that played better won the series. These are just simply some observations on some rotten umpiring to keep in mind when the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the Umpires' Association expires this off-season.)
1st InningRyan Howard vs. Randy Wolf (1 on, 2 out)
Result: Home Run (2 RBI)
Pitch 1 is hidden there behind pitch 3, and as you can see, both were called balls despite appearing to have caught the edge of the strike zone. Pitch 2 was a swinging strike. But check out pitch 4: clearly in the strike zone, but called a ball. Pitches 1 and 3 are questionable - if Barrett isn't calling the high strike or if he's confused by how close Howard stands to the plate, those could be balls. But there's no arguing about pitch 4, which, had it been called correctly, would have made the count 2-2 rather than 3-1. But the count did become 3-1, and we all know what happens to 90 mph 3-1 belt-high fastballs.
3rd InningJimmy Rollins vs. Randy Wolf (0 on, 1 out)
Result: Flyball out
Pitches 1, 2, and 3: in the strike zone? I think so. Called strikes? By no means. Rollins made an out here, but it's the principle of the thing.
5th InningCarlos Ruiz vs. Randy Wolf (0 on, 2 out)
Result: Walk
I'll give you 2 and 4, but 1 and 6 were clearly strikes. Ruiz swung at pitch 5, so that's what's going on there.
Now let's look at some pitches called strikes against the Dodgers.
5th InningRafael Furcal vs. Joe Blanton (0 on, 1 out)
Result: Groundout
This is just the first pitch, but, COME ON! I mean, it was a slider, so it may have looked like it passed through the strike zone, but looking at the pitches that landed in the strike zone and were called balls against Dodger pitchers, you can't help but wonder a little.
6th InningRussell Martin vs. Joe Blanton (2 on, 1 out)
Result: Strikeout looking
All three of those strikes were called, by the way. All are borderline pitches, to be sure, but pitches in the exact same location coming from Randy Wolf were called balls in the same game. It's clear that Barrett is just simply not calling the same game for each team.
7th InningAndre Ethier vs. Chan Ho Park (0 on, 2 out)
Result: Walk
What we have here is a case of the umpire shifting the strike zone two or three inches further towards third base than it should be: pitch 5 is clearly outside, but is called a strike. Noticing this, Ethier takes pitch six, which catches the inside corner of the plate, but is called ball four. Ethier realized that the strike zone can only be 17 inches across, and if it starts two inches further outside than it should be, it must also end two inches further inside than it should be. Ethier's a special player and was able to adapt in this situation, but he shouldn't have had to.
8th InningRussell Martin vs. Ryan Madson (1 on, 2 out)
Result: Walk
Just in the interest of fairness, here are some close pitches called in the Dodgers' favor. While you may think this piece of evidence nullifies all my rants about a clear anti-Dodger bias, it really just makes what you're about to see next even more infuriating...
9th InningAndre Ethier vs. B(r)ad Lidge (1 on, 2 out)
Result: Strikeout looking
Seriously? Pitch 5 is strike three called in the ninth inning with a runner on third and two outs? When was that pitch called a strike all night, even against the Dodgers? I have nothing more to say.
Except this: I don't mean to suggest that the umps were biased against the Dodgers or that they were on the take or that the boys in blue are being blacklisted because of Manny's steroid mess this season. I just want to point out that of the myriad missed calls during this game, the vast majority went against the Dodgers. I will, however, suggest a slight broadcasting bias. Whenever TBS's pitch trax showed a pitch in the strike zone that was called a ball against a Phillie pitcher, Chip Caray would undoubtedly cry out, "Pitch trax clearly thought that pitch was a strike, but called a ball..." but would remain blissfully silent whenever clear strikes were not called for Dodgers pitchers. Also, note that every time the Phillies scored a run or made a key out, Chip would make an elated outburst. But for a Dodgers big play: Nothing. Crickets. Just frustration on every level from a Dodger fan used to enjoying Vin Scully's Hall of Fame caliber broadcasts.
Okay, just some food for thought. I'll be signing off until the World Series....
Monday, October 19, 2009
NLCS Game 3
I watched this game in the only suitable fashion for a mostly sane but also somewhat upsettable Dodgers fan: delayed by DVR and fast-forwarded as fast as possible until the 6th inning. Don't get me wrong, I would have fast-forwarded longer had I not caught up to the live broadcast: this game was (according to the LA Times and their penchant for puns) Ug-Lee. After the Phillies set the tone with 6 runs off Hiroki Kuroda over 1 1/3 innings, there just wasn't more worth watching in detail.
The Dodgers' offense put up zero after zero the whole game. Whether they were intimidated by the Philly crowd, stymied by change in the weather (93 degrees in game 2 compared to 47 degrees and dropping in game 3), or whether Cliff Lee was just that good, the boys in blue couldn't seem to get anything going. The Phillies' bats predictably exploded upon the return to their bandbox of a home ballpark, blasting doubles, triples, home runs, you name it. Baseball-reference had the Phillies' win probability at 100% with one out in the 6th inning. This game was an open and shut case almost from the moment it began.
But the big question surrounding Game 3 arose even before the first pitch: Why would Joe Torre pick Kuroda to start over Randy Wolf? Wolf pitched much more consistently than Kuroda in 2009, leading the league with 34 starts, as opposed to Kuroda's 20. When Kuroda was healthy, the two pitchers were pretty comparable: Wolf had a better ERA (3.23 to 3.76), but Kuroda had a better strikeout to walk ratio (3.63 to 2.76). The difference, though, is that Kuroda had a tough time staying healthy all year. After his first start (4/6) he was shut down until June with an oblique strain. We all know what happened on August 15, when a line drive that caromed off Kuroda's upper head and ended up in the stands behind home plate on one bounce sent him to the DL with a concussion for another 21 days. He pitched very well after coming back (3-2 record, 2.79 ERA, 24 strikeouts in 29 innings over 5 starts), but missed his final scheduled start of the regular season (and was kept off the Dodgers' roster in the first round of the playoffs) due to neck stiffness.
Last night was Kuroda's first time pitching in a game since allowing 7 runs over 4 innings on September 28. I know hindsight is always 20/20, but watching him pitch so poorly over the first two innings of last night's game, one can't help but wonder if he was really ready to come back. He pitched very well in the 2008 post-season, including a win against the Phillies at Dodger Stadium. But given his recent injuries and the lack of time he had to prepare/regain his timing and composure, it seemed like he wasn't the best choice to plug into a high-pressure, low-temperature situation.
Meanwhile, Randy Wolf has had plenty of rest since his Game 1 start of the Division Series against St. Louis. He didn't pitch very well in that game, but his year-long consistency should inspire enough faith in him for Torre to let him pitch twice in the NLCS. In a four-man rotation, the pitchers who start games 1-3 would also pitch games 5-7 respectively, if necessary. Not that Kuroda wouldn't give his team a good chance to win in games 3 and 7, but as a manager, wouldn't Joe Torre want to reward consistently good performance and limit the unpredictability that comes with a pitcher just returning from an injury?
That's the logical argument for Torre making a different decision than he did. Here's a karmic, gut-reaction defense of his choices:
Let's look at what was facing the Dodgers for this game. Sure, they were coming off a win, but it was a comeback win at the eleventh hour - not a win where they were decidedly in control. It was their first game in Philadelphia, where the crowd and the cold weather (to which the southern California boys had relatively no time to adjust) would come into play most drastically. And furthermore, they were slated to face the Phillies' indisputable staff ace in Cliff Lee. Now, as well as Randy Wolf pitched all season, Cliff Lee pitched better, even split between both leagues. This is more hindsight, but not even a great performance by Wolf would have made any difference against Lee's eight shutout innings. And this is now foresight, but an 11-0 blowout looks the same in the loss column as a 3-0 pitchers' duel.
This is just pure counterfactualism, but if one of your pitchers is going to give up 11 runs, wouldn't you rather have him give up those 11 runs in a game that you were not favored to win anyway? That way you have your best pitcher poised and ready to pitch in a game where the odds aren't as stacked against you: a game when you have Joe Blanton pitching against you instead of Cliff Lee, and when you've already had some time to adjust to the weather. This hypothesis ascribes some pretty risky (and unlikely) game-theoretical reasoning to Joe Torre, but if his strategy happens to work out, you can say you heard it here first.
Now this next part is just blatant wishful thinking, but it's very possible that by scoring 11 runs last night (and a combined 20 runs over the first three games of this series), the Phillies exhausted much of the share of runs set aside for them by the cosmic karmic forces of baseball. I haven't done the research, but we see a similar phenomenon repeat itself in the Home Run Derby: Jason Giambi (for example) hits 14 home runs in the first round, but then runs out of gas in the later rounds. Although he hit more total homers (20) than the eventual winner (Luis Gonzalez, 16), he could have won had he spaced out those first round homers over the course of the entire competition. Maybe this phenomenon holds true for teams in the playoffs as well as for individual players competing in an exhibition. And maybe it will work against the Phillies. Or maybe it's just hooey. Either way, here's looking forward to Game 4!
The Dodgers' offense put up zero after zero the whole game. Whether they were intimidated by the Philly crowd, stymied by change in the weather (93 degrees in game 2 compared to 47 degrees and dropping in game 3), or whether Cliff Lee was just that good, the boys in blue couldn't seem to get anything going. The Phillies' bats predictably exploded upon the return to their bandbox of a home ballpark, blasting doubles, triples, home runs, you name it. Baseball-reference had the Phillies' win probability at 100% with one out in the 6th inning. This game was an open and shut case almost from the moment it began.
But the big question surrounding Game 3 arose even before the first pitch: Why would Joe Torre pick Kuroda to start over Randy Wolf? Wolf pitched much more consistently than Kuroda in 2009, leading the league with 34 starts, as opposed to Kuroda's 20. When Kuroda was healthy, the two pitchers were pretty comparable: Wolf had a better ERA (3.23 to 3.76), but Kuroda had a better strikeout to walk ratio (3.63 to 2.76). The difference, though, is that Kuroda had a tough time staying healthy all year. After his first start (4/6) he was shut down until June with an oblique strain. We all know what happened on August 15, when a line drive that caromed off Kuroda's upper head and ended up in the stands behind home plate on one bounce sent him to the DL with a concussion for another 21 days. He pitched very well after coming back (3-2 record, 2.79 ERA, 24 strikeouts in 29 innings over 5 starts), but missed his final scheduled start of the regular season (and was kept off the Dodgers' roster in the first round of the playoffs) due to neck stiffness.
Last night was Kuroda's first time pitching in a game since allowing 7 runs over 4 innings on September 28. I know hindsight is always 20/20, but watching him pitch so poorly over the first two innings of last night's game, one can't help but wonder if he was really ready to come back. He pitched very well in the 2008 post-season, including a win against the Phillies at Dodger Stadium. But given his recent injuries and the lack of time he had to prepare/regain his timing and composure, it seemed like he wasn't the best choice to plug into a high-pressure, low-temperature situation.
Meanwhile, Randy Wolf has had plenty of rest since his Game 1 start of the Division Series against St. Louis. He didn't pitch very well in that game, but his year-long consistency should inspire enough faith in him for Torre to let him pitch twice in the NLCS. In a four-man rotation, the pitchers who start games 1-3 would also pitch games 5-7 respectively, if necessary. Not that Kuroda wouldn't give his team a good chance to win in games 3 and 7, but as a manager, wouldn't Joe Torre want to reward consistently good performance and limit the unpredictability that comes with a pitcher just returning from an injury?
That's the logical argument for Torre making a different decision than he did. Here's a karmic, gut-reaction defense of his choices:
Let's look at what was facing the Dodgers for this game. Sure, they were coming off a win, but it was a comeback win at the eleventh hour - not a win where they were decidedly in control. It was their first game in Philadelphia, where the crowd and the cold weather (to which the southern California boys had relatively no time to adjust) would come into play most drastically. And furthermore, they were slated to face the Phillies' indisputable staff ace in Cliff Lee. Now, as well as Randy Wolf pitched all season, Cliff Lee pitched better, even split between both leagues. This is more hindsight, but not even a great performance by Wolf would have made any difference against Lee's eight shutout innings. And this is now foresight, but an 11-0 blowout looks the same in the loss column as a 3-0 pitchers' duel.
This is just pure counterfactualism, but if one of your pitchers is going to give up 11 runs, wouldn't you rather have him give up those 11 runs in a game that you were not favored to win anyway? That way you have your best pitcher poised and ready to pitch in a game where the odds aren't as stacked against you: a game when you have Joe Blanton pitching against you instead of Cliff Lee, and when you've already had some time to adjust to the weather. This hypothesis ascribes some pretty risky (and unlikely) game-theoretical reasoning to Joe Torre, but if his strategy happens to work out, you can say you heard it here first.
Now this next part is just blatant wishful thinking, but it's very possible that by scoring 11 runs last night (and a combined 20 runs over the first three games of this series), the Phillies exhausted much of the share of runs set aside for them by the cosmic karmic forces of baseball. I haven't done the research, but we see a similar phenomenon repeat itself in the Home Run Derby: Jason Giambi (for example) hits 14 home runs in the first round, but then runs out of gas in the later rounds. Although he hit more total homers (20) than the eventual winner (Luis Gonzalez, 16), he could have won had he spaced out those first round homers over the course of the entire competition. Maybe this phenomenon holds true for teams in the playoffs as well as for individual players competing in an exhibition. And maybe it will work against the Phillies. Or maybe it's just hooey. Either way, here's looking forward to Game 4!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
OMG THE ALCS!
I can't believe I haven't been following these games! Just one thought from the one replay I was able to catch:
*Alex Rodriguez's dramatic game tying home run in the bottom of the 11th inning would not have been a home run in the old Yankee Stadium. For two reasons:
1.) That wall down the right field line would have been further out, since in the old plan it bowed like ) instead of connected straight like |.
2.) That same right field wall would have been at least two feet higher than it currently stands!!!
Maybe the Yanks would have come back to win it anyway; they do have a beast of a lineup no matter where they're playing. But when evaluating the overall strengths and weaknesses of the teams in the playoffs, it's interesting to try and figure how many Yankee wins can be accounted for by their ludicrous new ballpark alone? An extreme hitters' park can drastically affect the performance of an extremely offensive-oriented team.
It's probably not that much of a difference, but neither is there much of a difference between the Angels' 97 wins and the Yankees' 103. Especially considering that the Yankees scored only 32 more runs than the Angels all season. Not that many considering they scored 98 more runs than the Twins (the AL team with the lowest run total in the playoffs) and 275 more runs than the Mariners (the team with the lowest run total in the AL). I wouldn't count out either team just yet.
And, if the Angels came back to win it, it wouldn't be the first time the Yankees would have blown a series after going up two games to none. I'm just sayin, it's not over yet....
*Alex Rodriguez's dramatic game tying home run in the bottom of the 11th inning would not have been a home run in the old Yankee Stadium. For two reasons:
1.) That wall down the right field line would have been further out, since in the old plan it bowed like ) instead of connected straight like |.
2.) That same right field wall would have been at least two feet higher than it currently stands!!!
Maybe the Yanks would have come back to win it anyway; they do have a beast of a lineup no matter where they're playing. But when evaluating the overall strengths and weaknesses of the teams in the playoffs, it's interesting to try and figure how many Yankee wins can be accounted for by their ludicrous new ballpark alone? An extreme hitters' park can drastically affect the performance of an extremely offensive-oriented team.
It's probably not that much of a difference, but neither is there much of a difference between the Angels' 97 wins and the Yankees' 103. Especially considering that the Yankees scored only 32 more runs than the Angels all season. Not that many considering they scored 98 more runs than the Twins (the AL team with the lowest run total in the playoffs) and 275 more runs than the Mariners (the team with the lowest run total in the AL). I wouldn't count out either team just yet.
And, if the Angels came back to win it, it wouldn't be the first time the Yankees would have blown a series after going up two games to none. I'm just sayin, it's not over yet....
Saturday, October 17, 2009
NLCS Off Day
Now that the Dodgers and the Phillies have the day off, I have some time to take a deep breath and look at what happened those first two games in Los Angeles. What a whirlwind National League Championship Series (NLCS), eh? Summary: Phillies won a slugfest 8-6 Thursday night, and Dodgers won a 2-1 pitchers' duel Friday afternoon. The series will recommence Sunday in Philadelphia. I'll look at the key plays, how each team's projected strengths and weaknesses ended up influencing the victory, and the big picture for both the rest of this round and through the playoffs.
I was able to sit down and watch both NLCS games, partly at the expense of keeping abreast of both Championship Serieses - after 7+ hours of baseball over two days, I had neither the time nor the mental capacity to watch game 1 of the ALCS. I still don't have a team to root for in that series, despite familial ties to the Yankees. My desire for a Freeway Series is tempered by my desire that the Angels never win another ballgame. I'd rather not see the Yankees win title number 27, just in the interest of league parity, but if it came down (goffabid) to Phils-Yanks, I'd route for New York to stop Philadelphia from becoming the first NL team to repeat as champions since 1975-76. I realize that's kind of ironic, seeing as the Yankees have repeated as champions twice since then and three times before that, but I just don't feel the need to see Jimmy Rollins, and Shane Victorino, and Cole Hamels spraying each other with champagne two years in a row. Especially not when it would both times be at the expense of my Los Angeles Dodgers.
Yes, for the playoffs, all attempts at unbiased reporting have flown out the window. It's very hard when there are only four teams left and you (along with most everyone in your hometown) want one of those teams to win more than the others. But, hey, it's October, and it's my blog and I'll root if I want to.
I watched game one with four close friends and enough beer to go around, so emotions were running high. Everyone was excited for a rematch of last year's NLCS, the Phillies hungry for a second title, the Dodgers eager for some revenge. We expected the Phillies to hit plenty of dingers (seeing as they led the league in that category in '09). We expected the Dodgers' bullpen to be lights out, as it had been all season. We expected some inside pitches and we expected Shane Victorino to have some words with whichever Dodger was closest to him at the time.
No one knew what to expect out of either team's starting pitchers. Cole Hamels dominated the Dodgers last year in two starts, earning the series MVP, but he's been a decidedly different pitcher this year: compare 2,253 (68.3) 2008 swp with 1,344 (42.0) 2009 swp. Meanwhile, Clayton Kershaw, the youngest ever pitcher to start an NLCS opener, had a tremendous season for a 21-year-old, and his left-handedness set him up nicely for facing the Phillies' three lefty big boppers (Utley, Howard, Ibanez).
Neither pitcher had a great performance, with Hamels pitching into the 6th and allowing two home runs, and Kershaw walking five with three wild pitches over less than five innings. In all seriousness, Kershaw should have pitched less than he did. In the Phillies' 5th, still with no outs, Kershaw gave up a three-run home run to secret weapon Carlos Ruiz, then walked the pitcher Cole Hamels. That should have been it for the youngster, but he was allowed to pitch for two more outs, allowing a walk, two wild pitches, and a two-run double to Ryan Howard.
According to baseball-reference.com's Winning Team Win Probability Added (which measures how much any one play influences the eventual outcome of the game), the game was even until Ruiz's shot: one pitch increased the Phillies' odds of winning from 49% to 75%. Howard's two-out double made the Phillies' chances 89%.
Manny shaved a lot of that off in the very next inning, with his clutch home run bringing the Phillies down to a 64% win chance. At one point in the Dodgers' 6th, with Russell Martin up with two on and one out, the Phillies were as low as 54%. But when George Sherrill came in for the 8th, he sealed the Dodgers' fate with a three-run home run to Raul Ibanez that bumped the Phillies all the way up to a 96% probability. What's this? A Dodger bullpen meltdown? Unheard of! An ugly save for Brad Lidge later, and the Phightin Phils wrapped up game one with a bang.
Missed opportunities for the Dodgers' offense, an uncharacteristically bad inning from playoff rookie George Sherrill, and an uncharacteristically good game from the Phillies' pen marked game one. Game two saw two veteran midseason acquisitions go at it: Vicente Padilla for the Dodgers and Pedro Martinez for the Phillies. There were some who second guessed starting Padilla after only seven starts for the Dodgers, rather than handing game two (and possibly game 5) to his ace during the season lefty Randy Wolf. But Padilla didn't disappoint, allowing one run (on really just one bad pitch to Ryan Howard) over 7 1/3 innings. He was matched pitch for pitch by the legendary Pedro Martinez, who looked like his old self, minus a few mph on his fastball.
It wasn't until Pedro was out of the game and former Dodger Chan Ho Park came into the game that the Dodgers began to rally. In an 8th inning that took five Phillies pitchers to finish, the Dodgers eked out two runs from a Chase Utley throwing error and a bases loaded walk to Andre Ethier. As Chip Caray remarked over and over for TBS, the Dodgers are a team who play all 9 innings, as they are among the tops in the league in come-from-behind wins.
So who, if anyone, has the advantage going into tomorrow's game? Games are even at one apiece, but we're heading into the Phillies' home turf. Another midseason acquisition, Cliff Lee, is pitching for the home team against Hiroki Kuroda for the Dodgers, who had a scary season. My bias is keeping me from coming up with a truly accurate prediction, but I like the Phillies for this next game, if only because the Dodgers seem to play slightly better as underdogs. Wait until game four, with Randy Wolf pitching in a familiar ballpark against a lefty-heavy lineup and we'll see what happens.
The commercials say you can't script October. But you can look back on what happened and write a script about that. And in the interest of that pursuit, I think it's important to keep as detailed notes as possible at the time.
I was able to sit down and watch both NLCS games, partly at the expense of keeping abreast of both Championship Serieses - after 7+ hours of baseball over two days, I had neither the time nor the mental capacity to watch game 1 of the ALCS. I still don't have a team to root for in that series, despite familial ties to the Yankees. My desire for a Freeway Series is tempered by my desire that the Angels never win another ballgame. I'd rather not see the Yankees win title number 27, just in the interest of league parity, but if it came down (goffabid) to Phils-Yanks, I'd route for New York to stop Philadelphia from becoming the first NL team to repeat as champions since 1975-76. I realize that's kind of ironic, seeing as the Yankees have repeated as champions twice since then and three times before that, but I just don't feel the need to see Jimmy Rollins, and Shane Victorino, and Cole Hamels spraying each other with champagne two years in a row. Especially not when it would both times be at the expense of my Los Angeles Dodgers.
Yes, for the playoffs, all attempts at unbiased reporting have flown out the window. It's very hard when there are only four teams left and you (along with most everyone in your hometown) want one of those teams to win more than the others. But, hey, it's October, and it's my blog and I'll root if I want to.
I watched game one with four close friends and enough beer to go around, so emotions were running high. Everyone was excited for a rematch of last year's NLCS, the Phillies hungry for a second title, the Dodgers eager for some revenge. We expected the Phillies to hit plenty of dingers (seeing as they led the league in that category in '09). We expected the Dodgers' bullpen to be lights out, as it had been all season. We expected some inside pitches and we expected Shane Victorino to have some words with whichever Dodger was closest to him at the time.
No one knew what to expect out of either team's starting pitchers. Cole Hamels dominated the Dodgers last year in two starts, earning the series MVP, but he's been a decidedly different pitcher this year: compare 2,253 (68.3) 2008 swp with 1,344 (42.0) 2009 swp. Meanwhile, Clayton Kershaw, the youngest ever pitcher to start an NLCS opener, had a tremendous season for a 21-year-old, and his left-handedness set him up nicely for facing the Phillies' three lefty big boppers (Utley, Howard, Ibanez).
Neither pitcher had a great performance, with Hamels pitching into the 6th and allowing two home runs, and Kershaw walking five with three wild pitches over less than five innings. In all seriousness, Kershaw should have pitched less than he did. In the Phillies' 5th, still with no outs, Kershaw gave up a three-run home run to secret weapon Carlos Ruiz, then walked the pitcher Cole Hamels. That should have been it for the youngster, but he was allowed to pitch for two more outs, allowing a walk, two wild pitches, and a two-run double to Ryan Howard.
According to baseball-reference.com's Winning Team Win Probability Added (which measures how much any one play influences the eventual outcome of the game), the game was even until Ruiz's shot: one pitch increased the Phillies' odds of winning from 49% to 75%. Howard's two-out double made the Phillies' chances 89%.
Manny shaved a lot of that off in the very next inning, with his clutch home run bringing the Phillies down to a 64% win chance. At one point in the Dodgers' 6th, with Russell Martin up with two on and one out, the Phillies were as low as 54%. But when George Sherrill came in for the 8th, he sealed the Dodgers' fate with a three-run home run to Raul Ibanez that bumped the Phillies all the way up to a 96% probability. What's this? A Dodger bullpen meltdown? Unheard of! An ugly save for Brad Lidge later, and the Phightin Phils wrapped up game one with a bang.
Missed opportunities for the Dodgers' offense, an uncharacteristically bad inning from playoff rookie George Sherrill, and an uncharacteristically good game from the Phillies' pen marked game one. Game two saw two veteran midseason acquisitions go at it: Vicente Padilla for the Dodgers and Pedro Martinez for the Phillies. There were some who second guessed starting Padilla after only seven starts for the Dodgers, rather than handing game two (and possibly game 5) to his ace during the season lefty Randy Wolf. But Padilla didn't disappoint, allowing one run (on really just one bad pitch to Ryan Howard) over 7 1/3 innings. He was matched pitch for pitch by the legendary Pedro Martinez, who looked like his old self, minus a few mph on his fastball.
It wasn't until Pedro was out of the game and former Dodger Chan Ho Park came into the game that the Dodgers began to rally. In an 8th inning that took five Phillies pitchers to finish, the Dodgers eked out two runs from a Chase Utley throwing error and a bases loaded walk to Andre Ethier. As Chip Caray remarked over and over for TBS, the Dodgers are a team who play all 9 innings, as they are among the tops in the league in come-from-behind wins.
So who, if anyone, has the advantage going into tomorrow's game? Games are even at one apiece, but we're heading into the Phillies' home turf. Another midseason acquisition, Cliff Lee, is pitching for the home team against Hiroki Kuroda for the Dodgers, who had a scary season. My bias is keeping me from coming up with a truly accurate prediction, but I like the Phillies for this next game, if only because the Dodgers seem to play slightly better as underdogs. Wait until game four, with Randy Wolf pitching in a familiar ballpark against a lefty-heavy lineup and we'll see what happens.
The commercials say you can't script October. But you can look back on what happened and write a script about that. And in the interest of that pursuit, I think it's important to keep as detailed notes as possible at the time.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Who's Who in the Playoffs
Now that the first round of the playoffs is complete, it seems as good a time as any to talk a little about the players themselves who made the playoffs. It's also a good time to introduce the somewhat outdated and unwieldy method of player evaluation that I've dabbled with for the better part of this decade.
When I learned how to calculate it and started using it, the system was called "SWP" (short for "Small World Points") because Small World Fantasy Baseball was the web service my friends and I used at the time. I think the site was since bought by The Sporting News, because I've seen similar systems labeled "TSNP." Like all methods of evaluation in fantasy sports, the swp system measures and quantifies on-field accomplishments, giving different weights to different outcomes. This process makes it easier for a group of fantasizers to compare how the players on their respective fantasy teams are doing, and rank them against their competitors. Here's the breakdown for swp:
For Batters
OUTS: -1
RUNS: +5
1B: +5
2B: +10
3B: +15
HR: +20
RBI: +5
BB: +3
SO: -1
SB: +10
CS: -5
For Pitchers
W: +30
L: -15
SV: +30
IP: +15 (+5 for each 1/3)
H: -5
ER: -10
BB: -5
K: +3
If you have squabbles about how accurately this system quantifies actual on-field worth, do me a favor and don't dwell on them or take out your frustrations on me. I like the system because it's relatively easy to calculate, it gives a single-number evaluation of a player's strengths, and it can keep track of performance cumulatively over the course of a season.
An evaluation of a player always includes two numbers: his full-season swp and his swp per game (in parenthesis). The points/game option provides some context for the full-season number; say a player had an injury shortened season or only spent a short time in the majors.
So now back to the playoffs: out of the list of all the players on post-season rosters, here's a list of the top-ten performing batters in terms of swp (for each league) and the top-five performing starting pitchers (again, one list per league):
AL BATTERS -->
NL BATTERS -->
AL PITCHERS -->
NL PITCHERS
-->
I realize this is a lot of information to digest, but here's a few quick observations. It just happens to work out that 2,000 swp is a very good season - just how it happens to work out that .300 is a very good batting average and 90 mph is a very good speed for a fastball - with 3,000 reserved for the biggest, (or juicing-est) players of the era: Pujols, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, in their prime.
The system obviously rewards big boppers rather than high-average, high-on base guys: it's very difficult for a guy like Dustin Pedroia to put up numbers similar to Chase Utley, which is one of the reasons his MVP season last year was so eye-popping (Pedroia's 2,455 to Utley's 2,559 despite the former hitting half as many home runs as the latter and posting an OPS 80 points lower).
Workhorse pitchers with high win totals get more credit than hurlers with better peripherals, which, in a sense, makes the swp system a good predictor of who will win the Cy Young award. But sometimes performance (rather than run support) speaks for itself: AL win-(co)leader C.C. Sabathia pulled in 2,266 (66.6) while Sabermetrician favorite Zack Greinke is sitting pretty at 2,726 (82.6). (Their competition and fellow win-leader King Felix Hernandez has 2,671 (78.6), so despite Greinke's 30-point edge in ERA and strikeouts, the award might not be as clear-cut as we all hope it will be.)
I know that many smart baseball people are using much more advanced and accurate metrics to evaluate players than something a fantasy baseballer cooked up and posted on the internet for the enjoyment of his/her clients. But I like the comfort of having a single number to explain a player's season. And while I know it doesn't even come close to telling the whole story (not even offensively... and it doesn't even mention defensive numbers), I think swps, when taken in conjunction with more traditional statistics, can tell us a lot about a player, his fellow players, and the era in which he plays. And I hope you think so too.
When I learned how to calculate it and started using it, the system was called "SWP" (short for "Small World Points") because Small World Fantasy Baseball was the web service my friends and I used at the time. I think the site was since bought by The Sporting News, because I've seen similar systems labeled "TSNP." Like all methods of evaluation in fantasy sports, the swp system measures and quantifies on-field accomplishments, giving different weights to different outcomes. This process makes it easier for a group of fantasizers to compare how the players on their respective fantasy teams are doing, and rank them against their competitors. Here's the breakdown for swp:
For Batters
OUTS: -1
RUNS: +5
1B: +5
2B: +10
3B: +15
HR: +20
RBI: +5
BB: +3
SO: -1
SB: +10
CS: -5
For Pitchers
W: +30
L: -15
SV: +30
IP: +15 (+5 for each 1/3)
H: -5
ER: -10
BB: -5
K: +3
If you have squabbles about how accurately this system quantifies actual on-field worth, do me a favor and don't dwell on them or take out your frustrations on me. I like the system because it's relatively easy to calculate, it gives a single-number evaluation of a player's strengths, and it can keep track of performance cumulatively over the course of a season.
An evaluation of a player always includes two numbers: his full-season swp and his swp per game (in parenthesis). The points/game option provides some context for the full-season number; say a player had an injury shortened season or only spent a short time in the majors.
So now back to the playoffs: out of the list of all the players on post-season rosters, here's a list of the top-ten performing batters in terms of swp (for each league) and the top-five performing starting pitchers (again, one list per league):
AL BATTERS -->
| NYY | 1B | Mark Teixeira | 2,581 | (16.5) |
| BOS | LF | Jason Bay | 2,392 | (15.8) |
| MIN | C | Joe Mauer | 2,340 | (17.0) |
| BOS | CF | Jacoby Ellsbury | 2,323 | (15.2) |
| NYY | SS | Derek Jeter | 2,306 | (15.1) |
| LAA | RF | Bobby Abreu | 2,222 | (14.6) |
| BOS | 2B | Dustin Pedroia | 2,210 | (14.4) |
| NYY | 2B | Robinson Cano | 2,180 | (13.5) |
| LAA | 1B | Kendry Morales | 2,179 | (14.3) |
| BOS | 1B/3B | Kevin Youkilis | 2,168 | (15.9) |
NL BATTERS -->
| STL | 1B | Albert Pujols | 3,196 | (20.0) |
| PHI | 1B | Ryan Howard | 2,660 | (16.6) |
| PHI | 2B | Chase Utley | 2,512 | (16.1) |
| LAD | CF | Matt Kemp | 2,347 | (14.8) |
| OAK/STL | LF | Matt Holliday | 2,334 | (15.0) |
| PHI | RF | Jayson Werth | 2,318 | (14.6) |
| COL | SS | Troy Tulowitski | 2,304 | (15.3) |
| LAD | RF | Andre Ethier | 2,223 | (13.9) |
| PHI | SS | Jimmy Rollins | 2,117 | (13.7) |
| PHI | CF | Shane Victorino | 2,077 | (13.3) |
AL PITCHERS -->
| NYY | SP | C.C. Sabathia | 2,266 | (66.6) |
| BOS | SP | Jon Lester | 2,020 | (63.1) |
| BOS | SP | Josh Beckett | 1,992 | (62.3) |
| LAA | SP | Jered Weaver | 1,837 | (55.7) |
| MIN | SP | Scott Baker | 1,621 | (49.1) |
NL PITCHERS
-->
| STL | SP | Adam Wainwright | 2,476 | (72.8) |
| STL | SP | Chris Carpenter | 2,287 | (81.7) |
| CLE/PHI | SP | Cliff Lee | 1,948 | (57.3) |
| LAD | SP | Randy Wolf | 1,940 | (57.1) |
| COL | SP | Ubaldo Jimenez | 1,904 | (57.7) |
I realize this is a lot of information to digest, but here's a few quick observations. It just happens to work out that 2,000 swp is a very good season - just how it happens to work out that .300 is a very good batting average and 90 mph is a very good speed for a fastball - with 3,000 reserved for the biggest, (or juicing-est) players of the era: Pujols, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, in their prime.
The system obviously rewards big boppers rather than high-average, high-on base guys: it's very difficult for a guy like Dustin Pedroia to put up numbers similar to Chase Utley, which is one of the reasons his MVP season last year was so eye-popping (Pedroia's 2,455 to Utley's 2,559 despite the former hitting half as many home runs as the latter and posting an OPS 80 points lower).
Workhorse pitchers with high win totals get more credit than hurlers with better peripherals, which, in a sense, makes the swp system a good predictor of who will win the Cy Young award. But sometimes performance (rather than run support) speaks for itself: AL win-(co)leader C.C. Sabathia pulled in 2,266 (66.6) while Sabermetrician favorite Zack Greinke is sitting pretty at 2,726 (82.6). (Their competition and fellow win-leader King Felix Hernandez has 2,671 (78.6), so despite Greinke's 30-point edge in ERA and strikeouts, the award might not be as clear-cut as we all hope it will be.)
I know that many smart baseball people are using much more advanced and accurate metrics to evaluate players than something a fantasy baseballer cooked up and posted on the internet for the enjoyment of his/her clients. But I like the comfort of having a single number to explain a player's season. And while I know it doesn't even come close to telling the whole story (not even offensively... and it doesn't even mention defensive numbers), I think swps, when taken in conjunction with more traditional statistics, can tell us a lot about a player, his fellow players, and the era in which he plays. And I hope you think so too.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Miguel Cabrera's Marital Troubles
I guess the pressure's getting to Miguel Cabrera. This happened several days ago, but I only just heard about it now, what with not having access to the Internet or the MLB network for the last several days (a state of uninformedness that will continue for the next week).
Apparently Miguel Cabrera, the Tigers' slugging first baseman, returned to his home drunk on Friday night, got into an altercation with his wife, and was taken to the local police station. Although no charges are pending, both Cabrera and his wife received minor facial injuries. Tigers General Manager Dave Dombrowski picked up Cabrera at the police station, and he has since gone 0-for-7 combined (plus an intentional walk) in Saturday and Sunday's games.
Maybe it's a tad reactionary and unfair to blame Cabrera's recent poor performance on his little incident, especially in a season where he hit 33 homers, drove in 101 runs, and put up a .323/.395/.541 line (so far). But when you're the star player on a team that's tied for first place on the last day of the season, you have to be on top of your game, both mentally and physically, professionally and personally.
I want to see the Tigers in the playoffs for a number of reasons, not the least of which is wanting to see Justin Verlander strike out Yankee after Yankee in the first round. But if the Twins end up beating the Tigers this afternoon and the Miguel Cabrera we've seen all season doesn't show up ready to play, I would not discount his drunken escapade as one of the reasons.
It's all about intangibles, people!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
At Season's End...!
So the last day of the baseball season has come and gone, and here I was without any internet access! The only snippet of a game I caught was when A-Rod cranked a grand slam, his second home run of the inning, to put his RBI total at an even 100 for the year. But seeing as the day's not over yet (at least in some parts of the country), here are some belated ideas/reactions.
* Congratulations to the Dodgers for (finally) clinching the NL West against the Rockies! Whatever embarrassment they may have suffered by giving up such a commanding lead so late in the season is now forgiven, as the Dodgers have locked up their division title and earned themselves a chance to play against the Cardinals in the first round of the playoffs. I'm sorry that I wasn't in Los Angeles for the clinching game, but I was wearing my "Ramirez 99" t-shirt, so I guess that counts for something.
Now that the euphoria has passed and we can look at the consequence of the Dodgers' victory on that fateful Saturday, we can ask whether avoiding the sweep by the Rockies gave the Dodgers the optimal matchup for the division series. Sure they won the west, finished with the best record in the National League, and gained home field advantage throughout the playoffs (until the World Series, where the All-Star Game determines which league hosts the fall classic). But they have to face the Cardinals, who boast the game's best hitter in Albert Pujols, and two Cy Young candidates: ERA leader Chris Carpenter and wins leader Adam Wainwright. If the Dodgers' offense continues to struggle, I don't think their pitching staff can match the studs sent out to the mound by the Redbirds.
Incidentally, I've heard from some people known for doing very comprehensive research that there isn't a strong correlation between a team's end-of-the-season performance and its post-season performance. If you can take these findings at face value, there's really no reason to assume that the Dodgers will continue to struggle as October rolls on. Plus, while talking about "optimal matchups" is fun and all, there's really no reason to even entertain the possibility that the Dodgers would allow themselves to be swept, sacrificing their division title, for the sake of facing a different team in the first round of the playoffs. Especially not one that owns the second-highest OPS in the league. And I'm sure facing whatever combination of Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, Joe Blanton, and Pedro Martinez would be no cakewalk either.
Keeping in mind that the Phillies and the Cardinals were separated by only two wins this season, it's easy to imagine both scenarios for the Dodgers, and fantasize about how things would work out in either one.
*Kudos Twins and Tigers for both winning today and ending the season tied for first place in the AL Central! I'm certainly looking forward to the one-game playoff this Tuesday, the Twins' second 163rd game in as many years.
This is how it should be: two teams duking it out to see who wins the sport's weakest division. It would seem somehow predictable and anti-climactic if the Tigers, after playing well all year, totally nullified the Twins' late surge by holding onto today's victory and winning the division by watching the Twins lose on TV from the comfort of their clubhouse. And it would seem downright wrong for the Twins to sneak through the backdoor and win the division on the last day after last holding sole possession of first place on April 10.
No, better the outcome be decided by a direct battle, mano a mano, face to face! This way, either the Tigers prove they are actually the better team by stomping their competition, or the Twins prove that their success of late reflects real talent rather than just flukish momentum.
It always amazes me how two teams competing for the same playoff spot can finish with the exact same record over 162 games. And the fact that it happened twice in the last two years is simply mind-boggling. But I guess that's just how baseball works. And it's this kind of stuff that keeps fans coming back year after year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)