MLB - Discuss Yesterday's action or anything you want

[MR.BROWNSTONE]

Dam the Yankees lost today. St. Louis is playing pretty good so far this post season after having a tought time in aug and sept.

[D]

Tom Glavine is my all time favorite baseball player and tonight he proved that he ages like a fine wine.

6 shutout innings, Mets up 2-0!

[Skinflick]

LET'S GO METS!!!

[MR.BROWNSTONE]

A's had a nice sweep today over the Twins. Good for them. Hope the Yankees get to play them next. Other news for the A's offer Thomas a two-year deal. Thomas batted .270 with 39 home runs and 114 RBIs in 137 games this season. He had a great year. I'm  sure a lot of teams would like to have after this year.

[sandman]

what the hell happened to the yankees? looks like they choked. tigers were primed to be swept.

[GeorgeSteele]

Unfortunately, no Subway Series, but was great to see the Mets take the first round.  Hope they go all the way; it won't be easy that's for sure.  I don't know that the bullpen can keep going 4-5 innings a game.

Sad to see rumors about Torre getting fired.  With no pitching and a shitload of injuries, he guides the team to the best record in the league and then gets blamed when the team collectively chokes in the playoffs.

[pilferk]

what the hell happened to the yankees? looks like they choked. tigers were primed to be swept.

You can blame 3 people and 1 thing for the Yankees collapse (and no, not one of them is named A-Rod).

Mike Mussina, given a 2 run lead by Damons HR in Game 2, blows the lead. ?That, right there, was the turning point of the series. ?It was pretty much a foregone conclusion the Yanks were not going to pick up Mussina's 17 million dollar option for next season. ?Now Mike will be lucky to be in pinstripes at all. ?Once the Tigers came back, and took the 1 Run lead, you saw the Yanks lineup, from top to bottom, completely change at the plate. ?From patient to desperate.

Joe Torre was outmanaged, from game 2 onward, by Leyland. ?Torre bounced A-Rod around in the lineup, fucking with his already screwed up head (hey, thanks Mr. Media for creating a non-story to pursue all season...but that's a different thread, I guess), played Sheff at 1st (his errors were pretty costly...hell, even A-Rod's error in game 4 was actually Sheffs), and did nothing to calm his players down so they could be patient and effective at the plate...the entire thing that made them so successful all year. ?I've been one of Joe's biggest cheerleaders in years past, but this year....I think it might be time for Joe to go. ?If for no other reason than to wake up the rest of the clubhouse (who, as we all know, love him to death) and punish them for thier lack of production.

Randy Johnson was a disaster. ?I know, I know...his aching back. ?Well, if his back left him that ineffective they should have gracefully pulled him from the post season roster. ?His game 3 start was EXACTLY the type of game the Yanks brought Johnson to NYC to win....and he was, as he has been all season, inconsistently terrible. ?If I were Randy, I'd be pretty ashamed of my performance and start seriously considering retirment.

And last, but not least (and I touched on it earlier) is patience. ?They had none at the plate. ?Jimmy Leyland helped out by pushing his team, in games 3 and 4, to score early and bring out the "desperation" factor in the Yanks lineup, but they let themselves be put in that hole. ?They went from patient hitters who worked "hour long at bats" to flailing farmers swinging at shit in the dirt. ?Hell, ?at one point in game 4, the Detroit pitching staff had a 5 to 1 ball/strike ratio...and they weren't throwing nearly 5 to 1..the Yanks were just swinging at terrible pitches. ?I swear, at one point I thought the two teams had switched uniforms...

There are going to be changes in the Yanks organization. ?Mussina will probably be gone. ?Sheff will probably be gone. ?Torre will probably be gone. ?Giambi might find retirement suggested, given his physical issues (or just be a permanent DH..which would suit him fine). ?And Torre will probably not be managing come opening day. ?Other Yanks have long term contracts and will stay put, I'm sure. ?But some of the moves you're going to see are going to be made to shake them up, too. ? ?And I don't buy the A-rod trade talk by the media. ?Sounds like wishful thinking on their part rather than anything substantiated.

I give the Tiger pitching a lot of credit. ?It was very, very good...but it fed off the Yanks ineptitude as much as anything else. ?They handed that pitching staff every ounce of momentum they could.....

[GeorgeSteele]

Pilferk, I think you're coming down too hard on Mussina.  Bottom line, the guy gave up 4 runs in 7 innings - not great, but more than enough for a lineup where the #9 guy is a .300 hitter.  As a Mets fan, I would take that performance from any of their starters every game.

Also, one of the Fox announcers (forget which one) took a not-so-subtle shot at Jeter's leadership ability when he made a comment about how the Yankees no longer have a clubhouse leader like Paul O'Neill who would get in the face of and confront underachieving teammates.

[pilferk]

Pilferk, I think you're coming down too hard on Mussina.? Bottom line, the guy gave up 4 runs in 7 innings - not great, but more than enough for a lineup where the #9 guy is a .300 hitter.? As a Mets fan, I would take that performance from any of their starters every game.

Also, one of the Fox announcers (forget which one) took a not-so-subtle shot at Jeter's leadership ability when he made a comment about how the Yankees no longer have a clubhouse leader like Paul O'Neill who would get in the face of and confront underachieving teammates.

On Mussina, I humbly disagree.? A 5.14 ERA is beyond not great, especially in a big playoff game, when your team has just give you a 2 run lead while facing a guy like Jason Verlander.?And a 9.00 ERA in the 3 innings AFTER being given the lead is just atrocious.? That's precisely the problem....the Yanks pitching wasn't "playoff caliber".? For sure, the Yanks line up deserves to take it's lumps over it's lack of production.? You can't score 3 runs over, what, 20+ innings and expect to win many ball games.? And Torre deserves some lumps for making some poor managerial choices/decisions (like, for instance, not pulling Moose in the 5th after giving up the run and making it 3-2).? But the #2 guy on your staff needs to be able to protect a 2 run lead through the middle of the ballgame....or not be the #2 guy on your staff anymore.? And Mussina's faltering was, really, the turning point of the entire series.? So, given all that, I don't think I'm being too hard on him.? And I'll take a gander? that the Yankees front office is going to feel pretty much the same way when it comes time to a) pick up his option (they won't) and b) negotiate for his return next year (Yanks will probably offer a 1 year deal, with a 1 year option at drastically reduced money....and depending on pickups in the off season of, say, Zito, Mussina will be relegated to the #3 or #4 spot in the rotation, depending on Randy).

The fact is the failure of the vaunted Yankees lineup will get all the press.? But the blame rests just as equally, if not a bit more, on the pitching staff.? They ranged from bad (Mussina) to terrible (Randy) to abysmal (Wright).  "Power outage" or not, its tough to win games when your pitching staff gives up 14 runs in 2 games, and blows 2 run leads.

On Jeter....he's the captain, yes.? But he's not that type of clubhouse leader.? Never really has been. And never really will be, I don't think.? He's just not confrontational that way.? And I'm not sure he needs to be.? The job of firing up the players should, at least in part, come from the manager.? And, apparently, it didn't.? In the clubhouse itself, Giambi seems to fill the old Paul O'Neil type role, though I'm not sure he's got quite as much respect and "pull" as Pauly did.

[sandman]

i love this detroit team. i hope they win it all. leyland is total class - he's everything that's right with baseball.

Arod - .071 BA; .133 OB
damon - .235 BA; .278 OB
sheffield - .083BA; .083 OB

this is a huge reason they lost. but good pitching is always better than good hitting in the playoffs. this yanks squad is built for the regular season.

and georgie needs to realize you can't buy championships. you need a mix of hungry home grown talent with high priced veterans. but he's too old to be patient.

[GeorgeSteele]

this yanks squad is built for the regular season.

What does that mean exactly?  How is a team that is the best for 162 games suddenly no longer the best because they played poorly in a 5 games series?  I would think that excellence over 162 games is way more impressive.

I'm not defending the Yankees.  Good riddance to them, I'm a Mets fan.  I just disagree with the whole notion of being regular season good and playoff good.  There's no doubt that there's more excitement in deciding a championship through a playoff format.  That's why it's done, it's better for us fans. 

You want to know the real reason the Yankees lost?  The law of averages.  Yankees and Tigers were almost identical during the regular season (97 to 95 wins), but the Yankees dominated the Tigers during the regular season (Yankees beat them 5 out of 7).  Therefore, the Tigers were bound to win some games, which they did.

[pilferk]

and georgie needs to realize you can't buy championships. you need a mix of hungry home grown talent with high priced veterans. but he's too old to be patient.

You know, in years past, I'd agree. ?But of the big contributors of the regular season, a lot of them WERE hungry, home grown talent (Cano, Cabrera, Wang, Philips, Crosby). ?And, lets face it, for most of the regular season they looked pretty good, even without Sheff and Matsui. ?But their pitching....their pitching was inconsistent all year (with the exception of Wang) and killed them in the playoffs. ?Giving up early runs didn't do the line up any favors, that's for sure.

[pilferk]

What does that mean exactly?? How is a team that is the best for 162 games suddenly no longer the best because they played poorly in a 5 games series?? I would think that excellence over 162 games is way more impressive.

I'm not defending the Yankees.? Good riddance to them, I'm a Mets fan.? I just disagree with the whole notion of being regular season good and playoff good.? There's no doubt that there's more excitement in deciding a championship through a playoff format.? That's why it's done, it's better for us fans.?

You want to know the real reason the Yankees lost?? The law of averages.? Yankees and Tigers were almost identical during the regular season (97 to 95 wins), but the Yankees dominated the Tigers during the regular season (Yankees beat them 5 out of 7).? Therefore, the Tigers were bound to win some games, which they did.

Here's the difference: 

Over 162 games, you play some good teams, some bad teams, some medicre teams.  You face deeper into the pitching rotation because of the sheer number of games played during a relatively short time span.  Hitting tends to win you more ballgames.

In the playoffs, you're facing good teams, and mostly the top of their rotation.  You play fewer games over a longer time span, giving bullpens more time to rest and be effective.  In this situation, pitching has, historically, won out.

And that's the big difference.  I'm not sure which I'd consider more impressive...they're just different.  There IS "regular season good" and "playoff good".  Yes, some of it certainly has to do with being held to being "great" in a short time span (I HATE 5 game series, FYI), but you can also help to optimize your success by building your team a specific way.  The Yanks have, recently (since Pettit and Clemens left, for sure) been built for the regular season...maybe not intentionally, but that's how it's worked out.

[GeorgeSteele]

Here's the difference:?

Over 162 games, you play some good teams, some bad teams, some medicre teams.? You face deeper into the pitching rotation because of the sheer number of games played during a relatively short time span.? Hitting tends to win you more ballgames.

In the playoffs, you're facing good teams, and mostly the top of their rotation.? You play fewer games over a longer time span, giving bullpens more time to rest and be effective.? In this situation, pitching has, historically, won out.

And that's the big difference.? I'm not sure which I'd consider more impressive...they're just different.? There IS "regular season good" and "playoff good".? Yes, some of it certainly has to do with being held to being "great" in a short time span (I HATE 5 game series, FYI), but you can also help to optimize your success by building your team a specific way.? The Yanks have, recently (since Pettit and Clemens left, for sure) been built for the regular season...maybe not intentionally, but that's how it's worked out.

I'll concede there's a difference in the marathon/sprint sense.? For example, if the Mets go all the way, they'll need to ride their bullpen for 4-5 innings a game.? No chance of doing that over the entire regular season.? Point taken.? Overall, though, I think it's still the same sport being played.? And the argument that good hitting wins in the regular season, but pitching wins in the playoffs?? 2 words:? Atlanta Braves.

Numbers show that players' stats in the playoffs tend to be the same as their regular season if they play enough games.? Even "Mr. Clutch" Derek Jeter's playoff numbers are about the same as (actually slightly worse than) his regular season numbers.? ?And A-Rod?? Lifetime regular season avg:? .305.? Playoffs:? .305.

The reality is there's a lot of luck and streakiness (word?) involved in baseball.? To accurately measure who the best really is, you need to play a lot of games.

[sandman]

it is the same sport, but a VERY different game. for several reasons:

1. pressure. way more pressure, and not all players deal with it the same way.

2. pitching. pilferk explained this in another post - you need shit down pitching at the top of your staff.

3. fundamentals. since games are more competitive, all the little things are magnified and take on a greater importance. this is why a wild card team like the marlins won the WS. their fundamentals were superb.

also, players stats are frequently very different in the playoffs. that's part of what makes the post-season so much fun (every october i know arod will choke - ditto manning every january).

and could you provide a link for a-rod's career playoff stats? i'm positive he's below .290 hitter in the post-season.

and what about the braves? they won a WS, went to a couple others. sure, with that talent they should have won more, but they faced other teams with exceptional pitching.

[GeorgeSteele]

it is the same sport, but a VERY different game. for several reasons:

1. pressure. way more pressure, and not all players deal with it the same way.

2. pitching. pilferk explained this in another post - you need shit down pitching at the top of your staff.

3. fundamentals. since games are more competitive, all the little things are magnified and take on a greater importance. this is why a wild card team like the marlins won the WS. their fundamentals were superb.

also, players stats are frequently very different in the playoffs. that's part of what makes the post-season so much fun (every october i know arod will choke - ditto manning every january).

and could you provide a link for a-rod's career playoff stats? i'm positive he's below .290 hitter in the post-season.

and what about the braves? they won a WS, went to a couple others. sure, with that talent they should have won more, but they faced other teams with exceptional pitching.

1.? Pressure - again, with enough games played, almost all players' postseason numbers will mirror their regular season numbers.? I hope you're right and Carlos Beltran goes on a homerun hitting tear every time he's in the playoffs (like he did with Houston in 2004).

2.? Pitching - What about the Braves? They had the best pitching in the 90s by far.? They never "ran into exceptional pitching" that was better than theirs because no team had a top 3 that could match up with Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz.? But they only won it once.? Were they "just built for the regular season?"

3.? Fundamentals - yes, I suppose being able to lay down a bunt is more important in the playoffs, but not any more important than being able to hit a 90+ MPH slider into the bleachers.?

And the 2003 Marlins won because they were lucky enough to have their starting pitchers heat up in the playffs.? Do you really think for the rest of their careers Beckett, Penny and Pavano (pitchers with good/mediocre regular season stats) are going to be lights out every time they're in the playoffs?? ?

Here's the link on A-Rod, though you're right on this one; I just noticed the stats don't include this past series with the Tigers, so that will bring the avg down from .305.? ?http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rodrial01.shtml


?

[sandman]

it is the same sport, but a VERY different game. for several reasons:

1. pressure. way more pressure, and not all players deal with it the same way.

2. pitching. pilferk explained this in another post - you need shit down pitching at the top of your staff.

3. fundamentals. since games are more competitive, all the little things are magnified and take on a greater importance. this is why a wild card team like the marlins won the WS. their fundamentals were superb.

also, players stats are frequently very different in the playoffs. that's part of what makes the post-season so much fun (every october i know arod will choke - ditto manning every january).

and could you provide a link for a-rod's career playoff stats? i'm positive he's below .290 hitter in the post-season.

and what about the braves? they won a WS, went to a couple others. sure, with that talent they should have won more, but they faced other teams with exceptional pitching.

1.? Pressure - again, with enough games played, almost all players' postseason numbers will mirror their regular season numbers.? I hope you're right and Carlos Beltran goes on a homerun hitting tear every time he's in the playoffs (like he did with Houston in 2004).

2.? Pitching - What about the Braves? They had the best pitching in the 90s by far.? They never "ran into exceptional pitching" that was better than theirs because no team had a top 3 that could match up with Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz.? But they only won it once.? Were they "just built for the regular season?"

3.? Fundamentals - yes, I suppose being able to lay down a bunt is more important in the playoffs, but not any more important than being able to hit a 90+ MPH slider into the bleachers.?

And the 2003 Marlins won because they were lucky enough to have their starting pitchers heat up in the playffs.? Do you really think for the rest of their careers Beckett, Penny and Pavano (pitchers with good/mediocre regular season stats) are going to be lights out every time they're in the playoffs?? ?

Here's the link on A-Rod, though you're right on this one; I just noticed the stats don't include this past series with the Tigers, so that will bring the avg down from .305.? ?http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rodrial01.shtml


?

you're missing the point. first of all, the braves won a world series.

and i would have to look up each of series they lost in the post-season to see what kind of pitching they faced, cause i honestly do not remember. but i do know that when the phillies beat them in '93, they got all-star performances (i.e. glavine-like performances) from some of their starters (schilling pitched 2 games with a 1.69 ERA, and danny jackson (the #4 SP) started game 4 and gave up 1 run over 7.2 innings).

that series highlights 2 of my points:

1. some players step up and excel under the playoff pressure and exceed expectations.

2. great pitching wins in the post-season. (the phils outpitched the braves).

[GeorgeSteele]

you're missing the point. first of all, the braves won a world series.

and i would have to look up each of series they lost in the post-season to see what kind of pitching they faced, cause i honestly do not remember. but i do know that when the phillies beat them in '93, they got all-star performances (i.e. glavine-like performances) from some of their starters (schilling pitched 2 games with a 1.69 ERA, and danny jackson (the #4 SP) started game 4 and gave up 1 run over 7.2 innings).

that series highlights 2 of my points:

1. some players step up and excel under the playoff pressure and exceed expectations.

2. great pitching wins in the post-season. (the phils outpitched the braves).

I think you're missing my point, but thanks for the perfect example - the '93 Phillies.  Their pitching was not better than the Braves (whose was?), but they outpitched the Braves because their pitchers were on fire at the time.  The fact that they happened to heat up during the playoffs was nothing but pure luck.  So you can't build a team for the playoffs on the hope that your pitchers will suddenly turn into a staff of Cy Youngs during the playoffs.  Whether or not that happens is a total crapshoot.   

[pilferk]

I think you're missing my point, but thanks for the perfect example - the '93 Phillies.? Their pitching was not better than the Braves (whose was?), but they outpitched the Braves because their pitchers were on fire at the time.? The fact that they happened to heat up during the playoffs was nothing but pure luck.? So you can't build a team for the playoffs on the hope that your pitchers will suddenly turn into a staff of Cy Youngs during the playoffs.? Whether or not that happens is a total crapshoot.? ?

I disagree.  Yes, it happens that pitchers "heat up" during the playoffs, and can outpitch established, better pitching.  The fact is, you were still outpitched, not outhit.  And if you look at a team like Arizona in '01 or even the Red Sox in '04.  They were, in fact, built around their rotations, and built to be very effective in the playoffs.  And it worked. It's worked well for other teams, too. Sure, there are times it doesn't work, through luck or through injury or what have you. There's obviously no sure fire forumula to win it all (or else every team would just do it).  But, just like during the regular season where you hedge your bets by stacking 9 murderers in a row in your lineup....in the playoffs you're better off lining up 3 or 4 strong pitchers to win you ballgames or having your rotation put in career defining, herculean efforts.

[GeorgeSteele]

I disagree.? Yes, it happens that pitchers "heat up" during the playoffs, and can outpitch established, better pitching.? The fact is, you were still outpitched, not outhit.? And if you look at a team like Arizona in '01 or even the Red Sox in '04.? They were, in fact, built around their rotations, and built to be very effective in the playoffs.? And it worked. It's worked well for other teams, too. Sure, there are times it doesn't work, through luck or through injury or what have you. There's obviously no sure fire forumula to win it all (or else every team would just do it).? But, just like during the regular season where you hedge your bets by stacking 9 murderers in a row in your lineup....in the playoffs you're better off lining up 3 or 4 strong pitchers to win you ballgames or having your rotation put in career defining, herculean efforts.

I agree that you need good pitching to win in the playoffs, but you also need good pitching to win 97 games (it was not the lineup alone).  Wang was solid all year, Mussina carried the staff for over 4 months, and Johnson was good when he was healthy.  In the bullpen, Rivera and Proctor were spectacular.   There's no basis for saying that the team was not built for playoff success because Wang/Mussina/Johnson were as likely as any other team's top 3 to catch fire in the playoffs.  In fact, Wang did pitch well against the Tigers; Mussina, well I know where you stand on his performance, but I still think he gave them a chance to win; and Johnson?  What can you do?  His back failed him and he tried pitching on a cold night after getting a pregnancy epidural.