Sox Strike First - Game 7 Thread

[Clarkmeister]

Sox get up quick 2-0. Pedro continues to have no faith in (or ability to throw) his fastball though.

I hope its a blowout, but I'll be content if the Sox can hang on.

[daryn]

well giambi just went yard, it's 4-1 sox.. i still like it. pedro usually gives up a solo shot in a game where he dominates the opposition

[Clarkmeister]

Ortiz with a huge run. Torre seems to be outthinking himself with all these pitching changes.

[Wake up CALL]

Yankees tie the game in 8th!! WooHoo!!

[Clarkmeister]

Horrible managing by Little to not take him out 2 batters earlier. Letting pitch to Matsui was silly, letting him pitch to Posada was flat-out insane.

[HDPM]

You would think managers would learn from Dusty huh?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Horrible managing by Little to not take him out 2 batters earlier. Letting pitch to Matsui was silly, letting him pitch to Posada was flat-out insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[Clarkmeister]

At least Dusty had the excuse that his pen sucked. The Sox pen has been filthy all postseason.

[daryn]

NOW READ THIS...


i agree with you, poor move by little.

however, if pedro stayed in and struck out the next 2 batters.. things might be viewed differently.

[Clarkmeister]

That's like saying if you pinch hit Bob Eucker for Barry Bonds, it might be viewed differently had Eucker hit a HR.

It was clearly the wrong move....*before* the outcome was known.

[Utah]

God - I just hated to see them win.

[Clarkmeister]

Me too, but whatcha gonna do? Other than pulling Pedro a batter or two too late, Grady did fine. The Yanks just did the inevitable.

The series against the Marlins should be good. Has 6 or 7 games written all over it from here.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than pulling Pedro a batter or two too late, Grady did fine. The Yanks just did the inevitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

No way. The Red Sox had lots of opportunities to win this game and didn't do it and I really want to blame just one person: Grady Little. How could he not remove Pedro in the seventh? And then the eighth, he doesn't take him out till after he gives up the tying runs? He was obviously tiring. Grady Little should be ashamed of himself. Diehard Sox fans (I'm not one) will tell you that his managing all year has been suspect at best.

The Evil Empire moves on and I'm less than thrilled (I'm an Orioles fan and have to hate the Yankees). The only good thing I can see is that if the Sox had won it all (or maybe if they had just won tonight) the city of Boston would be torched by rioters. The world would not have seen a real riot until now had the Sox gone all the way. It would have been the riot to end all riots.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
Letting pitch to Matsui was silly, letting him pitch to Posada was flat-out insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spot on, well put.

[HDPM]

I understand hating the Yankees to be sure, but I don't think they represent everything bad about baseball. They are clearly the best franchise in baseball history and perhaps the best franchise in the history of team sports. They make money and spend it to get excellent players. Since I am not a communist I like organizations that are successful enough to be in a position to buy victories. But as we know, money alone does not guarantee any wins. Compared to an organization like, say, oh, the Cubs, you have to give the Yankees a lot of credit. [had to edit a sentence out, I started to give the Yankees too much credit and forgot a few of their sins there for a second] Manny and Pedro might represent what is bad about baseball a lot better than the Yankees. I am not a Yankees fan, but I am happy for Manny and Pedro. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand hating the Yankees to be sure, but I don't think they represent everything bad about baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they do. Baseball's competitive balance is broke and it is personified in the Yankees.

[ QUOTE ]
They are clearly the best franchise in baseball history and perhaps the best franchise in the history of team sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps? 26 World Championships? Certainly the best North American pro franchise by FAR.


[ QUOTE ]
They make money and spend it to get excellent players. Since I am not a communist I like organizations that are successful enough to be in a position to buy victories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but a *league* is not nor should it be a totally free market system. Each team needs the others. You know this so I won't waste any time digressing.


[ QUOTE ]
But as we know, money alone does not guarantee any wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where I really disagree. Money clearly DOES guarantee wins in the long run. It simply cannot happen any other way. It may not guarantee success tomorrow, but eventually you outspend, out talent, out scout your opposition. Even a poorly run organization (which the Yankees clearly are not) is guaranteed success in the long run if they can consistently spend double any other team in their league.

[ QUOTE ]
Compared to an organization like, say, oh, the Cubs, you have to give the Yankees a lot of credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

They clearly run their franchise much better than the Cubs. They still have a huge advantage. To use another example, the Cardinals are as well run an organization as exists in MLB. They spend every penny they make and are run at an operational loss every year. Even they can't field a payroll half the Yankees. The Yanks get credit for running a good organization, but when they can spend FOUR A-Rods more than a team like the Cardinals, something is very clearly broken.

[andyfox]

Yup, the Sox scored a grand total of one run with all Torre's bad thinking.

The idiot who manages the Red Sox, on the other hand, didn't make any pitching changes even after his fading ace gave up two ringing 0-2 doubles.

The way the Sox bullpen had been handling the Yankees, it was a crime against humanity to let Pedro in that long. Torre saved the pennant by taking out Clemens when he did. He didn't let senitmentalism stand in his way. Grady did.

Probably one of the 10 greatest games of all time.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps? 26 World Championships? Certainly the best North American pro franchise by FAR.


[/ QUOTE ]

By far? There is another major sports team with 24 championships, so slow down a little.

Tuco.

[M2d]

1) Bobby Thompson walk off HR
2) Bill Mazeroski walk off HR
3) Don Larson perfecto
4) Enos Slaughter scores from first
5) Kaufax perfecto
6) Johnny Vander Meer's second no no
7) Harvey Haddix 12 inning perfecto (broken up in the 13th)
8) Angels/Giants game six last year
9) Clemens fans 20 in 86
10) Teddy Ballgame bows out with a dinger; doesn't tip his cap to the standing O.

to me tonight's game pales in comparison to these ten.

[TAFKAn]

That's GOTTA hurt giving up a 4 run lead to lose it in the bottom of the 11th after all those years of trying to beat the Yankees.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of guys. At least they acted like pros throughout the post-season and really showed the folks at home what good sportsmanship is all about. They're winners in my book!

PS: Go Marlins.

[M2d]

To me, to qualify as an all time great game, it has to include either a heroic individual effort (all the perfect games included), or amazing clutch performances at the height of pressure (see bobby thompson/maz/Williams/Slaughter) coupled with heroic figures.
granted, the old time games have an advantage in this cateogry since there was no ESPN back then. The feats were chronicled by scribes like Red Smith and Ring Lardner. They weren't packaged for the instant gratification crowd, so they were built to stand the test of time. Their legend seems to grow as each year passes.
Also granted, I'm a very very old (as far as baseball's conecerned) 33, and I grew up with Glory of their Times in one hand and a ball and mitt in the other.

The inclusion of the Giants angels game is due to the fact that I'm a Dodger fan living in the bay area. I was yelling my head off in my car last year as the Angels mounted their ralley, and almost missed the Trader Joe's closing time because I stayed in my car to hear the end of the game.

FWIW, my most objective opinion counts tonight's game as a very enjoyable game and one I'll remember, but nowhere near the top ten all time. I'd also put Joe Carter's walk off dinger ahead of it. Had it been a World Series game (ala the real Pudge's dinger) or a playoff (like the bucky dent game) it would probably be elevated in my estimation. Unfortunately, the trade off for extended bonus baseball is that the individual games on the road to the World Series lose their luster a bit.

Now I'm rooting for extended rains on the eastern seaboard so we can talk baseball into January. Two weeks off between the series and pitchers reporting seems right to me.

[adios]

Torre vs. Little big mismatch in favor of the Yankees. Fantastic comeback by the Yankees. Well deserving champions.

[Utah]

I just hate the stupid, but guaranteed, success formula - spend money and win.

I live in Minnesota and I am a casual twins fan (I used to be a huge fan going to 40 games a year until they ruined baseball).

I remember when the Twins won the World Series in '87 and '91 and it was beautiful from the perspective that the Twins did it my developing the players in the farm system, making key trades, getting that veteran slugger in time for the playoff push, etc.

That whole beautiful part of baseball is dead - and I hate it.

While I am ranting, I hate all the "gimics" they instituted to increase ratings - especially the expanded playoff format. Baseball play-offs used to be extremely special and the whole concept of playing 162 games was to determine the best teams. Now, the playoffs just dont feel as special - even when my team makes it.

[TAFKAn]

Actually, Oakland/Boston game 1 of the previous series was probably a better game.

[John Cole]

Andy,

You didn't need to shout. /images/graemlins/frown.gif Grady's inability to locate his left arm may have cost the Sox, but I called it when they failed to score right after Torre yanked Clemens. Gabe Kapler put it best a few games ago when he said the script had already been written and the teams were just playing it out.

John

[Clarkmeister]

First, I don't have a problem with him pulling Clemens, so we agree there.

We also agree that Grady pulled Pedro 2 batters too late.

But his shuffling in and out in the 7th and 8th when the pitchers he brought in were doing fine could have easily cost him the game. Had the game gone one more inning, he was perilously close to being left with nothing but Jeff Weaver to give him outs in extra innings. Aaron Boone basically bailed Joe out, because if it goes to the top of the 12th, everyone would have been screaming about how he burned through pitchers late in regulation.

[andyfox]

When you keep changing pitchers and it doesn't work out, it sure does look bad, I agree. I remember Herzog doing it with Kansas City in the final game of the 1977 (1978?) Championship Series and pulled out a defeat from the jaws of victory.

But Mussina was on 2 days rest and Wells on 1. He wasn't going to pitch Mussina more than 3 innings anyway, and he wasn't going to have Wells pitch to more than 2-3 hitters. As for Nelson and Heredia, the few hitters they face the better. I imagine he would have gone to Contreras for as many innings as necessary at that point.

Anyway, I don't think the pundits would have said he burned through his pitchers since, if the game had gone to the 12th, for example, that would have meant his relief choices had given up only one run since coming into the game with men on first and third and nobody out in the 4th.

[andyfox]

Hey, anything that solicits a John Cole post is good.

And I was just parodying a Clarkmeister post that I criticized yesterday.

You're right, the job Mussina did with men on first and thrid with nobody out got a bit lost in the shuffle, but in retrospect, it was the key to the game. If the Red Sox get up a couple more runs, I don't think Grady stays with Pedro so long in a game that wasn't quite as close.

Hard to imagine, though, what Grady was thinking. Pedro had given up only 3 hits through six innings. How can you let him give up 7 hits in the next 1-1/3 innings?

[andyfox]

That was the headline in the L.A. Times sports section today. Talk about a low blow. . .

[andyfox]

I agree with your numbers 1,2,3,4 and 8. I would also throw in the Bucky Dent game, the Angels-Red Sox classic in 1986, the Red Sox-Mets classic the same year, the final playoff game between the Dodgers and Giants in 1962 and a few others. But why, for example, Koufax's perfect game? Why not Jim Bunning's perfect game? Games during the year that have no direct bearing on winning the pennant can be exciting, but nowhere near as exciting as a game 7 with all the marbles on the line.

[andyfox]

This game was more important than the Bucky Dent game: that game meant the winner got to the Champsionship Series. This game meant the winner got to the World Series. In both cases, it was a "final" game for the loser.

[Clarkmeister]

The headline in the Tribune after game 6 of the Cubs series was "The Mitt Hits the Fan"


/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Clarkmeister]

"And I was just parodying a Clarkmeister post that I criticized yesterday"

Ah, but why criticize it? I really DO love the fact that the Cubs lost in painful fashion. Such is the nature of rivalries. I'd be shocked if this series wasn't more special to you as a Yankee fan considering who you beat to move on to the Series.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
I just hate the stupid, but guaranteed, success formula - spend money and win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Success is not guaranteed if you spend alot of money in baseball. Like you I can't stand the Yankees, but I have to respect what George Steinbrenner does for New York. He spends alot of money and tries to build an organization that will win lots of baseball games. Many, even most, owners don't take that approach. They just want to make money and get free stadiums. Sure the Yankees are a big market team and make a ton of money, but at least George puts that money back into the team.

[HDPM]

This ties in w/ Clarkmeister's post about leagues having to foster competitive balance. the ridiculous playoff system handicaps teams like the Yankees and allows relatively undeserving teams like the Cubs a chance at the World Series. I believe approximately one out of eight teams should make the playoffs, as it was back in the day. Eight teams in each league, one went to the series. Now there are about double that, so 2 teams from each league should go to a LCS. The LCS should be at least best of nine. I would also increase the length of the WS. I think it used to be longer a long time ago didn't it? Baseball would be better with a 154 game regular season without interleague play and 2 teams making the LCS. Baseball should make the regular season paramount. I also don't think home field in the WS should be predetermined. The team with the better regular season record should have it. These things will never happen of course. Wildcards and luck oriented playoffs will prevail.

[Rushmore]

Watching this game reminded me of playing at Pokerstars:

You're playing well, and you're out in front, but you have this nagging feeling that something bad is about to happen. But you keep the faith, figuring you're just being paranoid.

Then the river comes.

[Clarkmeister]

But if competitive balance is fostered, it still rewards better run organizations. With a level playing field, all you do is strip out the massive benefits that come with overspending and leave organizational management as the great equalizer. Baseball can never have the exact same system as the NFL for a variety of reasons, but its pretty hard to argue with the success that the NFL has had under the hard cap. Competitive balance is a good thing.

I agree with making the World Series 9 games. I've thought that for a long time. I was initially against the wildcard, but based on the results so far its pretty hard to say it hasn't worked brilliantly. Very good teams like Seattle are still being left out of the playoffs, so its not like everyone gets in. I think the current structure of 3 champs plus 1WC works exceptionally well, something I would have never believed possible a few years ago.

[Clarkmeister]

"Success is not guaranteed if you spend alot of money in baseball"

In the long run it is.

[andyfox]

There were indeed some 5 out of 9 series way back when.

Playoffs are moneymakers, so they'll never go back to only four teams making the playoffs. Bob Costas propose something similar to what you are saying in his book a couple of years ago.

I like interleague play. It gives fans a chance to see teams and stars they would otherwise never get to see play. But then again I like the DH, so there you go.

154 games, 162, what's the difference.

There should be some better benefit to having the best record. I think that since they've gone to the 8 team playoff system, the team with the best record has only won the World Series once. Home field "advantage" isn't really an advantage: you play 3 out of the first 5 games on the road. A 3 out of 5 playoff is ridiculous. So if 154 games would give them more time before winter sets in to have a 4 out of 7 in the first round, I'd be for it.

The wild card has generated a lot of excitement because, with only 4 or 5 teams in a divison, the division races are often runaways. But there are usually a bunch of team competing for the wildcard spot. But I would be in favor of the wild card having a severe disadvantage in the playoffs. Maybe even making them win 4 games, whereas the division champion they're playing only has to win 3.

[andyfox]

The Yankees pay a very big luxury tax. Under the rules, the owners who receive that money are not obligated to spend it on their team; they can buy a yacht is they want.

The successs of Florida, Minnesota, and Oakland shows that smart teams can compete with rich teams. It's better to be rich and smart, of course, but Ray Zee is not interested in baseball.

[andyfox]

I think the Red Sox fans and media would have gloated and been more obnoxious than were the Angels, for example, last year. I don't feel any more thrilled because it was the Red Sox, but I would have felt worse had the Red Sox won, rather than another team, because they would have exulted more in their victory. Does that make sense?

Anyway, a team that spells out an opposing pitcher's last name on the backs of their jackets so that the fans can make fun of him deserves to lose. [Lilly, BTW, looked fabulous. Oakland's starting pitching next year should be awesome.]

[Clarkmeister]

"The successs of Florida, Minnesota, and Oakland shows that smart teams can compete with rich teams."

But only for very short windows of time (1-4 years), and it requires a tremendous amount of luck to even get such a window. A team like the Yankees can simply reload rather than rebuild. The fact of the matter is that the Yankees have an insurmountable long term edge because they spend double what anyone else spends. Under the current system, the chance that the Yankees win more championships than any other MLB team over the next 30 years is nearly 100%.

Imagine Oakland for example if they had been able to keep Damon, Giambi and still have had 80 mil left over to pick up other free agents.

Money, in the end, is everything.

[RollaJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I just hate the stupid, but guaranteed, success formula - spend money and win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mets--$116,868,613
Marlins--$48,368,298

...........or maybe not

[andyfox]

OK, I'll grant that money is important, but it's not everything. The Yankees have a 41 year old starting pitcher who's retiring. They have a 40 year old starting pitcher. They have another who will be 35 next year. And their 4th guy is a free agent, and he's over 30.

A successful reinvogioration of their pitching staff will require both brains and money.

The core of the Yankee team has come up from their minor league system. Their strength up the middle (Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Soriano, Jeter, William) is homegrown. Granted, their money enables them to keep players longterm, but my point is that there are examples of teams that spend money foolishly and don't win, and teams that do well with less money.

One can argue that the Yankees have always had a money edge. They've always been the richest team; the beginnings of their dominance date back to when they were able to buy Babe Ruth.

Long term, you may well be correct. Short term, brains win out, as Billy Beane has shown in Oakland, and as the Grady/Torre battle showed last night.

[CrackerZack]

Don't forget...

Los Angeles 115,764,287
Arizona 75,914,933

or

Oakland 49,277,634


If the formula is guaranteed, how come the knicks and rangers can't figure it out? Or the mets?

[Utah]

It is not just the win/loss that matters. What has been destroyed is the beautiful way that I think baseball used to be managed and played.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
A successful reinvogioration of their pitching staff will require both brains and money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't be that hard. They'll resign Pettite. They'll definitely sign a free agent pitcher, possibly Bartolo Colon. That will give them a rotation of Mussina, Pettite, Colon (or other free agent), Contreras (definitely heading to the rotation), and probably Weaver (who is an excellent young pitcher despite a terrible year).

That should leave them second only to the A's in starting pitching strength.

[M2d]

A 1-0 shutout is always a great game. making the pitcher on the winning end toss a perfecto brings it up a couple of levels. Making that picher Sandy Koufax, and the list compiler a dodger fan sends it out of orbit.