The Yankees and the Red Sox

[andyfox]

As we know, I'm a Yankee fan. Hardly seems right, somebody with my politics. (And Dick Cheney was a guest of the Evil Emperor tonight.) Nevertheless, I'm a Yankee fan.

I'm frankly shocked at how well they're doing. With that weak starting pitching, I thought this could well be the Red Sox's year. And, of course, it still might be. But the Sox sure look shaky. The Yanks are a poor fielding team, but the Sox look worse (and have given up the most unearned runs in the league). With Lowe struggling, the Sox starting pitching doesn't look all that much better than the Yanks'. And Gordon and Rivera have been terrific 8th and 9th inning closers.

I know it's a marathon and we haven't come anywhere close to the wall yet, but my early season worries/prediction that the Yankees might not even make the post-season sure looks ridiculous.

[Sooga]

With the lineup they got (and quite frankly, they haven't even hit their stride), they could stick their double A rotation out there and they could win 90 games. Once they're running on all cylinders, they'll be damn hard to contain.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
With the lineup they got (and quite frankly, they haven't even hit their stride), they could stick their double A rotation out there and they could win 90 games. Once they're running on all cylinders, they'll be damn hard to contain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Bastards.

Reading today that Jason Giambi has "parasites" though made my Tuesday. No wonder he's been in a slump...

[Dr Wogga]

....and as we know, this is probably the one topic we agree about. Thought the Bombers lack of starting consistent chucking, plus without a lefty (not counting temp Brad Halsey of course!) in the rotation for the 1st time that I can remember, all those question marks???

Also, not a young team any longer......had to figure they would start the downslope. Not happening. Jeter and Bernie turned around their woeful start and the team just took off. If Contreras pitches up to his potential and becomes the 1 or 2 he was projected to be, they can win 100 easy [and screw up my under 99.5 win bet /images/graemlins/frown.gif ]. They will probably hit 225 to 250 homers - maybe more. Imagine if Giambi gets hot in the 2nd half? May not be a lot of work for Gordon-Rivera, as their schedule gets easier......I think they have yet to play Toronto - that cuold be 19 wins right there /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Zeno]

A-rod wants a WS BAD. Look for him to improve as the season goes on. He will be an extra driving and motivating force to add to Jeter's. I think I posted more than a year ago about A-rods desire to leave Texas to pursue a WS. Of course, now the Rangers look fairly decent but are certainly not WS material, as yet.

Randy Johnson got his # 4,000 strike out tonight. Of course the D-backs lost 3-2 to the Padres. Nothing new.


Yanks look very good, unfortunately.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"they could stick their double A rotation out there and they could win 90 games."

You might be right. I may have been suckered by the difference between this team and the team they've had over the majority of the Torre years. Teams with good, but usually not great hitting, but great starting pitching (Cone, Clemens, Hernandez, Wells, Pettitte).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The red Sox are psychologically in bad shape. The manager does not want to admit that Kevin "Cowboy Up" Millar has no business being in the lineup, Derek Lowe and Jason varitek are having subpar years, and Nomar has completely gone in the tank.

I find myself wishing Theo had pulled the trigger on the Nomar-for-Magglio Ordonez trade before he knew the result of the A-Rod deal. Of course he couldn't have (they hadn't gotten Pokey Reese yet), but the team would sure look better right now had he done it.

Still, with Foulke performing better than could be expected, Schilling and pedro both pitching reasonably well, and manny & Ortiz having great years, this team should be doing better than it is.

Oh, well. The good news is it's only 7 weeks or so until football season.

[B-Man]

I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but the Sox have been consistently inconsistent for 2 months now (I think that are .500, or right around .500, in their last 50 games).

At times, I think Terry Francona is insane, though he is no worse than the last guy (should it really be this hard to find a good manager?).

Nomar has not been playing well, and today one of the local writers compared him to Wade Boggs circa 1992, saying Nomar is so consumed by resentment (over the attempted A-Rod deal) that he can't focus on anything else. Whatever the reason, Nomar is not playing well in the field or at the plate.

As great as Manny has been, I wish the Sox had pulled off the A-Rod trade and shipped Nomar out of town.

I think Nomar still may be traded before the deadline if the right deal came along, though this is pretty unlikely.

No idea why Francona keeps Kevin Millar in the lineup almost every day--he's not hitting, and lately can't even catch the ball.

Long way to go, but it looks like the Sox' only hope will be the wildcard... If they get into the playoffs, I still think they have an excellent chance in any series if the pitchers are in a groove.

[adios]

It's early in the season. Red Sox probably get better from here. There are bright spots and they're not exactly playing terribly. Trouble is for the Red Sox is that the Yankees probably get better from this point as well. I'm a little surprised at how pessimistic Red Sox fans apparently are.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I wasn't being pessimistic, I was simply making an observation that they're playing like crap *now*.

I am a big proponent that these days we Boston fans have every reason to approach baseball season with optimism. It's really very simple. If the Red Sox are successful and win the World Series, it'll be great. If not, who cares? It'll be football season.

Boston is a football town now. NY has 3 football teams and they all suck!!! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
It's early in the season. Red Sox probably get better from here. There are bright spots and they're not exactly playing terribly. Trouble is for the Red Sox is that the Yankees probably get better from this point as well. I'm a little surprised at how pessimistic Red Sox fans apparently are.

[/ QUOTE ]

The season is about half over, so I wouldn't say it's early.

And Sox fans have every reason to be pessimistic...Babe Ruth, Gibson's domination in 67, Bucky f-in Dent, Mookie's grounder, Grady Little...etc. No wonder they think the world's out to get them.

But Kurn is right, they can't complain too much when the Pats are still on top of the NFL. The Celts haven't been too bad over the years either. Now Cleveland fans...they have a reason to be pessimistic...

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Red Sox are successful and win the World Series, it'll be great. If not, who cares? It'll be football season.

Boston is a football town now. NY has 3 football teams and they all suck!!! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoda thunk it huh? I'm fairly young, 20, but with the history of the Red Sox, the Celts, and even the Bruins...OUR team is the Patriots? Yikes. Oh well, I'll root for the Sox until the magic number hits zero and then I can give my undivided attention to Billy and our Pats.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The Celts haven't been too bad over the years either.

There will be kids entering college this fall who weren't even born the last time a Celtics banner was hoisted to the rafters.

[andyfox]

And it's only June 30. They're right there for the wild card. And if they win tonight they'll be only 5.5 back with Pedro pitching against Halsey tomorrow.

[andyfox]

What is it about Francona's managing that troubles you?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm fairly young, 20, but with the history of the Red Sox, the Celts, and even the Bruins...OUR team is the Patriots?

Let's see. The Sox are at 85 years and counting, the Celtics have been a non-entity for the last decade and the Bruins have done nothing but gag for a generation.

It's time for Boston fans to stop waxing poetic over "history", treating backing losers as some badge of honor, and actually understand that the Patriots are the one franchise in this town that has earned the devotion for which Boston sports fans are noted.

Just the opinion of a long-time fan of 3/4 of the Boston pro teams (sorry, I hate the Bruins).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Andy, I'm not counting them out by any means. there are too many ebbs and flows in 162 games to get excited or depressed prior to Labor Day. I'd feel the same way if the Sox were 6 games in front, and I'll be looking forward to watching the Patriots even if the Sox are in the Series.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Kevin Millar. The right lineup has Nomar at short, Reese at 2nd and Youkilis at 3rd, with Belhorn at DH. For some reason, Francona can't envision a DH that's not a big bruiser despite the fact that Belhorn's twice the hitter that Millar is.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it about Francona's managing that troubles you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Several things.

1. He is far too prone to take the blame for problems which are not his fault (like a player showing up late or not running out a ground ball).

2. Many of his lineup decisions are curious, to say the least, such as:

(a) resting Manny Ramirez on the last day of the west coast trip, when they were facing Jason Schmidt and the next day was a scheduled day off (if he wanted to give him 2 days in a row off, he could have rested him on Tuesday instead of on sunday, when the rest of the team was likely to be overmatched by a great pitcher)

(b) starting Andy Dominique at first base when Millar, Ortiz and McCarty were available

(c) benching David Ortiz 2 out of 3 games in Colorado because a lefty was starting (Ortiz should be in there EVERY DAY!)

(d) general propensity to use Lenny DiNardo while a game is still close (this guy probably shouldn't even be on the roster, let alone pitching in important situations)

(e) refusing to reduce Millar's playing time

and a number of other day-to-day decisions.

I'm not usually overcritical of managers, unless they do something really dumb (like Grady Little), but I disagree with a lot of Francona's decisions.

I don't have a problem with the lack of bunting and sacrificing, it's his lineup decisions that tend to bother me.

[B-Man]

Really, the right lineup has Pokey at short and Nomar at another position, but that's not going to happen.

I agree Bellhorn needs to be in the lineup (as long as he continues to get on base like he has so far). If necessary, he should be at second ahead of Pokey (except when Lowe starts), because I don't think Pokey's outstanding defense, while playing at 2B, outweighs Bellhorn's offense.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Really, the right lineup has Pokey at short and Nomar at another position, but that's not going to happen.


Actually, I'm pretty well convinced that this will happen within a month, with Nomar's "other position" being ss on another team.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think it would be awesome if Tampa finishes above Boston. Go Yankees and go Lou, boo you beantown bums!!! Hahahahahaha /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[B-Man]

How are the Mariners doing this year?

[Rube]

[ QUOTE ]
benching David Ortiz 2 out of 3 games in Colorado because a lefty was starting (Ortiz should be in there EVERY DAY!)

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you ever want ortiz in against lefties? He's never hit lefties and millar hits them better, check out the numbers from 2001-2003 (http://tinyurl.com/ywstl). Also, Ortiz started two out of those three games in colorado, and pinch hit for millar in the game he didn't start as soon as they brought in a righty. Francona may have problems, but I don't think this is one of them.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
How are the Mariners doing this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be concise: poorly (31-44 record). How will they finish? - They may get a few games over .500 by the end of the Season but I would think even that is optimistic. Management wouldn't do much to improve the team in the second half. The season is a wash.

The D-backs have the second worst record in the Majors at 27-50; only the Blue Jays are more dismal at 25-50.

In fact, the D-backs are a Triple A team, especially the pitching, aside from the obvious stand out(s). Their season is already over.

-Zeno

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
why would you ever want ortiz in against lefties? He's never hit lefties and millar hits them better, check out the numbers from 2001-2003 (http://tinyurl.com/ywstl). Also, Ortiz started two out of those three games in colorado, and pinch hit for millar in the game he didn't start as soon as they brought in a righty. Francona may have problems, but I don't think this is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may have been wrong about 2 out of 3 vs. 1 out of 3, but Ortiz has a higher OPS vs. lefties than Millar in 2004, which is the most relevant time period.

The 3-year splits are not relevant in this case because (a) Ortiz was a platoon player until the middle of last season, (b) Ortiz improved tremendously once he became an everyday player, and has continued to play great this year, and (c) Millar is not hitting nearly as well this season as he did last season (last season OPS of .845, 25 HRs, this season his OPS is .744 and he is on pace for 11 HRs--on top of that, now he can't even play 1B competently!).

David Ortiz should be in the Red Sox lineup every day. Perhaps when Ellis Burks comes back, a case can be made that Burks should be the DH against lefties, but there is no way Ortiz should ever be benched in favor of Millar.

[Rube]

[ QUOTE ]
I may have been wrong about 2 out of 3 vs. 1 out of 3, but Ortiz has a higher OPS vs. lefties than Millar in 2004, which is the most relevant time period.

The 3-year splits are not relevant in this case because (a) Ortiz was a platoon player until the middle of last season, (b) Ortiz improved tremendously once he became an everyday player, and has continued to play great this year, and (c) Millar is not hitting nearly as well this season as he did last season (last season OPS of .845, 25 HRs, this season his OPS is .744 and he is on pace for 11 HRs--on top of that, now he can't even play 1B competently!).

David Ortiz should be in the Red Sox lineup every day. Perhaps when Ellis Burks comes back, a case can be made that Burks should be the DH against lefties, but there is no way Ortiz should ever be benched in favor of Millar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also remember that there was no DH in Colorado so Millar's defense at 1b may have been a factor. They have a very similar OPS against lefties this year, but considering that Millar has always hit lefties well, Ortiz has never hit lefties well, Millar is arguably a better defensive first baseman, and Ortiz had played in every game up to that point, I don't think sitting him down for two at bats against a lefty was the worst idea.

JMHO

[B-Man]

The way Millar has played at 1B this year, I am honestly not sure he is any better than Ortiz in the field. David McCarty might have been a better choice than Millar.

The OPS vs. lefties this year is close, but in favor of Ortiz. For the reasons I previously stated, I don't think their previous history is relevant. Millar may have "always" hit lefties well in the past, but this year he isn't hitting anyone well, lefty or righty.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
How are the Mariners doing this year?

[/ QUOTE ]
Crappy, so what, I don't live and die the Mariners. They have replaced the Yankees as my favorite team, but only barely, I have always liked the Yankess, and always will. I actually like several teams, M's, Yankees, Giants, Reds, and Expos. For some reason these are always the teams I root for. So, if one or two of them is playing like [censored], thats fine, I just happen to really enjoy baseball.

BTW, let me know when Boston wins a WS....... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
David Ortiz should be in the Red Sox lineup every day. Perhaps when Ellis Burks comes back, a case can be made that Burks should be the DH against lefties, but there is no way Ortiz should ever be benched in favor of Millar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn straight. Especially since Ortiz is my 1B in my fantasy baseball league. Need those HR's and RBI's to keep me in 1st. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

And man....why'd you have to go and bring up the Mariners? Painful.

I'm kind of a surrogate Boston fan anyway since I have been reading the Sports Guy for years.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
And man....why'd you have to go and bring up the Mariners? Painful.


[/ QUOTE ] Cuz he's from Boston, don't you know, they have the worst fans, very racist too /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[B-Man]

The Sports Guy's old website--before he first went to espn.com--was the best website in the history of the internet. I was literally depressed when he shut it down.

I have zero interest in the NBA, yet I still read most of hs NBA columns because they are so entertaining (more entertaining than the NBA itself!).

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually like several teams, M's, Yankees, Giants, Reds, and Expos. For some reason these are always the teams I root for. So, if one or two of them is playing like [censored], thats fine, I just happen to really enjoy baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should become a fan of every team, that way, no matter what, you can always be a fan of the best team in baseball.

This reminds me of the guy in my office (from Vermont) who likes the Yankees, the Lakers, the Cowboys and the Canadiens...

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I have zero interest in the NBA, yet I still read most of hs NBA columns because they are so entertaining (more entertaining than the NBA itself!).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I try to root for the Sonics, but the NBA is hard to watch. Yet I anticipate Simmons' draft diary each year even though I know what the jokes will be, and I don't know half of the players being drafted.

Let's hope his new ESPN home page will be like his old site. Sounds like that's the direction he wants it to head in.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Belhorn or Youkilis would probably be better defensively than either and then you just DH Ortiz. Millar has 21 RBIs in the middle of that lineup. That's hideous. He's been in a slump since last July.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

why'd you have to go and bring up the Mariners? Painful.


Could be worse. He could've brought up the Seahawks. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

I actually like just about everyteam.
The only ones I can't stand are the Red Sox, the Braves, and every team in the AL west except Seattle.

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of the guy in my office (from Vermont) who likes the Yankees, the Lakers, the Cowboys and the Canadiens...

[/ QUOTE ]
For the record, the only NFL team I actually like is the Seahwaks, and the only NBA teams I actually like are the Sonics and the Knicks. So, I am not sure if I fit your model.

[Rube]

[ QUOTE ]
Belhorn or Youkilis would probably be better defensively than either and then you just DH Ortiz. Millar has 21 RBIs in the middle of that lineup. That's hideous. He's been in a slump since last July.

[/ QUOTE ]

This game was in Colorado so there was no DH, Bellhorn and Youkilis were playing 2b and 3b, and it was against a pitcher that smokes lefties but struggles against righties.

A lot of Millar bashing here, I'm salivating over having his OPS in the Mariners order, its better than seven of the guys in our lineup.

If playing Millar over Ortiz against a lefty in an NL park was my biggest beef, I'd be a happy fan /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Could be worse. He could've brought up the Seahawks. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, we've reached the point in Seattle where the Hawks are looking to be the best team. With Hasselbeck and Alexander on offense, and if Grant Wistrom and Bobby Taylor stay healthy and contribute on defense, they could clearly win the NFC West.

[ThaSaltCracka]

The Seahawks will be awesome next year, Stubbs is going to be a beast on the D-line, and now that Springs is gone, we may finally have a guy playing who can play good defense. Springs is garbage!!! This team will win atleast 11 games next year....maybe...

[andyfox]

When Felix Heredia gets out of a bases loaded nobody out situation with zero runs scoring, you're running bad.

(No way, BTW, the last pitch to Ortiz was a strike. And I'm a Yankee fan. But the team that played better won.)

[Toro]

I posted a similar thought in the news, views, gossip section and was told correctly it belonged here. The only way to save the 'Summa' is to fire Francona ASAP.

I have someone in mind to replace him but don't want to say to see if anyone else thinks of it too. So, if you agree he should go, who would you replace him with?

[B-Man]

nm

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No way a football coach, no matter how great, could translate into baseball, where the players run the show.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

But he'd have to be crazy to take the job.

[Ragnar]

The Diamondbacks and the Red Sox should trade managers. It won't happen but I'm serious about this. Brenly is a better manager with veterans and poor with younger players.
Francona would be better with younger players. Brenly has also beaten the Yankees.

Part of Francona's problem is that he is being forced to play a Moneyball style, which doesn't suit his managing style. (I don't know that Brenly could manage to that style either, but him might be able to adapt to it.) Another part is that Francona is old school. I watched him play at the University of Arizona and know he can't be comfortable with the hairstyles and attitudes on the Red Sox. I'm not criticizing the haircuts and attitudes--I just think that Terry can't like it. Francona is a fine baseball man, but a bad fit for this job.

Ragnar

[daryn]

is anyone else sick of hearing about moneyball? does anyone else think billy beane is an idiot? yay! we made the playoffs again! yes!! oh. we're out.

now everyone is going to jump on my case and say well what about the red sox, yaddy yadda, as if that has anything to do with my argument. let's just pretend i'm from buttlick, iowa for a minute ok?

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone else think billy beane is an idiot?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible, but then again you may be the only one that thinks Billy Beane is an idiot.

P.S. The Yankees are a moneyball team, too.

[daryn]

what exactly does it mean to be a "moneyball team". like your team bunts and sacrifices when appropriate? steals a lot? those are fundamentals of baseball. it's not like before moneyball teams had no idea.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

P.S. The Yankees are a moneyball team, too.

Huh? The Yankees put runners in motion all the time, and they sacrifice much more than a true moneyball team would.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the sacrifice bunt (as did Earl Weaver), but the moneyball concept that defense is overrated is just stupid. make a defensive change and put mcCarty at 1st in the 7th last night and the Sox win the game.

[B-Man]

To me it means trying to make good decisions based on statistics and data.

There is a lot of data which shows that many teams put an overemphasis on bunting, sacrificing, and stealing bases, and not enough emphasis on on-base percentage (this doesn't mean you never bunt, it means you bunt less often than most teams historically have bunted).

The Red Sox did pretty well with this philosophy last season, when they had the best lineup in baseball. A lot of people have short memories.

The Red Sox have a number of problems this year, but the biggest problem recently is that the defense has been horrible, particularly at 1B (Nomar hasn't helped the situation any). The Yankees don't bunt, sacrifice or steal more than the Red Sox, nor do the A's. The last I checked, NY had the best record in baseball, and Oakland was doing pretty well, too.

None of this shows in any way that Billy Beane is an idiot. I think that anyone who really thinks that Billy Beane is an idiot is ignorant.

[daryn]

i guess you think i'm ignorant then.

i can't wait til the A's make their early exit this year.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. The Yankees are a moneyball team, too.

Huh? The Yankees put runners in motion all the time, and they sacrifice much more than a true moneyball team would.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Yankees have 21 sacrifices. The Red Sox have 20, and Oakland has 20.

The Yankees are 9th in the league in stolen bases.

Their OBP is .354 (Cleveland is 1st at .357)

I certainly consider them a moneyball team.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I hate the sacrifice bunt (as did Earl Weaver), but the moneyball concept that defense is overrated is just stupid. make a defensive change and put mcCarty at 1st in the 7th last night and the Sox win the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Defense is overrated, but it's not irrelevant. If the Red Sox were playing average defense, they would have won last night and a lot of other game they've lost recently. I don't think anyone is saying you should completely ignore defense, but it's not as important as most people think. The problem recently is that the Sox defense has not been average, it has been horrible.

By the way, forget about McCarty as a defensive replacement, I think he's a better option to start than Millar--neither of them can hit, but at least McCarty is a competent first baseman, and Millar has been killing them in the field (he hasn't been average, he's been terrible).

Defense does matter when you are talking about the difference between average and horrible. We would be ok with average defense.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
i guess you think i'm ignorant then.

i can't wait til the A's make their early exit this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if Oakland doesn't win the World Series this year, that will certainly prove that Billy Beane is an "idiot"!

[Toro]

Funny, because I thought of him too, but just as a hypothetical, not a real choice.

Hint: He's old and probably considered over the hill, very similar to Jack McKeon and like him everone will scoff at the idea. But he's available and I think would be just what they need.

But the Red Sox, in a million years would never consider it because he's old school and probably wouldn't follow their formula for how a team should be managed.

I'll wait a little longer to see if anyone comes up with it and to delay the ridicule I'll get when I reveal my choice.

[B-Man]

Joe Morgan?

[Toro]

Apologies to Troy Brown. Bingo, we got bingo!!

Just what we need right now. A Morgan magic encore!

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
i guess you think i'm ignorant then.

i can't wait til the A's make their early exit this year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you didn't realize that the playoffs are a crap shoot? Atleast thats what Beane thinks. I had this discussion earlier. He builds good teams, but not teams that can win short series. Unfortunately, "Moneyball" doesn't work in the playoffs.

[B-Man]

I agree they need a shakeup, and if they don't improve their play by the All-Star break, I would seriously consider dumping Francona (not sure if the Sox would).

I'd love to see this happen, but I think there's a better chance of them hiring Grady Little than Joe Morgan (in other words, like you said, it's not going to happen).

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
He builds good teams, but not teams that can win short series.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain the difference between a good team and a team that can win a short series.

[ThaSaltCracka]

dddddddduuuuuudddeeeee.... we have gone over this before, I am not sure why I even said that because I knew you were going to start this again.

Okay, Beane basically builds team based upon the laws of avergage and statistics, right? He loves OBP and OPS, and if you put a lot of these players on your team you will win games, but you aren't explosive enough with a team like that to come back from a 5-1 early lead in a game. Your pitchers have to pitch well for them to win, otherwise their offense probably won't catch up. So if they lose the first couple games in a series, its over, because they simply lack the pop to win games. The only reason why Oakland has been winning the past couple years with the "Moneyball" approach is because they have had three really good pitchers, once one of them leaves(which will happen) that team will start to go down hill.

[B-Man]

You may have had this discussion with others on here, but I don't remember being involved in any such thread (I probably skipped it).

You are completely deluded if you think your arguments apply only to a moneyball team and not to any team.

[ QUOTE ]
but you aren't explosive enough with a team like that to come back from a 5-1 early lead in a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most teams are not going to come back from a 5-1 deficit against a playoff team.

[ QUOTE ]
Your pitchers have to pitch well for them to win, otherwise their offense probably won't catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is true of nearly every team playing a good opponent.

[ QUOTE ]
So if they lose the first couple games in a series, its over, because they simply lack the pop to win games.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is getting boring... explain to me why this applies to a moneyball team but not any other team? Newsflash: most teams that lose the first 2 games in a series go on to lose the series (btw, Oakland WON games 1 and 2 vs. Boston last season).

The Red Sox scored more runs than anyone last year, and they were a moneyball team. Does that qualify as "pop"?

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason why Oakland has been winning the past couple years with the "Moneyball" approach is because they have had three really good pitchers, once one of them leaves(which will happen) that team will start to go down hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most teams with 3 great pitchers are going to start to go downhill when they lose one of them (unless they get an adequate replacement). This has nothing to do with moneyball, it has to do with losing talent. Any team that loses a star player is going to suffer if they don't find a good replacement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and it doesn't have anything to do with moneyball.

Your arguments are not at all specific to moneyball teams, they are completely general and apply to baseball teams in general, not just moneyball teams.

It looks to me like you came to a conclusion which is not at all based on fact, and you are trying to invent arguments to prove your conclusion. It's not working.

[nolanfan34]

How many of you guys have read Moneyball? This term gets thrown around so much now, but I don't think people correctly convey what the point of the book was.

Being a "Moneyball team" doesn't have to do with the everyday managing of a team, as much as it has to do with player evaluation and scouting. The increased emphasis on statistics applies more to evaluating college talent and putting an emphasis there.

With the A's, this has translated to a team that Beane has created to be a high OBP team. But nothing about that approach says that defense isn't important. Heck, part of the reason Beane chose to resign Chavez instead of Giambi or Tejada is the fact that he's such a defensive standout at 3B.

Some of the statistical evaluation is used for playing matchups and platooning players, but managers like Sparky Anderson were doing that back in the 70s.

And hey, how about Sparky for Red Sox manager? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

If you're a baseball fan, and haven't discovered Baseball Prospectus yet, you're missing out. Well worth the $40/year cost. They have a ton of interesting research regarding things like defensive efficiency and sacrifices. Stolen bases too.

[Toro]

Sparky? If he's still breathing, in a New York minute if you'll pardon the pun/cliche.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Sparky? If he's still breathing, in a New York minute if you'll pardon the pun/cliche.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's alive and kicking, I saw him on TV the other day, during a Braves game I think. Can't remember. Anyway, he still looked healthy to me.

[andyfox]

Ortiz could well have had another at bat last night, so I wouldn't have taken him out in the 7th in a 2-0 game. Nor in the 8th with the score 2-2.

If Williamson was able to continue, the Sox probably win last night.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Most teams are not going to come back from a 5-1 deficit against a playoff team.


[/ QUOTE ] First of all I through out a number, basically if a team wants to win in the playoffs they have to be able to come from behind if they want t win. NY did it last year, Boston did it, and Florida did it. "Moneyball" teams are more likely to slowly score runs. It is hard for them to put together a big inning because they are constantly just getting on base, but not particulary getting a lot of TB in one at bat, and thats key to big innings.

[ QUOTE ]
This is getting boring... explain to me why this applies to a moneyball team but not any other team? Newsflash: most teams that lose the first 2 games in a series go on to lose the series (btw, Oakland WON games 1 and 2 vs. Boston last season).

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell that to Oakland, they lost in 2001 after winning the first two games, then they lose in 2002 after winning 2 out of the first 3, then of course 2003 when they again won the first 2. There is a pattern here, and its not them choaking either, its there inabilty to score runs when it really counts.

[ QUOTE ]
The Red Sox scored more runs than anyone last year, and they were a moneyball team. Does that qualify as "pop"?

[/ QUOTE ] This is funny, listen if signing high priced free agents with high OPS is moneyball then what is Oaklands approach called? Half-the-money-but-still-moneyball. Please, Boston has enourmous power, they do not qualify as a moneyball team.

[ QUOTE ]
Most teams with 3 great pitchers are going to start to go downhill when they lose one of them (unless they get an adequate replacement). This has nothing to do with moneyball, it has to do with losing talent. Any team that loses a star player is going to suffer if they don't find a good replacement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and it doesn't have anything to do with moneyball.

[/ QUOTE ] The whole point is people give so much credit to Beanes approach of sighing high OBP and OPs players, but inactuality the reason the A's win has way more to do with their pitching. So once they leave the A's will suck, because their offense all ready sucks.

[andyfox]

The Moneyball strategies involve using the new sabermetric statistical studies pioneered by Peter Palmer and Bill James. Bascially, they assert that on-base percentage and slugging percentage are the most important offensive statistics and that some traditional "common knowledge," for example, about bunting, hit-and-run plays, and stolen bases, is wrong.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all I through out a number, basically if a team wants to win in the playoffs they have to be able to come from behind if they want t win. NY did it last year, Boston did it, and Florida did it. "Moneyball" teams are more likely to slowly score runs. It is hard for them to put together a big inning because they are constantly just getting on base, but not particulary getting a lot of TB in one at bat, and thats key to big innings.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are so many holes in that blurb, I don't know where to begin. Do you really believe that nonsense?

Also, do you understand the difference between evidence and a conclusion? Instead of just throwing out baseless conclusions, provide some evidence of what you are saying (I know, its tough to do when there is no evidence).

Where is it written that a team needs to be able to come back from a 5-1 deficit in the playoffs to win the WS? And of the teams you listed that did it, only 1 of them won the WS. This is just a ridiculous statement, full of flaws and compeletely irrelevant to the entire discussion.

Btw, the Red Sox place a very high value on OBP (Theo is a protege of Billy Beane), and last year led the league in OBP, slugging and runs. Just because the Sox have more money than Oakland, that doesn't mean they disagree with Beane's theories. You can score a ton of runs, and score them in bunches, with a high OBP--see 2003 Boston.

Which team do you think will score more runs, all else being equal, a team with a high OBP or a team with a low OBP?

[ QUOTE ]
Tell that to Oakland, they lost in 2001 after winning the first two games, then they lose in 2002 after winning 2 out of the first 3, then of course 2003 when they again won the first 2. There is a pattern here, and its not them choaking either, its there inabilty to score runs when it really counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did it "really count" in the playoff games they won, or just the games they lost? Funny you keep making things up to suit are arguments... Did the Atlanta Braves lose all those years in the playoffs because of moneyball, too? Your arguments can be applied to any number of teams/situations, there is absolutely nothing about them that is specific to moneyball.

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point is people give so much credit to Beanes approach of sighing high OBP and OPs players, but inactuality the reason the A's win has way more to do with their pitching. So once they leave the A's will suck, because their offense all ready sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with moneyball. As I've already said, any team will struggle after losing its stars if they are not replaced.

Your arguments/observations really don't have anything to do with moneyball, they are just general observations that could appply to any number of teams.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

By the way, forget about McCarty as a defensive replacement, I think he's a better option to start

I agree. I was just commenting on the specific situation that arose last night.

[daryn]

of course i don't believe the playoffs are a crapshoot. if they are, then the yankees are the luckiest franchise in history. but they're not.

i still think beane has a screw loose.

[craig r]

i would not say that they are a crapshoot either, but, just like in poker short term luck can factor into them. but, i do think a majority of the time, the best team wins.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all I through out a number, basically if a team wants to win in the playoffs they have to be able to come from behind if they want t win.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where is it written that a team needs to be able to come back from a 5-1 deficit in the playoffs to win the WS?

[/ QUOTE ] READ!

It is utterly apparent for a team to to win in the playoffs, especially when every single game is important for them to be able to get back into every single game. They have to win that game.

So lets go into Beanes approach, he looks more at OBP and SLG, and not so much at AVG or base running( ie SB's and sacrifices). Therefor teams using his approach will score runs but generally with HR's and extra base hits. Boston is a perfect example of this, but watching them play is boring, because they play station baseball. They get walks, stand on the bases and clog up the basepath waiting for HR and doubles. They do not manufacture runs, and in closegames you have to do this to win. You cannot rely on someone to hit a HR for you to win. That may sound like it pertains to evey team but thats because most teams try to do this, and the teams that can do this win WS.

You need to remember that the REGULAR season is long. Beanes approach will work to get his team to win enough games to probably make the playoffs, but to actually win in the playoffs his approach will not work. He needs short term success, not the long-term success his approach allows.

[ QUOTE ]
Did it "really count" in the playoff games they won, or just the games they lost?

[/ QUOTE ] all that matters is the series, his approach does not work in small series.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I know the playoffs aren't a crap shoot, but thats what Beane said. He has said that his job is to get the team into the playoffs and anything after that is a crap shoot. What the [censored] kind of logic is that? I think thats just his excuse for his teams not being able to win playoff series.

[ThaSaltCracka]

<ahem>

Look At the Bright Side

By Bill Simmons
Page 2


"No matter where you are
I can still hear you when you drown"
--Billy Corgan


I knew we were in trouble last week. My Dad and I were having a drink together in Boston. The conversation drifted to the Red Sox, just like it always does. We talked about Nomar. I mentioned that he was moving around at short about as fluidly as Lieutenant Dan at Forrest Gump's wedding. Dad didn't get the reference, but he shook his head in disgust.


"It all comes back to that A-Rod trade," he said. He was making the Dad Face, the same one from when I used to show him my report card from high school.

When A-Rod went to the Bronx, there was a new Valentine's Day Massacre in Boston.
"Uh-oh," I said. "Really? You're starting this early?"



At this point, it was June 24th. The team was playing okay. Not great. Okay. It seemed a little early to play the A-Rod card. Not for my Dad, of course.


"For an extra $15 million, we could have had the best player in baseball. You have to make that move."


"But Dad, that trade wasn't worth it. We had to give up Nomar, Manny, Williamson, prospects and $15 million just for A-Rod and Magglio Ordonez. That's not a good trade."


"Nomar? He's been awful!"


"Well, they didn't know he was getting hurt at the time."


"They choked," he said, barely even listening to me. "They let him get away. That's the story of this franchise. They let people get away."


After this week's debacle in Yankee Stadium, my father's words were ringing in my ears. Maybe he's right. This winter, the Sox didn't get it done and the Yankees did. That's been the difference over the years. The Yankees go the extra mile. Of course, they can spend twice as much money as anyone else, and everyone who roots for them is headed to hell some day. But yes, they always go the extra mile. The fact remains that there were two blue-chippers available this winter -- A-Rod and Javy Vasquez -- and the Yankees got them both.


There was a creepy inevitability during these past two nights -- the crowd smelling blood, the Sox falling apart in sections, the Yankees going for the kill. They just have a better team. Last year it was debatable; that's what made the ALCS so special. Not this year. These Red Sox give away outs, butcher easy plays, suck the life from their pitchers. Other than Pokey Reese and Jason Varitek, none of the defensive players on the roster could even be called "average." It's like a talented softball team, Billy Beane's "Moneyball" vision sprung to life. Just keep getting guys on base and everything will be fine. Or so they say.


Of course, Beane's Oakland teams haven't won a playoff series yet. And that's the problem. I'm not sure you can win this way. Teams that ignore the Little Things -- turning crisp double plays, taking the extra base, cutting off balls in the outfield, getting bunts down in big spots, running the bases without looking like you're drunk -- never seem to succeed in October. Eventually, you reach a point where the other team is just as good as you, so you have to roll up your sleeves and beat them by playing some baseball. You know. Like the Yankees did in the seventh and eighth innings last night.


Sure, it doesn't help that the Sox have been saddled with another shaky manager. I'm not sure how this keeps happening. Just in my lifetime alone, we've had a staggering collection of drunks, butt-kissers, dimwits, village idiots, senior citizens, hotheads and lunatics. This year we have Terry Francona, who looks like Moby and seems like a nice enough guy. They always seem like nice guys. Maybe that's how they get the job. Anyway, thanks to Francona's lack of aggression -- not moving runners over, sticking with starters too long, catering to his stars -- the team's passive play is beginning to reflect his personality. And I'm not even sure he's awake half the time.


Believe me, we've been here. The lack of urgency . . . boy, that reminds me of 2002! The brainfarts . . . hey, that's just like 2001! The absence of clutch hitting in close games . . . wow, it's like 2000 all over again! If anything, they seem TOO loose, the kind of team where somebody drops a pop-up and everyone laughs it off like it's the funniest thing that ever happened. It's a world devoid of repercussions. Honestly, I think Nomar could make a costly error in the next 25 games in a row, and Francona would STILL refuse to stick him at DH and put Pokey back where he belongs. He's too busy scheming to break the "Fewest Sacrifice Bunts In One Season" record.

Until Nomar is Nomar -- would someone please put Pokey at short?
And so they're drowning. Slowly. When your baseball team has "it," you pretty much know. I've written about this before. You start winning games on goofy plays, having those improbable ninth-inning rallies, getting huge hits from the Crespos of the world . . . you just kind of know. As sad as this sounds, my favorite moments of this season were A.) Pokey's inside-the-park homer, and B.) Kevin Youkilis getting ignored by everyone in the dugout after his first major league home run. I can't remember anything else that stands out. As I wrote a few weeks ago, it's like one of those $120 million summer action movies where nothing actually happens.



The injuries haven't helped. Schilling has been pitching with an aching ankle. Pedro's shoulder is like Scott Weiland -- it could go at any time. They missed Nomar and Trot for those first two months. And yes, it's always difficult to evaluate a team that hasn't been completely healthy yet. At the same time, thanks to all the free agents, this feels like one of those "Saturday Night Live" seasons where some well-known cast members are leaving for crappy movie careers, but some of the other stars just got here. So there's a weird vibe in the air. Two eras colliding.


Pedro and his geri-curls are headed for free agency. Same with Nomar, who almost certainly won't return after they nearly whacked him, Sopranos-style, last winter. Varitek, Derek Lowe and the Derek Lowe Face (back for an unexpected encore) are joining them. They're giving way to a new crop of mainstays: Foulke, Schilling, Poppy, Manny and Pokey. Manny and Poppy (aka David Ortiz) have emerged as the dominant figures -- always smiling and styling, always the center of attention, almost always ripping the ball. As far as great tag-teams go, they're like Fred Lynn & Jim Rice crossed with Brock Landers & Chest Rockwell. I laugh at least once a day watching these guys. You can't take your eyes off them. They personify this team more than anyone, two exceedingly likable guys, two of the best hitters in the league . . . but two guys with no other discernable baseball skills.


Heading into the All-Star Break, the team with the $120 million payroll is headed for around 91 wins. If you've watched them every day, you wouldn't be even remotely surprised. You can't build a team around four high-profile starting pitchers, an expensive closer and a crummy defense, paced by an explosive offense that can't create a run from scratch to save its life. Here's what happens: You win a bunch of games by scores like 10-3, and you lose a bunch of games by scores like 3-2. The pieces don't fit. It's that simple. Not only did the front office ignore the lessons of the 2003 World Champion Marlins, they ventured in the complete opposite direction.


And yes, maybe the A-Rod Saga set the tone for the season. Like my Dad was complaining last week, the team couldn't get it done when it mattered. And it's been that way ever since. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's right.


As Jackie Rogers Jr. once sang, "Damn you, Daddy."

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
They get walks, stand on the bases and clog up the basepath waiting for HR and doubles. They do not manufacture runs, and in closegames you have to do this to win. You cannot rely on someone to hit a HR for you to win. That may sound like it pertains to evey team but thats because most teams try to do this, and the teams that can do this win WS.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Many close games are won with homeruns and doubles, both in the regular season AND the postseason. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. You don't have to play small-ball to score runs in the playoffs.

2. You still haven't given any evidence of why your theory would apply in the postseason but not the regular season (or vice versa). You just offer conclusions without any support.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to remember that the REGULAR season is long. Beanes approach will work to get his team to win enough games to probably make the playoffs, but to actually win in the playoffs his approach will not work. He needs short term success, not the long-term success his approach allows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, that's a naked conclusion without any supported from facts. You can keep repeating it all you want, but you still haven't given any evidence that it works in the regular season, but not the postseason (other than noting that Oakland hasn't won the WS the last few years--well guess what, neither have about 30 other teams!).

[B-Man]

Since you are so results oriented, explain how the Sox' approach worked so well last year--they had the best offense in baseball, beat Oakland in the playoffs, then were 4 outs away from beating the Yankees before the GLI (Grady Little Incident). Surely you aren't going to blame THAT ONE on moneyball... so how do you explain it, Mr. If-You-Haven't-Won-the-World-Series-in-the-last-few-years-obviously-you-are-doing-something-wrong?

[ThaSaltCracka]

the Sox's team last year was far better than the team this year. I think they should have beat the Yankees, and probably would have beat the Marlins. Since you know everything about the Sox, I will assume you know that they led leauge in AB's, hits, runs, doubles, AVG, SLG, and OBP, and they were 2nd in BB and HR's. They were clearly going to try and win with offense last year, unfortunately a terrible managerial error which ultimately cost them the game. I suppose I could use the moneyball approach that their series OBP was only .318 while there SLG was .468, not to mention only 17 walks to 60 strikeouts. You tell me? That look like a team who couldn't get a hit when they needed it. NY scored 30 runs in 238 AB's while Boston could only muster 29 in 250 AB's, even though NY had a much worse AVG, OBP, and SLG. I wonder how NY was able to score all those runs....? I notice NY had 5 SB's while Boston only had 2.....? hmmm.....

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. If-You-Haven't-Won-the-World-Series-in-the-last-few-years-obviously-you-are-doing-something-wrong?

[/ QUOTE ] How-the-hell-did-I-get-this-title?

[B-Man]

Exactly. They should have won that Series, and the Sox have a "moneyball" approach--they preach the importance of OBP and slugging. With this approach, they had the best offense in baseball, and should have gone to the World Series. So what is your point?

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I could use the moneyball approach that their series OBP was only .318 while there SLG was .468, not to mention only 17 walks to 60 strikeouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the fact that they were facing Clemens, Pettitte, and Mussina had nothing to do with this. Almost no team (except maybe the 2002 Angels) hits as well in the playoffs as they do in the regular season; in the playoffs, you are facing the best competition everyday. This is pretty obvious, no?

[ QUOTE ]
That look like a team who couldn't get a hit when they needed it. NY scored 30 runs in 238 AB's while Boston could only muster 29 in 250 AB's, even though NY had a much worse AVG, OBP, and SLG. I wonder how NY was able to score all those runs....?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. They scored one (1) more run than the Red Sox. How does that qualify as "all those"? They would have scored less runs were it not for the meltdown. The Yankees aren't exactly chopped liver, they scored runs because they had a very good team. It was two very evenly matched teams (both during the season and during the playoffs), I don't know what else there is to say.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. If-You-Haven't-Won-the-World-Series-in-the-last-few-years-obviously-you-are-doing-something-wrong?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How-the-hell-did-I-get-this-title?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the only proof you can offer that Oakland's system doesn't work in the playoffs (or in a "short series") is that they haven't won a playoff series. (You offerred lots of conclusions, but thats about the only evidence I've heard).

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. They should have won that Series, and the Sox have a "moneyball" approach--they preach the importance of OBP and slugging. With this approach, they had the best offense in baseball, and should have gone to the World Series. So what is your point?


[/ QUOTE ]
My point is they would have won if they had tried to manufacture some runs. You said it yourself, they were facing Petite, Mussina, and Clemens. Those are three guys that won't give you much to hit so you have to take advantage of runners on base. They actually hit the ball well, but those K's are hurt them, they should have sacrified more often, then the games probably wouldn't have been as close.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. They scored one (1) more run than the Red Sox. How does that qualify as "all those"?

[/ QUOTE ] My point is the scored 30 runs even though they only hit .227. Boston scored 29 and they hit .272. That is pretty meaningful. Boston had 12 HR's to NY 8.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the only proof you can offer that Oakland's system doesn't work in the playoffs (or in a "short series") is that they haven't won a playoff series. (You offerred lots of conclusions, but thats about the only evidence I've heard).

[/ QUOTE ] Dude, thats proof right there, does it need to happen 5 times for you to agree? 10 times? 3 times in a row should be adequete enough proof for you.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the only proof you can offer that Oakland's system doesn't work in the playoffs (or in a "short series") is that they haven't won a playoff series. (You offerred lots of conclusions, but thats about the only evidence I've heard).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dude, thats proof right there, does it need to happen 5 times for you to agree? 10 times? 3 times in a row should be adequete enough proof for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

THAT is the flaw in your thinking (in poker, this would be called "results oriented" thinking). You could say the exact same thing about 25 or so other teams, are all of their systems flawed, too?

There could be any number of reasons why Oakland hasn't won a playoff series--better competition, injuries, slumps, luck, bad decisions (for example, starting Hudson AND Zito on 3 days rest last year, which was incredibly stupid), or maybe they just got outplayed.

The fact that they lost a few series is not proof that their system "works in the regular season but doesn't work in the playoffs." It might be evidence, but it's not proof by a longshot.

You are putting WAY too much evidence on a few samples, when there are MANY variables involved.

[bugstud]

SaltCracka is just channeling Joe Morgan. I'm curious, what made the Yanks and their hitting doubles with runners on different than the Sox hitting singles and homers? Your answer? Zero. Scoring runs is scoring runs. Beane would have speedier guys on his team if A) they didn't get overpaid, and B) if they had high OBP and steal %.
The A's problem was more with starters not pitching well and sometimes ineffective bullpen, they scored plenty of runs. Exemplary work given the budget. I'd really like to see what Beane would do with an 80M+ budget.

[Boris]

You have no clue what you're talking about. Moneyball is about getting the best available players given your budget constraints. It sounds simple but actually very few teams do it. One team that isn't a moneyball team is Seattle. They flat out suck.

Oakland's offense has been just fine in the playoffs. They lost to Boston last year becuase they don't know how to run the bases (they still don't by the way) and probably because they didn't have Hudson and Mulder available. Also Boston had a pretty good team last year.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Runs 18
Hits 38
Doubles 8
Triples 1
HR's 1
21 walks
37 K's
Average .213
OBP .289
SLG .287
SB 3

Regular Season for:
BA .254
OPS .740

In the playoffs their OPS was 153 points lower than their regular season average. hmm...... Oakland got more than 10 hits once the entire series and never scored more than 5 runs.

Just for fun heres the Red Sox's numbers.
Runs 17
Hits 38
2Bs 6
Triples 0
HR's 8
BB 18
K's 39
AVG .211
OBP .283
SLG .378


Now since the the problem was apparently the A's starters and the A's bullpen, why did Boston perform so poorly offensively? Only 17 runs scored with 8 HR's???? hmmm....... Boston only had one game with more than 10 hits and that was a extra inning game.

Clearly the beast that was the Boston Red Sox' offense wasn't clicking during this short 5 game series. The same could be said for the A's as well. Moneyball can suck my moneyballs!

[Zele]

andyfox was making it so hard to hate Yankee fans.

P.S. Nothing personal, ThaSaltCraka. Just keepin' it real.

[B-Man]

You truly are either completely ignorant or purposely choose to ignore highly relevant information.

The starting pitchers in this series were Pedro Martinez (twice), Derek Lowe, Tim Wakefield, John Burkett, Tim Hudson (twice), Barry Zito (twice) and Ted Lilly.

I guess the fact that both teams struggled on offense had nothing to do with the quality of the pitchers they were facing...

[ThaSaltCracka]

from bugstud :The A's problem was more with starters not pitching well and sometimes ineffective bullpen
from Boris: They lost to Boston last year becuase they don't know how to run the bases (they still don't by the way) and probably because they didn't have Hudson and Mulder available

First of all you assertion that Lowe, Burkett, and Wakefield are all quality pitchers is laughable especially when you consider their stats from last year.
Lowe was 17-7 with a 4.47 ERA
Wakefield was 11-7 with a 4.09 ERA
Burkett was 12-9 with a 5.15 ERA
man, that sounds like an all-star rotation. It must be nice to be a pitcher and know that you can give up 4 or 5 runs and still get a win.
Pedro was the only person on the entire team who pitched well.

Now as for Oakland, your right, Lillyis a veritable superstar, last year he was an impressive 12-10 with a 4.34 ERA who gave up 179 hits in 178 innings.

Please why don't you go look at the numbers before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

[Boris]

Lilly was lights out after the All Star break last year.

Why don't you go back and watch the series again and then make a post about all the instances where the A's didn't bunt or steal and lost the game becuase of it. Then go watch the Red Sox-Yankees series and do the same thing.

The fact of the matter is that in both of the Series the teams were very evenly matched and the outcome of the entire series could have been different based on the outcome of a few very close plays. So yes, the play-offs are a crapshoot, especially a five game series.

[B-Man]

You are truly ignorant.

First of all, I don't really care what the others said, some I agree with, some I do not, but those were their statements, not mine.

Second of all, YOU need to get your facts straight, because Lowe had a 0.93 ERA in that series, and had a very good second half of the season (his first half was terrible, hence the ERA). He got a huge save in game 5.

I note you ignored the 7 starts by Pedro, Lowe, Hudson and Zito and focused on the 3 starts by Lilly, Burkett and Wakefield. I guess in your world 3 is a bigger number than 7.

Typicaly trolling from saltcracker. You can't face the facts, you ignore most of the information to pick out the few nuggets which could possibly support your "theory," and you never, ever admit when you are wrong.

Go on thinking that the pitchers in this series sucked, while your at it, keep thinking Bonds is clean. I'm done with your trolling and this thread, cracker.

[Boris]

how bout them Mariners? /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that in both of the Series the teams were very evenly matched and the outcome of the entire series could have been different based on the outcome of a few very close plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% true.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you speak like a typical Boston Red Sox fan.... bitter to the death about everything. I am sorry that I burst your bubble in regards to your Red Sox, and I actually feel worse knowing that I was rooting for them last year against the Yankees. ONLY because I thought it would be cool if the Cubs played them. Now I am actually incredibly happy they lost because I know that Jackass fans like you are so bitter. I bet you probably started crying when Boone hit that homerun, didn't you? I am not surprised you are running away, you do this everytime when you don't get your way.
I find it interesting that you can spew circumstantial evidence about Bonds and claim thats all the proof you need, but no one else can do the same. You are a hypocrite and a brat. I know it hurts knowing your beloved Red Sox will never win, but its feels so good for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Go on thinking that the pitchers in this series sucked, while your at it,

[/ QUOTE ] If your not to busy pouting and decide you want to come back and discuss something, then tell me this. If Boston had such a monstrous defense and a great pitching staff, why didn't they win the WS? My guess is.... can I guess??? its all Grady Little's fault right? Just like its Bill Buckners fault, and Babe Ruth's fault, and Bucky Dents fault. Let that simmer for a while and get back to me, I'll be at Beane's house.

[ThaSaltCracka]

what about them? they suck this year. Oh well, you won't see me crying about it though.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
you speak like a typical Boston Red Sox fan.... bitter to the death about everything. I am sorry that I burst your bubble in regards to your Red Sox, and I actually feel worse knowing that I was rooting for them last year against the Yankees... Now I am actually incredibly happy they lost because I know that Jackass fans like you are so bitter. I bet you probably started crying when Boone hit that homerun, didn't you? I am not surprised you are running away, you do this everytime when you don't get your way... You are a hypocrite and a brat. I know it hurts knowing your beloved Red Sox will never win, but its feels so good for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the kind of trolling I was referring to.