Sunday, July 25, 2004
Weekend Wrap
I'm watching the final game of the weekend, which looks like it's going to take forever to get through. That's fine; it will give me more time to write.
This is the first time I can remember seeing this: Peter Gammons is doing a "sideline" reporting stint during the top of the 4th. He's actually situated in a box seat behind home plate. He's offering his usual insight about the inner workings of the trade deadline, specifically about RJ and Benson.
And I'm sorry if he has any fans who might be reading this, but Rick Sutcliffe is a brutal announcer.
List of notables at the game tonight: John Kerry, Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric (hmmm...looks like the peacock is in town...), Ben Affleck (should I even consider him a "notable" person anymore). Am I forgetting anybody? I could add Theo, Lucchino and Cashman, but it is part of their job to be there. It's kind of like the intelligencia version of a Lakers crowd. Not that I think Katie Couric is a bastion of journalism, but I have to give her the nod over Diane Cannon in the Brains Department.
Alright, here we go, a live John Kerry interview. It's like extreme close-up. Hey cameraman, back up a little bit.
I always think it's kind of cool when a famous person (not like a rock star-type famous person, but a statesmen-type famous person) drinks a beer on live TV. I was wondering if Kerry would drink a beer sitting in his box seat next to the Red Sox dugout. I saw him holding a Poland Springs water bottle at one point, but that's about it.
On the issues: John Kerry doesn't like the DH. He's waffling on the Pete Rose-in-the-Hall debate. He says steroids "will not be the center of his platform." But he says "steroids are bad." And he doesn't sound very eager about letting David Ortiz become a member of his Cabinet.
Lowe is giving the Sox a decent game at this point, a relative rarity. Contraras is giving the Yanks his usual Fenway effort. His ERA in this park is currently residing somewhere between 20.00 and 25.00.
For people who don't care about the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, or those who think it just gets over-blown, I wonder what their perspective is on the recent stretch of games between these two teams. I can't imagine people outside the Northeast, sans transplanted folks, get too excited about these games. However, I assume baseball fans around the country tune into the games in the same way that I'll tune into the Cubs-Cards or Giants-Dodgers because being a baseball fan it's just one of those things I feel I should do.
Whatever the perspective, I figure that the last three games before tonight (July 1, Friday and Saturday) are three of the greatest games ever played between the two teams. Of the three, Friday's was the least mind-blowing, but still very, very good. But the other two would at least be in the Top 10 games between the Yanks and Sox.
I imagine that's a pretty impossible list to put together. To be accurate you'd have to go through every game in every season, and then you'd still be missing nuances and intricacies that made the games what they were. But for current fans, and all the stories that have been easily passed down, specifically '78 and '49, these games feel like they are at least respectable successors to whatever has come before.
God, Millar is having a monster series. Hit three homers on Friday, went 4-5 yesterday, and just whacked a shot over the Monster. 7-2 Sox in the 5th.
Elsewhere in the Baseball World
In revisting the series I previewed on Friday, I see I had a couple things right and a couple things wrong.
Starting in Oakland, the A's took two out of three from the Rangers to cut the lead in the West to 2.5. They lost the game started by their ace, and then blasted Texas by a total of 15-4 in the last two.
Rich Harden had to work especially hard to get the win today. It looks like he didn't have his best stuff: 5 IP, 2 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 5 BB, 4 K, 119 pitches. If it's not necessarily a continuation of his recent hot streak, he at least got the W. The A's pen was great today:
4 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 1 BB
Seeing Texas' bats go quiet on Saturday and Sunday (6 hits in the two games), again drew me back to a couple points I made on Friday. If those bats go quiet, which pitching like Oakland's can induce, this team is in a heap of trouble.
Sandy from the MLB Center forum, actually saved me a chunk of time, and researched some of the offensive-heavy post-season teams in recent years. Here's the post:
In comparing these teams to Texas, I wonder how many had as shaky a starting staff. But more importantly, I'm wondering how many teams had to leap frog two teams (or more counting the Wild Card) with significantly better pitching to even make the playoffs.
For example, if Texas is going to win the West this year, they will have to stave off two teams in their division that have sizable advantages in ERA:
Oakland: 4.05 (1st in the AL)
Anaheim: 4.37 (4th)
Texas: 4.65 (8th)
If the Rangers get tangled up in the Wild Card race, Boston, Minnesota and Chicago all have better team ERAs.
Taking a look at some of the teams on Sandy's list:
Boston '03: The Sox won the Wild Card with 95 wins; the only team that was even within sniffing distance was the Mariners who won 93 games. Seattle had a sizable advantage in ERA: 3.76 to 4.48. It wasn't enough to overcome Boston's monstrous offensive output.
Atlanta '03: Of all these offensive-heavy teams, this Braves team probably had the easiest route into the post-season. They ended up winning the East by 10 games, and were never really challenged. They were outpitched only slightly by 2nd place Florida: 4.04 to 4.10.
Cleveland '01: The Tribe cruised to the division title beating out Minnesota by six games and White Sox by eight. Although Cleveland had the worst ERA of the three teams, they were all bunched tight, finishing 7th, 8th and 9th in AL rankings. Minn.: 4.51; Chi.: 4.55; Cleve.: 4.64
Houston '01: The Astros had the best offense in the National League outside of Colorado and tied the Cardinals for first in the NL Central with a 93-69 record. The closest team to challenging these two for a playoff spot was the 90-win Giants. Houston's offensive output was better than the Giants, which was actually pretty good (5.23 to 4.93), and the pitching wasn't worse enough to make a difference in the final tally (4.18 to 4.37).
Texas '99: This late-90s Texas team is probably the archetype for teams heavily reliant on offense that make it to the post-season. Granted they were playing the Yankees when that team was in the midst of The Run, but the Rangers were one of the easiest outs in recent memory. In '99, they beat the A's by eight games in the West. Oakland's pitching was better (4.69 to 5.06), and the offensive gap wasn't as huge as the standings would indicate. Texas scored 5.83 R/G; Oakland scored at a 5.51 clip.
Texas '98: The Rangers won the West by three games over Anaheim. In a league that threw to a 4.65 ERA, the Angels had a mid-level pitching staff (4.49); the Rangers had one of the league's worst (5.00). The difference was that Rangers scored nearly a run more a game than Anaheim.
Cleveland '97: Same story, different season. They beat out Minnesota by six games and the Brewers by eight. Minnesota had an awful pitching staff that season, pitching to a next-to-last 5.02 ERA. Cleveland was no great shakes in the pitching dept. with a 4.73 ERA. In fact, the Brewers' ERA ranked 4th in the league at 4.22. The problem was they couldn't score any runs, and Cleveland cruised to the division as they did every year during that time period.
Seattle '97: Won the West by six games over Anaheim. Seattle's ERA ranked 11th (4.79) to Anaheim's 5th (4.52). Anaheim's offense was actually pretty good that year, but Seattle's was the best in baseball.
San Francisco '97: No shock that the Dodgers had the pitching advantage (3.63-4.41). And the offenses were only separated by .3 R/G. It's no surprise that the Giants' margin of victory in the West that year was so small: two games.
Baltimore '96: The O's beat out three teams by three games each to win the AL Wild Card. The Orioles won 88 games that year. The Red Sox, White Sox and Mariners all won 85.
Chicago: 4.53 ERA
Boston: 5.00 ERA
Baltimore: 5.15 ERA
Seattle: 5.21 ERA
Colorado '95: Do I have to include them in this discussion?
Philadelphia '93: They had the best offense in the NL, and their pitching wasn't terrible with a 3.95 ERA that was good for 6th in the league. The only team that gave them a race in the NL East was the Expos, who finished three games out. They had better pitching (3.55), but not by a huge margin.
Toronto '92: Talk about a different era... When the Blue Jays pitched to a 3.91 ERA in 1992, it was merely average, almost literally. The league ERA was 3.94. The only teams that were even close to the Jays that season in the pre-'95 AL East were Milwaukee and Baltimore. Both teams pitched to better ERAs, 3.43 and 3.79 respectively. They couldn't make up for Toronto's 2nd-ranked offense.
In glancing quickly at this list, I'm not sure I can come up with one definitive conclusion that can be applied to this year's Rangers team. I'm reminded of how much is determined by what division teams happen to doing their work in. Some of these teams won their divisions easily, despite not having great pitching. A couple of teams squeaked in, with no glaring differences in the offensive statistics of teams that trailed them (the '97 Giants, the '99 Rangers). And a couple, while not having great pitching, weren't too far off the ERA of the teams that were chasing them (Baltimore '96, Cleveland '01).
I don't think Texas is going to fall into the '03 Braves/late 90s Indians' category where they're going to run away and hide. They're also not going to be able to have similar offensive statistics as the teams that currently chasing them. They will have to have significantly better offensive numbers to finish ahead of Anaheim and Oakland to make up for their deficiencies on the mound.
Unlike those teams listed above, I'm not convinced the Rangers will be able to do that.
I'm watching the final game of the weekend, which looks like it's going to take forever to get through. That's fine; it will give me more time to write.
This is the first time I can remember seeing this: Peter Gammons is doing a "sideline" reporting stint during the top of the 4th. He's actually situated in a box seat behind home plate. He's offering his usual insight about the inner workings of the trade deadline, specifically about RJ and Benson.
And I'm sorry if he has any fans who might be reading this, but Rick Sutcliffe is a brutal announcer.
List of notables at the game tonight: John Kerry, Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric (hmmm...looks like the peacock is in town...), Ben Affleck (should I even consider him a "notable" person anymore). Am I forgetting anybody? I could add Theo, Lucchino and Cashman, but it is part of their job to be there. It's kind of like the intelligencia version of a Lakers crowd. Not that I think Katie Couric is a bastion of journalism, but I have to give her the nod over Diane Cannon in the Brains Department.
Alright, here we go, a live John Kerry interview. It's like extreme close-up. Hey cameraman, back up a little bit.
I always think it's kind of cool when a famous person (not like a rock star-type famous person, but a statesmen-type famous person) drinks a beer on live TV. I was wondering if Kerry would drink a beer sitting in his box seat next to the Red Sox dugout. I saw him holding a Poland Springs water bottle at one point, but that's about it.
On the issues: John Kerry doesn't like the DH. He's waffling on the Pete Rose-in-the-Hall debate. He says steroids "will not be the center of his platform." But he says "steroids are bad." And he doesn't sound very eager about letting David Ortiz become a member of his Cabinet.
Lowe is giving the Sox a decent game at this point, a relative rarity. Contraras is giving the Yanks his usual Fenway effort. His ERA in this park is currently residing somewhere between 20.00 and 25.00.
For people who don't care about the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, or those who think it just gets over-blown, I wonder what their perspective is on the recent stretch of games between these two teams. I can't imagine people outside the Northeast, sans transplanted folks, get too excited about these games. However, I assume baseball fans around the country tune into the games in the same way that I'll tune into the Cubs-Cards or Giants-Dodgers because being a baseball fan it's just one of those things I feel I should do.
Whatever the perspective, I figure that the last three games before tonight (July 1, Friday and Saturday) are three of the greatest games ever played between the two teams. Of the three, Friday's was the least mind-blowing, but still very, very good. But the other two would at least be in the Top 10 games between the Yanks and Sox.
I imagine that's a pretty impossible list to put together. To be accurate you'd have to go through every game in every season, and then you'd still be missing nuances and intricacies that made the games what they were. But for current fans, and all the stories that have been easily passed down, specifically '78 and '49, these games feel like they are at least respectable successors to whatever has come before.
God, Millar is having a monster series. Hit three homers on Friday, went 4-5 yesterday, and just whacked a shot over the Monster. 7-2 Sox in the 5th.
Elsewhere in the Baseball World
In revisting the series I previewed on Friday, I see I had a couple things right and a couple things wrong.
Starting in Oakland, the A's took two out of three from the Rangers to cut the lead in the West to 2.5. They lost the game started by their ace, and then blasted Texas by a total of 15-4 in the last two.
Rich Harden had to work especially hard to get the win today. It looks like he didn't have his best stuff: 5 IP, 2 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 5 BB, 4 K, 119 pitches. If it's not necessarily a continuation of his recent hot streak, he at least got the W. The A's pen was great today:
4 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 1 BB
Seeing Texas' bats go quiet on Saturday and Sunday (6 hits in the two games), again drew me back to a couple points I made on Friday. If those bats go quiet, which pitching like Oakland's can induce, this team is in a heap of trouble.
Sandy from the MLB Center forum, actually saved me a chunk of time, and researched some of the offensive-heavy post-season teams in recent years. Here's the post:
On the question of offensive-leaning playoff team. RS = Runs scored: RA = runs allowed.
'03 RedSox - 1st in RS - 8th in RA (lost AL Championship)
'01 Indians - 2nd in RS - 9th in RA - (lost 1st round)
'97 Indians - 3rd in RS - 9th in RA - (lost WS to Marlins)
'97 Mariners - 1st in RS - 11th in RA - (lost 1st round)
'98 Rangers - 2nd in RS - 12th in RA - (lost 1st round)
'99 Rangers - 2nd in RS - 11th in RA - (lost 1st round)
'96 Orioles - 3rd in RS - 8th in RA - (lost AL Championship)
'92 Blue Jays - 2nd in RS - 9th in RA (won WS over Braves)
'93 Phillies - 1st in RS - 6th in RA (lost WS to BlueJays)
'95 Rockies - 1st in RS - LAST in RA (lost in 1st round)
'97 Giants - 4th in RS - 9th in RA (lost in 1st round)
'01 Astros - 2nd in RS - 10th in RA (lost in 1st round)
'03 Braves - 1st in RS - 9th in RA (lost in 1st round)
2004 - Rangers (as of 7/24/2004)2nd in RS - 8th in RA
If you look at the above list, it's actually quite common to get INTO the playoffs with suspect pitching (ranked in the bottom half of the league). Of course, we also see that these teams tend to bow out quite quickly.
In comparing these teams to Texas, I wonder how many had as shaky a starting staff. But more importantly, I'm wondering how many teams had to leap frog two teams (or more counting the Wild Card) with significantly better pitching to even make the playoffs.
For example, if Texas is going to win the West this year, they will have to stave off two teams in their division that have sizable advantages in ERA:
Oakland: 4.05 (1st in the AL)
Anaheim: 4.37 (4th)
Texas: 4.65 (8th)
If the Rangers get tangled up in the Wild Card race, Boston, Minnesota and Chicago all have better team ERAs.
Taking a look at some of the teams on Sandy's list:
Boston '03: The Sox won the Wild Card with 95 wins; the only team that was even within sniffing distance was the Mariners who won 93 games. Seattle had a sizable advantage in ERA: 3.76 to 4.48. It wasn't enough to overcome Boston's monstrous offensive output.
Atlanta '03: Of all these offensive-heavy teams, this Braves team probably had the easiest route into the post-season. They ended up winning the East by 10 games, and were never really challenged. They were outpitched only slightly by 2nd place Florida: 4.04 to 4.10.
Cleveland '01: The Tribe cruised to the division title beating out Minnesota by six games and White Sox by eight. Although Cleveland had the worst ERA of the three teams, they were all bunched tight, finishing 7th, 8th and 9th in AL rankings. Minn.: 4.51; Chi.: 4.55; Cleve.: 4.64
Houston '01: The Astros had the best offense in the National League outside of Colorado and tied the Cardinals for first in the NL Central with a 93-69 record. The closest team to challenging these two for a playoff spot was the 90-win Giants. Houston's offensive output was better than the Giants, which was actually pretty good (5.23 to 4.93), and the pitching wasn't worse enough to make a difference in the final tally (4.18 to 4.37).
Texas '99: This late-90s Texas team is probably the archetype for teams heavily reliant on offense that make it to the post-season. Granted they were playing the Yankees when that team was in the midst of The Run, but the Rangers were one of the easiest outs in recent memory. In '99, they beat the A's by eight games in the West. Oakland's pitching was better (4.69 to 5.06), and the offensive gap wasn't as huge as the standings would indicate. Texas scored 5.83 R/G; Oakland scored at a 5.51 clip.
Texas '98: The Rangers won the West by three games over Anaheim. In a league that threw to a 4.65 ERA, the Angels had a mid-level pitching staff (4.49); the Rangers had one of the league's worst (5.00). The difference was that Rangers scored nearly a run more a game than Anaheim.
Cleveland '97: Same story, different season. They beat out Minnesota by six games and the Brewers by eight. Minnesota had an awful pitching staff that season, pitching to a next-to-last 5.02 ERA. Cleveland was no great shakes in the pitching dept. with a 4.73 ERA. In fact, the Brewers' ERA ranked 4th in the league at 4.22. The problem was they couldn't score any runs, and Cleveland cruised to the division as they did every year during that time period.
Seattle '97: Won the West by six games over Anaheim. Seattle's ERA ranked 11th (4.79) to Anaheim's 5th (4.52). Anaheim's offense was actually pretty good that year, but Seattle's was the best in baseball.
San Francisco '97: No shock that the Dodgers had the pitching advantage (3.63-4.41). And the offenses were only separated by .3 R/G. It's no surprise that the Giants' margin of victory in the West that year was so small: two games.
Baltimore '96: The O's beat out three teams by three games each to win the AL Wild Card. The Orioles won 88 games that year. The Red Sox, White Sox and Mariners all won 85.
Chicago: 4.53 ERA
Boston: 5.00 ERA
Baltimore: 5.15 ERA
Seattle: 5.21 ERA
Colorado '95: Do I have to include them in this discussion?
Philadelphia '93: They had the best offense in the NL, and their pitching wasn't terrible with a 3.95 ERA that was good for 6th in the league. The only team that gave them a race in the NL East was the Expos, who finished three games out. They had better pitching (3.55), but not by a huge margin.
Toronto '92: Talk about a different era... When the Blue Jays pitched to a 3.91 ERA in 1992, it was merely average, almost literally. The league ERA was 3.94. The only teams that were even close to the Jays that season in the pre-'95 AL East were Milwaukee and Baltimore. Both teams pitched to better ERAs, 3.43 and 3.79 respectively. They couldn't make up for Toronto's 2nd-ranked offense.
In glancing quickly at this list, I'm not sure I can come up with one definitive conclusion that can be applied to this year's Rangers team. I'm reminded of how much is determined by what division teams happen to doing their work in. Some of these teams won their divisions easily, despite not having great pitching. A couple of teams squeaked in, with no glaring differences in the offensive statistics of teams that trailed them (the '97 Giants, the '99 Rangers). And a couple, while not having great pitching, weren't too far off the ERA of the teams that were chasing them (Baltimore '96, Cleveland '01).
I don't think Texas is going to fall into the '03 Braves/late 90s Indians' category where they're going to run away and hide. They're also not going to be able to have similar offensive statistics as the teams that currently chasing them. They will have to have significantly better offensive numbers to finish ahead of Anaheim and Oakland to make up for their deficiencies on the mound.
Unlike those teams listed above, I'm not convinced the Rangers will be able to do that.
