Thursday, July 21, 2005
Set Your Alarms Early
It’s somewhat of an oddity in the scheduling today that four games will be underway before the clock hits one p.m. EST.
Kansas City at Cleveland, 12:05
San Diego at New York Mets, 12:10
Chicago Cubs at Cincinnati, 12:35
Seattle at Toronto, 12:37
Of the four, the most intriguing game will be played at Shea Stadium, where the Mets will go for the three-game sweep of the Padres. At first glance, San Diego has a clear advantage as they send their ace Jake Peavey to the hill. The Mets counter with the inconsistent and generally ineffective Kaz Ishii.
Peavey is coming into his own as one of the top starters in the National League. While his ERA to this point is higher than last year’s breakout season (3.03 to 2.27), he’s improved in other areas, which would suggest that he’s pitching better than he ever has:
Stat / 2004 /2005
OBA / .262 / .305
SLG / .359 / .378
WHIP / 1.20 / 1.02
AVG / .236 / .220
K9 / 9.36 / 10.01
BB9 / 2.87 / 1.90
Those are nice improvements on already impressive numbers. The only stat of that bunch that has jumped a little is slugging pct. He’s been a little more susceptible to the long-ball, but it’s hardly an alarming jump: 13 HR in 166.1 IP last year; this year he’s given up 11 dingers in 118.2 innings of work.
The Padres have lost three in a row, but still have a healthy five-game lead in the anemic NL West. Arizona has had a chance to pick up a game each of the last two nights at home against a scuffling Marlins team, but lost the last two games of that series.
Toronto goes for the sweep against the Mariners. Cleveland looks to avoid their second consecutive four-game series loss at home; the Royals have won two of the first three games. And the Cubs look to take three-out-of-four in Cincy, after losing last night.
Looking at these eight teams as a group, they are all pretty much in the same boat, record-wise.
Cleveland: 47 losses
San Diego: 45 losses
New York: 46 losses
Chicago: 46 losses
Toronto: 47 losses
The other three teams have an eye towards 2006 and beyond.
Of course, everything is relative. And all of those five teams in the 45-47 loss range are playing for a Wild Card sans San Diego.
Cleveland, New York, Chicago, Toronto are all about the same distance from a Wild Card: 4, 5, 5 and 4.5 respectively.
The Mets game on WFAN will be my background noise for a chunk of my workday, and I’ll probably keep a MLB Gameday window on in the background of my computer, checking on that Cubs-Reds game occasionally – really the only other game that I find somewhat intriguing, mainly because I think the Cubs are a legitimate threat to make a run at a playoff spot. I don’t necessarily feel that way about the Jays and Tribe.
As a side note, the Royals have really not been bad of late. They’re 8-9 for the month of July after a somewhat respectable 12-14 June. In late May, I read things that suggested this might be one of the worst teams of the decade, up there with the ’02 and ’03 Tigers. And while they’re still going to end up with a terrible record, it doesn’t look like they’re going to be historically bad.
It’s somewhat of an oddity in the scheduling today that four games will be underway before the clock hits one p.m. EST.
Kansas City at Cleveland, 12:05
San Diego at New York Mets, 12:10
Chicago Cubs at Cincinnati, 12:35
Seattle at Toronto, 12:37
Of the four, the most intriguing game will be played at Shea Stadium, where the Mets will go for the three-game sweep of the Padres. At first glance, San Diego has a clear advantage as they send their ace Jake Peavey to the hill. The Mets counter with the inconsistent and generally ineffective Kaz Ishii.
Peavey is coming into his own as one of the top starters in the National League. While his ERA to this point is higher than last year’s breakout season (3.03 to 2.27), he’s improved in other areas, which would suggest that he’s pitching better than he ever has:
Stat / 2004 /2005
OBA / .262 / .305
SLG / .359 / .378
WHIP / 1.20 / 1.02
AVG / .236 / .220
K9 / 9.36 / 10.01
BB9 / 2.87 / 1.90
Those are nice improvements on already impressive numbers. The only stat of that bunch that has jumped a little is slugging pct. He’s been a little more susceptible to the long-ball, but it’s hardly an alarming jump: 13 HR in 166.1 IP last year; this year he’s given up 11 dingers in 118.2 innings of work.
The Padres have lost three in a row, but still have a healthy five-game lead in the anemic NL West. Arizona has had a chance to pick up a game each of the last two nights at home against a scuffling Marlins team, but lost the last two games of that series.
Toronto goes for the sweep against the Mariners. Cleveland looks to avoid their second consecutive four-game series loss at home; the Royals have won two of the first three games. And the Cubs look to take three-out-of-four in Cincy, after losing last night.
Looking at these eight teams as a group, they are all pretty much in the same boat, record-wise.
Cleveland: 47 losses
San Diego: 45 losses
New York: 46 losses
Chicago: 46 losses
Toronto: 47 losses
The other three teams have an eye towards 2006 and beyond.
Of course, everything is relative. And all of those five teams in the 45-47 loss range are playing for a Wild Card sans San Diego.
Cleveland, New York, Chicago, Toronto are all about the same distance from a Wild Card: 4, 5, 5 and 4.5 respectively.
The Mets game on WFAN will be my background noise for a chunk of my workday, and I’ll probably keep a MLB Gameday window on in the background of my computer, checking on that Cubs-Reds game occasionally – really the only other game that I find somewhat intriguing, mainly because I think the Cubs are a legitimate threat to make a run at a playoff spot. I don’t necessarily feel that way about the Jays and Tribe.
As a side note, the Royals have really not been bad of late. They’re 8-9 for the month of July after a somewhat respectable 12-14 June. In late May, I read things that suggested this might be one of the worst teams of the decade, up there with the ’02 and ’03 Tigers. And while they’re still going to end up with a terrible record, it doesn’t look like they’re going to be historically bad.
