The Baseball Thread 2007

[Matthew]

Even though I do, and I mean I do get sick of hearing about the Red Sox / Yankees all the time, I have to admit: it's a lot more fun breaking down a Red Sox vs. Yankee game then a Mariner vs. Devil Ray game.

Get used to it, Matthew.

This is an East Coast dominated BBS.

Yeah, but it beats these g-d awful Mariner / D-Ray games I'm suffering through...

[Patrick]

I'm not remembering how good the Mariners were supposed to be at the beginning of the season. Were they picked to seriously contend for the Division? If they were, then I can see how the swan dive can be particularly disheartening. On the other hand, if they weren't supposed to seriously contend, then you had an enjoyable rollercoaster ride that ultimately will end up about where you thought they'd be, but had some exciting highpoints in between.

[MartyJazz]

Well, now that some order has been restored in my universe, I think I am ready to comment rationally about the Yankee series to date. I am quite certain I was incapable of rational thought until today's game was over.

Number one, I will say that the loss on Friday was the biggest gut-punch killer of my 32 years of being a fan. Worse than Grady Little, worse than Bucky Dent, worse than 19-8. Why? Because the end came so suddenly. With Grady's brain fart, the damage was done and the loss was inevitable, no matter how long the game went. This was nearly as important a game, and the lead disappeared and the loss was tallied in the space of, from the time Papelbon came in, about five pitches. I was prepared for the game to get tighter, I was not prepared for him to go single, double, single, to give up the winning runs in the blink of an eye. It will forever make me sick just thinking about it.

(snip)

That first game this weekend was so long and so putrid (initially) from a Yankee fan viewpoint (the only initial highlight being Melky's strike to the plate nailing Ortiz), Yanks down 5-1, Pettite unable to pitch well and when he did cut the corner on a few occasions, the umpire's strike zone was from hell. Add sloppy fielding (Giambi letting in an unearned run, Pettite botching a grounder up the middle) and the lack of clutch hitting, I got fed up and turned it off after the 5th inning, the game already 2-1/2 hours long at that point. Needless to say, when I found out the result at around 3 AM, my joy was tempered by some disgust at myself for missing that 6 run 8th inning. And Dan, I have to admit, I thought of you and wished that I had viewed that entire game with you. I know your reaction would have been a terrifically memorable one.

Ah well, Wang stunk today, but truth be told, outside of Jeter's 1st inning blast (he really surprises me sometimes with his occasional power displays), Beckett was great and Red Sox fortunes were seemingly righted. Tonight's rubber game pitting both teams' pitching patriarchs should be interesting.

Edited September 16, 2007 by MartyJazz

[Tim McG]

Even though I do, and I mean I do get sick of hearing about the Red Sox / Yankees all the time, I have to admit: it's a lot more fun breaking down a Red Sox vs. Yankee game then a Mariner vs. Devil Ray game.

Get used to it, Matthew.

This is an East Coast dominated BBS.

Yeah, but it beats these g-d awful Mariner / D-Ray games I'm suffering through...

Try being a Giants fan.

I feel your pain....I really do.

[Chalupa]

Phillies sweep the Mets!!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=270916121

Philadelphia won 12 of 18 against the Mets this season, including a franchise-best three series sweeps. The Phillies have defeated the Mets eight straight times.

[ghost of miles]

Good road trip for the Yanks! They damn near gave away tonight's game after Jeter finally staked them to a lead, but managed to hold on... and though there's no way they'll win the division, they did at least end up taking the season series from the Bosox. Good to come into Fenway this late in the year and take two of three--and they need every win they're getting, what with Detroit right on their heels for the wildcard.

Didn't realize that this was the first time Clemens and Schilling had squared off since Game 7 of the 2001 WS.

Edited September 17, 2007 by ghost of miles

[MartyJazz]

Damn right it was a good win even if we won't win the AL East this year. Nothing beats the sight of 30,000+ rabid Fenway fans standing up and screaming their heads off when Jeter had two strikes on him in the 8th, only to have the air go out of them when DJ socks a 3 run homer over the Monster. Simply beautiful!

Have to admit that Mariano put a scare into me, hitting and walking a pair of rookies so as to face Ortiz with the bases loaded. Sick!

[Dan Gould]

Well it was certainly appropriate that a series that began with an all-time, historic, never-to-be-duplicated lucky win would end with an average, run-of-the-mill lucky win.

Let's count the positives, shall we?

4 1/2 game lead, 12 to play. Yankees are 4-8 against the Orioles, 8-7 against Toronto and Tampa. And the Orioles look like they are coming out of their horrendous streak, winners of 3 of their last 4. For all of the Sturm und Drang and the amazing second half, the Yankees still have never gotten closer than 4 games, and they aren't even there now.

If you think the Yankees have the Red Sox number this season, fine, that is your perogative. Beat the Angels first, on the road, and then we'll find out if its true. Cleveland notwithstanding.

Gagne looked the best that he has since the trade, and that may be a critical factor in October.

Schilling looked more like the big-game pitcher that we will need in the playoffs.

And Joba wasn't exactly untouchable.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Dan Gould

[paul secor]

Some thoughts:

If the Yanks make the playoffs, pitching will be the big question. Wang has had a good seaon, but occasionally has a horrendous game. Pettite is pretty dependable 2/3rds of the time - not so great the other third. The Rocket looked good last night, but who knows about his arm or the rest of him from game to game? Hughes and Kennedy are rookies - Kennedy with three starts, I believe. Who knows what Mussina has left? - not much, from the looks of things.

The bullpen, after Joba and Mariano is very questionable, & the Red Sox have gotten into Mariano's head. He pulled it out last night, but I've never seen his control so out of control.

Ah, well. The Yanks have to get to the playoffs first.

The Sox will be there, but their pitching is questionable also. Beckett is solid, but after him, Dice-K and Schilling are 5 to 6 inning pitchers. That wouldn't be all that bad, but it appears that Francona has lost some faith in his bullpen. Couldn't believe that he left Schilling in for so long - especially to pitch Jeter that late in the game. Can't remember the exact stat. - they have it last night - but I think Jeter's hitting over .400 with men in scoring position and 2 outs - and that's been pretty steady all year long. If I were a Sox fan, I wouldn't have liked seeing a tired Schilling pitching to Jeter in that spot. The good news for the Sox is that they have enough a lead that Francona will be able to give his bullpen (& starters) some rest before the playoffs begin.

These Sox/Yanks games take too much out of me. Can't imagine how drained the players and mangers must be. I wonder if both teams will have a letdown after that series. The Sox can afford at least a small one. The Yanks can't.

[MartyJazz]

Well it was certainly appropriate that a series that began with an all-time, historic, never-to-be-duplicated lucky win would end with an average, run-of-the-mill lucky win.

Let's count the positives, shall we?

4 1/2 game lead, 12 to play. Yankees are 4-8 against the Orioles, 8-7 against Toronto and Tampa. And the Orioles look like they are coming out of their horrendous streak, winners of 3 of their last 4. For all of the Sturm und Drang and the amazing second half, the Yankees still have never gotten closer than 4 games, and they aren't even there now.

If you think the Yankees have the Red Sox number this season, fine, that is your perogative. Beat the Angels first, on the road, and then we'll find out if its true. Cleveland notwithstanding.

Gagne looked the best that he has since the trade, and that may be a critical factor in October.

Schilling looked more like the big-game pitcher that we will need in the playoffs.

And Joba wasn't exactly untouchable.

I never said we had your number. I'm very cognizant of the fact that Manny didn't play at all. If we had swept all three, then I'd be feeling somewhat fat. As for your description of the first game win, it was quite apt except for your unfortunate and somewhat poor loser use of the word "lucky". There wasn't a cheap hit in the 6 run bunch and it came against your top relievers. That's not luck my friend. And as for last night's win, the only "luck" involved was that your manager allowed Schilling to pitch the 8th, something Torre would not have done.

Joba may not have been untouchable giving up that HR to one of your unsung MVP's, Mike Lowell, but that curveball of his on top of his fast ball and slider, froze a couple of Sox hitters for strike 3 a couple of times. He's a good one.

This playoff season will be interesting (assuming the Yanks hold on and take the WC spot).

Edited September 17, 2007 by MartyJazz

[Dan Gould]

It's not luck when the two best relievers groove pitches down the middle of the plate, serving them up on a platter? They've done it to one or two batters a tiny handful of times all season - what are the odds of those two throwing so many fat pitches in succession, in the same game? Of Papelbon taking a mental holiday? Lefties were Oh for 35 against Papelbon - what are the chances he grooves one for a game-tying double?

Luck is precisely what it was because I would wager that given the same circumstances 100 times, that result would never happen again.

[Dan Gould]

The Sox will be there, but their pitching is questionable also. Beckett is solid, but after him, Dice-K and Schilling are 5 to 6 inning pitchers. That wouldn't be all that bad, but it appears that Francona has lost some faith in his bullpen. Couldn't believe that he left Schilling in for so long - especially to pitch Jeter that late in the game. Can't remember the exact stat. - they have it last night - but I think Jeter's hitting over .400 with men in scoring position and 2 outs - and that's been pretty steady all year long. If I were a Sox fan, I wouldn't have liked seeing a tired Schilling pitching to Jeter in that spot. The good news for the Sox is that they have enough a lead that Francona will be able to give his bullpen (& starters) some rest before the playoffs begin.

Schilling is hardly a "five or six" inning pitcher. He has reinvented himself by changing his patterns and inducing early swings and weak contact. Or did you not notice that he had only thrown seventy pitches through seven innings, an astounding average of 10 per, and aside from two hard hit balls that Drew caught, induced a multitude of weak pop-ups and ground balls? While there is a significant risk of getting a flat, relatively slow pitch hammered out of the ballpark, he seems to be making the changes to be successful with reduced velocity. His performance since his return is far better than his record and gives me hope going forward that he can be effective, and yes, pitch deep into games. When you don't got for strikeouts and get early swings and weak contact, there is no reason why you can't be a steady seven inning pitcher, and in the case of last night, be fresh and ready to keep going after seven.

I'd say Francona wants Okajima to be right going forward and therefore didn't want him to pitch unless he had to. Under different circumstances, maybe Schilling comes out even though he had thrown very few pitches through seven innings but Schilling deserved to pitch the eighth inning, the only reason to take him out was The Human Sweat Gland's shot off the Monster.

While I don't want Schilling back next year, he is far better right now then he has been and hardly deserves the label of "five to six inning pitcher".

As far as Dice-K goes, earlier in the season he was going deeper into games because they were less concerned about his pitch-count. It now appears that they plan to skip him on Wednesday with an eye toward not only setting up the rotation going into the playoffs but also to get him a blow and be ready to throw deeper into games. In short, don't look for him to be a five or six inning pitcher in October. That will only happen if he gets hammered.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Dan Gould

[MartyJazz]

It's not luck when the two best relievers groove pitches down the middle of the plate, serving them up on a platter? They've done it to one or two batters a tiny handful of times all season - what are the odds of those two throwing so many fat pitches in succession, in the same game? Of Papelbon taking a mental holiday? Lefties were Oh for 35 against Papelbon - what are the chances he grooves one for a game-tying double?

Luck is precisely what it was because I would wager that given the same circumstances 100 times, that result would never happen again.

The above has to be the worst letter about baseball that you have ever written. Only the supremely ignorant baseball neophyte expresses himself in that fashion. I'm not even going to take it apart piece by piece, just chalk it up to an aberration on your part.

I'll add one thing. You'll never see me belittle a team's accomplishment(s) by chalking it up to "luck".

[Dan Gould]

It's not luck when the two best relievers groove pitches down the middle of the plate, serving them up on a platter? They've done it to one or two batters a tiny handful of times all season - what are the odds of those two throwing so many fat pitches in succession, in the same game? Of Papelbon taking a mental holiday? Lefties were Oh for 35 against Papelbon - what are the chances he grooves one for a game-tying double?

Luck is precisely what it was because I would wager that given the same circumstances 100 times, that result would never happen again.

The above has to be the worst letter about baseball that you have ever written. Only the supremely ignorant baseball neophyte expresses himself in that fashion. I'm not even going to take it apart piece by piece, just chalk it up to an aberration on your part.

I'll add one thing. You'll never see me belittle a team's accomplishment(s) by chalking it up to "luck".

I'm going to try to be gentle here, so I'll just say "Whatever".

Then I will go on to repeat that the likelihood of those two pitchers going homer, homer, walk, double, single, double, single are infinitesimal. In fact, they are even smaller than I had previously presumed. When the supremely unlikely occurs, how else can it be described but as "luck"?

Okajima's batting average against (lefties) is .235.

He's allowed 17 walks in facing 265 batters - the likelihood of a walk is .064.

Papelbon's BAA (righties) is .212. Against lefties it is .094.

So, the odds are simply calculated like this:

.235 X .235 X .064 X .235 (for Okajima's string)

.212 X .094 X .212 (for Papelbon)

The likelihood of that string of events is .... wait for it

0.0000034

If the same situation were repeated 10 MILLION TIMES, the Yankees would take the lead in the manner they did all of 34 times.

And furthermore, this calculation over-estimates the likelihood because the first two hits off of Okajima were home runs, and he had allowed four home runs in 265 opponent's plate appearances. So taking that into consideration ....

Well, suffice it to say that my calculator does not go out far enough for that calculation. So let's just leave it at what we have:

The Yankees would duplicate their remarkable, un-aided by luck accomplishment in the same way 34 times in ten million attempts.

Nope, not a smidgen of luck involved at all.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Dan Gould

[Chuck Nessa]

Sorry to intrude on an American League thread. Go Cubs.

[J.A.W.]

Go Cubs.

Yep

[Tim McG]

It's not luck when the two best relievers groove pitches down the middle of the plate, serving them up on a platter? They've done it to one or two batters a tiny handful of times all season - what are the odds of those two throwing so many fat pitches in succession, in the same game? Of Papelbon taking a mental holiday? Lefties were Oh for 35 against Papelbon - what are the chances he grooves one for a game-tying double?

Luck is precisely what it was because I would wager that given the same circumstances 100 times, that result would never happen again.

The above has to be the worst letter about baseball that you have ever written. Only the supremely ignorant baseball neophyte expresses himself in that fashion. I'm not even going to take it apart piece by piece, just chalk it up to an aberration on your part.

I'll add one thing. You'll never see me belittle a team's accomplishment(s) by chalking it up to "luck".

I'm going to try to be gentle here, so I'll just say "Whatever".

Then I will go on to repeat that the likelihood of those two pitchers going homer, homer, walk, double, single, double, single are infinitesimal. In fact, they are even smaller than I had previously presumed. When the supremely unlikely occurs, how else can it be described but as "luck"?

Okajima's batting average against (lefties) is .235.

He's allowed 17 walks in facing 265 batters - the likelihood of a walk is .064.

Papelbon's BAA (righties) is .212. Against lefties it is .094.

So, the odds are simply calculated like this:

.235 X .235 X .064 X .235 (for Okajima's string)

.212 X .094 X .212 (for Papelbon)

The likelihood of that string of events is .... wait for it

0.0000034

If the same situation were repeated 10 MILLION TIMES, the Yankees would take the lead in the manner they did all of 34 times.

And furthermore, this calculation over-estimates the likelihood because the first two hits off of Okajima were home runs, and he had allowed four home runs in 265 opponent's plate appearances. So taking that into consideration ....

Well, suffice it to say that my calculator does not go out far enough for that calculation. So let's just leave it at what we have:

The Yankees would duplicate their remarkable, un-aided by luck accomplishment in the same way 34 times in ten million attempts.

Nope, not a smidgen of luck involved at all.

"I'm going to try to be gentle here..."

The NEW Dan.

What a great day...I never thought possible.

[MartyJazz]

It's not luck when the two best relievers groove pitches down the middle of the plate, serving them up on a platter? They've done it to one or two batters a tiny handful of times all season - what are the odds of those two throwing so many fat pitches in succession, in the same game? Of Papelbon taking a mental holiday? Lefties were Oh for 35 against Papelbon - what are the chances he grooves one for a game-tying double?

Luck is precisely what it was because I would wager that given the same circumstances 100 times, that result would never happen again.

The above has to be the worst letter about baseball that you have ever written. Only the supremely ignorant baseball neophyte expresses himself in that fashion. I'm not even going to take it apart piece by piece, just chalk it up to an aberration on your part.

I'll add one thing. You'll never see me belittle a team's accomplishment(s) by chalking it up to "luck".

I'm going to try to be gentle here, so I'll just say "Whatever".

Then I will go on to repeat that the likelihood of those two pitchers going homer, homer, walk, double, single, double, single are infinitesimal. In fact, they are even smaller than I had previously presumed. When the supremely unlikely occurs, how else can it be described but as "luck"?

Okajima's batting average against (lefties) is .235.

He's allowed 17 walks in facing 265 batters - the likelihood of a walk is .064.

Papelbon's BAA (righties) is .212. Against lefties it is .094.

So, the odds are simply calculated like this:

.235 X .235 X .064 X .235 (for Okajima's string)

.212 X .094 X .212 (for Papelbon)

The likelihood of that string of events is .... wait for it

0.0000034

If the same situation were repeated 10 MILLION TIMES, the Yankees would take the lead in the manner they did all of 34 times.

And furthermore, this calculation over-estimates the likelihood because the first two hits off of Okajima were home runs, and he had allowed four home runs in 265 opponent's plate appearances. So taking that into consideration ....

Well, suffice it to say that my calculator does not go out far enough for that calculation. So let's just leave it at what we have:

The Yankees would duplicate their remarkable, un-aided by luck accomplishment in the same way 34 times in ten million attempts.

Nope, not a smidgen of luck involved at all.

Your stats are totally meaningless. What you call "luck", I call baseball. When the Red Sox beat the Yanks four straight after dropping the first three, there were a couple of plays in those four games that could have ended the series in the Yanks' favor, e.g., Tony Clark's ground rule double in the 9th inining of the 4th game which would have easily scored the winning run from 1st if the ball had not "luckily" bounced into the seats, Matsui smacking a hard line drive to right with the bases loaded in the 5th (or was it the 6th?) game only to see the ball land in the right fielder's glove, a couple of feet either way and it would have cleared the bases, etc. Instead, I applaud the Red Sox for taking advantage of opportunity no matter how "luckily" it presented itself. They won four games period. Fuck "luck", a team still has to perform when given the opportunity. Your statistical argument holds no water with me. And if you ever have the opportunity to recite such stats to a major league player or manager, they would either laugh in your face or just shrug their shoulders and say, "whatever".

Edited September 18, 2007 by MartyJazz

[Tim McG]

As the suspicious among us point out that there is no test for HGH, it turns out that there is no reason to believe that HGH does anything to help you play better:

I seriously cannot believe you said that.

[GARussell]

Dan, the Yankees have the Red Sox' number. It looks to me like they will meet in the playoffs and the Yankees will beat them.

[Tim McG]

Rick Ankiel, Dan....

Steroids make you break HR records, but HGH's [Human Growth Hormones] don't. Now isn't that interesting.

Nice.

A starange crop of hypocrites we're growing this year, eh.....?

[Tim McG]

I patiently await your new-Dan, non-beligerent reply.

[Chuck Nessa]

Starange you should say something like that.

[Tim McG]

Strange?

No.

Appropriate?

Yes.

[Aggie87]

I patiently await your new-Dan, non-beligerent reply.

Dear Lord, you're intentionally provoking someone else on a topic we all know that you don't agree with the rest of the board members on?