They’ve certainly upgraded their hitting. But there’s a vast difference between mostly beating up on teams that are out of playoff contention and showcasing young talent, as opposed to making a strong showing against a top team’s aces in the postseason.
I’m rooting for the Mets to make some noise. I suspect their offense is still going to struggle to put up runs, and the bullpen (while upgraded) remains suspect, up to and including Adventures With Familia.
I’d love to see an Astros-Mets series. More likely, Dodgers vs. K.C.
Exactly. If we have to have this 1 game series it should include the 2 teams with worst records. Then you’ll have to balance the schedule, too, I suppose.
It ain’t over till it’s over, but the Jays have a 15-2 lead in the bottom of the 9th and this will clinch the AL east. And they are ahead of KC for leading the AL.
I just googled and discovered the largest overcome lead in baseball history was 10 runs and that happend 114 years ago.
The Blue Jays have played .750 baseball since the All-Star break and, not surprisingly, lead the AL (and maybe the majors) in virtually every offensive category since the break.
Their pitching has also been excellent since July, but that’s the problem. As good as it’s been, it’s not been outstanding. And without outstanding pitching, you’re not gonna win a World Series.
The Blue Jay bull pen is of particular concern. Osuna is great but he’s only 20 for god’s sake. Can he deal with the insane pressure of the post season? I have my doubts.
Brett Cecil has had a ‘career’ second half, with no runs against in the last 100 days or so (unless he pitched and was scored on today). But reality will have to come crashing down on him sooner or later. And the reality is that he’s good, but not outstanding. Ditto for most of the rest of the bullpen.
So, as much as I love the Jays, I just don’t see them going all the way. Won’t it be great if I’m wrong!
I’m not going to tempt the fates by not picking the Royals, but they’ve been extremely inconsistent the last month. Yost has been tinkering with the lineup a lot, which is what he ascribes to the bad stretch, but that’s bullshit. They’re tired, the rotation has been in flux, and Holland is out for the season in the bullpen. The team has the ability to get extremely hot, but it’s unpredictable. Cueto will be a huge factor - let’s see if his newly repaired relationship with Salvy “fixes” him.
It’s hard to look up specific numbers on an iPad but lots of teams have won the World Series that didn’t have outstanding pitching, including, I must point out, the 1992 and 1993 Blue Jays, who were much better hitting teams than pitching teams. The 2009 Yankees didn’t, the 2013 Red Sox didn’t, and the 2011 Cardinals didn’t, and on and on.
I’ll be pulling hard for the Mets, but I’m not terribly optimistic. I kinda have visions of the young pitchers freezing up a little under the bright lights; it wouldn’t take much, just a couple of the guys taking a few innings to settle down in their starts could torpedo the whole series.
Whatever happens in the NLDS, though, I must say it’s been a hell of a season: in contention from Opening Day, good storylines, exciting new players, and generally good vibes throughout (excepting that one week where the local tabloids decided that Matt Harvey was the Antichrist). I really don’t a quick exit from the postseason would be that upsetting; we’re playing with house money.
Guess the final regular season games go here, since it isn’t September any more. Astros get a sloppy win in Seattle to pull back ahead in the wild card race, and have a big edge in opponent quality down the line - Minnesota has 3 against Kansas City and 1 against Cleveland, Houston has 3 against Arizona, and California plays 4 at Texas while Texas still has something on the line. Dallas Keuchel’s start on Friday could determine the American League Cy Young as well; if he pitches well and wins, he has 20 wins (which shouldn’t matter but does) and the narrative is “bounced back from his worst start of the season to win two must-win games”; if he pitches poorly and loses the narrative is “a real ace wins important games down the stretch, and not just at home” and the award goes to Price. If he pitches well and the team loses, or pitches poorly and the team wins, it’s still up in the air.
Sam Miller of Baseball Prospectus made a really compelling case for Kershaw on his podcast yesterday. Essentially saying that over the last 18 starts Kershaw has been way more dominant than any any other pitcher in baseball in years.
I don’t understand it either. It’s the 2015 Cy Young Award, not the June To September Of 2015 Cy Young Award.
In other Cy Young Award news, the Blue Jays have announced David Price will not pitch again until the playoffs, a decision I admit surprises the hell out of me. That gives Keuchel a bit more of an edge.
I am struggling to understand why anyone would vote for Kershaw over Greinke. They play on the SAME TEAM, so it’s not like there is any contextual difference. Kershaw has pitched 15 more innings but has allowed fifteen more earned runs and five more unearned runs. When Greinke pitches the Dodgers give up fewer runs and win more. How isn’t he the better pitcher?
If you want to argue Jake Arrieta is better than Greinke at least we can argue over park effects and stuff.
I think it has to do with the idea of the “Three True Outcomes”–that pitchers are responsible only for strikeouts, walks, and home runs, and everything else is a function of luck and fielding. And since Kershaw has quite a few more strikeouts than the other guys and a better strikeout-walk ratio, he shouldn’t be penalized for having more bad luck or worse fielding behind him than the other guys–which in this formulation is the only reason he has allowed more hits and more runs. (Of course he has the same fielders as Greinke, so there’s that…) Anyway, I believe that one of the WAR formulations ONLY looks at those three data points when evaluating a pitcher, and Kershaw by that measure is the best.
Just the messenger here. I have some trouble with it as the sole measure of pitcher effectiveness. Even if I didn’t, I don’t buy it as a measure for the Cy Young Award. Whether because of bad luck or poor fielding or less-than-completely-stellar pitching, Kershaw DID allow more runs–and run prevention is the name of the game.
Not to take anything away from him; he had a phenomenal season, and I’d take him on my team in a heartbeat.
I am willing to agree it may be that Greinke’s getting more groundball and flyball outs might not be a sustainable thing, but in point of fact he absolutely DID get more
groundball and flyball outs and he had the same fielders behind him. Anyway I doubt the voters will give anyone the Cy on that basis.
I suppose that’s possible based on Fangraphs’ numbers, which frankly defy explanation. I have no idea how they came up with their pitcher WAR figures. They rank Chris Sale above Greinke. Okay, then.
A system of WAR that only looked at the “three true outcomes” would be unbelievable stupid (I realize you are not advocating it.) For one thing, it is very, very well established now that “pitchers only control walks, strikeouts and homers” is not literally true, and that they DO have impact on other types of outs. For another, it would completely disconnect Wins Above Replacement with… winning.
Incidentally, as a Blue Jays fan I am wholeheartedly in favour of Dallas Keuchel as the AL choice for Cy. David Price was great, but… he only pitched in a third of a season for the team that mattered. It seems weird to give the Cy to a guy split between two teams that played against each other.
Win your division. I don’t care if their records are better than the winners of other divisions - they shouldn’t be in the postseason in the first place (yes, I’d eliminate the Wild Card format entirely). So anything that gimps the WC is fine by me.