The Major League Baseball Playoff and Predictions Thread

Cafe Society
341

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Tulowitzki is Rockies property for two more years under the current collective bargaining agreement.

The likelihood that he will be traded is about one in a zillion.
[/QUOTE]
Right, which was pretty much my point in my response to DKW. He seemed to be asserting that the Rockies were going to execute some sort of “fire sale” in which they would make a financial killing by getting rid of their good players, and i said that this was rather unlikely. I think “one in a zillion” is probably a better summary of the situation, though, especially with players like Tulowitzki and Holliday.

342

[QUOTE=Frank]
yabbut, why sell off a player with no real market value? Even if he wins Rookie of the Year, he’s played one year and who knows what he’ll do next year. Plus he’ll be cheap to pay; dirt cheap till he gets to arbitration and reasonably cheap after that. If that blog is seriously tendering the idea that Tulowitzki would be part of a fire sale, I’m not impressed.
[/QUOTE]
Let me spell it out in short sentences.

DKW was the one asserting a fire sale. I was disputing that claim. I have never believed that the Rockies would even contemplate getting rid of Tulowitzki. Hell, a guy who gives that sort of performance and is currently costing you somewhere around the league minimum is the sort of guy baseball teams love.

The blog also made no assertion about a fire sale. It merely stated that Tulowitzki’s current contract was for 1 year.

Here is the exact wording of the Tulowitzki entry:

I merely raised the names of Tulowitzki, Holliday, and Hawpe because they are three guys who have had good seasons for the Rockies. My point, in fact, was to suggest to DKW that the idea of a Rockies “fire sale” at the end of this season, a la the post-1997 Marlins, is silly.

Is that clear enough for everyone now?

343

[QUOTE=Atrael]
Glad to see that knee jerk reaction to “fans” is still alive and kicking.

I’ll see if I can search for some YouTube clips or something so that I can give you exact plays where I thought they played lazily. I’m glad that in your opinion they did as well as they could, and well, that’s just the way it goes. In my opinion they didn’t sacrifice to make plays. The Cleveland SS played very well, making several plays that were more difficult than just “take two or three steps and hold my glove out”. I’m saying that Blake in particular seemed to take the stance of “well I can’t just grab it, so I’m not going to even try”.
[/quote]
And i’m telling you that’s ridiculous.

During his career at third base, Blake has consistently been around or just below the league average in Range Factor, and, with the exception of one bad season in 2004, has been almost exactly average in FRAA at third base throughout his career. He is, in every way, an average major league defensive third baseman.

In Game 7 he made an error. There might also have been one or two other plays where an above-average third baseman, a guy with more range, would have got to the ball.

But to suggest that he was somehow phoning in his performance, that he wasn’t trying very hard, is completely off the wall. Casey Blake has been in the Major Leagues for nine seasons, and the Game 7 against the Red Sox was undoubtedly the biggest game of his career. Whether it seemed that way or not to you in the comfort of your lounge chair, i can guarantee that he was doing his absolute best to make every play.
[QUOTE=Atrael]
I’ll see if I can find video of some of the post games online and give plays for examples.
[/QUOTE]
I have an mlb.com subscription, so just tell me which play, in which inning, and i’ll be happy to take a look at the video. I wait with bated breath for evidence of Casey Blake’s disinterest.

By the way, in blaming the fielding for Cleveland’s loss, did you even think about the question of offense? The Indians managed a grand total of five runs over the last three games of the series, including a massive TWO runs in game seven. Even if we exclude every run Boston got in Game 7 from line drives, fly balls, and errors, Cleveland didn’t even score enough runs to overcome Boston’s 2 two-run homers. And no amount of brilliant fielding can catch a ball that ends up ten rows back in the bleachers.

344

Something I’ve always wanted to mention regarding the so-called curse against the Red Sox:

If you look back at those Sox teams that came oh-so-close to winning, just look at the rosters they had, you’ll start to see why they never came through in the end. Look for instance at the '67 team. Off the top of your head, name some of the players on that team. Unless you were alive and rooting for the Red Sox back then, you probably can’t name very many of them. I’m a fairly good student of the game (who was born in '68), and I can only name Yastrzemski, Reggie Smith, Conigliaro…I’m pretty sure Jim Lonborg was on that team. Very few '67 Red Sox come to mind. OK, how about the '67 Cardinals? Lou Brock. Bob Gibson. Mike Shannon. Roger Maris. Julian Javier. Steve Carlton. Orlando Cepeda. Curt Flood. That team had Hall of Famers or All-Stars up and down the roster. Even the aforementioned Tim McCarver was a pretty good catcher for that team.

You can do the same exercise for any of the other match ups when Boston was in the Series.

It’s no wonder the Red Sox lost to the Cardinals. It’s no wonder they lost any time they made it that far. They weren’t cursed. They simply never had the better team.

So sympathy, for them? No. Not then. Sure as hell not now (when they have partnered with the Yankees and NESN…ooops, wait, I meant ESPN–it’s so hard to tell them apart–to create the “official, approved” storyline of present day baseball, all other teams be damned).

Screw them. I want the Rockies to win.

345

[QUOTE=mhendo]
But to suggest that he was somehow phoning in his performance, that he wasn’t trying very hard, is completely off the wall. Casey Blake has been in the Major Leagues for nine seasons, and the Game 7 against the Red Sox was undoubtedly the biggest game of his career. Whether it seemed that way or not to you in the comfort of your lounge chair, i can guarantee that he was doing his absolute best to make every play.
[/QUOTE]

And Blake is a guy who, in the words of one of Cleveland’s sportswriters, “would run through a wall for this team.”

Not a great player, but definitely someone who hustles on every play.

346

One really cool thing I just realized for the Rockies. The best defense in the history of baseball will just get better in a DH park. Holliday is the only thing close to a fielding liability, and he can just be DH and Spilbourghs can play left pretty well. Allthough it’s pretty hard to predict what Hurdle will do.

347

[QUOTE=wolfman]
One really cool thing I just realized for the Rockies. The best defense in the history of baseball will just get better in a DH park. Holliday is the only thing close to a fielding liability, and he can just be DH and Spilbourghs can play left pretty well. Allthough it’s pretty hard to predict what Hurdle will do.
[/QUOTE]

I think NL teams are at a big disadvantage when the DH is in effect, though I don’t know the statistics for it. It would make sense since AL teams have big money wrapped up in those DHs, while NL teams just pick the most likely candidate from their rosters.

348

Yeah, But I think an AL team playing without a DH is at a much bigger disadvantage than an NL team playing with one.
They typicallyu have to to sacrifice a big bat, or put a huge liability in the field. And the pitchers usually often just can’t hit at all. The interleague play has mitigated the effect somewhat, as they do get some experience during the year. It used to be funny watching a guy who hadn’t touched a bat in 6 years, try to suddenly learn how to hit a major league fastball in the three days before the series.

But I didn’t catch the Red Sox in any interleague play this year. Does anybody know how they did? Can their pitchers hit? Can Ortiz play a competant 1B anymore?

349

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I think NL teams are at a big disadvantage when the DH is in effect, though I don’t know the statistics for it. It would make sense since AL teams have big money wrapped up in those DHs, while NL teams just pick the most likely candidate from their rosters.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure that’s the case. It’s certainly true that big-time DH’s like David Ortiz, Jim Thome, Frank Thomas, etc. are big money players, but there are also some hitters on NL teams who have DH-like hitting abilities (good power, good OBP) and could also be considered liabilities—or at least not great—in the field.

In determining whether the NL is at a disadvantage in games calling for a DH, you have to consider not just how good the guy is who you are going to switch to DH, you also have to consider how good the hitter is who will be put in the lineup to replace the pitcher.

If the NL guy you’re moving to DH is as good at the AL team’s DH (or close to it), and the NL guy you’re bringing into the line-up in as good as the AL team’s weakest hitter, then it really shouldn’t make too much difference either way.

Here are the stats for this year’s top five full-time DHs. These are all big name players earning good money.


 	 
 Player		TEAM	POS   	G   	 AB   	 R   	 H   	2B   	3B   	HR   	RBI   	TB   	BB   	SO   	SB   	CS   	OBP   	SLG   	AVG
D. Ortiz 	BOS 	DH 	149 	549 	116 	182 	52 	1 	35 	117 	341 	111 	103 	3 	1 	.445 	.621 	.332
J. Thome 	CWS 	DH 	130 	432 	79 	119 	19 	0 	35 	96 	243 	95 	134 	0 	1 	.410 	.563 	.275
F. Thomas 	TOR 	DH 	155 	531 	63 	147 	30 	0 	26 	95 	255 	81 	94 	0 	0 	.377 	.480 	.277
G. Sheffield 	DET 	DH 	133 	494 	107 	131 	20 	1 	25 	75 	228 	84 	71 	22 	5 	.378 	.462 	.265
T. Hafner 	CLE 	DH 	152 	545 	80 	145 	25 	2 	24 	100 	246 	102 	115 	1 	1 	.385 	.451 	.266

And here are five NL sluggers who are possible candidates for DH responsibilities during interleague games:



Player		TEAM   	POS   	 G   	 AB   	 R   	H   	2B   	3B   	HR   	RBI   	TB   	BB   	SO   	SB   	CS   	OBP   	SLG   	AVG 	
B. Bonds 	SF 	OF 	126 	340 	75 	94 	14 	0 	28 	66 	192 	132 	54 	5 	0 	.480 	.565 	.276
R Howard	PHI 	1B 	144 	529 	94 	142 	26 	0 	47 	136 	309 	107 	199 	1 	0 	.392 	.584 	.268
P. Fielder 	MIL 	1B 	158 	573 	109 	165 	35 	2 	50 	119 	354 	90 	121 	2 	2 	.395 	.618 	.288
M. Holliday 	COL 	OF 	158 	636 	120 	216 	50 	6 	36 	137 	386 	63 	126 	11 	4 	.405 	.607 	.340
A. Pujols 	STL 	1B 	158 	565 	99 	185 	38 	1 	32 	103 	321 	99 	58 	2 	6 	.429 	.568 	.327

The lines for those two groups of players don’t really look that different.

Now it’s true that not every NL team has a Barry Bonds or an Albert Pujols to slot into DH (actually, Pujols is a good first baseman, and didn’t DH any of the Cardinals’ interleague games this year), but nor does every AL team have a David Ortiz or Jim Thome to hit in the DH spot. Some AL teams, like my Orioles, get by with powerhouses like Aubrey Huff and Kevin Millar and Jay Gibbons, ferchrissakes (combined 2007 OPS of about .770).

The AL beat the NL 137-115 in interleague play this year, and i believe the AL has won the interleague match-up for the last few years at least (can anyone correct me on that?), but i’m not sure that the difference can be attributed to the difficulty of matching up the DH.

I’d be interested to see what the balance of wins and losses is in AL parks, because that’s the only time that NL teams need to field a DH. In NL parks, the AL pitchers have to bat, which is probably a relative disadvantage for AL teams, because plenty of those pitchers have hardly swung a bat since college, or even high school.

I’m sure someone at Baseball Prospectus, or some other baseball thinktank, has done some research on the relative advantage/disadvantage to NL teams playing in AL parks, but i don’t find any right now. I could be wrong, but my hunch is that the DH thing is not a huge factor.

350

[QUOTE=wolfman]
One really cool thing I just realized for the Rockies. The best defense in the history of baseball
[/QUOTE]

I know they had the best fielding percentage in the history of baseball, but that does not make them the best DEFENSE in the history of baseball. At the major league level, errors are a small part of defense. Let’s not get carried away here.

They probably were the best defensive team in the league, but Boston had an even higher defensive efficiency rating (.704 to Colorado’s .701) which is more meaningful than fielding percentage. I’ll grant that Coors Field reduces DEF, so the Rockies are a little better than the raw number suggests, so are probably the best fielding team in the majors right now, but they’re not “the best defense in the history of baseball.”

As to the alleged advantage of NL teams due to the DH rule, it doesn’t show up in the stats, none of Colorado’s pitchers can hit, and if you want to get into league advantages it’s worth noting that the American League is, after all, a better league right now; Colorado wouldn’t have made the playoffs in the AL and mgiht well have been fighting hard to finish about .500. I’m rooting for them, but they are a huge, huge underdog. Boston is a vastly superior team.

351

[QUOTE=RickJay]
I’m rooting for them, but they are a huge, huge underdog.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but <idiot TV analyst filling time with gibberish> momentum momentum momentum </idiot> !

352

[QUOTE=wolfman]
And the pitchers usually often just can’t hit at all.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that’s pretty much the same as in the NL.

Too bad the Indians didn’t make it. CC loves to hit!

In 37 AB, he’s batting .297/.316/.405 with a home run! :smiley:

353

[QUOTE=Atrael]
Glad to see that knee jerk reaction to “fans” is still alive and kicking.

I’ll see if I can search for some YouTube clips or something so that I can give you exact plays where I thought they played lazily. I’m glad that in your opinion they did as well as they could, and well, that’s just the way it goes. In my opinion they didn’t sacrifice to make plays. The Cleveland SS played very well, making several plays that were more difficult than just “take two or three steps and hold my glove out”. I’m saying that Blake in particular seemed to take the stance of “well I can’t just grab it, so I’m not going to even try”.

I’ll see if I can find video of some of the post games online and give plays for examples.
[/QUOTE]

Atrael…I am going to go into Defensive Bitch mode right now and ask that you please do not do this. A lot of us die-hard Cleveland fans are hurting pretty bad right now and are just gobsmacked about the last 3 games. We just don’t need to be reminded about how our boys froze like deer in headlights that day. Especially not from a “semi-fan” who was just learning the rules last week.

We all saw what we saw. We all feel what we feel. We don’t need this right now. I’m happy to watch this thread and learn more about the Rockies and how they might be able to roll over those nasty, nasty Sox in the World Series…but please don’t open old wounds. Let us mourn in peace.

354

[QUOTE=RickJay]

As to the alleged advantage of NL teams due to the DH rule, it doesn’t show up in the stats, none of Colorado’s pitchers can hit, and if you want to get into league advantages it’s worth noting that the American League is, after all, a better league right now; Colorado wouldn’t have made the playoffs in the AL and mgiht well have been fighting hard to finish about .500. I’m rooting for them, but they are a huge, huge underdog. Boston is a vastly superior team.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t go so far as to call them a vastly superior team. I give them the edge, but I see the biggest advantage they have as being experienced. The Rockies rely heavily on some very young players. Players like Ubaldo Jimenez and Manny Corpas have put up amazing numbers in a short period of time, Corpas’ being every bit as good as Papelbon’s since he took over the closer role around the fourth of July. Tulowitski, Hawpe, and Atkins have put up good numbers all year.

When it comes to the DH, the problem is not what the pitchers will do, it’s what Boston will do with Manny Ortiz. He has played all of 7 games in the field all year. Putting him at first for the games in Denver means they lose Youklis’ bat, an important part of their lineup, not to mention the loss in defensive value. For the Rockies, it is staus quo.

I think the Red Sox are a better team in general, but I think the margin is slimmer than people think. And remember that Fenway Park and the DH skew Boston’s offensive numbers far more than Coors Field skews the Rockies’. Fenway is the best hitters park in baseball, Coors is third.

355

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
When it comes to the DH, the problem is not what the pitchers will do, it’s what Boston will do with Manny Ortiz.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine.

Introducing Manny Ortiz, the hybrid super-Sox! A 6’2", 245lb monster slugger with a carefully crafted beard and flowing dreadlocks.

He switch hits, and can belt 500-foot homers from both sides on the plate, and he’s really bad at both first base and left field.

:smiley:

356

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
I wouldn’t go so far as to call them a vastly superior team. I give them the edge, but I see the biggest advantage they have as being experienced. The Rockies rely heavily on some very young players. Players like Ubaldo Jimenez and Manny Corpas have put up amazing numbers in a short period of time, Corpas’ being every bit as good as Papelbon’s since he took over the closer role around the fourth of July. Tulowitski, Hawpe, and Atkins have put up good numbers all year.

[/QUOTE]

You know, I was all set to come in and throw a bunch of statistics at you that suggest that you’re totally wrong, and then I looked at the numbers and - well, damn - you’re basically right, at least as far as offense goes. The Red Sox lineup is pretty close to the same as the Rockies lineup, production-wise. Ortiz is better than Holliday, but Ramirez and Helton produce at about the same level, Youkilis + Lowell roughly equals Atkins + Hawpe, and Tulowitzki, Taveras, Matsui, and Torrealba aren’t really far inferior to Drew, Varitek, Pedroia, and Lugo.

But I do think the Red Sox have a very significant advantage in the area of starting pitching. Beckett is an order of magnitude better than anything the Rockies can send out there, and even with his recent struggles Schilling has produced at a higher level than Aaron Cook or Jeff Francis. That means that in at least four games, the Rockies will be at a very significant pitching disadvantage, and in the other games, it’ll be about even. That’s a pretty major check in the Red Sox column.

One option would be to play Ortiz at first and Youkilis in right, play J.D. Drew in centerfield, and bench Ellsbury/Crisp or use them as late-game defensive replacements. From a defensive standpoint, that arrangement would be… entertaining to watch - imagine an outfield of Manny, an out-of-position Drew, and Youkilis - but it might wind up being worth it. Tough call.

357

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
From a defensive standpoint, that arrangement would be… entertaining to watch - imagine an outfield of Manny, an out-of-position Drew, and Youkilis - but it might wind up being worth it. Tough call.
[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind that they’d be playing in the largest outfield in baseball. That ballpark breeds doubles and triples.

358

[QUOTE=mhendo]
He switch hits, and can belt 500-foot homers from both sides on the plate, and he’s really bad at both first base and left field.
[/QUOTE]
Just Papi being Papi!

359

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]

I think the Red Sox are a better team in general, but I think the margin is slimmer than people think. And remember that Fenway Park and the DH skew Boston’s offensive numbers far more than Coors Field skews the Rockies’. Fenway is the best hitters park in baseball, Coors is third.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not quite true. Offense was way up at Fenway this year, but it appears to be a one year aberration; the multi-year park effects show Coors being better than Fenway.

And besides, any adjustment you make just makes Boston’s pitching look a lot better, right?

Runs scored: Boston 867, Colorado 860
Runs allowed: Colorado 758, Boston 657

Boston’s got a huge advantage in pitching, and given a choice I’ll always bet on the team with the best pitching. This is the first time in ten years that two teams will be playing in the World Series with a difference of more than 100 runs allowed between them, and in this case it’s the team that didn’t play with a DH that allowed more.

Like I said, I sure hope I’m wrong.

360

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
Keep in mind that they’d be playing in the largest outfield in baseball. That ballpark breeds doubles and triples.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that cuts both ways - it means that putting in your best hitters might reap greater rewards. I mean, figure - games one and two, you (you are the Red Sox in this hypothetical) have a sizable pitching advantage. Those games are in Boston, so you go with your normal defense behind Beckett and Schilling. Then you go to Denver, where both of your pitchers are second tier. Why not beef up your offense and try to win a slugfest? A game like that could easily go either way, and you can always sub in your better defensive players if you get a mid-game lead.