Major League Baseball: 2013

Desertpuma;342794 wrote:
Given the full occupancy of their DL, the DBacks have been grinding out wins and have won more games in extra innings than any other team right now. I think we'll be in it for the long haul.

You're in a little rut right now.

V1man;342806 wrote:
Do you recall when last year at the beginning of the season I expressed my dismay at the Yankees prospects for an even decent year? You are going to be equally off this year with the BoSox walking away with about a 10 game lead on everyone in the AL East by season's end.

The Red Sox and Yankees have the 1st and 2nd best records in the league after a month of baseball. Not too shabby being they were both predicted to be cellar dwellers by the media lluminati... AL East Champion Predictions: ESPN: AL East Blue Jays 20 Rays 20 Orioles 2 Yankees 1 Red Sox 0 MLB.COM AL East Rays 10 Blue Jays 6 Orioles 3 Red Sox 1 Yankees 0 Out of 63 total writers, only two thought that the Red Sox or Yankees could win the division. TWO TOTAL. The season might only be 17% along, but the Blue Jays are already 10.5 games back and in serious trouble. The Rays don't look that spry either.

Bacchus;343289 wrote:
You're in a little rut right now.

We're up and down. Part of that is the DL (which Didi Gregorius just went to) and part of it is the bullpen getting shaky. But we have some very solid guys in Prado, Goldschmidt, and our outfield. Most of our starting is fairly solid too. I'd rather have the injuries now than at the end of the season.

Best record after a month doesn't mean much. Last year at this time, the Rays had the best record and missed the playoffs. The Dodgers and Rangers were tied for the 2nd best record. One missed the playoffs and the other lost in the play in game of the playoffs (which may or may not count as making the playoffs depending on how you look at it).

TheFeedMachi;343322 wrote:
Best record after a month doesn't mean much. Last year at this time, the Rays had the best record and missed the playoffs. The Dodgers and Rangers were tied for the 2nd best record. One missed the playoffs and the other lost in the play in game of the playoffs (which may or may not count as making the playoffs depending on how you look at it).

While I agree, It's always better to be winning. Red Sox Records Through May 4th 2013 20-9 2012 11-14 Missed Playoffs 2011 14-16 Missed Playoffs 2010 13-14 Missed Playoffs The last time the Red Sox did this well out of the gate... 2007 19-9 Wold Series Champion Out of all the teams that made the playoffs in 2012, all were .500 or better on May 6th. Every game counts the same and once you get into a deficit (e.g.Toronto would have to go 20-10 over the next 30 games just to get to .500!) it's very hard to get out.

Bacchus;343323 wrote:
Best record after a month doesn't mean much. Last year at this time, the Rays had the best record and missed the playoffs. The Dodgers and Rangers were tied for the 2nd best record. One missed the playoffs and the other lost in the play in game of the playoffs (which may or may not count as making the playoffs depending on how you look at it).

While I agree, It's always better to be winning. Red Sox Records Through May 4th 2013 20-9 2012 11-14 Missed Playoffs 2011 14-16 Missed Playoffs 2010 13-14 Missed Playoffs The last time the Red Sox did this well out of the gate... 2007 19-9 Wold Series Champion Out of all the teams that made the playoffs in 2012, all were .500 or better on May 6th. Every game counts the same and once you get into a deficit (e.g.Toronto would have to go 20-10 over the next 30 games just to get to .500!) it's very hard to get out. A bad start is always difficult to overcome because so few teams make the playoffs. It is also the reason why a good start doesn't mean you are going to make the playoffs. It just takes a bad week to knock you from the top to out of the playoffs.

Interesting stats: The 5 teams with the current toughest Strength Of Schedule are all in the AL East. Also, every team in the AL East is at least a game over .500, while only 5 teams in the entire NL are over .500 for the season.

Bacchus;350575 wrote:
Interesting stats: The 5 teams with the current toughest Strength Of Schedule are all in the AL East. Also, every team in the AL East is at least a game over .500, while only 5 teams in the entire NL are over .500 for the season.

The NL is just the inferior league to the AL. The NL will probably produce the team that wins the World Series again though. The NL teams just fare much better adjusting to the AL rules than the AL teams do adjusting to the NL rules.

TheFeedMachi;350595 wrote:
The NL is just the inferior league to the AL. The NL will probably produce the team that wins the World Series again though. The NL teams just fare much better adjusting to the AL rules than the AL teams do adjusting to the NL rules.

I wouldn't say the NL is inferior. They just play the game the way it was intended: without a DH which forces the pitcher to hit. As a result, pitchers on NL teams have been batting all year long while AL pitchers only bat during interleague games and are out of practice. Why do you think Roger Clemens never played for a NL team in his career but would intimidate guys from the mound by launching at their head? This is why it was awesome when he had to step in the box versus Randy Johnson in the 2001 World Series between the Yanks and DBacks. You could see the fear in his eyes.

Desertpuma;350666 wrote:
Why do you think Roger Clemens never played for a NL team in his career

Sorry Puma. Head over to baseball reference and get back to us on that one... Feel free to read this as well. Then, reformulate your argument. :D

Bacchus;350670 wrote:
Sorry Puma. Head over to baseball reference and get back to us on that one... Feel free to read this as well. Then, reformulate your argument. :D

Actually I did not know Clemens played for the Astros so that would be the fault in my argument more than anything. Then again, I rarely paid any attention to anything Clemens did after he got scared in the batter's box against Randy Johnson anyway.

Desertpuma;350685 wrote:
Actually I did not know Clemens played for the Astros so that would be the fault in my argument more than anything. Then again, I rarely paid any attention to anything Clemens did after he got scared in the batter's box against Randy Johnson anyway.

He did win the Cy Young in the NL. Of course he was a juiced traitor at the time, but that is just me rambling... I'd argue the NL needs to adopt the DH for parity. It it sells more tickets, brings higher ratings and extends the careers of future HOFers. I love the idea of game purity, but we are well beyond that point. With the way contracts are going, all the big stars are/will be migrating to the AL being the DH postion is an option down the road.

Desertpuma;350666 wrote:
I wouldn't say the NL is inferior. They just play the game the way it was intended: without a DH which forces the pitcher to hit. As a result, pitchers on NL teams have been batting all year long while AL pitchers only bat during interleague games and are out of practice. Why do you think Roger Clemens never played for a NL team in his career but would intimidate guys from the mound by launching at their head? This is why it was awesome when he had to step in the box versus Randy Johnson in the 2001 World Series between the Yanks and DBacks. You could see the fear in his eyes.

It isn't that the AL pitchers can't hit effectively, but more so the fact that the AL teams have to sit a key player that they normally rely on. For example, the Red Sox would have to bench Napoli if they were to make the World Series and move Ortiz over to 1st for games in NL stadiums. That is a loss of a big bat in Napoli and a gaping hole on defense at 1st base.

I'm more for purity of the game like Kevin Costner in Bull Durham. I think pitchers should have to swing just like any other player on the team.

TheFeedMachi;350687 wrote:
It isn't that the AL pitchers can't hit effectively, but more so the fact that the AL teams have to sit a key player that they normally rely on. For example, the Red Sox would have to bench Napoli if they were to make the World Series and move Ortiz over to 1st for games in NL stadiums. That is a loss of a big bat in Napoli and a gaping hole on defense at 1st base.

Agreed. However, with Ortiz currently sitting with an OPS of 1.025 - I think putting Napoli behind the plate and playing Ortiz at first makes sense. It is probably the only situation this season with an AL over NL advantage at an NL park. No NL team has a spare part with that type of bang to play in the AL park which will outweigh that advantage. It's not like Napoli is a gold glove first baseman like AGonz (which made the situation much more complicated).

TheFeedMachi;343322 wrote:
Best record after a month doesn't mean much.

How about best record in the American League through 80 games? :emmersed:

Bacchus;350698 wrote:
Agreed. However, with Ortiz currently sitting with an OPS of 1.025 - I think putting Napoli behind the plate and playing Ortiz at first makes sense. It is probably the only situation this season with an AL over NL advantage. No NL team has a spare part with that type of bang to play in the AL park which will outweigh that advantage. It's not like Napoli is a gold glove first baseman like AGonz.

Obviously they would play Ortiz over Napoli. Napoli isn't a defensive first basemen by any means, but Ortiz is god awful defensively. I think they could move Napoli to catcher if they made the World Series, but Napoli wouldn't have played catcher in over a year.

Desertpuma;350685 wrote:
Actually I did not know Clemens played for the Astros so that would be the fault in my argument more than anything. Then again, I rarely paid any attention to anything Clemens did after he got scared in the batter's box against Randy Johnson anyway.

The Astros with Clemens and Pettitte were actually swept in the World Series by the most dominant playoff team in recent history.

Treetrunk;350885 wrote:
the most dominant playoff team in recent history.

I don't remember the Astros in the 2004 or 2007 World series and I have a pretty good memory.

Bacchus;350888 wrote:
I don't remember the Astros in the 2004 or 2007 World series and I have a pretty good memory.

The 05 White Sox went 11-1 in the playoffs. Seems pretty dominant to me. Doesn't mean they were the best team, just had the best playoff run.

TheFeedMachi;350894 wrote:
The 05 White Sox went 11-1 in the playoffs. Seems pretty dominant to me. Doesn't mean they were the best team, just had the best playoff run.

They played an NL team in the World Series that would not have even made the playoffs in the AL (the Astros would have been 6 games back of a wild card slot). Not to mention they caught a huge break with the Angels beating the Yankees and then sucking. Literally, all the "Cards" (the best team in baseball) fell in place that year. It was more of a great round of craps than a World Series of Poker win. Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time. Dominant? Not so much. Did they win? Yes.

Bacchus;350910 wrote:
They played an NL team in the World Series that would not have even made the playoffs in the AL (the Astros would have been 6 games back of a wild card slot). Not to mention they caught a huge break with the Angels beating the Yankees and then sucking. Literally, all the "Cards" (the best team in baseball) fell in place that year. It was more of a great round of craps than a World Series of Poker win. Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time. Dominant? Not so much. Did they win? Yes.

11-1, four consecutive complete games in ALCS, and an ALDS sweep of (sorry Bacchus) the defending World Series Champions while out scoring the opposition 67 to 34. To say they didn't dominate the teams they faced in the playoffs that postseason is simply bird walking around the topic. I'm almost certain they weren't able to choose the opposition, but they did defeat 2 out of the 3 previous champions and an Astros team built for the playoffs with Clemens, Pettitte, and Oswalt in the rotation.

The 2004 Red Sox went 8-0 down the stretch coming back from 3 games down in the ALCS to beat the team with the best record in the AL (Yankees - 101 wins). They then went on to sweep the World Series against the team with the best record in baseball (St. Louis - 105 wins). It's not every year we see a club with 100 wins in a season, let alone two. That my friend is a dominating performance and one that will be remembered for years, if not decades to come. While the White Sox did not get to choose their competition, they still did end up playing both wild card teams in the playoffs, with their culminating moment being a sweep of a team that would have only had the 6th best record in the AL that year (they wouldn't have even made the playoffs with the extra wild card spot in the AL). Sure, 11-1 is dominating - I'll give you that. Be definitely not most dominating in light of the light competition. Anyway, all the stats and "facts" in the world are not going to convince me that the 2005 Sox playoff run was more dominant than the 2004 Sox end run. I will never be convinced. 2251

Wasn't Schilling pitching in the 2004 run?

Desertpuma;350976 wrote:
Wasn't Schilling pitching in the 2004 run?

Yes. 2252 In 2005 their rotation was gutted. Schilling got hurt. Pedro left. Lowe left. They were a shell of the 2004 team w/ Matt Clement as their, um...ace.

Bacchus;350977 wrote:
In 2005 their rotation was gutted. Schilling got hurt. Pedro left. Lowe left. They were a shell of the 2004 team w/ Matt Clement as their, um...ace.

I still don't think the DBacks got enough for Schilling but it has been far too long to worry about it. Didn't Pedro go to the Mets at that point?

Desertpuma;350978 wrote:
I still don't think the DBacks got enough for Schilling but it has been far too long to worry about it. Didn't Pedro go to the Mets at that point?

Yes. The Sox were concerned about his health and wouldn't give him a guaranteed 4 year contract. He went 32-23 in those years vs. 57-20 the previous 4 with the Sox.

Even though you edited your post, an 11-0 whiffle ball series victory over your 8 year old cousin (correct me if I got the detail wrong, you edited your post so I have to go on memory), would be quite dominating. How dominating a performance is does not depend on the competition. When the Seahawks won 58-0 against the Cardinals last season, it wasn't the most impressive win of the season, but it was the most dominating. You can have the most dominant run in recent memory without it being the most impressive or best.

Bacchus;350972 wrote:
The 2004 Red Sox went 8-0 down the stretch coming back from 3 games down in the ALCS to beat the team with the best record in the AL (Yankees - 101 wins). They then went on to sweep the World Series against the team with the best record in baseball (St. Louis - 105 wins). It's not every year we see a club with 100 wins in a season, let alone two. That my friend is a dominating performance and one that will be remembered for years, if not decades to come. While the White Sox did not get to choose their competition, they still did end up playing both wild card teams in the playoffs, with their culminating moment being a sweep of a team that would have only had the 6th best record in the AL that year (they wouldn't have even made the playoffs with the extra wild card spot in the AL). Sure, 11-1 is dominating - I'll give you that. Be definitely not most dominating in light of the light competition. Anyway, all the stats and "facts" in the world are not going to convince me that the 2005 Sox playoff run was more dominant than the 2004 Sox end run. I will never be convinced.

A greater performance than the 04 Red Sox? Absolutely not. More dominating? The 11-1 record speaks for itself compared to a team who had to have the Yankees completely self-destruct in order to avoid elimination. The 2004 Red Sox and 2011 Cardinal teams were probably the two most memorable clutch performances I've ever seen though.

TheFeedMachi;350982 wrote:
Even though you edited your post, an 11-0 whiffle ball series victory over your 8 year old cousin (correct me if I got the detail wrong, you edited your post so I have to go on memory), would be quite dominating. How dominating a performance is does not depend on the competition. When the Seahawks won 58-0 against the Cardinals last season, it wasn't the most impressive win of the season, but it was the most dominating. You can have the most dominant run in recent memory without it being the most impressive or best.

While I agree with you on the semantics and you are technically correct, I think framing it that way takes away from the spirit of the original statement being when making comparisons there need to be other factors taken into consideration.

Treetrunk;350987 wrote:
More dominating? The 11-1 record speaks for itself compared to a team who had to have the Yankees completely self-destruct in order to avoid elimination.

Fine. I'll give you more dominating playoff run. I'll take more dominating World Series... Both teams swept the World Series, so who was more dominating? The Red Sox had run diffs of + 3/+4/+3/+3 while the White Sox had diffs of +2/+1/+2/+1. Thus, if I was using run differential to determine which team was more dominating in the World Series, the numbers would point to the Red Sox. Now that begs the question, if a team had a more dominating World Series which is the pinnacle of the playoffs, didn't they have a more dominating playoff run? Hehe.

Agreed. I was referring to the entire run through the playoffs as a whole.