Well, I Think the Rockies Have Added Some Fans
by baseballgirl on Oct 21, 2007 9:19 PM PDT
in News
Email
PrintWell, in case you don’t know what baseball is, there was a rather important game played tonight. In case you don’t know who Boston is, they are the team that plays in Fenway Park. In case you don’t know who the Indians are, they are the team that choked away a 3-1 series lead and are not going to the World Series.
I am Tim McCarver and this is FOX.
However, baseballgirl has some more to add. This was one of the things that you saw from the first inning on: Nothing was going to go Cleveland’s way tonight. After the first half of the series, where every bounce, every call, every slightly questionable play fell on the side of the Indians, that trend reversed itself on Thursday and stayed with Boston the rest of the series, including tonight.
From the blown call at second base in the fifth inning to the terrible hold by the gun-shy Indians’ third base coach, which both cost the Indians the tie at the time, tonight just seemed a formality for Boston. And it was a shame too, because the Indians played so well overall in the playoffs. But their pitching failed them in games 5 and 6, and everything failed them tonight. They were not going to win the game, and that was pretty clear from the start.
Good pitching will beat good hitting in the playoffs, and it’s never been truer than in this series. The Indians’ pitching simply let them down. They had three chances to advance, and blew all three, and there isn’t much more to say than that.
It was a mixed bag for Westbrook tonight, who, if you didn’t know better, was replaced by a look-alike pitcher halfway through his outing. His first three innings, to put it kindly, sucked. He almost went the Carmona route early, but was saved by three double-plays in the first four innings, but interestingly after the third, he looked every bit the part of an elite pitcher. However, it must be said: If I was managing, he never would have made it out of the second inning.
His three runs combined with Betancourt’s unusually bad outing (Pedroia, really?!), mixed with a blown call at second base that would have later scored a run, the third base coach’s inability to send Lofton home for another run, and finally the defensive breakdown was simply too much for Cleveland to overcome.
For his part, Dice K looked as good as I’ve ever seen him, and Jonathan Paplebon might have well entered the game with a giant ‘GAME OVER’ sign.
I imagine this takes all the ambivalence out of the World Series for everyone; there are Red Sox fans and then there is everyone else, who has suddenly become Rockies fans.
I feel for Cleveland fans. We know this pain well.
And MLB and TV execs rejoice as they not only get their highly-coveted game seven, but also one of their East Coast powerhouses.
<sigh>
Here’s to hoping that the Colorado Rockies can keep their streak alive.
The World Series starts on Wednesday. Red Sox vs. Rockies. Go Colorado!
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Victor Martinez was crying
I've liked him ever since I saw him homer from both sides of the plate one cold Friday evening a year or two ago. Yeah, it was in the coliseum against the A's, which I wasn't happy about, but I really liked watching him (though I of course didn't show it that night).
yea, i saw that....
by littleA on Oct 22, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
The tiresome Red Sox/Yankees act
After two thrilling years off, we're back to the same old crap.
I don't care about the Rockies, and am weary of rooting for the underdog National League team to knock off whichever New York/Boston team makes it. But the World Series will be all about the Red Sox, win or lose, and even their defeat will be nothing more than a sop to fans of other teams that want Goliath to lose. It doesn't address the competitive balance issues that won't be solved even if the Red Sox get swept.
Boston and New York have too much money, command all of the media attention, and I am too sick of it to want to bother with the World Series.
I'm also tired of seeing
the winningness (sic) of that other big team in Boston, and how they get slavered over by Linda Cohn et al, but of the two only the Red Sox make me feel resentment. At least I can say that I respect the Patriots.
In baseball, it's not fair that a bunch of teams with sub-$90 million budgets, and with MSAs that will never match those of the big cities in terms of population, are expected to compete with teams with twice* the payroll. The big-money teams get the pick of the litter among the free agents and (often) among the draftees (cf. Jared Weaver). See you in New York or Boston or Chicago, Johan.
It's possible for the little guys to overcome the disadvantage, as in Cleveland over the Yankees or us over the Angels last year (though it's been big-money Angels over small-money A's three out of the past four years). But overcoming the disadvantage from time to time doesn't mean the disadvantage goes away.
In the AL, three teams spend far more than anyone else on payroll; all three made the playoffs this year, crowding out a bunch of teams that haven't gone to the playoffs since forever.
Small market teams of the world, unite!
- Red Sox official payroll: $146 million. I add to that the $51 million Boston paid for the right to interview Matsuzaka.
by Checkswing HR on Oct 22, 2007 6:23 AM PDT up reply actions
So pulling Westbrook in the 2nd
when he was shaky would have been a mistake...Dice-K looked great...Betancourt was ineffective...
...Anything else happen that made my pre-game predictions look utterly foolish?
Stupid game.
I have no problem saying it
GO ROCKIES!!!
by Chavinator on Oct 21, 2007 9:59 PM PDT reply actions
I agree with everything.
I'm disappointed that the Red Sox are in the World Series. All of my post season predictions have been true until this game. I really wanted an Indians/Rockies world series. Oh well.
Look for me freezing my ass off at game 4 of the WS in Denver. Go Rockies!!
Well, all things being equal...
I'm still more pleased with the Angels being bounced (thrashed, humiliated, emasculated?) than I am disgusted with the Red Sox making the WS. I've become immune to the east coast baseball sports cycle I suppose. Take heart A's fans, we've seen the Angels post season dreams mercilessly crushed, the Yankees left to ponder their future for the first time in a long time, and it's still conceivable that New England dreams of glory will be met with bitter disillusionment. It's more fun to see them fail on an even bigger stage. Though to be honest....I don't think the Rockies can pull it off.
Rooting against Goliath
is old. I guess I hope the Rockies win, as they would be a remarkable story, but you know that story will still be overshadowed by the Red Sox. Shoot, even the Red Sox/Indians series was overshadowed by the whole Joe Torre nonsense.
I have been reminded of all the books and documentaries about New York baseball between 1947 and 1956, when the Yankees and Dodgers and Giants totally dominated.
Think of what it must have been like to be fans of any other team during that period. Think of how dreary it must have been. Attendance was tanking during those years, even in New York. And yet period of baseball history is among the most celebrated, because it was happening in the media capital of the world and was followed by a bunch of kids who grew up to write books about it.
Compare that to the period from the mid-70s to the 1994 strike. That period was dominated by a wide array of teams, employing styles ranging from the Bash Brothers to the St. Louis speed attack. No team, even the Yankees, could guarantee their place at the head of the pack because the overwhelming power of money. I don't think it's a coincidence that baseball was a healthier sport then.
Ah, lessons from history.
It's one of the things I love so much about baseball. No matter who you are or what you think, you can always count on baseball to reinforce a nostalgic point of view. Would it indicate bias for an A's fan to reflect fondly on an era that saw the A's dominant at times?
The era you cite saw gigantic upheavals in American society. MLB back then was entirely confined to the Eastern seaboard, justifying the media attention it received. On the other hand, all those servicemen returning from the war spawned one of the biggest domestic migrations the nation has ever seen. Not to mention the baby boom was set in motion which would result in further upheaval in less than a generation. Baseball popularity may have ebbed momentarily, but it was reborn as it migrated with the newly mobile American. We saw MLB on the west coast that broke the NY monopoly you cite. The children of those servicemen eventually became fans of their new home town teams.
It's not so bad 88. Things always change. Even now the seeds have been planted which will change the game yet again. The A's are a big part of that change. If these big money teams continue to get bounced out of the playoffs, you can expect them to change their approach in the near future. Until then, I'll vote with my wallet and continue to root for David.
For all we bitch about MLB, it's never been better. The players are better, the stadiums are better (they shouldn't have been messed with in the first place). Baseball is beginning to have international appeal, resulting in even more talent being brought into the game. Hell, even the owners are better.
I'm reminded of conversations I use to have with my grandfather. I once asked him about the "good ole days", to which he responded that the "good ole days" were here and now. As with so many other things, I'm beginning to understand just how wise a man he really was.
The problem with this argument
is that the big-money teams have realized, correctly, that the playoffs are ultimately irrelevant. They're pure luck. Just get there often enough and eventually you'll win some. So no, I don't expect to see any changes whatsoever from the Yankees or Angels next year or any year.
While the Angels are stupid enough, and the A's smart enough, for me to hold out some hope of the A's making some playoff runs in the relatively near future, it beggars statistical probability to expect anyone other than Boston or New York to ever make the playoffs out of the East.
Baseball is fast becoming the college football of pro sports. You can expect the occasional Boise State run at the title, but the top teams have such an overwhelming advantage at every level that it's not going to happen often. You can get used to seeing the same 5-10 teams in the postseason every year, because it's not going to change anytime soon.
What I find truly insulting
is that a big-money team can go to the playoffs for THIRTEEN straight years while over the same span a host of teams hasn't even had a winning season, for crying out loud.
Yet there's little outrage.
by Checkswing HR on Oct 22, 2007 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess on the bright side for us
That the A's will usually be one of those 5-10 teams...
Former A's
It's probably already been said, but now we might get to watch former A's in the World Series: Eric "Flying thru the outfield" Byrnes and Bobby "Ronnie Mac" Kielty.
Go Rockies!
Uh...
Byrnes is on the D-backs, and already earned the ire of the Rockies fans for his "we've outplayed them" jag.
by Chavinator on Oct 21, 2007 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah...
Fuck it, capitalism wins again...as usual.
Rockies? Pshaw.
Well, yeah...
only because it happens to coincide with and cater to human nature.
It's weird
"They were not going to win the game, and that was pretty clear from the start."
You say this, but it was a really close game up until the 7th or whatever it was. And yet, I completely felt the same way. As I go to school in Boston, I was watching with a big group of Red Sox "fans" (one guy there had an intentional walk explained to him at one point) and they were all very nervous and tense up until the Red Sox broke it open. But, sitting there, it felt like from the very beginning the Indians were never in it, even when it was close. It's hard to explain.
That said, thanks to the Red Sox, I saw lots of debauchery last night. And I'm ever so much a fan of debauchery.
Debauchery's
my favorite!
Yay Hedonism!
Boo Moderation!
by Leopold Bloom on Oct 22, 2007 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think this series showed
how big market teams always win. The Indians had every chance to close it out and just didn't. Replay the series and they might. Payroll had nothing to do with it, IMO. Not this time.
it felt like watching the A's
the blown call at 2nd and the failure to send Lofton and all the missed chances to score after Dice-K lost it felt very familiar. After that rally failed in the 8th, you knew it was over and then Betancourt just sealed the deal.
Even though the Red Sox will probably win, go Rockies (which given their lineup is almost the same as go Rookies)!
The cause for the Indians'
loss could be argued either way, Nico. All they needed was to win one out of three games. But, imagine if payroll wasn't a factor to the extent that Ramirez hadn't left Cleveland and Beckett hadn't left the Marlins, and the Crotch Grabbers hadn't had the services of those two. Who would have won the ALCS?
It's like the ALDS in '03. Sure we choked a two-game lead, especially in Game 3, but by the same token Boston could afford superstars like Ortiz to get the game-winning double in Game 4 and Ramirez to get the game-winning jack in Game 5.
Oh, and while I'm on the subject of Game 5, tell me payroll wasn't a factor in us having nonentities like Long and Menechino available off the bench in the 8th and 9th.
by Checkswing HR on Oct 22, 2007 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
You are aware that in the 90s
with the money flowing in from Jacobs field, the Indians actually had higher payrolls than the Red Sox?
If they had retained Manny et al, payroll would be a factor, except in favour of the "underdog" Indians.
Nope. When I dream of a world
where payroll isn't a factor, I mean that all 30 teams in MLB would have pretty much the same payroll. Cleveland would spend the same amount as Boston. When a player like Manny finishes his 6 pre-arb years, all 30 teams would be able to bid for his services.
by Checkswing HR on Oct 22, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
My point, Checkswing HR, is that
given the two teams' exact rosters and payrolls, Cleveland won three of the first four (and came out of that with their best pitching lined up for the following games). I don't think the Indians lost because the Red Sox can afford Manny being Manny; I think it was more a matter of "Pronk not being Pronk" that did them in.
Similarly, for all the Red Sox pay Schilling and for all the Indians don't pay Carmona, "2007 and beyond" Carmona is a better pitcher than "2007 and beyond" Schilling. But not in Game 6. Oh well.
Different arguments
My point isn't that Big Payroll teams win every time. They don't, and it is easy to point to recent examples. The Yankees and Red Sox have won two World Series combined since 2000, so it's obvious that other teams have a chance. But their windows of opportunity are brief before they must start over. The Yankees and Red Sox and Angels don't have that problem.
My issue, and it's nothing new, is that the system is broken. Sure, we can all root for the Marlins to beat the Yankees in a short series, and they did in 2003. But in the long run, it's hopeless. They big money teams don't just grab all the big money free agents. They grab all the top prospects too.
The A's figured out a way to beat the system for a while, but now other teams have caught up.
My Yankee apologist friends
like to say, "Problem? Look at the '03 Marlins! Look at the '06 Tigers! What problem?"
When a small market team beats a big-market team, it always overcomes a money disadvantage. If the teams they'd beaten had been allotted four outs in their halves of each inning, would the disadvantage overcome be any less unfair?
by Checkswing HR on Oct 22, 2007 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Nico
I have been thinking that the whole time I have been reading this diary. If you look at the last 5 postseasons, you will see that there are some constant teams, but there are also quite a few that you might not think of off hand that have played in October...
strike zone ?
Last night Dice-k had a very big strike zone which helped him to the win but why didn't fox show the close calls? They only showed their box strike zone when you knew the ump was right but never on close pitches? All I can say is go rockies. the thing that hurt the indians was their poor defense which the rockies have much better. Peralta and blake are not the best at their positions. Go rockies go rockies!
A big strike zone?
by OaktownPower on Oct 22, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
...that pitch was a ball
and it wasn't even close. They showed it on the pitch tracker, and it was clear the ball was at least six inches outside.
It was a great pitch....and borderline
But had been a strike all night for both pitchers. The umpiring was even..that was the only one I saw I really disagreed with. That was strike 3...and I have no bias or care who won the series, but I thought that was a strike.
by OaktownPower on Oct 22, 2007 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it wasn't
I can't believe that in this day and age, people can still claim this. Or the #1 laugh line, "It's not the rulebook strike zone but at least it's consistent." (As if hitters should come to each game without any clear idea of what the strike zone is going to be.)
The rulebook has a very clear definition of what a strike is. It's spelled out explicitly. The ball failed to pass through any part of the pentagonal prism which represents the strike zone. Therefore, it was not a strike. I don't care what the previous pitch was called. It shouldn't have any more bearing on the pitch in question than a previous flip of a coin has on the next flip.
The ump made the correct call on that pitch. Whether or not he fucked up others has no bearing on the issue.
MLB needs to have a sit-down with the umps and say, essentially, "Call the rulebook strike. We know you're going to miss a few. Do not under any circumstances alter your later strike calls based on prior calls." And it should fire any umpire who shows a consistent pattern of calling a strike zone other than the rulebook zone.
Sandy Alderson did just that
when he insisted that the "high strike" be called according to the rule book. Balls and strikes are just inherently very difficult to call. Add to that my (unpopular) opinion that they would be easier to call from behind the pitcher than from behind the catcher and the reality is, most umps can get most of the calls right but just can't get "almost all" of them right, or be "very, very" consistent from pitch to pitch.
There's simply a high level of human error as compared to, say, a call at first base or a tag at third base. So be it. You can go to machines (which I adamantly oppose) or live with the imperfection (which I embrace).
Whoa there
I've done a significant amount of both pitching and catching (which is a reasonable proxy for behind the catcher/behind the pitcher), and it's not even a remotely close call.
But I agree with you that we don't need robots, as I think HP umpiring is basically fine, especially after they did away with the AL/NL thing, and I can live with human error on those calls. I would like a system where the 1 or 2 umpires who have the most out-of-whack strike zones as measured by strike/ball % or something like that were fired/demoted, but I don't think it's a big problem in baseball. And I would miss strikeout calls, which are an integral part of baseball, imo.
I disagree with this
Most studies I've seen show that (major league) umpires can correctly identify the location of pitches to within about a half a baseball's width. They just choose not to, and are empowered in this choice by baseball's front office.
However, if you were right, it would be inexcusable not to go to machines. This isn't a kid's game. There's billions of dollars involved here. You'd damn well better be doing the best you can to get it right. I don't think this would have to eliminate strikeout calls (since the home plate umpire still has to be there anyway, and could have a strike/ball buzzer or something along those lines).
I still think it was a strike...
And I watched it multiple times. A strike in my mind and my eyes based on what the stroke zone was all night last night.
by OaktownPower on Oct 22, 2007 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Cleveland's 2007 team was built around
a core of young players, inexperienced in the postseason, who are under club control for the next few years...they'll be back, and probably better for the experience.
I agree...
they'll be back....probably much to our sorrow. Like em while you can...tomorrow is a brand new day.
a lot of people said the same about Detroit,
but in that division, you just don't know.
The same can't be said in the AL East, where Toronto, Baltimore, and Tampa must feel like their day will never come.
They're now 0-for-3 in elimination games
I sure hope that doesn't go up to 0-for-9 like it did for us.
by Checkswing HR on Oct 22, 2007 1:19 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
