PDA

View Full Version : Thursday Playoff Thread



Chip R
10-05-2006, 01:28 PM
We start off with the Yanks and Tigers making up yesterday's game. Nothing doing in the 1st for the Tiggers even though Casey reached on a error by Jeter. I wonder how many rows he threw it back since it would have to be an egregious error for A: Casey to be safe and B: The Yankees official scorer actually giving Jeter an error. Doesn't matter since DET is doomed anyway. Yanks have 1st and 2nd with 1 out and Sheff at the dish.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 01:29 PM
Verlander just got a K on his first offspeed pitch of the day.

Fastball is live, but looks flat.

NJReds
10-05-2006, 01:33 PM
ARod K's looking w/the bases loaded. Let the boos begin.

BRM
10-05-2006, 01:40 PM
Tigers strike first on Thames RBI single.

Heath
10-05-2006, 01:42 PM
Verlander just got a K on his first offspeed pitch of the day.

Fastball is live, but looks flat.

You would as well after last night's debacle.

Go Tigers.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 01:44 PM
Tigers strike first on Thames RBI single.

Won't matter. They are just teasing us.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 01:45 PM
I have to say that this is a more likeable group of playoff teams than I can remember in recent years. A lot of these people on this board hate the Cardinals (and really they're not as hateable as usual right now given their regular-season stumbling) and a lot of people hate the New York teams. But nevertheless I would find it hard to get really worked up against too many of these teams. The Twins, the A's, the Tigers, the Padres...I don't even hate the Dodgers as much as I usually do.

I'm a wreck for any game involving the Yankees, but apart from that, all this likeability lets me really enjoy these baseball games as great baseball games. It's fun.

BRM
10-05-2006, 01:53 PM
Yanks are threatening with two on and none out. Cano at the plate.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 01:58 PM
Verlander will not last long at this rate.

BRM
10-05-2006, 01:58 PM
Verlander pitches out of it. Tigers still lead 1-0.

NJReds
10-05-2006, 02:00 PM
You would as well after last night's debacle.

Go Tigers.

His fastball has been flat for a month. I think he hit the rookie "wall"

I doubt 10 soft tosses last night affected his pitching today.

M2
10-05-2006, 02:05 PM
Five LOB for the Bombers through two. I figure this game goes one of two ways, either the Yankees put a hurt on Verlander in the next few innings or the kid starts finds his groove and puts the Yankees offense on its heels.

Heath
10-05-2006, 02:09 PM
Is it me, but if the Yankees make the WS and win it, wouldn't it be ironic that if Bobby Abreu was WS MVP

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 02:10 PM
Abreu hit a single off the top of the wall. Magglio played it perfectly and it was RIPPED.

Verlander in trouble again.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 02:10 PM
Is it me, but if the Yankees make the WS and win it, wouldn't it be ironic that if Bobby Abreu was WS MVP

Why?

Tornon
10-05-2006, 02:10 PM
and a DP gets him out of it

M2
10-05-2006, 02:11 PM
Is it me, but if the Yankees make the WS and win it, wouldn't it be ironic that if Bobby Abreu was WS MVP

Phillies fans will still insist he's not all that great even if that happens.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 02:14 PM
Why?

It's like rain on your wedding day. ;)

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 02:19 PM
1 out double by Guillen

55 pitches through 3 innings for Verlander. That DP was crucial.

M2
10-05-2006, 02:28 PM
Here they come again. Cano's yet to make his mark on this series. I'm thinking that might change right here.

M2
10-05-2006, 02:29 PM
Here they come again. Cano's yet to make his mark on this series. I'm thinking that might change right here.

Or not.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 02:30 PM
Johnny Damon has just almost absolved himself of the grand slam off Javier Vazquez in my world.

(almost)

3-1 Yanks

Puffy
10-05-2006, 02:30 PM
So many weapons.

M2
10-05-2006, 02:31 PM
Damon with the three-run shot.

He's my poster boy for being a player far greater than his numbers.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 02:32 PM
Damon with the three-run shot.

He's my poster boy for being a player far greater than his numbers.

Mine is Dunn :D

Or Jeter, come to that.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 02:32 PM
Damon with the three-run shot.

He's my poster boy for being a player far greater than his numbers.

And he's got mine (Jeter) hitting right behind him.

M2
10-05-2006, 02:34 PM
And he's got mine (Jeter) hitting right behind him.

Hard to believe two guys like that have meshed so well in the 1-2 slots isn't it?

Chip R
10-05-2006, 02:36 PM
I haven't seen an outcome as predictable as this since Danny Graves was "saving" games for the Reds.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 02:36 PM
Hard to believe two guys like that have meshed so well in the 1-2 slots isn't it?

If you can find them, take a look at Jeter's career numbers in the different spots he's hit in the lineup. When they put him at #1, he produces like a #1, in the #2 spot, like a #2, in the 3 spot, like a 3. Pretty amazing player.

M2
10-05-2006, 02:40 PM
If you can find them, take a look at Jeter's career numbers in the different spots he's hit in the lineup. When they put him at #1, he produces like a #1, in the #2 spot, like a #2, in the 3 spot, like a 3. Pretty amazing player.

Some broadcaster yesterday was asking out loud what Derek Jeter would be if he weren't on the Yankees. I turned to my wife and said, "Barry Larkin."

Puffy
10-05-2006, 02:46 PM
Some broadcaster yesterday was asking out loud what Derek Jeter would be if he weren't on the Yankees. I turned to my wife and said, "Barry Larkin."

I think the answer to that question is - - on Yankees first ballot Hall of Famer (for his October spectacularness alone); on the Reds, should be in the Hall of Fame but numbers might be outshined by contemporaries.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 02:48 PM
Tigers making the comeback but the Yankees are going to Hulk up and give them the boot to the face and the leg drop of doom soon enough.

GIK
10-05-2006, 02:49 PM
No faith, Chip. No faith! :)

Puffy
10-05-2006, 02:55 PM
No faith, Chip. No faith! :)

Easy there, George Michael.

Puffy
10-05-2006, 02:56 PM
And yes, I now have that song stuck in my head.

M2
10-05-2006, 03:01 PM
Tigers making the comeback but the Yankees are going to Hulk up and give them the boot to the face and the leg drop of doom soon enough.

They may even rake the back.

Heath
10-05-2006, 03:01 PM
Easy there, George Michael.


And yes, I now have that song stuck in my head.

I always liked the Sports Machine's intro too -

http://www.carlcoxphotography.com/George%20Michael%20NBC.jpg

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 03:02 PM
Is it too early for a beer?

Chip R
10-05-2006, 03:07 PM
Is it too early for a beer?

It's 5:00 somewhere. :beerme:

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 03:09 PM
It's 5:00 somewhere. :beerme:

Newfoundland

Falls City Beer
10-05-2006, 03:09 PM
The Tigers will get knocked out I'm sure, but I sure as hell wouldn't mind seeing the Yankees' pitching staff exposed for the sham that it is (outside of Rivera).

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 03:14 PM
The Tigers will get knocked out I'm sure, but I sure as hell wouldn't mind seeing the Yankees' pitching staff exposed for the sham that it is (outside of Rivera).

Mussina and Wang are excellent, in totally different ways. Johnson could go either way (though I believe he is a sham at this point).

Their bullpen blows awfully, but I don't think anybody has wool over the eyes on that one.

M2
10-05-2006, 03:16 PM
The Tigers will get knocked out I'm sure, but I sure as hell wouldn't mind seeing the Yankees' pitching staff exposed for the sham that it is (outside of Rivera).

These playoffs have the earmarks of being 1993 redux. Rarely can hitting dominate that way, but there's a decent chance of it happening this season.

Puffy
10-05-2006, 03:16 PM
Is it too early for a beer?

It is never too early for a beer. NEVER.

M2
10-05-2006, 03:27 PM
Real fun postseason so far. Today's game has been a blast. Credit to the Tigers for playing tough, though I still think the Yankees are going to hit them with a haymaker.

NJReds
10-05-2006, 03:27 PM
The Tigers have a 1-run lead and 9 outs to go. Time for Zumaya, Rodney and Jones to wrap it up.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 03:55 PM
This Geico commercial with Burt Bacharach is hysterical.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 04:02 PM
This Geico commercial with Burt Bacharach is hysterical.

I think they are all kind of lame except for the movie announcer guy just because he doesn't look anything like you'd think he would with that voice. I think the worst one is the one with Mini-Me.

Cyclone792
10-05-2006, 04:14 PM
Todd Jones is attempting to hold a one run lead in the 9th inning, and he's already given up a leadoff single to Matsui.

Todd Jones is a former Reds reliever. That's not a good omen for trying to protect a lead, especially against the caliber of a lineup like the Yanks'.

Cyclone792
10-05-2006, 04:17 PM
Jones helps himself out with a brilliant sequence of pitches to Jorge Posada, and he's able to strike Posada out looking.

One down, runner on 1st, and Jones is ahead 0-2 on Cano.

Let's do it, Todd.

WMR
10-05-2006, 04:21 PM
A little bit too much drama there on a routine fly

Chip R
10-05-2006, 04:22 PM
Better get Damon cause you-know-who is on deck.

Pads and StL 0-0 in the bottom of the 1st.

pahster
10-05-2006, 04:25 PM
Gameday says "Injury delay." Eh?

WMR
10-05-2006, 04:25 PM
The tigers win... THEEEEEEEEEEEE tigers win

Boo yankees!

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 04:26 PM
I take back what I said before. The Tigers are no longer likeable.

Cyclone792
10-05-2006, 04:26 PM
Jones does an excellent job closing this one out. He littered the strike zone and got ahead of every batter after Matsui's single, and Damon ends it with a fly ball to shallow center field.

lollipopcurve
10-05-2006, 04:26 PM
The tigers win... THEEEEEEEEEEEE tigers win

sweet

Chip R
10-05-2006, 04:26 PM
The tigers win... THEEEEEEEEEEEE tigers win

Boo yankees!


Non-title match. The Tigers will job in front of the home folks.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 04:26 PM
Now that was a good baseball game.

WMR
10-05-2006, 04:29 PM
Outside of the Mets, I don't see any team in the National League not getting steamrolled by whichever team comes out of the AL.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 04:29 PM
Now that was a good baseball game.

Wish I could have watched it.

M2
10-05-2006, 04:31 PM
Big props to the Tigers. They fought like hell to get that win.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 04:34 PM
Outside of the Mets, I don't see any team in the National League not getting steamrolled by whichever team comes out of the AL.

Meh, it's playoff baseball. Absolutely anything can happen. The tiniest error can be hugely magnified in a game, in a series, in a championship. These teams are all strong enough to be in the playoffs (even the Cardinals). And yet, being human, they're all capable of mistakes and off days (even the Yankees).

I do not see the World Series as the question of the most powerful or the strongest or the best-built team winning. I see it as a question of who gets the most competitive and the most zoned in and the luckiest in a very short span. This happens every year, everybody runs around saying "There's no way that anybody can beat [insert team here]." And yet every year we tend to be surprised by something.

There's just something very different about the playoffs. I make predictions every year, but in all honesty, I don't handicap any team. In the space of three or five or seven games, any of these teams could beat the other.

WMR
10-05-2006, 04:37 PM
Meh, it's playoff baseball. Absolutely anything can happen. The tiniest error can be hugely magnified in a game, in a series, in a championship.

I think I heard Tommy Lasorda say the same thing, verbatim. :laugh:

Chip R
10-05-2006, 04:42 PM
I think I heard Tommy Lasorda say the same thing, verbatim. :laugh:


Watch your language.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). ;)

GIK
10-05-2006, 04:43 PM
Non-title match. The Tigers will job in front of the home folks.

Watch your language.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity).

:devil:

Falls City Beer
10-05-2006, 04:45 PM
Meh, it's playoff baseball. Absolutely anything can happen. The tiniest error can be hugely magnified in a game, in a series, in a championship.

This is true for the 5 game series (for a number of reasons).

But much less so for the 7 game set. It's been my anecdotal experience that the better team has won the vast, vast majority of the 7 games series of my baseball-watching lifetime.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 04:45 PM
Jeff Weaver's Gameday photo looks just like some dude that sells crack in the South End of town, except that guy wears a camo Cards cap.

Falls City Beer
10-05-2006, 04:47 PM
Jeff Weaver's Gameday photo looks just like some dude that sells crack in the South End of town, except that guy wears a camo Cards cap.

Good Moses, that's funny.

WMR
10-05-2006, 04:51 PM
Watch your language.

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). ;)

Hahahahahahaha, I know, the guy makes me nauseous.

Hearing him on that ESPN show debating the best teams of all time was almost too much to bear.

I wonder if he'd be making those commercials if the Dodgers weren't in the playoffs?

I want to see him talking Ron Howard off a bridge after the Dodgers lose telling us how the games are still just as important even if your team isn't in. Puhlease, that's such a lame marketing ploy/campaign, IMO.

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 04:52 PM
Good Moses, that's funny.

And true! The stories I could tell!

Next time I'm in that part of town I'm going to ask him where he was on the afternoon of October 5th.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 04:54 PM
This is true for the 5 game series (for a number of reasons).

But much less so for the 7 game set. It's been my anecdotal experience that the better team has won the vast, vast majority of the 7 games series of my baseball-watching lifetime.

The longer a series goes the better chance the superior team has in winning it. That's the beauty of the long season in baseball.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 04:54 PM
But much less so for the 7 game set. It's been my anecdotal experience that the better team has won the vast, vast majority of the 7 games series of my baseball-watching lifetime.

I think that has a greater chance of being true if the series goes to seven games. I think that sweeps or wins in five often go to lesser teams. I don't know why; maybe it's momentum they're riding.

Reds in 1990
St. Louis in 2004 -- tough here, it's not like Boston was a bad team, but St. Louis was a great team that year, and never should have been swept
Dodgers in 1988
and going a little further back...Giants in 1954 (my grampa still talks about this series)
Even the White Sox last year, while arguably no weaker than Houston, were not favored against the Red Sox (whom they swept) or the Angels per se. They were certainly not regarded as so strong that they'd dominate the way they did, losing only one game the whole postseason. That was momentum in a big way. Well, momentum and pitching.

I think there are many more but that's what I have off the top of my head.

These are still technically seven-game series, but if teams take control early enough, even weaker teams, they can run away with it.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 04:58 PM
I think that has a greater chance of being true if the series goes to seven games. I think that sweeps or wins in five often go to lesser teams. I don't know why; maybe it's momentum they're riding.

Reds in 1990


You didn't say that. Tell me you did not just say that.

WMR
10-05-2006, 05:00 PM
Interesting tidbit:
Don Larsen and David Wells went to the same high school in San Diego, both of whom would go on to pitch perfect games for the Yankees.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 05:02 PM
You didn't say that. Tell me you did not just say that.

I LOVE THAT TEAM WITH EVERY ATOM OF MY SOUL.

But you cannot say that Oakland wasn't heavily favored to win. Even if the Reds were underrated (which I believe they were, especially the bullpen), that Oakland team was a very, very strong and well-rounded team.

Falls City Beer
10-05-2006, 05:38 PM
I think that has a greater chance of being true if the series goes to seven games. I think that sweeps or wins in five often go to lesser teams. I don't know why; maybe it's momentum they're riding.

Reds in 1990
St. Louis in 2004 -- tough here, it's not like Boston was a bad team, but St. Louis was a great team that year, and never should have been swept
Dodgers in 1988
and going a little further back...Giants in 1954 (my grampa still talks about this series)
Even the White Sox last year, while arguably no weaker than Houston, were not favored against the Red Sox (whom they swept) or the Angels per se. They were certainly not regarded as so strong that they'd dominate the way they did, losing only one game the whole postseason. That was momentum in a big way. Well, momentum and pitching.

I think there are many more but that's what I have off the top of my head.

These are still technically seven-game series, but if teams take control early enough, even weaker teams, they can run away with it.

The only one on your list that I agree with is the 88 Dodgers. They had no business winning that series. They purchased enough weights and pulleys to pull off the deux ex machina in that one.

But the Reds really were better than the 90 A's. (And that's not a homer talking, either; I think you know I shrink from that designation).

And the Red Sox were distinctly better than the 2004 Cardinals. That pitching staff of the Cardinals was a cream puff on a par with the housing market.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 06:42 PM
But the Reds really were better than the 90 A's. (And that's not a homer talking, either; I think you know I shrink from that designation).

Really? I am really surprised by that. I'd like to hear others' takes on this, because my understanding of baseball was limited at the time. My impression was that EVERYONE thought of Oakland as a better team, but I would love to hear that people who really understood baseball were sitting at home comfortable in the knowledge that the Reds were better. I've never looked at stats or anything. All I remember was that the A's were so heavily favored...heck, the PIRATES were so heavily favored. And the Reds barely beat them.

I just checked in on the Cards-Pads game, and the Cards are up 2-0, due in part to Pujols. I have to say that I am shocked. Apart from the fact that it's the cards, and the fact that they may possibly play the Yankees, I would almost be rooting for them. Such an underdog at this point....I'd love to see all the talk of the weak NL, however valid, crushed in the playoffs. And I'd kind of like to see an NL Central team FINALLY win a World Series game. Unless they beat the Yankees. Of course, I'd rather the Reds do it, but whatever.

OnBaseMachine
10-05-2006, 06:46 PM
Someone please ban vaticanplum, she just said she may root for the Cardinals. That should equal an instant ban. ;)

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 06:49 PM
Someone please ban vaticanplum, she just said she may root for the Cardinals. That should equal an instant ban. ;)

I said ALMOST. Would it help my case if I said that I could not root for the Astros if someone held a gun to my head?

I have playoff fever, what can I say, it makes you irrational. I was rooting for the Cubs in 2003. And I HATE them.

Really I think I'm just in awe of Pujols. Who just doubled in the top of the ninth, by the way.

Matt700wlw
10-05-2006, 06:54 PM
I was rooting for the Cubs in 2003. And I HATE them.

So was I....and the the beer buzz wore off...

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 06:57 PM
So was I....and the the beer buzz wore off...

:laugh: True dat.

Edmonds walks. bases loaded for the Cards with two out.

Matt700wlw
10-05-2006, 07:03 PM
Cards win again

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 07:05 PM
Holy crap.

He just struck out, but I'm kind of in love with Russell Branyan. FYI.

i cannot BELIEVE the Cards are up two games.

Cyclone792
10-05-2006, 07:11 PM
I said ALMOST. Would it help my case if I said that I could not root for the Astros if someone held a gun to my head?

I have playoff fever, what can I say, it makes you irrational. I was rooting for the Cubs in 2003. And I HATE them.

Really I think I'm just in awe of Pujols. Who just doubled in the top of the ninth, by the way.

I can admit that I was rooting for the Cubs to beat the Marlins in the 2003 NLCS. I really wanted to see a Red Sox/Cubs World Series that season due to all the historical significance (though I'd have rooted for Boston to beat Chicago in that hypothetical World Series). It would have been somewhat fitting because in 1918 when the Red Sox won the World Series, they beat ... the Cubs.

Even the near Yankees/Cubs World Series that almost happened would have been interesting. That's the kind of matchup that causes people to somehow find more old footage of Ruth's Called Shot in 1932 when the Yankees swept the Cubs. Or perhaps people would find more old footage of Gabby Hartnett's homer in 1938 that helped the Cubs win the NL Pennant ... just to go get swept by the Yankees again.

I don't like the Cubs, but I dig that kinda stuff.

OnBaseMachine
10-05-2006, 07:11 PM
This series just goes to show how bad the Padres really are. The Cardinals absilutely SUCK, yet will probably reach the World Series due to all of the injuries to the Mets starting pitching. Which would really be unfortunate because the Cards don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.

vaticanplum
10-05-2006, 07:14 PM
Or perhaps people would find more old footage of Gabby Hartnett's homer in 1938 that helped the Cubs win the NL Pennant ... just to go get swept by the Yankees again.

That is my favorite baseball moment that I did not witness.

I think I would give a few years of my life to be able to see that. It's just something that we will never, ever be able to see anything like in our lifetimes. It's impossible.

But on the other hand, I kind of like that there is no footage. You imagine it the way you will.

Cyclone792
10-05-2006, 08:36 PM
That is my favorite baseball moment that I did not witness.

I think I would give a few years of my life to be able to see that. It's just something that we will never, ever be able to see anything like in our lifetimes. It's impossible.

But on the other hand, I kind of like that there is no footage. You imagine it the way you will.

Give me one moment, and I'd probably take Merkle's Boner. Huge pennant race, huge drama, an odd play and mass confusion.

Give me the option for a whole series, or series of games, and I'd take the entire 1919 World Series. I'd have to also make sure I was among the late night drunks holloring and singing loudly outside the Sinton Hotel.

I'm forever blowing ball games,
Pretty ball games in the air.
I come from Chi
I hardly try
Just go to bat and fade and die;
Fortune's coming my way,
That's why I don't care.
I'm forever blowing ball games,
And the gamblers treat us fair ...

D-Man
10-05-2006, 09:16 PM
I LOVE THAT TEAM WITH EVERY ATOM OF MY SOUL.

But you cannot say that Oakland wasn't heavily favored to win. Even if the Reds were underrated (which I believe they were, especially the bullpen), that Oakland team was a very, very strong and well-rounded team.

Heavily favored, yes, but conventional wisdom is often wrong. That Oakland team was far, far better offensively, but it was an offense similar to the 1999-2000 A's, or the 2003 Braves, or the 2005 Yankees. Loaded on the sluggers and walks, but not so much on other forms of offense (with the lone exception of Rickey Henderson). It was an offense that Earl Weaver probably loved.

Not to get all philosophical here (after all, this IS baseball), but what wins baseball games in the Dog Days is very different than what wins in October. And October makes teams like the 1990 A's worse. I provide three reasons why:

1.) weather/climate. The ball travels better in hot, humid air. Nearly all postseason games are played in colder night games or mild daytime weather.

2.) quality of pitching. In the postseason, you can't beat up on crappy fifth starters because there are no mediocre pitchers. Instead, you get front-of-the-rotation starters and Zumaya's in the bullpen every night.

3.) umpiring. Without question IMO, umps call the vast majority postseason games to favor lower scoring games.

All of these elements conspire to make an offense like the 1990 A's far worse in the postseason.

The second issue is that 1990 Reds didn't perform well in September (14-15), and that was a good thing. According to Nate Silver, a club's postseason performance is actually *negatively* correlated to its performance in September.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5580&PHPSESSID=80d682f344f9d6c2b7ba5e7248e21d00

This makes sense to me for two reasons: teams that win in September usually do so against lesser teams (September call-ups and whatnot), and teams that make it into the playoffs despite poor Septembers must be pretty darn good teams for the other five months of the year.

I think the 1990 Reds were underrated (by conventional wisdom), much like the 2006 Tigers are, or the 2006 Cards are, or the 2005 White Sox were.

Chip R
10-06-2006, 07:56 AM
I have playoff fever, what can I say, it makes you irrational.

If she's got a fever, what's the only prescription? ;)

NJReds
10-06-2006, 08:56 AM
This series just goes to show how bad the Padres really are. The Cardinals absilutely SUCK, yet will probably reach the World Series due to all of the injuries to the Mets starting pitching. Which would really be unfortunate because the Cards don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.

The Dodgers and Padres look absolutely awful. The Mets, even with a makeshift rotation, should have no problem advancing to the World Series.

M2
10-06-2006, 10:28 AM
D-Man, something else to consider about 1990. This was before interleague play and there was no way of knowing the relative strength of the NL vs. the AL at the time.

For instance, a young Atlanta team that we now know had more than a little bit of talent was going 65-97 in the NL that season. The Padres were about as good a 75-87 team as you'll ever find with Benito Santiago, Jack Clark, Robbie Alomar, Tony Gwynn, Joe Carter, Bip Roberts and a quality pitching staff.

You pretty much had a fight on your hands every night of the week in the NL that season while the A's rolled over an AL filled with a lot of garbage. Roger Clemens was the first pitcher in 18 years to lead his league with a sub-2.00 ERA. Bob Welch won 27 games. Bobby Thigpen had 57 saves. Dennis Eckersley had a set of numbers that would be hard to achieve pitching against Little League teams. Cecil Fielder became the first player to top 50 HR in 12 years.

I think we can safely say the AL had an extremely tender underbelly that season. Much of what people took to be the A's greatness was really the AL's weakness.

RANDY IN INDY
10-06-2006, 12:08 PM
If she's got a fever, what's the only prescription? ;)

More cowbell.;)

Chip R
10-06-2006, 12:13 PM
More cowbell.;)


http://site.tekotago.ac.nz/images/portraits/Will%20Ferrell%20-%20Feel%20The%20Cowbell.gif

blumj
10-06-2006, 12:35 PM
The Dodgers and Padres look absolutely awful.
The LA Blue Sox and the San Diego Red Sox haven't really looked much better than the crappy 3rd place Boston version I watched all year. I thought it would kill me to watch these teams full of former Sox in the playoffs, it's actually just reminding me why it didn't bother me that much when most of them left or were traded in the first place.