I've been reading posts over the past couple of days about the playoff teams this season and how "bad" they are. There was one in particular that used all of these far off numbers to prove that the Diamondbacks were the least deserving team to make the playoffs over the past couple of seasons (maybe in the history of baseball). I know its hard for the casual fan who actually doesn't know the game of baseball to really think this. The problem with todays fan is that they've grown up on two things: 1) The steroid era of baseball & 2) The video game era of baseball. What these two factors have caused is for the common fan, the football fan, the sportscenter highlight fan to really believe that the biggest names and the biggest and farthest homeruns, and the fastest pitches are what makes baseball fun to watch. This type of fan really believes that these criteria actually add up to wins. The problem is the teams that employ this type of management are actually doing it with the conscious effort of trying to make the most money and not actually trying to win a World Series. If you honestly believe that the Mets or Yankees would trade a World Series for $100 million then you've been fooled, too.
Lets look at the World Series winners in the 00s and the make up of their rosters, I will not write down every name, just the notables that jumped out at me:
2006 St. Louis Cardinals - No Name Players: Their middle infield consisted of David Eckstein and Ronnie Belliard. Their outfield included Chris Duncan, Preston Wilson, and So Taguchi. Their pitching staff included Jeff Weaver, Jeff Suppan, Adam Wainwright, and Braden Looper. They also had Scott Spezio. Big Name Players: were Jim Edmonds (.257, 19 home runs), Albert Pujols, and Scott Rolen (22 home runs, 95 RBIs). Only Pujols actually had a monster offensive season, both Rolen and Edmonds were/are on the downside of their careers. Conclusion: They won with the right mix of no one really knows.
2005 Chicago White Sox - No Name Players: Their middle infield consisted of Juan Uribe and Tado Iguchi. Their outfield included Carl Everett, Willie Harris and Scott Podsednik. Their pitching staff included Cliff Politte, Neal Cotts, Damaso Marte and Dustin Hermanson. Big Name Players: Jermaine Dye (31 HR, 86 RBIs), Paul Konerko (40 HR, 100RBIs), and Aaron Rowand (13 HRs, .270). Both Konerko and Dye had bigger years in 2006. What the White Sox did have in 2005 was a sweet pitching staff, but until 2005 no one knew those starters were that good. Conclusion: They won with the right mix of no one really knows, and Ozzie Guillen lit the right fire.
2004 Boston Red Sox - No Name Players: Kevin Millar, Gabe Kapler, Bill Mueller, Doug Mirabelli, Mark Bellhorn. On the mound it was Bronson Arroyo, Mike Timlin, Alan Embree. Big Name Players: Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Johnny Damon, Curt Schilling, and Pedro Martinez (game 3 starter). Conclusion: This team obviously had more big name talent than recent teams who won the World Series. It still feels like Jason Varitek is the biggest part of this equation, I'd take him anyday on my team. To you video game fans, I'll admit this looks more like your type of team.
2003 Florida Marlins over NY Yankees - No Name Players: In the infield they had Luis Castillo, Alex Gonzalez, and Jeff Conine. In the outfield they had Miguel Cabrera (1st year in big leagues), Juan Pierre and Juan Encarnacion. On the mound they had Brad Penny, Ugueth Urbina, Mark Redman, Rick Helling, and Chad Fox. Big Name Players: Pudge Rodriguez, Derek Lee, and Josh Beckett (a stretch considering he had 17 career regular season wins going into that postseason). Conclusion: This team had nobody anyone wanted going into the season. This team made the players that people wanted.
2002 Anaheim Angels - No Name Players: David Eckstein, Brad Fullmer (almost killed me with a juiced foul ball), Scott Spiezio, Chone Figgins, Shawn Wooten, Orlando Palmeiro. On the mound they had Jarrod Washburn, Scott Schoeneweis, Ben Weber, Kevin Appier (likes llamas and camels), Francisco Rodriguez (5 career appearances going into that postseason). Big Name Players: Tim Salmon (22 HR, .286), Garrett Anderson (29 HR, 123 RBIs), Troy Glaus (30 HRs, 144 Ks, .250). Conclusion: Rally #### all day. I was at game 6, the Rally #### was for real.
2001 Arizona over NY Yankees - No Name Players: Danny Bautista, Craig Counsell, Tony Womack, Damian Miller. On the mound it was Byung Hyun Kim, Miguel Batista, and Albie Lopez. Big Name Players: Randy Johnson, and Curt Schilling. It goes no farther than that. Conclusion: Randy Johnson, and Curt Schilling.
2000 NY Yankees (87 win team) - No Name Players: Chuck Knoblauch (not fun to play cards with), Glenallen Hill, Clay Bellinger (great little league coach), Scott Brosius, Luis Polonia, Luis Sojo, and Jose Vizcaino. On the mound it was Jeff Nelson, Mike Stanton, and no other no names pitched in the series. Big Name Players: Not as many as you think. You can't consider Paul O'Neill a big name player in my book, but its obvious Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Tino Martinez, Andy Pettitte, Roger Clemens, David Justice were all big timers. Conclusion: Despite the star power it is nothing like what the Yankees have tried to do with stockpiling names. This still was only an 87 win team.
All I have to say is be careful what you wish for. Maybe you should just hope all your stars get hurt and you get lucky with an influx of young and hungry minor league talent. I just don't want you video game fans to miss out on possibly the best major league baseball season in 10+ years.
It doesn't look like you proved your case very well, since you seem to be arguing that big-name players and a high payroll don't win championships.
I'll Cliff's Notes your list. Yes means it helps your case, No means it doesn't, obviously.
2006: Yes
2005: Yes
2004: No
2003: Yes
2002: Yes
2001: No
2000: No
3 out of your 7 examples go against your case.
And I guess you put Eckstein, Spiezio, and others in boldface because they won multiple championships?
I urge you to consider that championships are won by teams, not by individuals. Eckstein and his career .713 OPS aren't helping anyone win championships. Neither is Spiezio and his career .748 OPS. Braden Looper has been slightly above-average (110 career ERA+) and Schilling (126 ERA+) is a fringe Hall-of-Famer.
If I seem brash, it's because there's so much ignorance on FOX Sports when it comes to statistics and Sabermetrics. The latest article by Tracy Ringolsby just proves it.
Being a very successful baseball coach at many levels between freshman high school baseball and major junior college baseball I have to disagree with your take. I have respect for statistical analysis but I have more respect for heart, chemistry and team make-up. You can't create an equation to explain why teams that don't add up statistically continue to win, other than there is no formula to determine wins and losses late in the season, ie. post-season. I've coached teams with 3 draft picks and 7 division I players that won less games than teams with no draft picks and 1 division I player. I just think it goes beyond the numbers. It has nothing to do with ignorance.
Last edited by sportthink on October 16th at 6:43 AM.
I don't think my case was so much that a high payroll couldn't win a championships, it was that a roster full of "names" is less successful than the right mix of players.
I see. While I don't fully discard the intangibles, I also don't think they add up to any kind of meaningful advantage.
What most championship teams have is either everything clicking on all cylinders, so to speak (as in few players hitting slumps) and/or better hitting/pitching than their opposition (obviously).
If we look at the teams that made the World Series in the years you've mentioned...
2006
Detroit Tigers (5th offense; 1st pitching)
St. Louis Cardinals (6th offense; 9th pitching)
2005
Chicago White Sox (9th offense; 1st pitching)
Houston Astros (11th offense; 2nd pitching)
2004
Boston Red Sox (1st offense; 3rd pitching)
St. Louis Cardinals (1st offense; 2nd pitching)
2003
New York Yankees (3rd offense; 3rd pitching)
Florida Marlins (8th offense; 7th pitching)
2002
Anaheim Angels (4th offense; 2nd pitching)
San Francisco Giants (3rd offense; 2nd pitching)
2001
New York Yankees (5th offense; 3rd pitching)
Arizona Diamondbacks (3rd offense; 2nd pitching)
2000
New York Yankees (6th offense; 6th pitching)
New York Mets (7th offense; 3rd pitching)
Very rarely does a team have a below-average offense or pitching staff. That's what wins championships, not fiery determination, grit, and hustle.
You have to admit its a little more dramatic to argue something arbitrary. I also did realize the teams that win the most pitch the best, but that in itself isn't all that awe inspiring.
I'll give you Tony LaRussa
Chris Carpenter - was a .500 pitcher until 2004 I guess you could make him a Big Name guy but he's only won 100 career games.
Yadier Molina - you kidding? He's a career .248 hitter.
when I was coaching juco in california, we went to yuma and played arizona western. Yadier was the catcher on that team and bengie was there watching. I spit dip on his foot. (All of this story is true except the part about the dip, although if I had my druthers I certainly would have done it.)
Last edited by sportthink on October 16th at 7:39 AM.
I wouldn't look at win-loss records as a measure of any kind of talent, especially in this era, where bullpens are almost as crucial as the starting rotation.
Sportthink, I hope you aren't referencing my blog in that opening paragraph. I actually sought the reasons why the D-Backs DID make the playoffs in the face of all the numbers that said they should not have. Just wondering, since many people who leave comments for my entries have taken to actually not reading them, but reacting to a sentence out of context.
troup, i haven't read your blog so this is not in reference to your blog. if this is your opinion, then it is in reference to that by default i suppose
troup, i just tried to find the blog you're talking about and I couldn't even find it, i think that dope scheffers is one of the one's I'm referring to
Okay. It was a few entries down called "I Accept Stuart Scott's Challenge." But it wasn't me, so that's all good. Some people have angered me lately about out of context retorts.
The win loss record of the regular season is overrated. I wouldn't be altogether against if they did the playoffs like high school. Seed them 1 through 30 and the top 6 wait for the last 24 to whittle down to six and then play it out with the last 12 standing. The only thing truly exciting about sports is the lay it all on the line to win mentality thats found only in the professional post season anyway. Its why people gravitate towards college sports, they play harder, people like the passion.
Last edited by sportthink on October 16th at 8:55 AM.
sportthink
The teams get their on their merit and nothing else. Some teams play as a team and others that are laden with talent play like a bunch of individuals laced together like a misshaped sneaker. 'erego the Mets and Yankees whose idea of playing like a team is a wantoned betrayal of the ideas of their coach and ownership.
Personally, I dislike all of the other playoff systems other than those of the MLB and NFL. College football needs the playoffs instead of the BCS stuff. In the NBA and NHL, 50% of the teams make the playoffs, as opposed to 27% of the MLB and 37.5% of the NFL teams making the playoffs. I would like the NFL to eliminate one Wild Card spot from each league, too.
Of course, more teams in the playoffs = more profit, so I doubt the playoffs will be changed anywhere except in college football.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on October 16th at 9:18 AM.
tophat, I think UltraMega's link sort of speaks to your comment. When teams lose, then they have no chemistry. It has nothing to do with ill timed double plays.
I'm sure Kansas City and Pittsburgh go into each season sayin ghtat they will play as a team. Do their annual failures get attributed to a lack of chemistry? Sometimes, teams just played better on a certain day. Hence the Indians in the ALCS. Wwhen the Yankees swept the season series from Cleveland, could it really be said that they had better chemistry for those 7 games?
Presumably, the Rockies won a couple of those games as part of their great run, thus their opponents blew saves in those same games. Also, if said saves weren't blown, perhaps the Rockies don't need to play game 163. Finally, saves are a dumb stat.
You have got to be kidding me.The reason they are in is because the NL,at this pont and time is a weak league.Weak teams,weak players.The ERA stat is interesting.Have you seen Herges,Hawkins and Julio actually pitch?They are terrible pitchers.
Herges has a career 112 ERA+ and has been above-average in every season except '04 and '05 in his 9-year career.
Hawkins got a bad rap because he blew a few games. He hovers just above league-average career-wise with a 101 ERA+, and has had more above-average seasons (7) than below-average (6).
Julio, too, is just over league-average with a 103 career ERA+, but also has more above-average seasons (4) than below-average (3).
Regardless, the three of them had great years with the Rockies in a ballpark that one of the top-three most hitter-friendly.
The N.L., if anything, is strong. The Pirates were the only team to have under 70 wins. Meanwhile, in the 14-team American League, three teams had under 70 wins (Orioles, Royals, and Devil Rays).
UM - In a rare occasion, we're on different sides of the fence here. The weak league/strong league argument can't be made referencing teams with x wins at the bottom of each league. Witht he D-Backs at the top of the league with 90 Ws, and multiple AL teams topping that mark, it could be said that Orioles, Royals, and D-Rays would top the 70 win mark in the NL. Interleague play and (ugh) the All Star Game feature competition held between the leagues. It's like these honks trying to figure out whether the Pac 10 or SEC is better when a total of one regular season game has been played by the conferences.
Anyhow on to Mikers - Julio and Herges may be bad pitchers, but that's not an indictment of the Rockies. You are assuming that all the other teams have NO bad pitchers, thus the Rockies bullpen is overrated since they have a couple of bad pitchers. You're talking about good/bad in absolute terms, and that's fine. But in relative terms (the ERA+) their bad pitchers are better than other teams' EVEN WORSE pitchers.
The only reason those 3 pitchers are in baseball is because someone has to fill the roster spot.If you think the NL is strong then you never saw any teams from the 60`s or 70`s.3,4,5 Hall of Famers on teams that did not qualify for the WS.btroup,thanks for pointing out how many outrageously bad pitchers there are in the NL.The Cards were the worst team to ever win a WS and the Dbacks were the worst team to ever be in an LCS.
But, they got to the playoffs and got through round 1 so credit to Zona. They simply found a way to win. Other than that I have no logic as to how they did it consistently.
Orlando Hudson missing in action was a big blow to the D-Backs. He is a gold glover and is one of their best hitters. Not to say the series would have ended differently but I wanted to point out how valuable he was this season to that team.
tophat - The mets and yankees do seem to be great examples of teams that should have they type of talent to win pennants. I like the way you discribed their less than stellar transition from starpower to winner.
btroup -
The only difference in a 3 game series between the royals and the yankees is one game, they are not that different. Royals win one, yankees win one, and the third game is the difference between winning 66% of your games and 37%. That is the amazing thing about it, the Royals are only a pitch or two away every three games from winning 90 games next year.
Mikers - sorry to team up on you, but I agree with the others, games don't come down to saves, like the stat leads us to believe.
The NL is weak? That is stupid.
Last edited by sportthink on October 17th at 7:28 AM.
sport,sorry but,a blown save is a completely different stat,than a save.A pitcher could save 30 games and not even be good,but a bullpen can not blow 30 saves and be good.
Let me try to think through what you said outloud mikers...
True, a blown save is the opposite of a save so I agree they are completely different. But here is where you lost me
"a pitcher could save 30 games and not even be good, but a bullpen can not blow 30 saves and be good."
So I guess what you're saying is that saying that the only stat that paints the true picture is the blown save and the save stat has no meaning. Okay I guess I'll take your point.
Ultra and I made a mistake and met on the same wavelength on this one.
Last edited by sportthink on October 17th at 7:47 AM.
Dan - I wanted to do all playoff teams but I knew the time I spent doing all the research wouldn't have been worth the response. It took me over an hour to compile this little bit of info. Thanks for commenting.
Published sports column contributor, but I'm about the 560th ranked blogger on this site. I'll keep most of my posts sports related. My sense of humor exists to amuse myself. This has happened by default because I rarely seem to amuse anyone else. I'm ashamed that my favorite professional sports teams are from the city of San Francisco.
Favorite sports listed from favorite to least favorite: duck-duck-
goose, red-light green-light, freeze tag, marco polo, and hop-scotch.
