The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Okay, so tomorrow night the fall classic starts!

The Red Sox host the Cardinals in a best of 7, winner take all.  It's been a while, but for the first time the two best teams in the game are finally going to go toe to toe. 

Here is how I see the breakdowns:

Catcher:

Yadier Molina is one of the best in the game.  He was 5-25 in the NLCS after hitting well above .300 in the regular season and was an RBI machine (80), along with some good pop.  Jarrod Saltalamacchia has good power and calls an improving game.  Boston's resurgence can be tied to Salty a little, behind the plate.  David Ross is a wild card, providing veteran leadership and will get starts when Jon Lester takes the bump.

Edge: St. Louis

First Base:

This one is going to be a real test for Boston.  At Fenway, there will be no decision.  Mike Napoli and David Ortiz stay put with their combined 200 RBI.  Once it shifts to Cardinal land, there are decisions to be made.  Even one is a better bat than Matt Adams, however, and Napoli has played very good and underrated defense.

Edge:  Boston

Second base:

The assumption here, straight away, is that this should go right to Boston.  Thing is Matt Carpenter is a hell of a ball player!  He led the league in scoring with 126 runs, but has been figured out a little in the post season, hitting .167.  Dustin Pedroia is playing his typical Gold Glove defense, including a game saving double play in game 6 of the ALCS, and is among the team leaders in RBI this post season. 

Edge:  Draw

Third base:

David Freese is a former WS MVP.  His counterpart, Xander Bogaerts, has two post season starts.  Will Freese rise to the occasion and make a triumphant return to his former glory?  Sadly, I don't think so.  His fielding is struggling, his bat is as well and I think he is still showing the signs of a lower back injury.  Bogaerts, on the other hand, is showing signs of a special player in the making.  A cannon of an arm, good range, great eye and didn't get rattled while facing the best pitching Detroit had to offer...which was the best in the league.  He is hitting .500 / .727 / 1.000 while drawing five walks. 

Edge: Boston

SS

St. Louis has two shortstops who can't hit, plain and simple.  Pete Kozma is brutal at the plate, but brings a solid glove to the position.  Daniel Descalso is a good defender as well.  Between the two of the them, they can't hit their weight.  Stephen Drew, Boston's shortstop, isn't hitting...but can.  St. Louis has a right-heavy rotation.  Drew hit .284 against right handed pitching this season, .253 overall, 13 home runs and 67 ribs, which was head and shoulders better than anything St. Louis received out of this position.  In additional, Drew brings very good defense to the position.  Anything with the bat is gravy.

Edge:  Boston

Leftfield:

Boston has a couple choices in left, Jonny Gomes had a decent year (.247 / 13 / 52) and plays strong defense, good baserunning.  Daniel Nava had a breakout year hitting .303 / .385 / .445 and is a switch hitter, but lacks power.  You also give up defense with Nava in left, along with arm strength.  Matt Holliday has the offense (.300 / .388 / .512), power (22 HR / 94 RBI) and defense.  He has slowed a bit, but he is better than anyone Boston is running out in LF.

Edge:  St. Louis

Centerfield

I like Jon Jay, but he is no Jacoby Ellsbury.  Some of the numbers might look similar (Jay actually has more RBI), but Ellsbury's speed, arm and defense is head and shoulders beyond anything Jay can bring to the table.  Additionally, Ellsbury is scotching this postseason, hitting .400 with six steals.  He sets the table for Boston's offense and defense.  Not much gets by him in CF, no matter where they play.

Edge:  Boston

Rightfield:

Shane Victorino plays elite defense to the position, gets on base like you read about and had a great first season in Boston (.294 / 15 / 61 with a .801 OPS).  He hits right and left handed bats equally well.  He had an amazing series against Tampa but Detroit cooled him a little.  His counter part is Carlos Beltran.  Carlos hits for power, average, draws walks and is a switch hitter (Shane is as well, but largely abandoned this after an injury).  Defensively, Victorino is a smidge better, however it's a small smidge.  Overall...

Edge: St. Louis.

DH / Bench:

Allen Craig is a decent player, however he hasn't played for almost two months.  David Ortiz is David Ortiz.  Boston's bench is very deep, sporting Mike Carp, Will Middlebrooks, David Ross, Quintin Berry (who will be used mostly for his speed, but plays excellent defense).

Edge: Boston

Starting Pitching:

Adam Wainwright and Michael Wacha are studs.  Joe Kelly is a bit of a liability.  Jon Lester has been solid, however seems to run out of gas around 5 and a 3rd.  Buchholz is still coming around after missing a large chunk of the season on the DL, however has looked sharper with each start.  Jake Peavy was really sharp in his first post season start against Tampa Bay and then shelled against the Tigers.  The Wild Card will be John Lackey. 

Edge:  Draw

Bullpen:

Both bullpens have been amazing.  Trevor Rosenthal throws a millon miles an hour.  Carlos Martinez, a set up guy, averages -- AVERAGES -- 100 miles per hour.  Seth Maness can be called upon late innings with runners on base, he is a sinker ball throwing dream.  St. Louis has a bullpen which has a collective 1.93 ERA this post season.  Daunting, right?  Until you look at Boston's, lead by Koji Uehara.  Boston's bullpen has an .084 ERA with a lot of innings posted; not one of Boston's starters have gone more than six innings in any start this post season.  That's by design, Boston wants to get to the pen.  King Kong versus Godzilla.  Take your pick.

Edge: Draw

I'm personally out of the World Series prediction business.  Clearly, I would love for my Red Sox to complete their "worst to first" tour and bring home the title.  How will this one end?  Who knows?  What say you?

This is the first time two #1 seeds have met in the World Series?

Or do you just mean this is the first BOS-STL WS?

No, just kind of an observation.  I'm sure it has happened other times.  But take 2004 as an example.  Boston was a wild card team, while St. Louis was over 100 wins that season.  In 2007 Boston had the best team in baseball, while the Rockies had to win 22 straight to secure a wild card birth.  The Cardinals made the playoffs one year, and won the whole thing, with 88 wins.

Rarely do the "best" teams survive the rounds and meet in the dance.

It (the best teams meet) should happen much more often in baseball than in football.

It should, but oddly enough...it doesn't!

when was the last time 2 - #1 seeds met in the the superbowl? 

No clue! 

I heard something on the radio today about trying to boost World Series ratings.  They claimed the WS ratings have declined lately and compared it to the Super Bowl ratings.

They proposed a 3 game series at a neutral site and making it a week-long spectacle, similar to the Super Bowl.  So after game 1, the next 2 games are already elimination games.

To me, playing 162 games and 2 rounds of playoffs, to come down to a 3-game series seems wrong.  But I do like the neutral site idea.  Make the All-Star game meaningless again!

^^Interesting, but it would never happen. 

Then again...back when the WS was best of 9 and folks proposed a best of 7 everyone said "it'll never happen."  I know the neutrel site thing won't happen, too much lost revenue.

^^ Lost revenue for who?  For the hosting teams?  Meanwhile, the neutral site could move each year and bring in tons of revenue for that city.

Of course, to me, baseball is a sport in which its nice because there are usually 2-3 opportunities for fans to watch their favorite team play for a title.  The Super Bowl is impossible to go to, regardless of who you cheer for.  However, fans in Boston and St. Louis get to see their favorite team play for a championship possibly 3 or 4 times.  If the games were played in, say, San Diego, how many people would feasibly make that trip to see 1 baseball game?

Regardless of how much I like the idea, just sounds like the Super Bowl model doesn't really work for a multi-game series.

(Mostly I like the idea because it might be the only way we see a WS in Miami, ever.)

I don't see how that would improve the revenue.

1) Yes, you might get more people watching per game.  But 4-7 games worth of TV ads > 2-3 games even if you are getting more eyeballs per game.

2) ticket sales.  Its not like WS have trouble selling tickets.  Once again 4-7 > 2-3.

Now, granted the city of Boston won't get a huge revenue boost the way hosting a SB does, b/c the majority of fans attending the game don't need a hotel room, they will take the T or drive to the game. Just like Miami gets a much bigger revenue boost for hosting the SB, than it does for hosting the AFCCG. 

If you had the WS in Miami, the city of Miami would get a boost from motel rooms, as people from Boston and St Louis would fly in.   But MLB would not. 

Its not to improve revenue, its to improve interest and TV ratings.  The claim was that people become more enthralled when it is an elimination game.  So, in turn, people will care more about games 2 and 3 if they are both elimination games.

I don't like the 3-game series idea.  Just repeating what I thought was an interesting discussion I heard on the radio this afternoon.  Here's the article from the guy that was defending his position...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1821837-post-selig-world-series-should-become-mlbs-super-bowl-a-three-game-series

Colts - Saints.

You'll have to go WAAAAY back (edit: 1993) to find the last one before that.

Boston's revenue increase for the games is staggering.  I am surprised you said that, Hoodie.  From the team to the town, the amount of extra money pouring into the city during playoff games is eye opening.  Any time you have 35,000+ people you didn't expect in one area, above and beyond, there is going to be a tilt in revenue.  At the end of the day, no matter what ownership says, that is what the rings are all about - increased revenue.  For the club, the city, the whole nine yards.

Owners, and the cities, would fight tooth and nail to keep baseball playoffs just the way they are. 

Additionally, think worst case: 

Host City, chosen at random:  Oakland

World Series:  Tampa Bay and Philadelphia

1:  You are going to play a World Series in front of about 15,000 people.  If that.  The league will be farming the streets of Oakland and San Fran literally giving tickets away, just to get live bodies into the stadium.  The ones in the stadium won't care.  So you've killed the atmosphere.  If there is a walk off home run, there will be a collective "good, we can go home" versus a ball park going nuts.

2:  You've literally taken money out of the pockets of local places in Tampa, Philly and the both teams.  Instead of 30,000 per night at the Trop (they would turn up for a World Series) and people flying in for the games, hotels being booked, cabs being used...same deal in Philly at Citizens Park (only 45,000 plus and all those Philly Steaks being eaten) you have given a semi jolt to an area (Oakland) that doesn't care.

This works in the NFL because of the pomp and circumstance that comes with the Super Bowl.  If you moved, say, the AFC wild card game to a neutral site...it would flame out fast. 

There is too much $$$$ on the line in the playoffs, local revenue, to be lost.  It'll never change.

I would like to reinforce my point by saying this:

Not one reply to my original post has been about the actual World Series. 

And there are people out there who actually think a neutral site would be good? 

I started this thread to discuss the series.  I broke down the matchups.  And we're discussing 1's / 2's, revenue, if the World Series is too long...not one prediction.  Not one comment on the better team.  Not one comment on the initial post.

That should tell you something right there.  Clearly no one on this board cares about the World Series, which is fine.  So if it were in your city, and the cost to get in were $200 - $400 a seat, and your team was not in it (or, worse, a team you hated was in it), you wouldn't go. 

I am not saying that Boston isn't getting a strong positive boost in revenue.  They are.  There will be some out of town fans who will get hotel rooms, there will be local fans who will get dinner before going to the game. 

But I am saying it less than the type of boost it would get if the Yankees-Dodgers played the world series in Fenway.  Because a greater portion of the fans attending the game would be out of towers who need a hotel room and multiple meals in a restaurants.   

But still I think it is a horrible idea for a neutral site.   In fact I would prefer that the Superbowl alternate yearly between the winner of the AFCCG and NFCCG.

Back to the topic.

Sox in four.  (yeah, I am homer)

I was surprised at how awful the Cards looked last night.  I didn't watch the entire game, but had a moderate interest (I hate the Cardinals for some reason). 

Are the Sox really THAT good?  Or is it all just luck/smoke and mirrors?  Seems like the core nucleus of the team is not far off from that of last year's last place turd team...

I saw the game on in a bar and the Cards just look out of their element.  ...playing scared or something.  So many errors and routine screw ups.

My post season interest ended when the Dodgers failed to show up for game 6 of the NLCS & I am still a little bitter. I don't really care which team wins but out of pure spite I would like to see the Sox humiliate the Cardinals. I am not watching the series so I just catch Sportscenter before bed to wee who wins each night.

P.S. For what it's worth......I think a Neutral site for the World Series is horrific idea!!!!!

If I don't see the Red Sox or Yankees win another World Series in my lifetime, it will be high on my list of "Thank yous" when I get to Heaven. Same goes for the Dodgers. I was really-really-really hoping that Pittsburgh could slip on those Cinderella cleats and dance their asses all the way to a Championship, and when they got bounced, my interest in the playoffs pretty much went into the crapper.

Wacha was great last night.  As usually, however, Boston started to figure him out the 2nd and 3rd time through.  They drew some walks and started getting some bats onto balls.  The next time they face him it'll be similar to the the Cobb outing (who also hides his delivery and is of similar height).  Wacha has great stuff, but Boston should fair a little better.

That being said, St. Louis has a deadly bullpen.  Lights out. 

Mistakes did Boston in last night.  Salty shouldn't be playing at all, David Ross should be behind the plate. 

I'm surprised to hear this.  You are the first and only person who I've heard with this opinion.  Care to elaborate?  Or just bitter about last night?

Not bitter.  Ross handles the staff better and isn't a complete liability behind the plate.  He isn't bad with the bat, either.  Salty was run on over 80% of the time this past season, worse of all active catchers.  He hit in the low .250's with occasional power and doesn't call a very good game. 

David Ross calls a very good game, is a great on field general.  You don't give up a lot with the bat with Ross.  Salty looked completely lost and overmatched last night.  Ross, on the other hand, held his own against not only Adam the night before but Detroit's top guns (as he catches Lester).

If this series goes back to Fenway, the Sox are taking it. They haven't won a title at home in about a century and they won't pass up the opportunity to do so this year. I always hated the 2-3-2 format, I am glad the NBA is joining in with the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

St. Louis looked terrible in Game 1, but they showed great poise in Game 2 after Ortiz put the Sox ahead 2-1. Both teams are very evenly matched and have that mystique about them that they are playing with destiny.

I hope they both fall into a river, but I can't deny their talent.

I wouldn't mind seeing both of them fall in the river, but I'd hope that the Redbirds were the only ones who knew how to swim...

I think its miraculous that David Ortiz couldn't get around on an 85 MPH fastball 3 years ago and then morphed back into Paul Bunyan randomly overnight on a whim. Yeah, not too obvious. Its amazing how baseball still turns a blind eye to specific players...

Obstruction of justice! 2-1 Cards...Sox fans in hiding! Glorious!

It was the right call, but man it sucks to have it end like that.

Too bad for the Sox that the infield single in the 9th is probably an out with an actual first baseman over there. Ortiz' inability to make that scoop was the first mistake. The second mistake was their moronic catcher making that throw to third instead of eating it and extending the game.

I'm confused about something.

After the game a reporter asked "what was the 3rd baseman supposed to do?" and one of the umpires said "get out of the way". My question is, how?

Granted, it was a dumb play by the catcher to do throw to 3rd when he didn't have a play and the ball missed the 3rd baseman causing him to fall over (in the attempt of catching it) because of the throwing error. Had the 3rd baseman stayed put, the baserunner would have tripped over the 3rd baseman. Had the 3rd baseman moved (as he did last night), the baserunner tripped over the 3rd baseman. So as the 3rd baseman who is lying on the field noticing the baserunner is getting up from moving to 3rd to run to home plate, what was he supposed to do?

The answer (according to the umpire, as I am hearing it) made it seem that the 3rd baseman was not allowed to fall in an attempt to catch the ball because it caused the risk of impedance to the runner attempting to score which would mean that the throwing error caused the impedance of the runner so the 3rd baseman whom missed the throw basically automatically granted the runner at 3rd to score regardless of the outcome because he fell over trying to catch the ball. Is that the right understanding according to the rule as written in the rule book and how the umpire explained it? I feel that it was a poor choice of words to express about the play.

I also thought this would invite the possibility of the baserunner running on top of the fielder whom is lying on the ground because of the impedance of the run (according to the rule) but allowing that (I would think) would be questionable because it would invite an allowable opportunity to injure the fielder.

Please clarify.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_(baseball)

Click on obstruction - the fielder has every right to go after the ball, or is perfectly within rights if he possess the baseball. Like the ump said get out of the way. He could have moved toward second rather than flapping his feet back towards the baseline where the runner was. The ball was thrown to the inside of 3rd. He had no reason being where he was once the ball got by him.

I think the problem I have is the timeframe of all that occurred.

The throw going to the inside of 3rd was to make a play on the runner and it was missed. Had the fielder tried moving out of the way after he dove to the ground, the runner still would have hit the fielder in the time it all went down so even if the fielder was in the right for trying to move out of the way, he would have sill been called as obstructing the runner. I think this is where I see an issue with the rule.

I do agree that the fielder did not help his cause by flipping his feet up after the play because I think that made it look more like an intentional trip rather than if he laid there or tried to push himself up to move out of the way.

Yeah, flipping his feet up may have been what did it. It looked very likely that Craig would've scored had Middlebrooks not been on the ground.

It's a shame that this will be remembered and not Salty's stupid throw or Farrel's decision to let a rookie pitcher bat in the 8th over Mike Napoli. I believe Maine wanted Ross in over Salty, although I doubt he saw this coming.

True and true.  Need Ortiz's bat in the lineup, he is almost single handedly carrying the Sox offense.  But Nap scoops that ball.  Farrell should have made a double switch.  You won't see Salty again this series.

A couple issues with the call in game 3:

The ball got by Middlebrooks.  Craig landed ON Middlebrooks.  The defensive player has a right to the ball, the runner has a right to the plate.  Middlebrooks had no clue where the ball was and was trying to get to it, while Craig was trying to get up.  The letter of the law was upheld, but it's a crap rule.  When asked, Joe Torre admitted it's a crap rule.  It's never been tested.  It's too bad it happened on such a stage.  The game should not end in that manner, both teams deserve better.  It will be addressed in the offseason.  Make no mistake, the right call was made, based on the current rules. 

St. Louis, more so, deserves better. 

Here is why:

If St. Louis goes on to win this series, folks will forever reference this series, and the win, with that game.  Almost an asterisk.  Boston can go on to win and be fine.  They "clawed and scratched and overcame the 'obstruction call' to win the World Series."  If St. Louis wins they were the best team in the National League, they had great pitching, timely defense, timely hitting...and they benefitted from a meltdown never seen before in a game where a runner, to this day, still hasn't crossed home plate.  They were awarded the run, but they didn't really win, and that's too bad.  The game should have been decided on the field.  Again, I am NOT disputing the call.  Zero sour grapes.  Additionally, the throw shouldn't have been made.  Hold the ball and let your closer deal with the guy at the plate.  St. Louis deserves to win with a clean base hit off Koji and Craig trotting home, no drama.  The rest of the game, and the series, has been too damn good.  Hopefully the rest of the series is so freaking good it erases part of that, but I doubt it.  I know how baseball historians look.  The Cards, if they go on to win this, will forever be looked at as World Series winners who "won" a World Series 3 games to 3.

A few things have happened a little too late for MLB, including this rule and instant replay. 

Tonight is a massive swing game (clearly).  However I do like Boston's chances, now that they managed to grab a game on the road.  I was pretty nervous about St. Louis wrapping it up with three straight on the road.  Boston's offense has gone cold at the wrong ass time, going into a National League park was going to do zero to help that. 

What could be cooler than a game 7 at Fenway park on Halloween night?  Let's see if it gets there.

To be fair, I think a lot of folks are incorrectly giving Salty "credit" for both of the bad throws to 3rd in this series.  One of those belongs to Breslow.  Salty owns the one in game 3. 

I didn't see this, of course not.  But something of similar ilk.  When you have a bad defensive catcher in the game, sometimes it's not always the plays you make.  It's the decisions and choices you decide to not make, the balls you eat.  David Ross, I think, would have eaten that ball and given his closer a chance to deal with the guy at the plate.  The game was tied at that point.  Your closer had thrown nine pitches.  Get the guy at the plate, the top of your order was coming up, you were nowhere near having to worry about hitting for your pitcher.  Live to fight another day. 

Personally I think things like this helps people to remember it outside of the normal St Louis and Boston fans.  I don't really rememebr anything from the last time the two played other than a sweep. This will stick out.

^^Agreed, it will.  It also helps folks to remember for the wrong reasons, though.  It's too bad, game 3 was really, really good.

The end of game 4 will be memorable as well!! Not every day a pinch runner gets picked off to end a game.

No.  Rookie mistake, caught him napping.

Only one will be remembered. 

If the Red Sox win the series nobody will remember game 3.

If St L. wins the series nobody will remember game 4.

Lester was nails last night.  Should be an interesting ending to this series.

Here is something no one ever thought I would say:

Thank God Lackey is pitching tomorrow night.

Worse is that the runner at first didn't really matter.

^^See, he did, though.  He mattered a lot.  I am not understanding why McCarver said that, and why anyone would think a runner at 1st base in a two run game "doesn't matter." 

"Just give him second." 

Are you nuts, McCarver?  Why in the world would you concede 2nd in a two run game?  You concede 2nd, defensive indifference, in a game where you're up by four, five...

Not two. 

Last I checked, the runner at the plate was the tying run.  Which makes the runner at first omni-important.  This is why the Cards put their fastest guy on the paths in the first place.  Down by two, unless you hit a two run shot you don't score them at the same time.  You get them one by one.  Two things were going to kill you in that position:  Speed at 2nd and speed and 3rd and 2nd.  They took a chance and held him on instead of guarding against the double.  It worked out.  They were also in a massive shift, Pedey was in a position to guard against anything up the first base side.  The batter isn't an opposite side hitter.

I guess I'm very confused by people not thinking the guy at first was a huge deal.  It kind of was, due to the lead.

I think you are misunderstanding. 

My understanding is that stealing/leading was meaningless and there was no point in taking any risk of being picked off. 

If the guy at the plate gets a hit the guy on first goes to second, even if he is not leading, stealing second or getting to third on a base hit does nothing for the team.  If the guy at the plate gets home they tie the game.  If the guy on first gets home two batters before the guy hitting gets home or on the same hitter it doesn't matter. 

I guess the way I look at it is this:  One run, in a two run game, is huge.  You keep him at 1st.