World Series talk

[MaineDolFan]

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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?

[MaineDolFan]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

[MaineDolFan]

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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

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

[MaineDolFan]

No clue! 

[Brian Fein]

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!

[MaineDolFan]

^^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.

[Brian Fein]

^^ 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.)

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

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. 

[Brian Fein]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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

Colts - Saints.

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

[MaineDolFan]

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.

[MaineDolFan]

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.