http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20084866/
I'll not clutter up your mind with my thoughts on this. Just read it and look at the picture.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Three players who belong in the Baseball Hall of Fame
If you ask me, these guys should be in:
1. Tommy John, with 288 wins, and a type of reconstructive surgery named after him. If he had not lost time to that then-radical surgery, he'd certainly have made it to 300 wins and be a lock.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnto01.shtml
2. Bert Blyleven, with 287 wins, was, at the time of his retirement, third on the all-time strikeout list. Oddly enough, Tommy John shows up on his list of comparable players. Blyleven also won two World Series titles, in 1979 and 1987.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml
3. Mel Harder, who had 223 wins, also was one of the greatest pitching coaches of all time. He was known for teaching the curveball to lots of Cleveland Indian pitchers during the many years he was a coach there. He also is credited for being the first coach to focus exclusively on pitching. Many former Cleveland players and sports writers have campaigned for his induction, and they make a convincing case. Only Bob Feller won more games for the Indians than Harder. A trivia note: he started, and unfortunately lost, the first game in Cleveland Municipal Stadium. Read the Baseball Library essay -- it's short and says an awful lot about why Harder deserves to be in.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hardeme01.shtml
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Mel_Harder_1909
4. Honorable mention: Jim Kaat, just because he was durable, won a lot of games and happened to pitch 303 innings and win 20 games at age 36. I have always thought he deserved more consideration than he gets.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kaatji01.shtml
5. Sportscasters were fond of telling us all through the late 1980s and early 1990s that Jack Morris was the winningest pitcher of the '80s. Doesn't that merit some consideration, too?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/morrija02.shtml
1. Tommy John, with 288 wins, and a type of reconstructive surgery named after him. If he had not lost time to that then-radical surgery, he'd certainly have made it to 300 wins and be a lock.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnto01.shtml
2. Bert Blyleven, with 287 wins, was, at the time of his retirement, third on the all-time strikeout list. Oddly enough, Tommy John shows up on his list of comparable players. Blyleven also won two World Series titles, in 1979 and 1987.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml
3. Mel Harder, who had 223 wins, also was one of the greatest pitching coaches of all time. He was known for teaching the curveball to lots of Cleveland Indian pitchers during the many years he was a coach there. He also is credited for being the first coach to focus exclusively on pitching. Many former Cleveland players and sports writers have campaigned for his induction, and they make a convincing case. Only Bob Feller won more games for the Indians than Harder. A trivia note: he started, and unfortunately lost, the first game in Cleveland Municipal Stadium. Read the Baseball Library essay -- it's short and says an awful lot about why Harder deserves to be in.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hardeme01.shtml
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Mel_Harder_1909
4. Honorable mention: Jim Kaat, just because he was durable, won a lot of games and happened to pitch 303 innings and win 20 games at age 36. I have always thought he deserved more consideration than he gets.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kaatji01.shtml
5. Sportscasters were fond of telling us all through the late 1980s and early 1990s that Jack Morris was the winningest pitcher of the '80s. Doesn't that merit some consideration, too?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/morrija02.shtml
Familiarity, thy name is Mignola, Rude, Allred and Miller
It was like 1995 again.
Sometime last month – I know it was on a Wednesday, and you’ll know why in a few more words – I was at the local comic book store buying that week’s new comics. I walked out having bought a new issue of “Nexus,” “Madman,” “Hellboy” and “Martha Washington.”
Why is this significant? Well, with the exception of “Hellboy,” the titles had been essentially mothballed for years. Now they are back, and I am very happy about it.
All four titles were comics I discovered after a year or two or three of a comics-reading hiatus I sort of took from somewhere in mid-1992 to late 1994. For various reasons, to include becoming an alarmingly arrogant snob who decided Harvey Kurtzman and Alex Raymond were such brilliant cartoonists, there was no need to read anything current, I cut back on my comics reading significantly. It also had to do with that bane of all young comics fans, the First Serious Girlfriend, but you know how that goes.
All that came and went, and when I was ready, comics were there, waiting to welcome me back.
I started with “John Byrne’s Next Men,” and “Harlan Ellison’s Dream Corridor,” but I found my way to three of the titles I picked up last month. Hellboy, oddly enough, was created and drawn by Mike Mignola, but the same John Byrne from “Next Men” wrote the script to the first Hellboy story.
I found “Madman,” in a black and white graphic novel collection of his earliest stories. While it was obvious that writer-artist Mike Allred was still growing as a cartoonist, the book was clever, fun and well-drawn.
I started picking up “Nexus” because I had read it years before occasionally, but I never was a rabid fan. It was something familiar, which I knew was a high-quality product. I really got into it and bought almost all the back issues in a several-months-long binge.
“Martha Washington” was written by Frank Miller and drawn by Dave Gibbons, both outstandingly talented cartoonists I knew well. I came about it from a roundabout way, reading all the copies of Miller’s “Sin City” I could find, and then working my way to his other recent products.
It is difficult to explain the glee from re-discovering a beloved hobby like I did. By not reading comics for a while, I had allowed the candy jar to be re-filled with all sorts of unknown delights.
I traveled around to different comic shops hurriedly gathering all I had missed and making sure I didn’t miss any more. In the process, I found Monarch Comics, in Toledo, Ohio, where I would go on a weekly basis for something like 12 years to buy comics.
There I found regular issues of “Hellboy,” “Nexus,” “Madman” and various Frank Miller projects including “Martha Washington.”
Slowly, time passed and all except “Hellboy” stopped being published regularly. I don’t remember when the last “Madman” or “Nexus” was, but it was probably in 2000 or so.
Imagine my surprise when I went into the comic store and found all four in one week! The first issue of a new “Madman” came out the month before, but “Nexus” and “Martha Washington” were completely unexpected.
Now, after a many-year hiatus, Sergio Aragones and Mark Evanier are bringing out a new “Groo” series next month. Could life get any better?
Sometime last month – I know it was on a Wednesday, and you’ll know why in a few more words – I was at the local comic book store buying that week’s new comics. I walked out having bought a new issue of “Nexus,” “Madman,” “Hellboy” and “Martha Washington.”
Why is this significant? Well, with the exception of “Hellboy,” the titles had been essentially mothballed for years. Now they are back, and I am very happy about it.
All four titles were comics I discovered after a year or two or three of a comics-reading hiatus I sort of took from somewhere in mid-1992 to late 1994. For various reasons, to include becoming an alarmingly arrogant snob who decided Harvey Kurtzman and Alex Raymond were such brilliant cartoonists, there was no need to read anything current, I cut back on my comics reading significantly. It also had to do with that bane of all young comics fans, the First Serious Girlfriend, but you know how that goes.
All that came and went, and when I was ready, comics were there, waiting to welcome me back.
I started with “John Byrne’s Next Men,” and “Harlan Ellison’s Dream Corridor,” but I found my way to three of the titles I picked up last month. Hellboy, oddly enough, was created and drawn by Mike Mignola, but the same John Byrne from “Next Men” wrote the script to the first Hellboy story.
I found “Madman,” in a black and white graphic novel collection of his earliest stories. While it was obvious that writer-artist Mike Allred was still growing as a cartoonist, the book was clever, fun and well-drawn.
I started picking up “Nexus” because I had read it years before occasionally, but I never was a rabid fan. It was something familiar, which I knew was a high-quality product. I really got into it and bought almost all the back issues in a several-months-long binge.
“Martha Washington” was written by Frank Miller and drawn by Dave Gibbons, both outstandingly talented cartoonists I knew well. I came about it from a roundabout way, reading all the copies of Miller’s “Sin City” I could find, and then working my way to his other recent products.
It is difficult to explain the glee from re-discovering a beloved hobby like I did. By not reading comics for a while, I had allowed the candy jar to be re-filled with all sorts of unknown delights.
I traveled around to different comic shops hurriedly gathering all I had missed and making sure I didn’t miss any more. In the process, I found Monarch Comics, in Toledo, Ohio, where I would go on a weekly basis for something like 12 years to buy comics.
There I found regular issues of “Hellboy,” “Nexus,” “Madman” and various Frank Miller projects including “Martha Washington.”
Slowly, time passed and all except “Hellboy” stopped being published regularly. I don’t remember when the last “Madman” or “Nexus” was, but it was probably in 2000 or so.
Imagine my surprise when I went into the comic store and found all four in one week! The first issue of a new “Madman” came out the month before, but “Nexus” and “Martha Washington” were completely unexpected.
Now, after a many-year hiatus, Sergio Aragones and Mark Evanier are bringing out a new “Groo” series next month. Could life get any better?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
It's been a while
Boy, am I behind. Eighteen days. How can I expect anybody to read this thing when I don't add anything interesting regularly. To prime the pump, here is an e-mail I received a long time ago, and kept around because I thought it was funny:
EXCERPTS FROM A DOG'S DAILY DIARY:
8:00 a.m.Oh, boy! Dog food! My favorite!
9:30 a.m.Oh, boy! A car ride! My favorite!
9:40 a.m.Oh, boy! A walk! My favorite!
10:30 a.m.Oh, boy! Getting rubbed and petted! My favorite!
11:30 a.m.Oh, boy! Dog food! My favorite!
Noon- Oh, boy! The kids! My favorite!
1:00 p.m.Oh, boy! The yard! My favorite!
4:00 p.m.Oh, boy! To the park! My favorite!
5:00 p.m.Oh, boy! Dog food! My favorite!
5:30 p.m.Oh, boy! Pretty Mums! My favorite!
6:00 p.m.Oh, boy! Playing ball! My favorite!
6:30 a.m.Oh, boy! Watching TV with my master! My favorite!
8:30 p.m Oh, boy! Sleeping in master's bed! My favorite!
EXCERPTS FROM A CAT'S DAILY DIARY:
Day 183 of My Captivity: My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another house plant. Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded; must try this at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair, must try this on their bed. Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in an attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little cat I was. Hmmm, not working according to plan. There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in solitary confinement throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the food. More importantly, I overheard that my confinement was due to my power of "allergies." Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage. I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The bird, on the other hand, has got to be aninformant, he speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his current placement in the high metal room, his safety is assured. But I can wait, it is only a matter of time ....
EXCERPTS FROM A DOG'S DAILY DIARY:
8:00 a.m.Oh, boy! Dog food! My favorite!
9:30 a.m.Oh, boy! A car ride! My favorite!
9:40 a.m.Oh, boy! A walk! My favorite!
10:30 a.m.Oh, boy! Getting rubbed and petted! My favorite!
11:30 a.m.Oh, boy! Dog food! My favorite!
Noon- Oh, boy! The kids! My favorite!
1:00 p.m.Oh, boy! The yard! My favorite!
4:00 p.m.Oh, boy! To the park! My favorite!
5:00 p.m.Oh, boy! Dog food! My favorite!
5:30 p.m.Oh, boy! Pretty Mums! My favorite!
6:00 p.m.Oh, boy! Playing ball! My favorite!
6:30 a.m.Oh, boy! Watching TV with my master! My favorite!
8:30 p.m Oh, boy! Sleeping in master's bed! My favorite!
EXCERPTS FROM A CAT'S DAILY DIARY:
Day 183 of My Captivity: My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another house plant. Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded; must try this at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair, must try this on their bed. Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in an attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little cat I was. Hmmm, not working according to plan. There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in solitary confinement throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the food. More importantly, I overheard that my confinement was due to my power of "allergies." Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage. I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The bird, on the other hand, has got to be aninformant, he speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his current placement in the high metal room, his safety is assured. But I can wait, it is only a matter of time ....
Friday, August 10, 2007
Steriods
I thought I’d try to weigh in on Barry Bonds and the home run and the steroid controversy. Here’s where I started, a year or so ago, with a look at the career records of Bonds and Hank Aaron.:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml (Bonds)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/aaronha01.shtml (Aaron)
If you look closely, other than Bonds 72 home run season, their totals aren’t completely out of whack with each other, mainly because Aaron was so consistent for so long. That surprised me. Bonds is better, granted, but not wildly out of line better.
How much, then, do steroids help?
There are a lot of baseball players who have gotten caught with steroids in the last couple of years, and most of them were marginal major leaguers. Steriods didn’t seem to be helping them all that much. So, the questions then are, how would one show that Bonds was, in fact, taking steroids? And, if so, what was the effect? Here are my three methods:
Figure out an average number from somewhere, either the average number of homers Bonds in his first five seasons, and use it to measure how he might have done in his last five. (I used five as a guess. I suppose it could be seven or even 10 if need be.) Other averages to use could include Aaron’s averages for his last five years; an average of the averages of a group of top home run hitters’ last few seasons, prorated by era and ballpark. I doubt this really gets to the bottom of it, though, because it’s really comparing Bonds either to someone other than himself, or to himself as a younger player playing under different conditions. But, it’s a start. My guess on this method id that it would show Bonds with some 600-plus home runs, but probably not enough to beat Aaron. But, if Bonds has beaten Ruth, even if he was 44 or 45, who’s to say he wouldn’t have hung around two or three or even four extra years to take a shot at Aaron? Who’s to say he wouldn’t have passed him eventually?
One would have to be a physicist or kinesiologist to figure this one out, but determine how much steroids increase a person’s strength. Then, apply that increase in force to the torque created by swinging a baseball bat of a certain weight to determine how much farther a ball, hit squarely, might travel. I assume you would have to work from a squarely hit ball, because trying to figure out how it affects a ball that’s not well hit adds other variables. Because a home run has to be hit fairly solidly, we could probably come up with a good measure. My guess is what this would show is that a well-hit ball would travel, at best, 10 or maybe 15 feet more. That’s a complete and utter guess, and maybe the number is measured more in inches. To hit a ball well is a function of not only the strength, but also the swing, the bat, the wind, the humidity and so on. Maybe the effect is really marginal. At any rate, you’d have to check all of his homers against all of the ballparks in which they were hit since the steroid rumors started, and determine by this factor how many home runs he gained.
How about using stop-motion photography to compare bonds in the late-80s and early 90s with Bonds now? The idea would be to see if his swing actually got faster or stayed the same. Using film, one could use certain cues in his wing to determine how it changed over the years. Especially by comparing his swing to other of similar age and accomplishments, where film is available, we might get a measurable idea of how his swing at an advanced age differs from other similar players.
None of these methods strikes me as likely to show Bonds had a huge advantage. The third probably would be the most telling, but even that couldn’t really show how many extra home runs he may have hit. There are too many factors cluttering up the analysis.
As many people point out, Bonds was a Hall of Famer long before the steroid controversy erupted. There’s no question he’s one of the best to ever play the game. The question is how can baseball fans understand his career in the context of the typical career we are used to seeing?
I doubt there will be any other players, juiced or otherwise, who will hit 72 home runs in his late 30s. There are a lot of people saying Alex Rodriguez may pass Bonds eventually. It’s possible, but he’d have to build up a huge pad of home runs because of Bonds’ late surge.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml (Bonds)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/aaronha01.shtml (Aaron)
If you look closely, other than Bonds 72 home run season, their totals aren’t completely out of whack with each other, mainly because Aaron was so consistent for so long. That surprised me. Bonds is better, granted, but not wildly out of line better.
How much, then, do steroids help?
There are a lot of baseball players who have gotten caught with steroids in the last couple of years, and most of them were marginal major leaguers. Steriods didn’t seem to be helping them all that much. So, the questions then are, how would one show that Bonds was, in fact, taking steroids? And, if so, what was the effect? Here are my three methods:
Figure out an average number from somewhere, either the average number of homers Bonds in his first five seasons, and use it to measure how he might have done in his last five. (I used five as a guess. I suppose it could be seven or even 10 if need be.) Other averages to use could include Aaron’s averages for his last five years; an average of the averages of a group of top home run hitters’ last few seasons, prorated by era and ballpark. I doubt this really gets to the bottom of it, though, because it’s really comparing Bonds either to someone other than himself, or to himself as a younger player playing under different conditions. But, it’s a start. My guess on this method id that it would show Bonds with some 600-plus home runs, but probably not enough to beat Aaron. But, if Bonds has beaten Ruth, even if he was 44 or 45, who’s to say he wouldn’t have hung around two or three or even four extra years to take a shot at Aaron? Who’s to say he wouldn’t have passed him eventually?
One would have to be a physicist or kinesiologist to figure this one out, but determine how much steroids increase a person’s strength. Then, apply that increase in force to the torque created by swinging a baseball bat of a certain weight to determine how much farther a ball, hit squarely, might travel. I assume you would have to work from a squarely hit ball, because trying to figure out how it affects a ball that’s not well hit adds other variables. Because a home run has to be hit fairly solidly, we could probably come up with a good measure. My guess is what this would show is that a well-hit ball would travel, at best, 10 or maybe 15 feet more. That’s a complete and utter guess, and maybe the number is measured more in inches. To hit a ball well is a function of not only the strength, but also the swing, the bat, the wind, the humidity and so on. Maybe the effect is really marginal. At any rate, you’d have to check all of his homers against all of the ballparks in which they were hit since the steroid rumors started, and determine by this factor how many home runs he gained.
How about using stop-motion photography to compare bonds in the late-80s and early 90s with Bonds now? The idea would be to see if his swing actually got faster or stayed the same. Using film, one could use certain cues in his wing to determine how it changed over the years. Especially by comparing his swing to other of similar age and accomplishments, where film is available, we might get a measurable idea of how his swing at an advanced age differs from other similar players.
None of these methods strikes me as likely to show Bonds had a huge advantage. The third probably would be the most telling, but even that couldn’t really show how many extra home runs he may have hit. There are too many factors cluttering up the analysis.
As many people point out, Bonds was a Hall of Famer long before the steroid controversy erupted. There’s no question he’s one of the best to ever play the game. The question is how can baseball fans understand his career in the context of the typical career we are used to seeing?
I doubt there will be any other players, juiced or otherwise, who will hit 72 home runs in his late 30s. There are a lot of people saying Alex Rodriguez may pass Bonds eventually. It’s possible, but he’d have to build up a huge pad of home runs because of Bonds’ late surge.
I am a snake head eating the head of the opposite side
This story reminds me of one of those movies that have several false endings when the bad guy keeps coming back from the dead.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20212558
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20212558
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Playoff pitching problem
IF I was a major league manager, and I was going to set my pitching rotation up for a seven-game World Series, and I could arrange them any way I wanted to (regardless of how they had pitched in the previous series), here's how I'd do it:
First, I'd only use my best three pitchers. The 1987 Minnesota Twins (http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?search=1987+Twins) won the World Series using only three starters (Frank Viola, Bert Blyleven and the immortal Les Straker.) This minimizes the use of my two worst starters, and gets the greatest number of starts for my three best pitchers. It runs the risk of fatigue, but it's the World Series.
The next part is what I have been doing some thinking about: How best does one arrange the top three starters in a seven-game series. Instinctively, you'd think it would be Number one guy in games one, four and seven, number two guy in games two and six and number three guy in games three and seven.
Noe that no matter how you do it, the top guy pitches three games, and next two pitch two each. However, I don't want my number three starter starting game six or game seven. If I get that far (and many series do) I want my best guys at the end, and I want my worst guy to start the least meaningful games. Can this be achieved?
Yes! The rotation would go like this: 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1.
Why does this work? The ace gets three starts (games one, four, and seven). The second best guy gets his starts in game three and game six. This means the third-best pitcher pitches games two and five.
Why is this an advantage? Well, assuming the ace wins game one, there isn't as much pressure on the number three pitcher to win game two. It's not a bad start to a seven game series to split the first two games, especially with your best two pitchers coming up. Even if he loses, you are down 2-0 with the best two pitchers in the next two games.
In the worst game five situation, team is down three games to one. In that case, things are pretty bad anyway.
The best case, it's up 3 -1, and that means it doesn't really matter how well the third starter pitches, because your two best pitchers are coming up and they only have to win one game between the three of them.
Any other combination of wins and losses at game five merely continues the series with the best two pitchers left for the last two games.
What about the 1987 Twins? They followed a 1-2-3 sequence. They used Viola (their ace), Blyleven (their number two) and Straker (their number three) in sequence. They won anyway. Viola was the loser in game four, but he won games one and seven. Blyleven won game two, but lost game five. Straker wasn't around for any decisions, but the Twins split his starts, losing game three but winning game six.
So, each pitcher lost a game, but the Twins won the World Series because Viola won twice. Therefore, the most important piece of the puzzle may be having a dominant pitcher and making sure he pitches as much as possible. The rest is all scraping around for a small matchup edge.
What got me to thinking about this -- a long time ago -- was Pete Schourek. He started game four of a five game playoff series in 1998 between the Boston Red Sox (his team) and the Cleveland Indians. Facing elimination, manager Jimy Williams could have pitched Pedro Martinez, one of the most dominant starters that year, instead of Schourek, whose record was below .500 for the season.
He picked Schourek, using the logic that the team had to win both games anyway, and Schourek was going to have to pitch in one or the other. Williams was going to save Martinez for game five when he would have an extra day of rest.
It didn't work. Schourek lost, and Martinez never got the chance to win the decisive game
I always thought this was kind of silly. In a short playoff, a manager should go with the best pitcher he has today and worry about tomorrow's game tomorrow. So, the logical question is: What is the best way a manager could use his pitchers to avoid a dilemma like that and (here's the key) have the two best starters available for key games?
My solution may not be perfect, but it's a plan. I promise to use it the next time I am managing in the World Series.
First, I'd only use my best three pitchers. The 1987 Minnesota Twins (http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?search=1987+Twins) won the World Series using only three starters (Frank Viola, Bert Blyleven and the immortal Les Straker.) This minimizes the use of my two worst starters, and gets the greatest number of starts for my three best pitchers. It runs the risk of fatigue, but it's the World Series.
The next part is what I have been doing some thinking about: How best does one arrange the top three starters in a seven-game series. Instinctively, you'd think it would be Number one guy in games one, four and seven, number two guy in games two and six and number three guy in games three and seven.
Noe that no matter how you do it, the top guy pitches three games, and next two pitch two each. However, I don't want my number three starter starting game six or game seven. If I get that far (and many series do) I want my best guys at the end, and I want my worst guy to start the least meaningful games. Can this be achieved?
Yes! The rotation would go like this: 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1.
Why does this work? The ace gets three starts (games one, four, and seven). The second best guy gets his starts in game three and game six. This means the third-best pitcher pitches games two and five.
Why is this an advantage? Well, assuming the ace wins game one, there isn't as much pressure on the number three pitcher to win game two. It's not a bad start to a seven game series to split the first two games, especially with your best two pitchers coming up. Even if he loses, you are down 2-0 with the best two pitchers in the next two games.
In the worst game five situation, team is down three games to one. In that case, things are pretty bad anyway.
The best case, it's up 3 -1, and that means it doesn't really matter how well the third starter pitches, because your two best pitchers are coming up and they only have to win one game between the three of them.
Any other combination of wins and losses at game five merely continues the series with the best two pitchers left for the last two games.
What about the 1987 Twins? They followed a 1-2-3 sequence. They used Viola (their ace), Blyleven (their number two) and Straker (their number three) in sequence. They won anyway. Viola was the loser in game four, but he won games one and seven. Blyleven won game two, but lost game five. Straker wasn't around for any decisions, but the Twins split his starts, losing game three but winning game six.
So, each pitcher lost a game, but the Twins won the World Series because Viola won twice. Therefore, the most important piece of the puzzle may be having a dominant pitcher and making sure he pitches as much as possible. The rest is all scraping around for a small matchup edge.
What got me to thinking about this -- a long time ago -- was Pete Schourek. He started game four of a five game playoff series in 1998 between the Boston Red Sox (his team) and the Cleveland Indians. Facing elimination, manager Jimy Williams could have pitched Pedro Martinez, one of the most dominant starters that year, instead of Schourek, whose record was below .500 for the season.
He picked Schourek, using the logic that the team had to win both games anyway, and Schourek was going to have to pitch in one or the other. Williams was going to save Martinez for game five when he would have an extra day of rest.
It didn't work. Schourek lost, and Martinez never got the chance to win the decisive game
I always thought this was kind of silly. In a short playoff, a manager should go with the best pitcher he has today and worry about tomorrow's game tomorrow. So, the logical question is: What is the best way a manager could use his pitchers to avoid a dilemma like that and (here's the key) have the two best starters available for key games?
My solution may not be perfect, but it's a plan. I promise to use it the next time I am managing in the World Series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)